In the real rules (DQII) rule 13.3 discribes withdrawing:

[13.3] An engaged figure may Withdraw.
If the figure who wishes to Withdraw is within the opponent's Melee Zone and
the opponent also occupies at least one hex of the figure's Melee Zone, the
figure may Withdraw by backing directly into any of his rear hexes but may
not change facing. While Withdrawing, the figure may adopt one of two
postures, Offensive Withdrawl or Defensive Withdrawl. If he chooses the
offensive posture, he may strike at his opponent (at a -20 modifier to his
Strike Chance) before executing the Withdrawl. To adopt a defensive posture,
a figure must have a prepared shield (ranked or unranked). While in this
posture, he may interpose the shield between himself and any attack. This
adds 20% to his Defense, in addition to any other modifiers already in his
favour.
If the figure who wishes to Withdraw is within the opponent's Melee Zone but
the opponent does not occupy any hexes of the figure's Melee Zone, he may
move and change facng normally (see 14.1). Note: Figure #7 in the
illustration on this page is an example of this situation. If the opponent
is able to Melee Attack the figure, the opponent automatically receives
initiative for the attack. A figure may Withdraw from one hostile figure's
Melee Zone into another hostile figure's Melee Zone. If the figure wishing
to Withdraw does not occupy a hex within the defender's Melee Zone, he may
move normally.

All pretty straight forward. You cede the initiative and get to be unengaged
after. This was fine. There was nothing wrong with the rule and it is how I
have always played it (even after it got changed).

Cheers, Jon Mc


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Two things ...

1) I haven't heard from the powers that be about what they
want me to do with the rule book.  Do they think it is ready
to be rolled out for December or are there more changes?

2) The current (or new) recovery from stun stuff is pretty
ugly.  Rather than give everybody a "free" recovery at
the end of the pulse that they are stunned in, would it
not be better to give a figure a chance to recover
immediately after they are stunned (ie within the action
of the attacker).

eg.

So Alice is hit for 10 points by Bob and would normally
be stunned, but she makes a recovery roll immediately
and shugs of the damage.

The reason for this is to reduce the amount bookkeeping
at the end of the pulse and make the action more immediate,
hopefully adding to the flow of actions.

My two euro cents

Ross

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ross Alexander                           "He knows no more about his
MIS - NEC Europe Limited            destiny than a tea leaf knows
Work ph: +44 20 8752 3394         the history of East India Company"


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

-----Original Message-----
From: ross.alexander@uk.neceur.com <ross.alexander@uk.neceur.com>


>
>Two things ...
>
>1) I haven't heard from the powers that be about what they
>want me to do with the rule book.  Do they think it is ready
>to be rolled out for December or are there more changes?
>

[this bit only posted to the list so no-one else bothers e-mailing Ross on
it]
errata distributed, pdf is available to those that want it, anyone wanting a
rulebook gets the complete thing.

Did this not come over clearly from various emails posted (e.g. Rosemary's
mail of 10/10/01 to dq-announce)?


>2) The current (or new) recovery from stun stuff is pretty
>ugly.  Rather than give everybody a "free" recovery at
>the end of the pulse that they are stunned in, would it
>not be better to give a figure a chance to recover
>immediately after they are stunned (ie within the action
>of the attacker).
>
>eg.
>
>So Alice is hit for 10 points by Bob and would normally
>be stunned, but she makes a recovery roll immediately
>and shugs of the damage.
>


It makes a large difference to Bob's partner Cathy who is about to hit Alice
later in the same pulse.


>The reason for this is to reduce the amount bookkeeping
>at the end of the pulse and make the action more immediate,
>hopefully adding to the flow of actions.
>
>My two euro cents
>
>Ross
>
Cheers
Errol


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --