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.

A FAQ clarifies what is published rather than anticipating what may be published. As such, I think any work on vehicles (that is, conventional ground vehicles) can go on the back burner except inasmuch as it touches on clarifying published rules.

For example, the G-E entry has caused us to swing back around to the idea that aircraft can be the targets of H2H attacks. And so there is the implication that they can parry H2H attacks. Applying the same logic, vehicles would also be able to parry H2H attacks. Both seem absurd to me. The Parry rule provides:

But if the target's Parry result is equal to or higher than the attacker's roll to Strike, the attack is blocked and so does not hit the target. Note: You cannot Dodge a hand to hand attack.

Dodge and Parry are nearly the same except that Parry is free while Dodge costs 1 CP per attempt. Why the special emphasis clarifying you cannot Dodge H2H attacks? All I can think of is to make sure the target does not get to spend 1 CP to Dodge after failing the free Parry.

So if that is the only difference then how about this further FAQ to the Aircraft special rule:

Aircraft with no hand to hand attacks may not attempt to Parry but may attempt to Dodge hand to hand attacks.

Something similar could be eventually incorporated into a Vehicle special rule.

We do need an answer for the convoy vehicle at the very least.

The rules are lacking information for what base, if any the convoy vehicle gets, and that has implications for interactions in hth.

Assuming the convoy vehicle does indeed have a base to interact with, the rules state that it is considered a mecha and therefore can be attacked, engaged, and that it can parry in hth.

 Manchu wrote:
A FAQ clarifies what is published rather than anticipating what may be published. As such, I think any work on vehicles (that is, conventional ground vehicles) can go on the back burner except inasmuch as it touches on clarifying published rules.

For example, the G-E entry has caused us to swing back around to the idea that aircraft can be the targets of H2H attacks. And so there is the implication that they can parry H2H attacks. Applying the same logic, vehicles would also be able to parry H2H attacks. Both seem absurd to me. The Parry rule provides:

But if the target's Parry result is equal to or higher than the attacker's roll to Strike, the attack is blocked and so does not hit the target. Note: You cannot Dodge a hand to hand attack.

Dodge and Parry are nearly the same except that Parry is free while Dodge costs 1 CP per attempt. Why the special emphasis clarifying you cannot Dodge H2H attacks? All I can think of is to make sure the target does not get to spend 1 CP to Dodge after failing the free Parry.

So if that is the only difference then how about this further FAQ to the Aircraft special rule:

Aircraft with no hand to hand attacks may not attempt to Parry but may attempt to Dodge hand to hand attacks.

Something similar could be eventually incorporated into a Vehicle special rule.

It seems to me that the problem is that Ability X (a defense against ranged attacks) and Ability Y (a defense against melee attacks) that have names that imply things far beyond "This is how you can avoid a ranged attack" and "this is how you can avoid a melee attack". So that whoever chose the names for those two abilities should be get a stern talking to.

I mean, if you replace the word "Dodge" in the rules with "Ranged Dodge" and "Parry" with "Melee Dodge", the absurdity problem goes away, right?

No because RAW Dodge is avoiding an attack and Parry is blocking an attack. As discussed earlier ITT, this is not just a case of taking the name of the mechanic too literally. The H2H mechanics strongly appear to assume humanoid mecha are actively grappling with each other.

Sure, the defender's roll to avoid or reduce damage is "blocking attack" according to the name given it. And I think at this point there's good enough evidence to say that RTT's Parry isn't a parry. (Similarly, I'm assuming you're not a collective account for approximately ten million people, in spite of your chosen designation...)

The last time I saw parry mechanics involving megadamage, there were rules involving damaging or destroying the shields and weapons used to perform the parry. So if the game started out with a melee dodge, and a melee parry, then someone threw away the degradation mechanic, and realized "Why do we have two different damage avoidance mechanisms for melee?" and told someone else to do something about it. (Or, rather, perhaps someone looked at the degradation mechanic, and though "Shouldn't that represent damage that the model took from trying to avoid the attack?")

If you're going to complain about it being silly for an aircraft to parry a melee attack, I have to assume you're going to complain about the Spartan parrying. I mean, what's it going to do, parry with its head? Or grappling with those feet, since it has rocketpods in place of arms...

 solkan wrote:
And I think at this point there's good enough evidence to say that RTT's Parry isn't a parry.

What evidence are you talking about?

I'd not get too stuck on a word. In ranged combat Dodge in Hand to Hand Dodge/Parry = Defensive move or block. They just wanted to place every RPG action from the RPG into RRT. Dwelling on it is just wasting time.

Palladium intentionally brought such baggage along with them. It's coming up here, which means it'll come up elsewhere, which means it might well merit a clarification in the FAQ, lest the same conversation be repeated on dozens, hundreds or even thousands of tables around the world in the coming months.

Precise language is important when establishing rules, which is part of why I'm such a big fan of Magic and similar systems's using Keywords with precise, defined meanings. Using descriptive/narrative text for the game but then expecting people to read between the lines is going to only end in frustration for tons of people.

As with the LoS discussion, it is entirely possible for 2 intelligent, reasonable people to read over a section like that and come to differing conclusions, based on their experiences, thought processes and other factors.

 Forar wrote:
Palladium intentionally brought such baggage along with them. It's coming up here, which means it'll come up elsewhere, which means it might well merit a clarification in the FAQ, lest the same conversation be repeated on dozens, hundreds or even thousands of tables around the world in the coming months.

Precise language is important when establishing rules, which is part of why I'm such a big fan of Magic and similar systems's using Keywords with precise, defined meanings. Using descriptive/narrative text for the game but then expecting people to read between the lines is going to only end in frustration for tons of people.

As with the LoS discussion, it is entirely possible for 2 intelligent, reasonable people to read over a section like that and come to differing conclusions, based on their experiences, thought processes and other factors.

What we are arguing is how we think the rules should be but there is no error in what they say or how they are written with regards to parry so there is no use spending time on it when other things have precedence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We can decide to rewrite that Parry = Dodge/Evade/Block at a later time.

The argument that Parry is just a H2H Dodge ignores that RAW specifies what kind of action each term signifies AND that RAW specifies an important mechanical difference.

RAW Parry = block.

Dodge is NOT the same thing as Parry.

RAW Dodge = getting out of the way of an attack.

A mecha attacked in H2H combat is ENTITLED to a Parry per H2H attack that hits.

A mecha attacked from range CAN attempt to Dodge but the controlling player must spend 1 CP per attempt.

None of this needs to be clarified much less rewritten. The point is, blocking an attack is not the same as avoiding an attack. Conventional aircraft and ground vehicles do NOT have the capacity to block attacks as a matter of simple "anatomy."

Clarifying whether or not aircraft (and eventually conventional ground vehicles) can attempt a Parry is an essential question for the FAQ because it logically follows from the issue of whether aircraft can take H2H attacks.

If, as we have decided, aircraft can take H2H attacks then it would seem they can also make a Parry. At that point, however, you have an action and a reaction -- which for any non-aircraft mecha would be simulated as engagement in H2H combat -- a tangled melee that prevents the use of weapon systems but (given that the combatants are locked together in a dymanic struggle) also prevents them being targeted by weapons systems for fear of friendly fire. Furthermore, one "engaged" combatant must also make an extra effort (represented by spending 1 CP) to move away from the other.

Aircaft cannot be engaged in H2H combat. Why? Because the Aircraft special rule simulates how conventional aircraft move -- i.e, constant forward motion. Absent this, they would fall out of the sky. Simply put, an aircraft does not have the time to pause mid-flight to Parry punches and kicks.

Those of you who argue "but Parry really means Dodge when it comes to aircraft" are simply ignoring RAW. Avoiding an attack, which is all a conventional aircraft can do when punched (given "blocking" is exactly equivalent to getting hit), costs 1 CP in this game RAW. Hence the proposal:

Aircraft with no hand to hand attacks may not attempt to Parry but may attempt to Dodge hand to hand attacks.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike1975 wrote:
there is no use spending time on it when other things have precedence

What other issue has precedence? The Blast, Ammo, and Skirmish issues you posted about don't seem to involve errors or ambiguities.

