Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Robotech RPG Tactics official rules discussion thread.

This thread is to discuss the rules for the upcoming Robotech RPG Tactics game from Palladium Books and Ninja Division. All other discussion related to Palladium PR, Kickstarter delivery issues, and miniature quality can stay in the sister thread located at http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/521733.page

The rulebook has been made available to view online at https://www.dropbox.com/s/svpsx0q7slpt24j/GenconRTT.pdf

Please keep discussion ITT about rules only. Thanks! ~Manchu

IIRC the latest topic of discussion is whether aircraft in flight can suffer melee attacks from ground units if their respective bases are touching.

 warboss wrote:
If the intent is to never allow aircraft to be hit in close combat, the faq should probably clarify that in the definition of aircraft.

 Swabby wrote:
What they should have done is state that aircraft cannot be attacked with hth abilities if that was there intent. 40k states as much in regards to flyers.

I have to ask though, is punching an aircraft that outlandish in a game based on a show where a spaceship punching another spaceship is a signature move?

Mike1975 wrote:
You must be in base to base contact to perform a HTH attack.

If you are in base to base contact you ARE considered engaged in HTH combat.

Pretty clear.

 warboss wrote:
Except that aircraft are never engaged...which doesn't affect the other model in base to base at all which remains both engaged and b2b. It may not be the intent but the wording is clear.

 Dark Severance wrote:
"Once a mecha is in base to base contact with an enemy mecha, the two are considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat and cannot attack with weapon systems at all." It implies that when you are base to base, both mecha are engaged in hand to hand combat (not just one). Since an Aircraft can't be engaged in hand to hand combat, that would also mean the other mecha can't be engaged by default (since it requires two models to be engaged).

I don't see the problem.

Just let the GM decide.

>.>

 Forar wrote:
I don't see the problem.

Just let the GM decide.

>.>

LOL, that likely what KS would say and sadly he would mean it.

Guys, please leave casual PB-bashing to the other thread.

Does anyone else take issue with the horizontal measuring ignoring elevation? I feel like this distorts weapon ranges on a board with a great deal of elevation.

Sorry, it was some easy and low hanging fruit.

I'm done.

...

*something about PPE and ISP*

Now I'm done.

I do agree that the 'can you punch a fighter jet' aspect of the conversation is silly, and really should be clearer in the game. Battlepods to VT's is one thing, but should a Destroid be able to kick a Gnerl? No flight whatsoever, beyond minor maneuvering jets, but put them base to base and suddenly a Spartan can reach up and club something doing mach 3 a thousand feet above it?

Silliness of the source material aside, if flyers are supposed to ignore the rules regarding 'disengaging' from foes, then perhaps that was the (poorly worded) intent. Seems like something that not only needs a good FAQ'ing (I regret nothing), but for PB to very clearly note what they intended.

Because I swear, if pods can kickline flying VTs down...

It almost makes sense if you are playing a space scenario.


And in DYRL at least a bunch of power armor captures rock and minmei in their valkyrie. I blame her singing for that one though.

So, speaking of punching Gnerls in the face from the ground...

The game does have the note:

Although [the game] is a three-dimensional game of mecha combat, all the measurement done in the game is performed only on horizontal distances, ignoring elevation, because .... and even the aerial mecha (Valkyries, Gnerls, etc.) tend to fly nap of the earth to take advantage of cover and stay out of the line of fire.

Those aircraft are being explicitly assumed to not be flying 3000 feet above the battlefield.

Not to mention the illustration of the pods on page 23 using their thrusters to move around.

Otherwise, look at a game like Warmachine if you want an example of "engaged in melee combat" being a limiting side effect of being close enough to use melee attacks, but not a requirement to use melee attacks on other models. So Model X runs up into base contact with the aircraft Model Y, punches it. Y sits there in base contact and shoots a gun at point blank range because it's not engaged.

Alright so I'm sitting down to read over the PDF and see what I make of this whole engaged business.

Page 15 excerpt:

" Step 3: The Combat Step A mecha can attack either at range with its various build-in weapon systems, or in hand to hand combat using its powerful metal fists and feet. In either case, the attack is handled during the Combat Step. However, there are other restrictions on combat. For instance, you must check the LOS and range to a target mecha before a ranged attack can be made against it, and a mecha must be in base to base contact with an enemy mecha if it wishes to attack that mecha in hand to hand combat. "

Now, that seems pretty cut and dry. Ranged attack means check LOS and range, hand to hand means check for base-to-base contact.

