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.

 Manchu wrote:
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.

Hmm, I'm not seeing what you're seeing. In fact that rules specifically state the following:

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

The Engaged in Hand to Hand Combat section and effect is ancillary to moving INTO base to base contact but is not explicitly stated that it is required to be engaged to perform a Strike. In fact that above quote specifically says that the quote "only" unquote thing a mecha needs to do is to move into base to base contact. Being Engaged is a state that now exists for the mecha and it's enemy but is not required to initiate a Strike.

In fact, going onto the 2. Choose A Target section, it again makes only the requirement that the mecha be in base to base contact, and never mentions the requirement to be engaged. This is further reinforced in the 3. Roll to Strike section, where the player is specifically allowed to attack inanimate objects - and according to the Engagement rules, one can never be Engaged with an inanimate object. If one cannot be engaged with an inanimate object (as it is not an "enemy mecha", the requirement for being Engaged), then how would one Roll to Strike said inanimate object?

Furthermore, if you read to the Outnumbered in Hand to Hand Combat subsection, the rules specifically state a bonus to Strike for each friendly mecha that is engaged with the target and is not engaged with any other enemy mecha. This very specifically eliminates Aircraft, which can never count as engaged, so cannot help in this bonus, and is very specific to address being engaged, and not merely base-to-base, which is the only requirement in 2. Choose a Target.

You have to read the whole section together:

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

If you want to make a H2H attack you must move B2B. As soon as you are B2B, you are engaged. There is no H2H Attack before/without being engaged apart from the aircraft special rule. There is no reason for the rules to explicitly require being engaged in H2H to make a H2H attack because they already require B2B which in turn equates to being engaged in H2H combat.

You can assume the aircraft rule reveals an intent to separate being B2B from being engaged in H2H -- but it remains an assumption.

Using your interpretation, one cannot make an attack against inanimate objects as it is impossible to become engaged with them.

I am arguing that the only requirement for a hand to hand Strike is to be in base to base contact, which is what the rules state.

The rules then state that a mecha is in base to base with an enemy mecha, they are engaged. This is a state that exists between those two mecha, and can exist between said mecha and multiple enemy mecha. Spartan A in B2B with Regult A are engaged, Spartan A also in B2B with Regult B are also engaged, and Spartan A also in B2B with Reguly C are still also engaged.

However, there is no requirement in 2. Choose a Target to be engaged with your target, merely in B2B. Similarly, this is carried into 3. Roll to Strike where it specifically states how to damage an inanimate object - which you cannot actually be engaged with.

Furthermore, in Outnumbered in Hand to Hand Combat the rules specifically mention friendlies engagedwith the target but not also engaged with any other enemy mecha.

The conclusion is that the effect, or state, of being engaged produces the following: no weapon systems can be used, no movement except relative to those models engaged with, and a CP to exit B2b, and the Outnumber bonus.

The rule in question is about H2H combat with enemy mecha. We aren't talking about hitting inanimate objects, which after all cannot react. That is to say, an inanimate object cannot engage its attacker thereby preventing the use of weapon systems or making it difficult to move away.

If you add one more non aircraft mecha to the melee for a total of two non aircraft and one aircraft mecha that are all base to base it illustrates how the engagement must be valid for the non aircraft mecha in order for hand to hand to work as intended.

If one aircraft in a melee disengages every mecha involved in a hth fight it could be used as an exploitable resource to get models out of hth that would have otherwise had to pay a command point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also manchu the hth rules make no distinction between attacks between inanimate and animate objects, so the engagement rule would still apply to a building.

 Swabby wrote:
Also manchu the hth rules make no distinction between attacks between inanimate and animate objects, so the engagement rule would still apply to a building.

No, a mecha can only be in engaged in H2H combat with an enemy mecha.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swabby wrote:
If one aircraft in a melee disengages every mecha involved in a hth fight it could be used as an exploitable resource to get models out of hth that would have otherwise had to pay a command point

I don't follow this at all.

X = UEDF mecha w/ aircraft
Y = UEDF mecha w/o aircraft
Z = Zentraedi mecha w/o aircraft

If Y and Z are B2B, they are engaged in H2H combat -- whether or not X is also B2B with Z, whether or not X leaves B2B with Z.

X = UEDF mecha w/ aircraft
Y = Zentraedi mecha w/o aircraft
Z = Zentraedi mecha w/o aircraft

X is not engaged in H2H combat with Y and Z when either or both are B2B with X.

Damn it is nearly impossible to quote on this little phone but you bring up an interesting point Manchu.

Nowhere in the terrain rules does it say that buildings can be attacked by either ranged or hth attacks. It simply says they can be destroyed and lists MDC values and the results of destroying them. More discussion on this later I am sure.

In your above example:

"X = UEDF mecha w/ aircraft
Y = UEDF mecha w/o aircraft
Z = Zentraedi mecha w/o aircraft

If Y and Z are B2B, they are engaged in H2H combat -- whether or not X is also B2B with Z, whether or not X leaves B2B with Z."

If the aircraft special rule removes the engagement state from the enemy mecha then no one is engaged if I am understanding your logic correctly? Or are you saying that in a multiple model melee all models determine engagement seperately?

 Swabby wrote:
If the aircraft special rule removes the engagement state from the enemy mecha then no one is engaged if I am understanding your logic correctly? Or are you saying that in a multiple model melee all models determine engagement seperately?

First, I don't think the aircraft special rule removes engagement status. I think it makes engagement status impossible in the first place for any mecha with the aircraft rule. Otherwise, a mecha is engaged in H2H combat once it is B2B with an enemy mecha.

The question is, can Mecha A be engaged with Mecha B if Mecha B can never be engaged at all? I don't think the rules give a clear-cut answer.

As things stand

X = UEDF mecha w/ aircraft
Y = UEDF mecha w/o aircraft
Z = Zentraedi mecha w/o aircraft

X is not engaged in H2H combat with Z even if X and Z are B2B.

BUT, assuming Z is only B2B with X, is Z engaged in H2H combat? UNKNOWN

If X and Y are both B2B with Z then Y and Z are unquestionably engaged in H2H combat whether or not X is also B2B with Z and whether or not Z is engaged in H2H combat with X.

 Swabby wrote:
Nowhere in the terrain rules does it say that buildings can be attacked by either ranged or hth attacks.

Buildings are inanimate objects. See p. 16 for making ranged attacks against inanimate objects and p. 20 for making H2H attacks against inanimate objects.

 Manchu wrote:
[
The question is, can Mecha A be engaged with Mecha B if Mecha B can never be engaged at all? I don't think the rules give a clear-cut answer.

(snip)

BUT, assuming Z is only B2B with X, is Z engaged in H2H combat? UNKNOWN

Yep, I believe it really needs a FAQ answer.

I had totally forgotten about this part

Buildings are inanimate objects. See p. 16 for making ranged attacks against inanimate objects and p. 20 for making H2H attacks against inanimate objects.

This part I find really interesting and I think that it might have some bearing on our other topic.

1. This rule:

rulebook wrote:To make a hand to hand attack, an attacking mecha only needs to move into base to base contact with the enemy mecha that it wishes to attack (during the movement step, pg 15), then roll to strike as normal.

It is missing the language (or inanimate object) in regards to attacking an inanimate object in hand to hand. So the first question (and this may seem like a no brainer, to which I would agree with, but it is important for the clarification) is do you need to be exactly base to base in order to physically attack a building? I would think yes, but this seems like an oversight.

2. This rule:

rulebook wrote:3. Roll to strike > (snipping first paragraph)

Targeting an inanimate object (not a mecha), like a building, crashed spaceship, etc., is even simpler in hand to hand combat than ranged combat. As an inanimate object obviously cannot Parry or Roll with impact, all the mecha needs to do is not roll a "natural one" to Strike with the hand to hand attack. If the strike roll is successful, the inanimate object takes the hand to hand attack's MD as normal, but no special effects apply, as a building cannot be pushed back or suffer other effects as a mecha can.

This one seems to conflict with the theory that you need to be engaged in order to strike, considering the language in the first quote "To make a hand to hand attack, an attacking mecha only needs to move into base to base contact with the enemy mecha that it wishes to attack (during the movement step, pg 15), then roll to strike as normal"

The key here is "roll to strike as normal", the attacking an inanimate object bit is listed under roll to strike in HtH, which leads me to believe that you do not need to be engaged in order to make a hth attack, otherwise it would mention something about not being engaged, or needing to be engaged in order to attack an inanimate object.

 Manchu wrote:

As things stand

X = UEDF mecha w/ aircraft
Y = UEDF mecha w/o aircraft
Z = Zentraedi mecha w/o aircraft

X is not engaged in H2H combat with Z even if X and Z are B2B.

