Disengaging by passing through melee ranges

A model with Bulldoze begins its Normal Movement engaged by a single enemy model that has a 1" melee range.

The model advances into contact with the enemy, pushing it 2" with Bulldoze, and is now no longer engaged. It does not have to forfeit its Combat Action as it has not advanced out of melee.

The model continues its movement, passing into and out of a second enemy model’s melee range. This enemy model was not engaging the model when it began its Normal Movement.

RAW, the model must now forfeit its Combat Action.

@elswickchuck , does this work as intended?

1 Like

I will check but was it in the melee range with the second model’s at the beginning of its nirmal movement

It was not. Only in the melee range of the first model, which it Bulldozed out of melee range.

So why would the second model matter?

I apologize if i come across as debating/arguing. More so trying to pass it along for discussion.

More so trying to see it as you see it

1 Like

I think what he’s getting at is the original text doesn’t specify “advances out of the melee ranges of the models engaging you when you began the advance”. He’s reading it as “begins engaged” and “advances out of an enemy melee range” as two separate, unrelated conditions.

1 Like

The model

  1. Began its Normal Movement engaged (by the first enemy model)

and it

  1. Advanced out of the melee range of one or more enemy models (the second enemy model) durinf its Normal Movement.

Read as written, these are the two criteria for the model to count as having disengaged.

I’m asking if this is the intent, or if the intent is that a model only disengages if it begins its Normal Movement engaged and advances out of the melee range of those models that were engaging it at that time.

2 Likes

Oh yes i see it now, thanks for the catch

I want to say it should only be based on the models its engaged by at the beginning

But will double check

3 Likes

Hmm, I guess this would be applicable to models that can make attacks before advancing, like a warcaster casting a spell to kill an engaging model then advancing through the melee range of another enemy model that wasn’t initially engaging it.

1 Like

In that case, they can cast the spell even before beginning Normal Movement (and thus before engagement is checked).

But yeah, there are a few ways that this scenario can be engineered; Bulldoze was just the easiest at-hand example.

Ah, good point, I missed that it’s checked at the start of movement and not the start of activation.

So the ruling is to go off of RAW as brought to attention by Leonard

3 Likes

Would the same apply in either/both of these scenarios?

A) Model begins its Normal Movement engaged by Enemy A and in the melee range but not LOS of Enemy B (maybe there’s a thin sliver of forest or other LOS-blocking thing in the way). It Bulldozes A away and leaves Enemy B’s melee range, but at no point was it engaged by Enemy B, as there was never LOS.

B) Model begins its Normal Movement engaged by Enemy A and Bulldozes it away. Model then advances and passes into and out of Enemy B’s melee range but never enters its LOS due to a forest, intervening models, or whatever. Basically the same as my original question in this thread, but Enemy B never engages the advancing model.

If it is never engaged by model B then it would not have to sacrifice its combat action

I have to admit, that’s not the answer I expected, and now (sorry) I have more questions.

A) If a model is engaged by a single enemy model and advances such that LOS is now blocked to it (while still in melee range) does it count as disengaging that would require forfeiting its Combat Action? It hasn’t left the engaging model’s melee range, only its LOS.

B) If the answer to A) is “No” then same scenario as above, but after the model has moved such that LOS is blocked to it, it then leaves the enemy’s melee range. The model began its Normal Movement engaged, moved such that it is no longer engaged (due to LOS being blocked) and finally, leaves the enemy’s melee range. Does this count as disengaging that would require forfeiting its Combat Action?

Which answer did you not expect?

The initial one in regards to being RAW or my second answer.

If the initial question i would agree too. If my second answer id ask if i said something contrary

As for your next question:
I’ll have to double check some things on that.

The second answer is the one I didn’t expect, as it doesn’t seem to align with a “RAW” interpretation.

The rule as written seems to only care about two criteria: Did you begin your Normal Movement engaged and did you leave any enemy model’s melee range during your Normal Movement (whether that model was originally engaging you or not).

Based on the combination of your two answers so far, it seems as though the intent might be “If a model begins its Normal Movement engaged and advances out of the melee range (and LOS?) of a model that was engaging it at the beginning of its Normal Movement, then it must forfeit its Combat Action that activation.”

Quite agreed. I have passed that along to see what can be done as it seems to be a whole store of worms instead of just the can lol

Hopefully will be able to straighten it all out

And again thanks for bringing this to attention

2 Likes

So an update,

RAW is seeming to be too much of a mess, who knew lol

Hopefully in meetings this week it will be discussed further, with looking at it being check at beginning of movement in regards to just the models that are at that time engaging the model in question

8 Likes