Page 16 covers the steps for ranged combat, and page 19 covers the requirements for a mecha to attack in hand to hand (and measuring range is not one of them). I recall there was some dispute that you have to measure range for hand to hand, but nowhere in the written rules does it say one must measure for range for hand to hand. Page 19 also covers that. Since one does not measure for hand to hand combat, you can't fight someone that is 0" away and is 24" above you. No range is being measured, it's not part of the step, you're just checking base to base contact.

Moving on...

" Engaged in Hand to Hand Combat Once a mecha is in base to base contact with an enemy mecha, the two are considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat and cannot attack with weapon systems at all. Additionally, an engaged mecha can't be attacked by other mecha with weapon systems. "

That also is pretty cut and dry. Being base to base with an enemy means that mecha is engaged. If on my turn I move a Spartan to base to base with three Regults, my Spartan is base to base with an enemy, and is engaged. The Regults, conversely, are also base to base contact with an enemy (my Spartan), and so also are engaged.

So the Special Abilities on page 24 note that:

" Aircraft [...] An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat. A mecha with the Aircraft ability can move out of base to base contact with enemy mecha without having to pay Command Points to do so. "

That seems pretty cut and try. Aircraft are never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat, so none of the rules of being engaged apply to them. That is, it can use weapon systems and weapon systems can be used against it, and it does not need to pay command points to become unengaged as it was never engaged in the first place. Additionally, since it's not engaged, it also doesn't get the free movement/facing changes that a mecha would normally get for being engaged (second column on page 19).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 solkan wrote:
So, speaking of punching Gnerls in the face from the ground...

The game does have the note:

Although [the game] is a three-dimensional game of mecha combat, all the measurement done in the game is performed only on horizontal distances, ignoring elevation, because .... and even the aerial mecha (Valkyries, Gnerls, etc.) tend to fly nap of the earth to take advantage of cover and stay out of the line of fire.

Those aircraft are being explicitly assumed to not be flying 3000 feet above the battlefield.

Not to mention the illustration of the pods on page 23 using their thrusters to move around.

Otherwise, look at a game like Warmachine if you want an example of "engaged in melee combat" being a limiting side effect of being close enough to use melee attacks, but not a requirement to use melee attacks on other models. So Model X runs up into base contact with the aircraft Model Y, punches it. Y sits there in base contact and shoots a gun at point blank range because it's not engaged.

Well, a couple things.

First, Regults don't fly in atmosphere (other than in a straight line when their legs detach). They stomp and jump around, and, actually, in RRT, have the Leap ability, which allows them to jump all over the place. Those Regults are in mid-leap, just like the source animation. See, well, the first few episodes and watch Regults leaping all over the place.

Second, Warmachine is - being a newbie to it and having played several games pretty recently - far more complex of a ruleset than RRT. RRT was obviously designed to be really quick to play due to it being fairly rules-light. The only game ever written that has aircraft rules that make any modicum of sense is Starship Troopers, as it's the only fully three-dimensional miniatures game ever written. While I would love to have this game use a derivative of the SST system, it's obviously not and they've obviously gone for "ease of play" over anything else. Measure on the horizonal makes perfect sense considering the bases that come with the official models. This was so obviously a rule written to reduce arguments from people who want to model their Valkyries on two-foot-tall flight stands - do the measurement from the base, not from an arbitrary point that is entirely at the whim of the player's modeling imperatives.

Third, are you describing a positive aspect of Warmachine? Because you also described RRT. A nousjadeul ger (model x) can run up to a Valkyrie in Fighter mode (model y) and punch it and the Valkyrie can return fire in base-to-base contact, as per the rules.

So a mecha moves B2B with and makes a melee attack against an aircraft. We know the aircraft is not considered engaged in H2H combat. The other question was, does the aircraft rule imply that the attacking mecha is also not engaged in H2H combat?

The way warmachine handles hth attacks and engagement is positive. The way RRT handles it is not bad but it will stretch peoples suspension of disbelief and cause arguments.

On the horizontal measuring, this makes perfect sense until you have a unit on top of something signifigantly elevated on terrain, it then gets really weird. Especially if you are shooting at a model that is diagonally out of range but horizontally closer if you ignore its elevation height.

I do not see how this is easier than other measurement systems out there, and I can see some major arguments happening becuse of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu I do not believe that is the case. The mecha attacking the aircraft should still be considered enagaged with rules as written.

Ahh, I see what you're saying. Re-reading...

By my Programmer's Logic (tm), I would say NO. It requires a pairing to be engaged. Since a mecha with Aircraft cannot be engaged, the pairing does not happen.

"Once a mecha is in base to base contact with an enemy mecha, the two are considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat"

The Valkyrie Fighter "is never considered to be engaged". Because it is never considered to be engaged, then the effect of "the two are considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat" because logic removes the ability for the Valkyrie Fighter to ever have that condition be true. TRUE _AND_ FALSE = FALSE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, by reading the hand to hand combat section a couple times, it appears a Spartan could move to base to base contact with a Gnerl and either make a physical attack OR a shooting attack, as they are not engaged (due to Gnerl being an Aircraft), and being engaged is not a requirement for making a hand to hand attack. Being engaged is only a side effect of moving into base to base. Making a hand to hand attack only requires base to base contact.

But you have to look at the rules priority section. The standard rule takes effect (so they are enagaged) but the special rule of aircraft prevents the aircraft from being engaged, so the attacking mecha is still engaged as it has no special rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or more correct to the wording the special rule modifies the standard rule. And the aircraft rule does not mention that the other mecha is not engaged.

 Swabby wrote:
But you have to look at the rules priority section. The standard rule takes effect (so they are enagaged) but the special rule of aircraft prevents the aircraft from being engaged, so the attacking mecha is still engaged as it has no special rule.

I agree with Rules Priority, but the act of becoming Engaged never actually happens as the requirements are not met. But let's see what the difference is.

Now, what are the side effects of either interpretation?

Say we've got Naus v Valk Fighter.

In yours, the Naus moves to B2B and becomes Engaged; the Valk Fighter is not Engaged. The Naus can only make hand to hand strikes (no weapon systems while engaged), while the Valk can do whatever it pleases. The Naus and Naus alone must pay 1 CP if it wishes to move away.

In my interpretation, the Naus moves to B2B and the requirement of the "two being engaged" is not met. So the Naus can strike with hand to hand (as only requirement for H2H is only B2B) or shoot at the Valk, while the Valk can still do whatever it pleases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It all comes down to this sentence:

"Once a mecha is in base to base contact with an enemy mecha, the two are considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat"

The requirement is a friendly mecha and an enemy mecha, both in base to base, the result being that those two mecha, together, are considered to be engaged. In my mind, if either of those mecha has Aircraft, which removes the ability for it to become engaged, then those two mecha cannot be engaged.

I totally understand where you're coming from - and it's entirely possible it's the correct interpretation. But when I think about how the wording would be for your intrepretation, I think the wording would instead be

"Once a mecha is in base to base contact with an enemy mecha, each is considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat"

By changing it from "the two are", which is a shared state between two mecha, to "each is", which grants a status of Engaged to each mecha, which then the Aircraft ignores.

See what I'm saying?

I think these are the relevant rules:

It is important to note that all game pieces are referred to as "mecha" in these rules, even if the actual game piece in question is an aircraft, cargo truck, or a 40 foot tall Zentraedi warrior.

P 9

The various mecha and weapon special abilities modify the standard rules under certain circumstances, taking precedence over them.

P 11

To make a hand to hand attack, an attacking mecha only needs to move into base to base contact with the enemy that it wishes to attack (during the Movement Step, pg. 15), then roll to Strike as normal.

Once a mecha is in base to base contact with an enemy mecha, the two are considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat and cannot attack with weapon systems at all.

P 19

An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat.

P 24

I conclude that

(1) it is NOT possible to "engage" mecha with the aircraft rule in H2H combat

(2) it IS possible to make a H2H attack against a mecha with the aircraft rule

I do not think there is enough information to determine whether a mecha that is B2B with a mecha with the aircraft rule is itself "engaged" in H2H combat.

To me, the most natural reading is, mecha that can be engaged in H2H combat when in B2B are engaged in H2H combat. But that is a purely mechanical reading and I do not believe it makes intuitive sense given what is meant to be simulated -- i.e., mutual grappling.

Assuming (2) above is true, I think the aircraft special rule should be FAQ'd to read (changes in bold):

An aircraft and any mecha in base to base contact with it are never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat.

Otherwise, it should be FAQ'd to include something like:

Mecha may not make hand to hand attacks against aircraft.

Oh I do. It could go either way. There is one more aspect to this that leads me to believe the mecha is engaged. The aircraft special rule states that the aircraft must make a movement during its turn.

I believe this is the reason for the engagement exception for the aircraft, but is also frees up the attacking mecha in the following turn. So essentially the attacking mecha would not be engaged in its next turn regardless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu I believe you have just summed it up correctly. This interaction should be covered in an FAQ either way because it will cause confusion as written.