BUT, assuming Z is only B2B with X, is Z engaged in H2H combat? UNKNOWN

If X and Y are both B2B with Z then Y and Z are unquestionably engaged in H2H combat whether or not X is also B2B with Z and whether or not Z is engaged in H2H combat with X.

The engagement rules state that the two are engaged; however, as an Aircraft never counts as being engaged then Z is not engaged with X. X cannot engage with Z as Z does not count as being engaged.

I find the argument about not needing to engage in H2H combat with inanimate objects unpersuasive for two reasons:

(1) the alternative would be facially absurd: inanimate objects, as the phrase implies, neither act nor react and therefore logically can neither engage nor be engaged; and

(2) the alternative would have no simulative value: the most reasonable presumption about the purpose of being "engaged in H2H combat" as a game mechanic, given its effect in the game, is to simulate the tangled melee of actively grappling foes.

The larger issue is probably over-literal reading. The terms at issue are not only conceptual mechanics but also, and I would argue primarily, meant to stand in for something material. Being "engaged" is not a purely abstract game condition but rather an abstraction modelling expectations about a moment in (imaginary) physical combat. Purposefully exaggerating the literal meaning of mechanical terms is a good way to stress test the way a rule set is written. But reasoning about how a rule should be subsequently clarified in a FAQ requires some reasonable assumption about what the rule was meant to do in the first place.

I would be shocked if the rules required a mecha to "engage a building in hand to hand combat" in order to strike it because the plain language of that phrase is ridiculous and it lacks of any mechanical justification. So I don't consider it a mystery that the rules do not require such, much less a mystery that can only be solved by assuming that the game simulates attacking a living, actively resisting enemy unit the same way as attacking an inanimate object.

 judgedoug wrote:
as an Aircraft never counts as being engaged then Z is not engaged with X

That is the interpretation I favor, what Dark Severance illustrated with the cliche about it taking two to tango.

But I don't think it is clearly the case just as a matter of RAW. The aircraft special rule says aircraft are never considered to be engaged in H2H combat. It does not clarify that enemy mecha in base contact with aircraft are also not engaged.

 judgedoug wrote:
X cannot engage with Z as Z does not count as being engaged.

I think you're getting a bit confused there. In this example, X is the mecha with the aircraft rule. Z is an enemy mecha without the aircraft rule. It is X, rather than Z, that is never considered engaged in H2H combat.

Conceptually though, if you were to make a hth attack against an aircraft, you would not actually be engaged with it like you would another mecha, you would quite literally be making an attack against it in the same way you would a building, only a building that is moving very fast.

And as stated in the measurement rules, all these aircraft are flying nap of the earth, so calculating a well timed body block is not totally outside the bounds of the concepts as presented. The inanimate object 'roll to strike' rules are more or less presented to show that a mecha is capable within the bounds of the rules of striking a blow on something that it is not in fact "engaged" with.

I also believe that there are probably exploits that could come about if a mecha is not capable of hitting aircraft due to the variable nature of the Valkyrie.

An interesting sidenote is that the variable modes special rule is not restricted due to being engaged in hth. So a Valkyrie essentially can disengage simply by changing modes.

Additionally, a squad of Valkyries does not have to be in the same mode, so you can have a full squad with one Valkyrie in guardian mode move into BtB with an enemy model and engage them while the rest of your squad is immune to HtH. Most of that squad can then fire at anything but the engaged guy, end their turn, be totally immune to any melee during the opposing models turn (with the exception of the one guardian mode that is engaging the opponent) then on their next turn the remaining valkyries transform out of figher to battloid and proceed to curbstomp office space style on the opposing model.

That's a good reminder to keep the questions as separate as possible (and therefore not start to assume they are necessarily connected):

- Can H2H attacks be made on mecha with the aircraft rule?

- Is a mecha B2B with an enemy mecha with the aircraft rule engaged in H2H combat with that aircraft?

Generally speaking, B2B opposing mecha = engaged in H2H combat with one another. The rules do not explicitly provide, however, that being engaged in H2H combat is a requirement of making a H2H attack. Rather, they only explicitly provide that being B2B is a requirement of making a H2H attack. There is a special rule for aircraft that they are never considered engaged in H2H combat, not even when they are B2B with enemy mecha.

So that's the problem laid out as neutrally as possible, I think. I am just trying to lay it out to prevent going too far down the rabbit hole and also for Mike1975's review.

