This is wrong. If the enemy was in range of Engage so that the declaration was valid, then you catch up to him no matter how far away he runs away. As long as you succeed on your roll, ofc. It's clearly shown in the examples for the Engage skill: Just imagine that the engager grabbed onto the engaged and got carried off into the distance =) It doesn't really break the Climb skill this way - if you're standing on the wall you're definitely B2B with it, so you can continue climbing. The problem is the interaction between Engaged state and the clause in the Climb skill description that says "you cannot declare anything but Climb when you're on a vertical surface", which leaves no legal actions the model lacking climbing+ can take. That means that if both models cas no climbing+, then they are stuck unless one of them dies. Why you can't fight someone who is climbing right next to you, even at, for example, -6 and only using fists - I have no idea. RAW, one could probably try and argue that since only Climb and Climbing+ skills refer to constraints that are linked with being on a vertical surface, and there is no actual Climbing state that you enter as soon as you are on a wall, then you are not bound by these constraints as long as you used none of those skills to get there, but that's entering a gray zone at best.
I would like to point out that unless I've missed something, some interpretations of base contact mean you should be careful about declaring Engage against anything that is at least as close to a wall as its second MOV plus your trooper's height. So, basically, almost always. I can see why interpretation relying on target having and using Climbing+ seems less conflicting though. It's still a pretty dumb interaction though.
Climb says you need to START in B2B with a wall. So unless the Engager starts his ARO in B2B with a wall this would violate that part of the Climb rule, no? Also, Climb is an Entire Order (long skill), and it doesn't specifically state that it can be used in ARO, so I find it confusing that the Palanka and Co. are ruling that Engage drags you up a wall that you normally couldn't move on to via ARO. I get that there are exceptions like the narrow door thing, but whatever, it's really wonky in this case. I also think anything bigger than 40mm base shouldn't be able to Engage through a narrow doorway, but that's another thread... :/
Ah, that's what you were talking about. Well, you are not using that skill in ARO when using Engage. You are also not using Move or Jump, which are also unavailable as ARO. Thus, you are not really breaking those skills, no matter what you do in ARO. You are not even breaking Dodge, since that is a separate skill with its own rules (which, by the way, specifies that you take a Short movement skill to move in Reactive turn, so you can't Dodge up a wall if you have no Climbing+). The problem is that the way Engage skill is defined, the engager gets to the engaged by using some sort of "arcane Engage magic", and not by using any of the movement skills, as it is the case with Dodge. That's because in the other case valid Engage declaration could fail not only on bad roll, but also on a tactical decision from the opponent. My guess is that Palanka decided that keeping (already full of exceptions) movement rules consistent was less preferrable than keeping roll result equality with effect produced consistent.
@Gunmage - Ahhh, I see what you're saying. Good point. Hmmmm, that's a tough one, I can see both sides of the argument - I guess you could say that the Climb+ model uses it's crazy climbing skill to put the pursuer at a sever disadvantage, after all the Engaging model may not even know about it's enemy's crazy climbing capability until it's too late. I mean, there is that fine line between abstraction and literal simulation. Anyways, thanks for all the input here guys!
Technically as part of an Engage you're 'using the rules of the Move common skill'.... but Palanka threw that part of the rule out the window years ago, so *shrugs*