From what I see the only thing that "defines" "RAW" Parry as Manchu sees it is literally the word "blocked" in the resolution portion "the attack is blocked".

The only thing that would need to happen is to change "the attack is blocked" to "the attack fails" or "the attack is avoided" or remove it altogether so instead of "...the attack is blocked and does not hit the target." it instead says ""...the attack does not hit the target."

Considering the word Parry means "to ward off a weapon or blow; to evade or turn aside something" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parry) all that needs to be done is not cement in the reader's mind that Parry is specifically turning aside an attack from a fencing foil, and there's no problem.

 judgedoug wrote:
Considering the word Parry means "to ward off a weapon or blow; to evade or turn aside something"

The dictionary definition is irrelevant. I am surprised you bring this up again specifically after telling me not to get stuck on the word rather than the game term. RAW defines the game term as a BLOCK, not an evasion. Furthermore, there is a different game term -- Dodge -- which RAW defines as an evasion. And RAW even goes so far as to specify that H2H attacks cannot be Dodged (i.e., evaded).

RAW very clearly distinguishes between Dodge and Parry. The word "blocked" is clearly NOT a mistake. Erasing it in order to blunt the distinction between Dodge and Parry not only makes no sense but goes against the grain of the obvious intent to design two different mechanics.

 Manchu wrote:
which is all a conventional aircraft can do when punched (given "blocking" is exactly equivalent to getting hit),.

I would argue that would apply to all mecha; a Tomahawk getting punched but "parrying" (using definition: "blocked") would destroy a particle beam cannon. (Unless the mecha is a Spartan with a mace, which would be about the only thing that would parry/block in the game)

Unless there's a difference in that somehow a G-E or a VF Fighter can't "parry" with the exact same magical non-essential parts that a Tomahawk, Phalanx, Defender, Regult, N-G, Q-R can "parry/block" with that somehow don't also equate to getting hit. I would even argue that the source material shows Valkyries taking far more punishment than destroids (which tend to just disappear a few frames after enemies show up), that VF Fighters can Parry better than a Phalanx.


Basically:
All mecha function the same; some have special rules. One special rule is called "Aircraft" and it does certain things. It could be called "Special Rule 45". It doesn't matter what it's called; it grants a mecha certain rules and exceptions. One of the things it does NOT do is disallow the mecha to participate in the rule mechanic called Parry.
One can argue that Parry is specifically a "block" - which is fine, but where does that leave you? There's nothing that disallows Aircraft to "block" or "Parry".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
The dictionary definition is irrelevant. I am surprised you bring this up again specifically after telling me not to get stuck on the word rather than the game term.

Yup, as illustrated by your sentence:

 Manchu wrote:
RAW defines the game term as a BLOCK, not an evasion. Furthermore, there is a different game term -- Dodge -- which RAW defines as an evasion. And RAW even goes so far as to specify that H2H attacks cannot be Dodged (i.e., evaded).

The rules say they cannot be Dodged, which means you don't use a Dodge roll, you use a Parry roll. RAW "block" and "evasion" definitions are quite literally meaningless. You are getting stuck on a definition which has nothing to do with the rule mechanic.

The difference between DODGE and PARRY is that a DODGE is GN vs PIL (1CP) to avoid a Strike and PARRY is PIL vs PIL (free) to avoid a Strike.

The flavor text for Dodge also specifically says "the target is able to get out of the way or duck behind cover in time". What if the target is standing in a Zentraedi ship's toilet? Would one argue that "well, Dodge, RAW, says, get out of the way or duck, and there's no room to get out of the way, or cover, so, RAW you get no Dodge!"

 Manchu wrote:
RAW very clearly distinguishes between Dodge and Parry. The word "blocked" is clearly NOT a mistake. Erasing it in order to blunt the distinction between Dodge and Parry not only makes no sense but goes against the grain of the obvious intent to design two different mechanics.

Sure, it's not a mistake, but I cannot find a single rule anywhere which says Aircraft may not participate in the Parry rule or ignore any rule that includes the word "blocked" somewhere in it's text.

 judgedoug wrote:
It doesn't matter what it's called; it grants a mecha certain rules and exceptions.