Now back to the comparison between aircraft and inanimate objects. Keep in mind that combat is mechanically conceptualized as entailing both an acting mecha and a reacting enemy mecha.

(1) chooses attack(s)
(2) choose target(s)/assign attack(s)
(3) attacker rolls to strike
(4) target rolls to parry
(5) target may roll with an impact
(6) target takes damage

Obviously, the kind of target assumed is animate and actively resisting attack. The rules clarify that inanimate objects "obviously" do not roll to parry and cannot roll with impact. Given aircraft are not inanimate, they should get to parry and roll with impact. That conclusion is a matter of abstract logic. But does it make sense when we consider it is supposed to simulate a jet zooming by? Even if we can imagine a destroid throwing a punch just at the right moment to catch a passing jet, are we also supposed to imagine the jet parrying the blow before zooming on?

This is why I find the limitation of dodge to range and parry to hth strange. It would make sense to me if the aircraft had a chance to dodge (not parry). Even still rules as written I see nothing preventing an aircraft from parrying if something were to take a swing at it.

Dodge and Parry provide a great example of why you should not treat rules as purely abstract. Although they are very similar mechanically, they represent very different things materially. Dodge means getting out of the way of an attack. Parry means blocking an attack. How does an aircraft in flight block a (seemingly preternaturally timed) destroid punch?

Mechanically, the main difference between Dodge and Parry (aside from being tied to ranged attacks and H2H attacks respectively) is that Dodge attempts cost Command Points while Parry attempts are free. That has some interesting implications, too.

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
as an Aircraft never counts as being engaged then Z is not engaged with X

That is the interpretation I favor, what Dark Severance illustrated with the cliche about it taking two to tango.

But I don't think it is clearly the case just as a matter of RAW. The aircraft special rule says aircraft are never considered to be engaged in H2H combat. It does not clarify that enemy mecha in base contact with aircraft are also not engaged.

 judgedoug wrote:
X cannot engage with Z as Z does not count as being engaged.

I think you're getting a bit confused there. In this example, X is the mecha with the aircraft rule. Z is an enemy mecha without the aircraft rule. It is X, rather than Z, that is never considered engaged in H2H combat.

Oops, yes, transposed that. My argument being that engaged is a state that exists between two mecha, and that because Aircraft X never counts as being engaged then the engaged state does not exist between X and Z.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

Obviously, the kind of target assumed is animate and actively resisting attack. The rules clarify that inanimate objects "obviously" do not roll to parry and cannot roll with impact. Given aircraft are not inanimate, they should get to parry and roll with impact. That conclusion is a matter of abstract logic. But does it make sense when we consider it is supposed to simulate a jet zooming by? Even if we can imagine a destroid throwing a punch just at the right moment to catch a passing jet, are we also supposed to imagine the jet parrying the blow before zooming on?

Yeah, it's all abstract and it's an anime game. I literally just imagined the pilot jinking at the last second and the destroid's fingertips sparking along the fuselage as I read your sentence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

The question is, can Mecha A be engaged with Mecha B if Mecha B can never be engaged at all? I don't think the rules give a clear-cut answer.

As things stand

X = UEDF mecha w/ aircraft
Y = UEDF mecha w/o aircraft
Z = Zentraedi mecha w/o aircraft

X is not engaged in H2H combat with Z even if X and Z are B2B.

BUT, assuming Z is only B2B with X, is Z engaged in H2H combat? UNKNOWN

I want to go back to this real quick. Now, X and Z become base 2 base. We know that X is not engaged, so the question is, is Z engaged?

I absolutely believe that Z is not engaged, not only because I believe in the "two to tango" for engagement, but because mechanically it makes zero sense for a state to exist where Z can be engaged with X and X not to be engaged with Z. An engaged mecha may not move out of base contact with a mecha it is engaged with unless it pays CP, which is frankly even more absurd that a ground based mecha is now stuck in place by a zooming aircraft than being able to H2H. This would create interesting situations where a flight of Gnerls can just move into B2B with a squadron of Destroids and keep them locked in place.

"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".
Aircraft specifically states "An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat."

I believe that Aircraft nullifies a mecha's ability to become engaged, so the "the two are considered to be engaged" condition can never be met. I'd like to reiterate that my belief is entirely based upon the phrase "the two are considered to be engaged" and would be the polar opposite if the wording was "each are considered to be engaged" as the current wording is a shared state and the "each" wording is separate states.

