Disengaging Rework

[Kieddicus]

Some issues I have with disengaging are that if you have a high DX you can make it pretty much impossible for someone to hit you, since you need either greater MA, equal or great DX, a weapon with reach, or multiple attacker, to even attempt to strike someone who just choose the disengage option.
(You could make a high-DX elf archer with the runner talent and kite most opponents.)

It also just feels odd that you have to just sit still doing nothing not even defending in order to back away from somebody.

My idea is remove the disengage option entirely and during the Forced Retreat phase of combat allow people to willingly retreat 1 hex.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Kieddicus

Some issues I have with disengaging are that if you have a high DX you can make it pretty much impossible for someone to hit you, since you need either greater MA, equal or great DX, a weapon with reach, or multiple attacker, to even attempt to strike someone who just choose the disengage option.
(You could make a high-DX elf archer with the runner talent and kite most opponents.)

It also just feels odd that you have to just sit still doing nothing not even defending in order to back away from somebody.

My idea is remove the disengage option entirely and during the Forced Retreat phase of combat allow people to willingly retreat 1 hex.

That effectively removes the stickiness of engagement and makes a whole different combat. One way I use engagement is to move adjacent to a foe I want to tie up. I'll even use a full move if necessary, to prevent him from getting to a vulnerable target, say. This kind of option goes away if he can just disengage at the end of the turn and freely move next turn.

Another result is that polearms become that much better. At the end of each turn, the spear user disengages and backs up one hex. This gives him whatever benefits you grant a charging opponent next turn (even with house rules, most would give him first strike).

You might have to fiddle with polearms a bit if you're going to rework disengagement in this way.

[David Bofinger]

This is my version of a similar rule, from my house rule collection.

After Forced Retreats (ITL 102) any figure on the side which won initiative, which did not retreat during the Forced Retreats phase, may do so now. They move one hex in any direction into an empty hex. After moving they must be adjacent to as few enemies as possible, and fewer enemies than they were before this move.

My motive for this, aside from those stated by Kieddicus, was to give skirmishes some mobility, so that an entire side might break contact and retreat to high ground, or behind a door, or run for it.

[Steve Plambeck]

I've come up with the (yet un-play-tested) notion that Disengagement could be a separate phase, and the last-most phase of the combat turn. Eligibility would be constrained by the options used earlier in the turn, and limited to a very small number, although it would include having only moved or shifted 1 hex, stood up, or having used Defend.

This "tesselates" with my other idea that the very first phase of the combat turn becomes the chance to Run Away. Which is to say all disengaged figures at the start of the Run Away phase may flee at full MA, away from danger, in as straight a line as possible. This would come before rolling for initiative or renewing spells.

Thus the first and last turn phases become complementary for anyone really trying to get away, and a whole party could retreat in unison, or at least those party members who hadn't made attacks, cast spells, or any of the larger committed activities in the last few seconds.

[Addendum: a consequence of doing it the way I'm suggesting here, which I forgot to mention until Chris Rice's next post reminded me, is that an attacker always gets in their attack even when the defender has the higher DX. Thus I limit Disengagement to merely a means to start the next turn disengaged, not a means to avoid damage in the current turn. Allowing the defender to use Defend on the same turn mitigates what would otherwise be a very extreme effect on play.]

[Chris Rice]

In a previous edition of the rules you could still attempt to hit a higher DX disengaging figure, albeit at a penalty. For every point of difference between your DX and the disengaging figure you suffer -1DX to hit. I still use this rule today.