 Swabby wrote:
But you have to look at the rules priority section. The standard rule takes effect (so they are enagaged) but the special rule of aircraft prevents the aircraft from being engaged, so the attacking mecha is still engaged as it has no special rule.

You are reading a process onto what the book says. The book says special rules "modify" and "tak[e] precedence over" standard rules. This could support your argument that standard rules take effect followed by special rules canceling them (so that the mecha without the aircraft rule "remains" engaged in H2H) BUT it could also support judgedoug's argument that that the standard rule (read as "it takes two to tango") cannot trigger in the first place.

That's why FAQing is necessary on this point.

 Swabby wrote:
Oh I do. It could go either way. There is one more aspect to this that leads me to believe the mecha is engaged. The aircraft special rule states that the aircraft must make a movement during its turn.

I think that is there because they're flying and can't just stop on a dime, so Aircraft _must_ making movement. Otherwise you'd have Gnerls and Fighter-mode Valkyries hovering about like helicopters or harriers.

 Swabby wrote:
I believe this is the reason for the engagement exception for the aircraft, but is also frees up the attacking mecha in the following turn. So essentially the attacking mecha would not be engaged in its next turn regardless.

Furthermore: if the mecha w/o the aircraft rule is considered engaged then the aircraft to which it is B2B cannot attack it at all (having no H2H attacks). This could be meant to simulate that it is impossible for a moving aircraft to hit a mecha that is close enough to punch it, which seems fine to me. But it is no more believable (or tactically desirable) that a mecha could punch a moving aircraft than that the aircraft could shoot the mecha.

At this point, I would favor a FAQ disallowing H2H attacks on aircraft.

 Manchu wrote:

Assuming (2) above is true, I think the aircraft special rule should be FAQ'd to read (changes in bold):

An aircraft and any mecha in base to base contact with it are never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat.

Otherwise, it should be FAQ'd to include something like:

Mecha may not make hand to hand attacks against aircraft.

Nononono, your errata would also cancel out every mecha's engagement. Say a Spartan and Naus are Engaged and your Valkyrie just flies by and touches both of their bases, by saying "any mecha in base to base are never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat" you just took away their engagement.

You know, I do see the problem with parsing being engaged in H2H combat on the one hand from making a H2H attack on the other. The key is that to make a H2H attack, two mecha must be B2B. And as soon as they are B2B, they are engaged in H2H combat. If being B2B = being engaged in H2H combat and if being B2B is a requirement of making a H2H attack, then isn't it fair to say that being engaged in H2H combat is a requirement of making a H2H attack? And since aircraft are never considered to be engaged in H2H combat, doesn't it follow that mecha cannot make H2H attacks against aircraft?

This is Dark Severance's initial argument, I think. Despite the conclusions I just posted, I think I still agree with him.

 judgedoug wrote:
Nononono, your errata would also cancel out every mecha's engagement.

Fair point. But in any case, I currently favor a FAQ clarifying that mecha may not make H2H attacks on aircraft, which avoids the issue entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Doug, your point also reveals that a potential FAQ eliminating H2H attacks against aircraft needs to clarify that mecha can use weapon systems against aircraft to which they are B2B.

An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat. A mecha in base to base contact with an aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat with that aircraft.

Or to be even more clear:

An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat. A mecha in base to base contact with an aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat with that aircraft and cannot make hand to hand attacks against the aircraft.

I prefer the parsing because one does not infer the other (only because we are used to rules where that does happen). I believe "being engaged" is a side effect of base to base contact. Here's what I mean:

Move into base to base with a baddie. Now you can make close combat attacks. Bip, bap, boop!

Oh, btw dude, now that the two of you are base to base, you are both _engaged_. While you are both engaged, you can't shoot and moment has to be relative to the engagee. To get out of this state of being _engaged_, ya gotta spend a CP.

Oh, also! Aircraft can't be engaged, so ignore that part about both of you being engaged.

See, the way it's written close combat attacks aren't a benefit or an effect of being Engaged. Actually, being Engaged is an effect of non-Aircraft being base to base. What allows close combat attacks is not actually being Engaged but is in fact being base-to-base.


That being said, I much prefer Manchu's:

An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat. A mecha in base to base contact with an aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat with that aircraft and cannot make hand to hand attacks against the aircraft.

clarification and will probably play this way.