I had nearly the same though about the jinking pilot. That is why I brought up the dodge/parry comparison. It seems totally feasible to me in an anime game that attacking an aircraft in hth is totally possible.

 judgedoug wrote:
it's an anime game

 Swabby wrote:
in an anime game

What is meant by "anime game" other than RRT being based on an anime? I'd caution against abusing the term "anime" for the purposes of argument. It's a broad term covering everything from the unapologetically silly to the deadly serious. For its time and especially relevant to its intended audience, RoboTech was quite sober and portrayed combat as realistically as can be expected given robotechnology. The presence of mecha (or the odd space tuna) doesn't open the door to any and every absurdity, such as a passing jet being able to parry (not dodge or jink but parry, to knock away a blow with a counter blow) an impossibly well-timed robot punch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 judgedoug wrote:
I believe that Aircraft nullifies a mecha's ability to become engaged, so the "the two are considered to be engaged" condition can never be met.

What do you mean by "condition"? Do you mean in the sense of "status" or of "requirement"?

I have been thinking, notice the phasing is passive -- "X is engaged" rather than "X is engaging." I think this is where the ambiguity lies. The aircraft rule says an aircraft cannot be engaged in H2H combat; it does not say an aircraft cannot engage another mecha.

Would calling if a Mecha anime game be more suitable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I completely agree with the passive phrasing argument put forward.

 Swabby wrote:
Would calling if a Mecha anime game be more suitable?

People can label the game whatever they want so long as they don't make rules arguments premised on the labels they assign. PB itself labels the game "RPG Tactics" ... and I am not really clear on what that means much less what it reflects about the meaning of the rules.

 Manchu wrote:
such as a passing jet being able to parry (not dodge or jink but parry, to knock away a blow with a counter blow) an impossibly well-timed robot punch.

Okay, then the rules are called Dodge because it's specifically for Gunnery vs Piloting ranged combat, and then Parry as it's specifically for Piloting vs Piloting close combat. The name of the rule is irrelevant; it could be called "The Somehow Didn't Get Hit Roll Specifically For Shooting" and the "The Somehow Didn't Get Hit Roll Specifically For Close Combat". Don't make inferences about rules based on the names; otherwise one could argue that the intent of Hand To Hand Combat itself should not allow Kicks or Stomps as they are not Hands.
I went ahead and Merriam-Webstered "parry" and it does give the definition as:
1: to ward off a weapon or blow
2: to evade or turn aside something
so to satisfy the Aircraft Parrying in close combat, it is merely the evasion definition of Parry, whereas a Regult Parries with it's, uh, side thruster?
The etymology of Parry is from the Latin "parare", which is to Prepare, so Parrying could just be preparing to avoid the blow.

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
I believe that Aircraft nullifies a mecha's ability to become engaged, so the "the two are considered to be engaged" condition can never be met.

What do you mean by "condition"? Do you mean in the sense of "status" or of "requirement"?

I have been thinking, notice the phasing is passive -- "X is engaged" rather than "X is engaging." I think this is where the ambiguity lies. The aircraft rule says an aircraft cannot be engaged in H2H combat; it does not say an aircraft cannot engage another mecha.

I prefer the idea that a CC attack can be performed, but then they are not engaged, and can continue on as normal after the attack.

It is a "Future Proofing" concept for me. As the Invid quite frequently do engage in HtH with aerial targets, however short lived that attack might be.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
I prefer the idea that a CC attack can be performed, but then they are not engaged, and can continue on as normal after the attack.

It is a "Future Proofing" concept for me. As the Invid quite frequently do engage in HtH with aerial targets, however short lived that attack might be.

I was thinking the same thing in terms of

a) Shadow Alpha Fighter battloid and guardian could also never considered to be engaged so they can zoom up, kick an Invid in the face, and walk away
b) page 9 defines mecha as "all game pieces, even if the actual game piece in question is an aircraft, cargo truck, or a 40 foot tall Zentraedi warrior". If cargo trucks are added to the game as a game piece with stats, it would make sense that it would have something like a "slow mover" special rule that also doesn't allow it to be considered to be engaged - how can a cargo truck hold up a Queadluun in close combat?

While it isn't a "cargo truck" convoy vehicle stats are on page 80 under the convoy defense standard scenario.