Again, we aren't talking about a totally abstract game such as checkers. The point of these rules is to SIMULATE something particular. It absolutely does matter what the rule is called because the name tells us what the rule is trying to simulate. This is important because we are talking about the rules of a wargame rather than lines of code in a computer game.

Indeed, this is exactly why RAW goes further than just labeling the two mechanics "Dodge" and "Parry" and actually DEFINES what kind of actions those mechanics simulate -- making your argument here a non sequitur:

 judgedoug wrote:
RAW "block" and "evasion" definitions are quite literally meaningless.

If they are meaningless, why bother to include write and publish them in the first place? In fact, far from being meaningless, these RAW definitions (1) point out to players what the rule intends to simulate and (2) help differentiate one mechanic from another. Ignoring the definitions could easily result in getting the two mechanics confused, which is what you seem to be doing.

As to there being no rule that says aircraft cannot Parry -- that is exactly the point of this (part of the) discussion. This is an ambiguous area. A humanoid mecha can twist and turn and otherwise move in many ways (like the human form it is loosely based upon) to avoid damage by taking a strike at a different angle or on a different part of its hull. Conventional vehicles, which (a) have no capacity to twist like a humanoid body or humanoid appendages to move and (b) only move along lines anyway, cannot perform a Parry given what RAW defines Parry as simulating. This is not only a matter of anatomy but in the case of aircraft also an issue of being engaged in H2H combat.

 Manchu wrote:
A humanoid mecha can twist and turn and otherwise move in many ways (like the human form it is loosely based upon) to avoid damage by taking a strike at a different angle or on a different part of its hull.

Such as a Regult and a Monster?

 Manchu wrote:
Conventional vehicles, which (a) have no capacity to twist like a humanoid body or humanoid appendages to move and (b) only move along lines anyway, cannot perform a Parry given what RAW defines Parry as simulating. This is not only a matter of anatomy but in the case of aircraft also an issue of being engaged in H2H combat.

Valkyries are definitely not conventional vehicles. If a mecha can Parry in a special way, as you said, "given "blocking" is exactly equivalent to getting hit", then I posit my Valkyrie drops a leg one foot to Parry a N-G punch; now, by your definition, my Valkyrie Fighters can Parry.

You also keep mentioning obvious design intent. To me, it's obvious the design intent is that a Dodge roll is specifically an optional GN vs PIL roll for ranged attacks and it's also obvious to me that the design intent is that a Parry roll is specifically a required PIL vs PIL roll for hand to hand attacks. To me it is an obvious design intent to have an opposed roll to avoid damage, of which the mechanics are slightly different between Ranged and Hand To Hand.

"Obvious" and "design intent" are rather ambiguous as every human brain interprets language and meaning slightly differently. For instance, I ignore flavor text when I am reading rules as the actual mechanics are what propel the game. To me, we are playing checkers, or chess, or any other skeleton of mechanics that is wrapped in the Robotech skin.
For example, I won't argue that a wargame that has an Out Of Ammo rule that says that a weapon's clip is out and needs to be reloaded wouldn't apply to weapons that use magazines.

Your human brain must still make a subjective distinction between "rule" and "flavor text." In this case, you seem to think the RAW definitions of Dodge and Parry qualify as "flavor text." In doing so, however, you are ignoring part of the rules.

By contrast, I prefer to read the whole text of the rules as rules while avoiding any absurdity created by over-literal interpretation. The rules of a table top game are made to be cogitated by human beings, not computers that can only do exactly, literally what they are told.

To me, wrapping RoboTech names and/or images around Monopoly does not make Monopoly a RoboTech game.

 Manchu wrote:
Your human brain must still make a subjective distinction between "rule" and "flavor text." In this case, you seem to think the RAW definitions of Dodge and Parry qualify as "flavor text." In doing so, however, you are ignoring part of the rules.

By contrast, I prefer to read the whole text of the rules as rules while avoiding any absurdity created by over-literal interpretation. The rules of a table top game are made to be cogitated by human beings, not computers that can only do exactly, literally what they are told.

Taking the whole paragraph into consideration as rule would produce the "mecha in a closet so can't Dodge since it can't, quote, get out of the way or duck behind cover, unquote". If I take that as Rules As Written instead of descriptive text, then a mecha in a closet can't Dodge. That's obviously absurd, the mecha is not jinking around like an acrobat (again, Monster, or even Tomahawk, or anything that is ponderously slow that can benefit from Dodge). If that was the case, the Dodge roll would have some sort of qualifier of moving the Dodging mecha some distance. The intent to me is that it's purely mechanical: an opposed roll to avoid damage. On that train of thought, let's take Parry into consideration: if I'm ignoring the descriptive text in Dodge so that I don't wind up in "flavor text clouding rules"-land, then I ignore the flavor text of"the attack is blocked" re: a sword's parry, or I say the phrase "the attack is blocked" as in the Attack Has Been Stopped, I see no problem with Aircraft receiving a Parry roll.

I'd also like to point out that the phrase "then the attack is blocked" is a result of the actual rule (PIL vs PIL, target PIL roll higher), and not a requirement for the Parry. Reading the Parry paragraph again and again, I see no prerequisite for a mecha to be able to "block". The only reference to "blocked" I see is the result of the Parry roll - whether it's a Rule or whether it's flavor text, it nevertheless is included only as the result of the target winning the dice-off. "But if the target's parry result is equal to or higher than the attacker's roll to Strike result, the attack is blocked and so does not hit the target, so no MD is done."

 Manchu wrote:

To me, wrapping RoboTech names and/or images around Monopoly does not make Monopoly a RoboTech game.

This is precisely why I usually don't like deck-building games or games that are obviously a licensed skin wrapping a rules skeleton that has thematically nothing to do with the skin. However, the RRT rules skeleton seem to have a lot of Robotech themes - missile swarms, Regult hordes, etc, so the Robotech skin fits it well (though I imagine it would work for other skins including Gundam)

Forcing a 'glitch' doesn't make one. The mecha in a closet issue is merely a question of rules granularity/theme. Back to one of our standard principles about what models represent in miniatures wargaming: they stand for dynamic actors rather than dumb statues. In RRT, a model can only move where there is space for its base. Most mecha have 'room' as it were to Dodge within the imaginary volume circumscribed by their bases. The concept of a mecha too big and/or slow to Dodge incoming fire can be easily handled by a special rule. The concept does not, however, prove that mechanics cannot reasonably simulate how a huge mecha behaves in the RoboTech setting. Similarly, if getting forced into tight spots (mecha in a closet) was a major thematic principle of the RoboTech setting, it would be a simple matter to generate a mechanic taking that into account.

As to Parry, I don't follow your point about a 'block requirement.' The very notion seems irrelevant. RAW defines a successful Parry attempt as a block. I mean, it sounds like you are saying an unsuccessful Parry is not a block and therefore even mecha that could not reasonably perform a block could still perform a Parry ... which comes out to saying something like, aircraft never succeed on a Parry attempt ... which is practically the same as saying aircraft cannot Parry.

 Manchu wrote:
The concept of a mecha too big and/or slow to Dodge incoming fire can be easily handled by a special rule. The concept does not, however, prove that mechanics cannot reasonably simulate how a huge mecha behaves in the RoboTech setting.

But there are no special rules for slow, cumbersome mecha such as Monsters or non-humanoid shapes such as Regults.

 Manchu wrote:
As to Parry, I don't follow your point about a 'block requirement.' The very notion seems irrelevant. RAW defines a successful Parry attempt as a block. I mean, it sounds like you are saying an unsuccessful Parry is not a block and therefore even mecha that could not reasonably perform a block could still perform a Parry ... which comes out to saying something like, aircraft never succeed on a Parry attempt ... which is practically the same as saying aircraft cannot Parry.

RAW may define a successful Parry attempt as "the attack is blocked", but nowhere does it say that the mecha must be capable of "blocking", however defined, to make a Parry roll:
The "block" is a line of text in the result of the action succeeding, and not a requirement for making a Parry roll. The RAW do not say a block is required to make a Parry - in fact, nothing is required to make a Parry roll. It happens automatically. The target player picks up a die and rolls a PIL check and if it's equal to or greater that the attacker's PIL Strike roll, then the "attack is blocked" and the target takes no MDC. However the player wishes to define in their imagination that "the attack is blocked" is perfectly valid as there are no rules defining the flavor text "the attack is blocked" other than the target takes no MDC damage.

My argument is that the Aircraft special rule does in no way say or indicate that the mecha cannot Parry. Playing the game with no Parry available for Aircraft would be a violation of the rules. If the intent is for Aircraft to not parry, it would need to be errata'ed so that either a) Aircraft specifically indicates with a new line of text that the mecha may not participate in the Parry step of hand to hand combat or b) a new special rule would need to be created (something like, "cumbersome" or "unmaneouverable" that could be applied to units with Aircraft and to trucks and such) that rules that the particular unit does not participate in the Parry step of hand to hand combat.

Mike1975 wrote:
there is no use spending time on it when other things have precedence

What other issue has precedence? The Blast, Ammo, and Skirmish issues you posted about don't seem to involve errors or ambiguities.

Mike1975 wrote:
So I take that to mean that you are in agreement with all the other changes?

More like, I don't think they are necessary.

1. We've done LOS


2. Aircraft and HtH

Since we are still on this one lets create 2 sets of rules. If you want re-write Parry as to evading or blocking the attack. Eventually players will have a Parry for ranged combat when units from the Southern Cross appear and have giant mecha shields like the arms of a Hovertank. This action WILL NOT BE a free action but cost a command point.

Also if you say only units "engaged" in other words grappling and punching and dodging and weaving in melee can Parry as a free action then Aircraft will be unable to Parry, in a way which this does make sense physically but it also leaves aircraft really open to HtH attacks as they do strafing runs and the aircraft has no chance to evade the attack. Maybe allow units not engaged in HtH the chance to dodge physical attacks and allow physical attacks against aircraft? Also once you have Bioroids on sleds attacking Southern Cross fighters this will make more sense.

Here are the 2 sets.
A. Where Aircraft cannot be attacked in HtH but something like the G-E that had aircraft could attack. They cannot be "engaged" preventing them from moving away.
B. Where Aircraft can be attacked in HtH and can respond in kind IF they have a HtH attack ability BUT they cannot be "engaged" preventing them from moving away.


3. Vehicle Rules, maybe allow them to body block/ram. Can Vehicles be "engaged" in HtH?


4. Blast Attacks - Present Rules allows Missiles to hit any spot from my interpretation. So you could maximize targets with Blast missiles. I think it would be more appropriate to have missiles be required to target a unit or a terrain feature such as a specific tree or building so that limits them just a bit BUT allows non-missile blast weapons like the Monster an additional advantage in that they can be targeted at a specific spot.

Not a required change but something that came to mind.

Correction/Modification
Weapon systems with the Blast ability cause huge explosions that have the chance of damaging not only the target figure or location, but also other figures or structures nearby. When a figure makes a Blast attack, the roll to Strike is made as normal to see if it hits its intended target. Direct fire weapons such as the cannons on the Monster can be targeted to hit any spot or location at a DF of 5. Missiles with the Blast trait must be fired at a terrain feature such as a tree or building or at a unit such as an enemy mecha and the blast template is centered over the target. Missiles with the Blast trait cannot normally be targeted at a specific spot such as a corner of a building or spot on the ground. Missiles with the Indirect Fire and Blast traits can be targeted at a specific spot at a DF of 6.


5. Blast weapons could scatter back over the attacker if I read the rules right and units hit by a blast can shield other units so another blast related possible fix for you guys to discuss.

Correction/Modification?????
Now determine which figure (if any) are struck and damaged as outlined above for when a Blast attack hits, based on the new location of the Blast template. Any figures on the new location can attempt to Dodge, but must equal or exceed the original Strike roll for the Blast attack. Note: Both friendly and enemy figures can be hit and damaged by the scattered Blast attack. Also take note that Blast attacks hit a defined area. If a blast attack hits a unit on the ground and units with Flight are within the blast area roll D6. On a result of a 4 to 6 that unit is also hit by the blast. Units with both Flight and Aircraft under the blast marker are hit only on a result of a 6 on a D6. The opposite will also be in effect. If the blast was targeted at one or more Aircraft then any other units with only Flight that are within the blast marker are hit on a 4-6 on a roll of a D6. Any land based units incapable of flight may be too far below the aircraft above then to be effected by the blast and will only take damage on a roll of a 6 on a single D6. One roll is made for each and every blast marker that the target is under.


6. Skirmish Rules, just a rewrite/clarification

Skirmish games use the Standard Scenarios and are intended to be played with small forces. The set up for a skirmish game is performed in the normal way outlined earlier in these rules, except for the forces used. First both players will choose a total points value for the units they wish to use for the game. This is typically somewhere between 50 and 100 points and usually never more than 200. Instead of Core Force Cards combined with Support and Special Cards, each player simply chooses any number of Support Cards or Special Cards totaling up to his point total and uses those mecha. Note: Faction Cards are not used in Skirmish games. Mecha with the Life is Cheap special ability do not have that ability in skirmish games. Mecha that normally have the Life is Cheap trait will only generate one command point for every 3 units in a skirmish game, rounding up. Zentraedi infantry only generate one Command Point for every 4 infantry, rounding up. Some sample skirmish squadrons that could face off against each other are:

1 VF-1S VS. 3 Nousjadeul-Ger
2 VF-1As VS. 6 Regults
2 Tomahawks VS. 3 Gnerls

7. Small ammo clarification that someone suggested

Ammo – Some weapons systems carry a relatively small amount of ammo and don’t have enough shots available to them to be used comfortably throughout the game. A weapon system with ammo may only be used to attack a number of times equal to the number listed after Ammo (e.g. “Ammo 3”). When a figure attacks with the weapon system, the player must mark off one ammo for that weapon system on its Force Card. Once all of the ammo has been used, that weapon system has run out of ammo and it cannot be used again during the rest of the game.

That's all I had as far as possible fixes for you all. Good luck and thanks. I'm going to push for a finished FAQ for the next update so that people will have it before things reach their doorstep.

Mike1975 wrote:
Maybe allow units not engaged in HtH the chance to dodge physical attacks?

Already suggested:

Aircraft with no hand to hand attacks may not attempt to Parry but may attempt to Dodge hand to hand attacks.

Aircraft – A mecha with the Aircraft ability may only make a single turn of up to 90 degrees to the left or the right before it begins its movement. The aircraft must them move in an absolutely straight line in the direction that its “nose” (the exact center of its front 180 degree arc) is pointing. The aircraft must move at least half its SPD in inches (up to its full SPD) during the Movement Step of its Activation, and it cannot be turned to face another direction while it is moving or after it has completed its movement.

An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat and can only be attacked with a melee attack by mecha with the Flight trait. If attacked by another mecha using a melee attack an Aircraft has the option to Dodge the attack at the normal cost of one Command Point. A mecha with the Aircraft ability can move out of base to base contact with enemy mecha without paying Command Points to do so.

All aircraft also have the Flight special ability. Please note that not all mecha with the Flight ability have the aircraft ability. Aircraft are representative of fixed wing planes, while other figures with Flight only are more like helicopters or flying battloids that can hover or move in any direction easily.

Mike, I notice you always repost the whole rule. Is the goal to rewrite the rulebook or write a separate FAQ document?

Regarding your underlined text above:

- why this new requirement of flight to make H2H attacks on an aircraft?

- what you wrote gives aircraft Dodge and Parry

- the thing about not paying CP to move away is unnecessary; aircraft already are never considered engaged

It would be helpful if you posted some background about the changes you propose instead of just the proposed change. For example, I don't get what is up with the ammo thing above ("rest of the game").

- why this new requirement of flight to make H2H attacks on an aircraft?

A destroid or Zen Infantry cannot attack an Aircraft with this limitation but a MPA or FPA can. Your not going to have Infantry that can jump up and slap an Aircraft. With Flight they could fly up and hit one though. I'm assuming fighters flying nape of the earth does not mean at Zen Infantry head level all the time.

- what you wrote gives aircraft Dodge and Parry

I can re-write, the idea is to remove Parry for Aircraft and add the Option for a dodge at a cost of a command point.

- the thing about not paying CP to move away is unnecessary; aircraft already are never considered engaged

Yeah, but as you can see, clarifying again cannot hurt since some people do not read the rules the same way. If I remove it the statement would be like this.



Aircraft – A mecha with the Aircraft ability may only make a single turn of up to 90 degrees to the left or the right before it begins its movement. The aircraft must them move in an absolutely straight line in the direction that its “nose” (the exact center of its front 180 degree arc) is pointing. The aircraft must move at least half its SPD in inches (up to its full SPD) during the Movement Step of its Activation, and it cannot be turned to face another direction while it is moving or after it has completed its movement.

An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat and can only be attacked with a melee attack by mecha with the Flight trait. If attacked by another mecha using a melee attack an Aircraft cannot Parry BUT has the option to Dodge the attack at the normal cost of one Command Point.

All aircraft also have the Flight special ability. Please note that not all mecha with the Flight ability have the aircraft ability. Aircraft are representative of fixed wing planes, while other figures with Flight only are more like helicopters or flying battloids that can hover or move in any direction easily.


Ammo, to me, it is clear, to someone, not so much so they suggested the rules change. I think the way it was written is just fine personally but added it to get additional opinions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looks like there will be a conference call today. If we can get a lot of this done I can share it then....

Mike1975 wrote:
Your not going to have Infantry that can jump up and slap an Aircraft.

I certainly agree with this. Yet another reason why hand to hand airplane combat is dumb.

So

- aircraft can take H2H attacks
- aircraft w/o H2H attacks cannot Parry but may Dodge H2H attacks
- mecha must have Flight to make H2H attacks on aircraft
- it does not cost CP to move out of B2B with aircraft
- being B2B with an aircraft does not make a mecha engaged in H2H combat

Is that everything?

I think so


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So will this work

An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat and can only be attacked with a melee attack by mecha with the Flight trait. If attacked by another mecha using a melee attack an Aircraft cannot Parry BUT has the option to Dodge the attack at the normal cost of one Command Point.

- aircraft can take H2H attacks (covered)

- aircraft w/o H2H attacks cannot Parry but may Dodge H2H attacks (covered)

- mecha must have Flight to make H2H attacks on aircraft
(covered)

- it does not cost CP to move out of B2B with aircraft (covered)

- being B2B with an aircraft does not make a mecha engaged in H2H combat (covered)

Possibly define "engaged"?

That all looks good to me, other than the rules contradiction of giving something Dodge in hand to hand combat, and then the line in hand to hand combat that says "mecha cannot Dodge"

In the realm of KISS, I'd not include that, as both a Dodge and a Parry are a PIL roll, there's mechanically no difference between the rolls. It's much more clear to just say that

"An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat and can only be attacked with a hand to hand Strike by mecha with the Flight trait. If attacked in hand to hand combat, an Aircraft must spend a Command Point if it wishes to Parry, as it's more difficult to evade close combat attacks at the speeds Aircraft travel. "

Special rules take precedence, so contradiction is not really a problem (no more so than aircraft never being engaged). Although I like the way you worded that, I believe the distinction should be preserved to take into account that some aircraft have H2H attacks and therefore (sigh I guess) be allowed to make Parry's (i.e., spend no command points) while I think Dodge should always cost CP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's my draft:

An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat and mecha are never considered engaged in hand to hand combat because they are in base to base contact with an aircraft. Only mecha with Flight can make hand to hand attacks on aircraft. Aircraft without hand to hand attacks may not attempt to Parry hand to hand attacks but may attempt to Dodge (paying one Command Point as normal).

And then there is another issue, whether aircraft with H2H attacks must Parry H2H attacks or can chose:

Aircraft with hand to hand attacks may not attempt to Dodge a hand to hand strike.

OR

Aircraft with hand to hand attacks may chose to either Dodge or Parry a hand to hand strike.