Actually the effective way to make this official would be simply to change the first sentence of the Hand to Hand Combat section from:
"To make a hand to hand attack, an attacking mecha needs to move into base to base contact with the enemy that it wishes to attack (during the Movement Step, pg. 15), then roll to Strike as normal."
to
"To make a hand to hand attack, an attacking mecha needs to move into base to base contact with and become engaged with the enemy that it wishes to attack (during the Movement Step, pg. 15), then roll to Strike as normal."


Though honestly playing RAW/DougInterpretation would allow Queadluuns to punch Valkyrie Fighters which does sound pretty awesome.

Here's the parallel in more detail:
- Moving into base contact causes a model to be engaged in close combat
- Being engaged in close combat prevents a model from making ranged attacks.
- Moving out of base contact requires spending command points, and aircraft explicitly don't have to do this.
- Aircraft are never engaged in close combat
- Making a melee attack requires being in base contact

By Warmachine/Hordes experiences, that set of rules allows: a model to move into base contact with an aircraft, punch it, and then the aircraft flies away next turn without ever being engaged.

Because that's how close combat works in Warmachine/Hordes:
- A model in melee combat if it has someone else in its melee range, or it's in someone else's melee range
- A model in melee combat can't make ranged attacks
- A model can make melee attacks against a model in its melee range
- Knocked down models (and various stone obelisks in the game) have no melee range and are never engaged in melee

So you get a situation where you knock a model down (or walk up the stone obelisk). It's in your melee range, so you can either attack it with melee, or shoot it with a ranged weapon if you have one, but you're not engaged in melee with it. This is the parallel situation to punching the aircraft model, and I have a feeling that a lot of the discussion is going to boil down to "What was the last game you played?" as far as which way you expect that to work. And, really, THAT is why it could use a FAQ. Or at least an official combat example where an aircraft model gets punched, or explicitly not punched, that people can point to as evidence to demonstrate that it's one way and not the other.

Does the SDF 1 punching a spaceship have any relevance to the discussion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because I think it should.

 Swabby wrote:
Does the SDF 1 punching a spaceship have any relevance to the discussion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because I think it should.

Haha, well, the SDF-1 in Storm Attacker mode can certainly make a close combat attack against Zentraedi ships

 solkan wrote:
Those aircraft are being explicitly assumed to not be flying 3000 feet above the battlefield.

They can be flying 100 feet above the ground and they're still well out of reach of a Destroid.

I mean, not to get too bogged down in 'realism' here, but low level or not, is flying really just "ignores terrain for movement but hell, punch 'em all you like"?

I would say that a body block from a very eager battlepod even at 150ft isn't too unbelievable given how tall they are and how adept they are at jumping.

As of right now I believe the rules do and probably should allow this fairly rare occurance to happen. It should stand at least until a FAQ disallows it.

Also I really want to see the look on someones face in a tournament when I pull this off and check a valkyrie into a skyscraper.

 judgedoug wrote:
It all comes down to this sentence:

"Once a mecha is in base to base contact with an enemy mecha, the two are considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat"

The requirement is a friendly mecha and an enemy mecha, both in base to base, the result being that those two mecha, together, are considered to be engaged. In my mind, if either of those mecha has Aircraft, which removes the ability for it to become engaged, then those two mecha cannot be engaged.

That is the way I read them. If 'the two' was changed to 'each' or 'they' then I can agree the concern is valid. By saying two, they are essentially quantifying that it 'takes two to brawl' and if one can not brawl then by definition the other could not.

Although I can see where confusion could stem from. It does need to be addressed properly in a FAQ.

 Swabby wrote:
Does the SDF 1 punching a spaceship have any relevance to the discussion?

No because the SDF itself is flying as well. Not to mention the SDF punching a spaceship would be a special attack granted to the SDF that wouldn't be considered a hand to hand attack, since it is both hand to hand (when it punches into a ship) and ranged (when it opens up and the Destroids fire) at the same time.

I am at work now so I can't look at the rules. Are there different rules related for space combat specifically or is it all about ground combat? Are mecha in space combat considered flying or something else?

Just reading the rules -- In order to make a H2H attack, you have to be B2B. As soon as you are B2B, you are engaged in H2H. There is no liminal period where you can make a H2H attack but also not be engaged in H2H combat. Moreover, being engaged in H2H combat happens before you can even make a H2H attack because becoming engaged is simultaneous with being B2B, which is clearly a requirement of making an H2H attack (and therefore must happen before the attack).

The apparent distinction between being B2B and being engaged in H2H combat seems like an optical illusion caused by the aircraft special rule. Without that rule, there would not be a situation where it makes sense to distinguish being B2B and being engaged in H2H combat.