Convoy vehicle:

(Snipped the stats. Forgot we couldnt post those)

Special abilities:

Cumbersome
Complete the mission
Flee

 Manchu wrote:
Dodge and Parry provide a great example of why you should not treat rules as purely abstract. Although they are very similar mechanically, they represent very different things materially. Dodge means getting out of the way of an attack. Parry means blocking an attack.

 judgedoug wrote:
The name of the rule is irrelevant [...] Don't make inferences about rules based on the names

I am not:

Dodging an attack means that the target was able to get out of the way or duck back behind cover in time

P 16

But if the target's Parry result is equal to or higher than the attacker's roll to Strike result, the attackis blocked

P 20

 judgedoug wrote:
the requirement for "the two" mecha to be engaged cannot be met.

RAW does not create any such requirement. The rules are written contemplating one mecha attacking one enemy mecha; therefore the resulting clause naturally contemplates "the two." Of course it is possible for more than two mecha to be engaged in H2H combat simultaneously. Putting aside whether 'it makes sense' that only one mecha could be engaged in H2H combat (as you know, I don't think this makes sense), RAW does not state or even clearly imply that an attacking mecha must be able to engage its target in order for the attacking mecha to itself be engaged.

That said, I think we are on the same page as to how 'it should be played.'

Again, I believe the deliberate usage of the words "the two" instead of "each is" establishes the effect of being engaged for those two mecha. If one cannot engage, then there is no engagement.

Yup, I'm officially tired of discussing Engagement.

As I had mentioned elsewhere, I rather like that the GU-11 causes 6 damage and has rapid fire, thereby allowing a Valkyrie to destroy any Zentraedi mecha in one round. I was a little afraid regarding the near-Battletech/WMH system of damage dots, but it seems like for most of the fodder mecha, it won't matter (as most hits will destroy outright)

 judgedoug wrote:
Again, I believe the deliberate usage of the words "the two" instead of "each is" establishes the effect of being engaged for those two mecha. If one cannot engage, then there is no engagement.

I am sympathetic to your conclusion but not your argument. The wording "the two" can be adequately explained by the stylistic choice to explain the rule with reference to one mecha attacking one other mecha and does not necessitate the conclusion that there is a requirement that two or at least two B2B mecha all be engaged in order for any of them to be engaged (or similar, this overlooks the aircraft special rule).

Here's the way forward: let's just assume for the sake of argument that RAW is ambiguous and requires FAQ.

What is the best way to FAQ that a mecha B2B with an enemy aircraft is engaged in H2H combat?

What is the best way to FAQ that a mecha B2B with an enemy aircraft is not engaged in H2H combat?

I don't believe it's a stylistic choice as "the two" is entirely different in purpose from "each is". For example

Manchu moves into B2B contact with Kevin. The two are married.
implies that they both share a state of marriage with each other

vs

Manchu moves into B2B contact with Kevin. They each are married.
implies that they each independently have a state of marriage

Regardless, engagement is exhausting.

 judgedoug wrote:


Regardless, engagement is exhausting.

And that is why you get married by a JP or in Vegas. It gets the engagement done faster....and then on to the Honeymoon!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 judgedoug wrote:
The two are married.

 judgedoug wrote:
They each are married.

There isn't much difference between the two in terms of ambiguity. It can be properly said of my wife and I that we are each married. And someone speaking of Kevin and I could properly say "the two of them are married" without necessarily meaning we are married to one another (which we are not, cruel fate).

Coming down from the giddy heights of grammar back to the rule in question, however, the mecha that are engaged are clearly the attacking mecha and the target mecha. There is no ambiguity as to the parties (potentially) engaged. The ambiguity lies in whether a mecha that cannot be engaged (passive) can engage (active) other mecha.

Again, the aircraft special rule only provides that an aircraft can never be engaged. It does not provide that an aircraft cannot do the engaging. The phrase "the two are considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat" does not create a requirement, at least as a matter of grammar, that two (or more) mecha capable of being engaged are B2B in order that any of the B2B mecha be engaged.

I agree that this kind of analysis is not much fun. It's not, how shall I say, terribly engaging? (Since we're doing puns.) That is why I propose we simply assume for the sake of argument that RAW is ambiguous and move on to the best way to FAQ in either case:

(a) a mecha B2B with an enemy aircraft IS engaged in H2H combat with that aircraft

(b) a mecha B2B with an enemy aircraft is NOT engaged in H2H combat with that aircraft

Proposed FAQs for Aircraft special rule:

(a)

An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat. A non-aircraft mecha in base to base contact with an enemy aircraft may be considered engaged in hand to hand combat.

(b)

An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat. A mecha in base to base contact with enemy aircraft and no other enemy mecha is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat.