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.

What about the leap special ability. If a battlepod can leap up an 11 story building (the standard 5x5x5 size) I can see them body blocking an aircraft in a desperation move.

Also the current wording still means that we have to address the shock baton reducing movement to 0.

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


I like it. It allows aircraft with HtH like the G-E and the Ligaa with Booster to perform HtH attacks but not get engaged.

Maybe a caveat that Aircraft with HtH attacks may choose to engage so that the Invid Scout Can try to pull mecha in if it wished to do so? Since the Ligaa with booster is a space only mecha that should not be an issue with 'falling out of the sky".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
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 OR Leap 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). Aircraft with hand to hand attacks may chose to either Dodge or Parry a hand to hand strike.

Yep, including Leap is a good catch there Swabby.

We good with this.

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

or do we want to add a caveat that Aircraft with HtH attacks may choose to engage so that the Invid Scout Can try to pull mecha in if it wished to do so? Since the Ligaa with booster is a space only mecha that should not be an issue with 'falling out of the sky".

Mike1975 wrote:
do we want to add a caveat that Aircraft with HtH attacks may choose to engage so that the Invid Scout Can try to pull mecha in if it wished to do so?

As mentioned before, I should rather the Invid Scout be the exception rather than the rule.

Mike1975 wrote:
Aircraft with hand to hand attacks may chose to either Dodge or Parry a hand to hand strike.

Sorry -- this is actually a non-issue. Aircraft w/H2H attacks will always Parry because it is free. The trick is they should not be able to Dodge after a failed Parry.

You're right. Both are based on PIL skill so there is no difference.

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). Aircraft with hand to hand attacks CAN Parry a hand to hand strike.

or do we want to add a caveat that Aircraft with HtH attacks may choose to engage so that the Invid Scout Can try to pull mecha in if it wished to do so? Since the Ligaa with booster is a space only mecha that should not be an issue with 'falling out of the sky".



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was thinking Dodge Vs Anti-Missile where sometimes it's better to try to dodge

Just make sure it is clear that aircraft with H2H attacks CANNOT both Parry and Dodge H2H attacks.

Actually I think the HTH for the Scout can wait for now.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
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). Aircraft with hand to hand attacks will get a Parry attempt against a hand to hand strike but are not allowed a chance to Dodge the attack in addition to the Parry attempt.

I need to reword this


Automatically Appended Next Post:
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).

Aircraft with hand to hand attacks will get a Parry attempt against a hand to hand strike but are not allowed a chance to Dodge the attack in addition to the Parry attempt.

Maybe if I break it up a bit for clarity....?

As noted, special rules can override the standard.

No need to worry about accounting for units that might not exist in the game for half a decade when that can be addressed in a second edition and/or on the Invid unit cards themselves.

Ok., so this looks good

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 or Leap 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).

Aircraft with hand to hand attacks will get a Parry attempt against a hand to hand strike but are not allowed a chance to Dodge the attack in addition to the Parry attempt.

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.

My intention was to disallow missile based blast weapons from being able to be completely maximized and target specific spots on the ground. Being a missile the logic is that they have to target something. They cannot be just shot at a spot on the ground or in the air in the middle of a couple Gnerls. It also means that you use the defense of your target. So Gnerls with a DF of 7 are not easy targets with the player shooting a spot in the air with a DF or 5. Not a major problem this just adds realism at minimal cost and gives a bit more advantage to blast weapons like the main guns on a monster that do not need to be targeted at a specific unit or spot.

Mike if you do talk to them tommorow can you ask how they want players to ask rules questions officially?

I'll ask.

What about the next item on the list? Thoughts?

I have a bunch of questions. Most of which I have asked on the PB forums to no avail.

Here was my list:



Convoy Vehicle:

Question 1.
Should the convoy vehicle (rulebook page 80) be placed on a base as it is a "mecha"?

Question 2.
Can the convoy vehicle engage enemy mecha in hand to hand combat? It has it has no special ability modifying the standard rule and it appears to be capable of doing so even though it has no hand to hand attacks.



Attacking inanimate objects in HtH:

The rules do note state where a mecha has to be in relation to an inanimate object in order to attack the object in hand to hand.

Question:
Assuming base contact with the target inanimate object is required (and should be in the errata) can you be anywhere on or around said inanimate object to attack it in hand to hand?
Example: Can a Regult on the rooftop of a building attack the building hand to hand?



Flight stand and modeling questions:

Question 1:
Are model flight stands capable of blocking line of sight? Simple as that. I ask because the swoosh provided is both signifigant in size and solid.

RAW: "When you wish to determine if one mecha has LOS to another, draw an imaginary straight line from the center of the acting mecha's torso (or the hull for non-humanoid game pieces) to the center of the target mecha's torso (or hull).
If the line isn't completely blocked by another mecha, terrain, or anything else, than the attacking mecha has LOS to the target."

Question 2:
Do models have to be posed in the fashion they are molded in? If deviations are allowed are there any limitations?

Question 3:
Do models with supplied flight stands have to use the one provided? If not what limitations are there in regards to legal height and type of flight stand?

So here is the list I originally made. I'll add your stuff where appropriate Swabby. Some of it was already mentioned.

1. We've done LOS

2. We've done Aircraft and HtH

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. Vehicles; So for now the convoy truck could be considered scenario specific, let's assume that we are making rules for the addition of vehicles long term.
Convoy Vehicle:

Question 1.
Should the convoy vehicle (rulebook page 80) be placed on a base as it is a "mecha"?

Question 2.
Can the convoy vehicle engage enemy mecha in hand to hand combat? It has it has no special ability modifying the standard rule and it appears to be capable of doing so even though it has no hand to hand attacks.


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.

8. Attacking inanimate objects in HtH:

The rules do note state where a mecha has to be in relation to an inanimate object in order to attack the object in hand to hand.

Question:
Assuming base contact with the target inanimate object is required (and should be in the errata) can you be anywhere on or around said inanimate object to attack it in hand to hand?
Example: Can a Regult on the rooftop of a building attack the building hand to hand?

9.Are model flight stands capable of blocking line of sight? Simple as that. I ask because the swoosh provided is both signifigant in size and solid.
This is a question that I find kinda stupid but understand its importance for rules lawyers (idiots) who want to argue really obscure point to win a game. I'm more than 98% sure that you will not take the flight stands into account when drawing LOS. They are not really a piece of the figure or terrain in the game. Just like when you have some fighter games that are 3D. This could be a subset of LOS.

10. Do models have to be posed in the fashion they are molded in? If deviations are allowed are there any limitations?
This is not a major concern since this is tourney specific and we are not doing tourney specific rules yet but I will add it to the list.

11. Do models with supplied flight stands have to use the one provided? If not what limitations are there in regards to legal height and type of flight stand?
This can be really important. In my own games with standees I used full length popsicle sticks for fighter modes and half length ones for guardian mode. I will add that for the game we need to clarify this ASAP.


Swabby's suggestions
Both of these are sub-sets to #7 that I already posted.
Convoy Vehicle:

Question 1.
Should the convoy vehicle (rulebook page 80) be placed on a base as it is a "mecha"?

Question 2.
Can the convoy vehicle engage enemy mecha in hand to hand combat? It has it has no special ability modifying the standard rule and it appears to be capable of doing so even though it has no hand to hand attacks.


I could add this but why would you kick a building when you can shoot it and do the same if not more damage? I guess we could add this on the bottom for the sake of completeness.
Attacking inanimate objects in HtH:

The rules do note state where a mecha has to be in relation to an inanimate object in order to attack the object in hand to hand.

Question:
Assuming base contact with the target inanimate object is required (and should be in the errata) can you be anywhere on or around said inanimate object to attack it in hand to hand?
Example: Can a Regult on the rooftop of a building attack the building hand to hand?



Flight stand and modeling questions:

Question 1:
Are model flight stands capable of blocking line of sight? Simple as that. I ask because the swoosh provided is both signifigant in size and solid.
This is a question that I find kinda stupid but understand its importance for rules lawyers (idiots) who want to argue really obscure point to win a game. I'm more than 98% sure that you will not take the flight stands into account when drawing LOS. They are not really a piece of the figure or terrain in the game. Just like when you have some fighter games that are 3D. This could be a subset of LOS.

Question 2:
Do models have to be posed in the fashion they are molded in? If deviations are allowed are there any limitations?
This is not a major concern since this is tourney specific and we are not doing tourney specific rules yet but I will add it to the list.

Question 3:
Do models with supplied flight stands have to use the one provided? If not what limitations are there in regards to legal height and type of flight stand?
This can be really important. In my own games with standees I used full length popsicle sticks for fighter modes and half length ones for guardian mode. I will add that for the game we need to clarify this ASAP.

"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." still disengages mecha in b2b with non-aircraft.

ABC

A = friendly Aircraft
B = enemy mecha
C = friendly mecha

B is now disengaged from C due to the wording of the above.


I think all of the Aircraft dodging in hand to hand combat is becoming complicated for the sake of being complicated. Parry and Dodge mechanically work the same (one just costs 1CP). Including both Dodge and Parry in hand to hand attacks is redundant for the same effect (both are just a PIL roll that avoids damage), and therefore needlessly complex. Including Dodge in hand to hand gives weight to the argument that Parry should then exist for Ranged attacks (especially in light of Southern Cross shields, and VF Valkyries shielding their bodies with their arms, etc).

 judgedoug wrote:
"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." still disengages mecha in b2b with non-aircraft.

ABC

A = friendly Aircraft
B = enemy mecha
C = friendly mecha

B is now disengaged from C due to the wording of the above.


I think all of the Aircraft dodging in hand to hand combat is becoming complicated for the sake of being complicated. Parry and Dodge mechanically work the same (one just costs 1CP). Including both Dodge and Parry in hand to hand attacks is redundant for the same effect (both are just a PIL roll that avoids damage), and therefore needlessly complex. Including Dodge in hand to hand gives weight to the argument that Parry should then exist for Ranged attacks (especially in light of Southern Cross shields, and VF Valkyries shielding their bodies with their arms, etc).

I agree BUT looking into 2nd Gen and masters some of these distinctions must be made. Like a bioroid wanting to punch something while on a sled. Ridiculous, I know, but rules lawyers will look at it as a valid attack even if the bioroid could do a lot more damage by simply shooting. Some of these distinctions are really borderline.

I think what we have will work and have the desired effect while not being too complicated.

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 or Leap can make hand to hand attacks on aircraft.

Aircraft without hand to hand attacks cannot Parry hand to hand attacks but may attempt to Dodge (paying one Command Point as normal).

Aircraft with hand to hand attacks can roll to Parry a hand to hand strike but are not allowed a chance to Dodge the attack in addition to the Parry attempt.

Disagree.

All the above says is being B2B with an enemy aircraft does not engage a mecha.

Dodge and Parry are not the same. The former costs 1 CP/attempt.

So the next question is IF missiles with the Blast trait can target a specific spot/location or if they must fire on a figure or terrain feature.

Allowing them the chance to target a spot on a DF of 5 eliminates the advantage of having something like a Pod or a Glaug with a DF of 6 and 7 respectively or a Gnerl with a DF of 7 and makes the missile more accurate than they should be. A squad of 3 Gnerls could be hit on a DF of 5 since the missile could be targeted at a spot between them.

Then you could also argue the merits of hitting a flight of fighters with a blast and ALSO hitting a few units on the ground that are also under the blast radius.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Disagree.

All the above says is being B2B with an enemy aircraft does not engage a mecha.

Dodge and Parry are not the same. The former costs 1 CP/attempt.

Either way this resolves the issues. Let's move on.

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 or Leap can make hand to hand attacks on aircraft.

Aircraft without hand to hand attacks cannot Parry hand to hand attacks but may attempt to Dodge (paying one Command Point as normal).

Aircraft with hand to hand attacks can roll to Parry a hand to hand strike but are not allowed a chance to Dodge the attack in addition to the Parry attempt.

 Manchu wrote:
Disagree.

All the above says is being B2B with an enemy aircraft does not engage a mecha.

I'm not sure how you are reading it other than "mecha are never considered engaged in hand to hand combat because they are in base to base contact with an aircraft"

I will have my Regults advance with my Gnerls and never be engaged ever in H2H combat because they are B2B with the Gnerls.

"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." is so poorly worded for what your intent is that it will be played as literal RAW especially by competitive players. Do you mean something more like "An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat and enemy mecha are never considered engaged in hand to hand combat with an Aircraft they are in B2B contact with" ?

 Manchu wrote:
Dodge and Parry are not the same. The former costs 1 CP/attempt.

ctrl-c ctrl-v
I think all of the Aircraft dodging in hand to hand combat is becoming complicated for the sake of being complicated. Parry and Dodge mechanically work the same (one just costs 1CP). Including both Dodge and Parry in hand to hand attacks is redundant for the same effect (both are just a PIL roll that avoids damage), and therefore needlessly complex. Including Dodge in hand to hand gives weight to the argument that Parry should then exist for Ranged attacks (especially in light of Southern Cross shields, and VF Valkyries shielding their bodies with their arms, etc).

Regardless, at this point, I doubt Palladium will take any of these changes into consideration as the rules are already published, there's too much errata being thrown around and not just simple clarifications.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mike1975 wrote:


I agree BUT looking into 2nd Gen and masters some of these distinctions must be made. Like a bioroid wanting to punch something while on a sled. Ridiculous, I know, but rules lawyers will look at it as a valid attack even if the bioroid could do a lot more damage by simply shooting. Some of these distinctions are really borderline.

I had specifically pointed out Invid Scouts as possibly being Aircraft w/ H2H as they do move around mach 1; however Bioroid sleds are pretty slow (~400kph) and I would assume that they'd be classified as Flight and not Aircraft (such as N-G and Q-R) and could easily punch a Veritech Spartas Hovertank while zooming around. (by comparison, the N-Ger flies at 670 kph)

Yes, I'm aware the scouts will likely be aircraft and they will have HtH attacks....hence the last sentence should take care of that situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
special rules for them being able to choose to engage in HtH can wait for now.

 judgedoug wrote:
I'm not sure how you are reading it other than "mecha are never considered engaged in hand to hand combat because they are in base to base contact with an aircraft"

I am reading it exactly as it is written -- a mecha is never engaged because it is B2B with an enemy aircraft. That means being B2B with an enemy aircraft never causes a mecha to be considered engaged. It does not mean that a mecha is not engaged any time it is B2B with an enemy aircraft.

Dodge and Parry are not duplicative. They mean different things in terms of mechanics and in terms of what they simulate.

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
I'm not sure how you are reading it other than "mecha are never considered engaged in hand to hand combat because they are in base to base contact with an aircraft"

I am reading it exactly as it is written -- a mecha is never engaged because it is B2B with an enemy aircraft. That means being B2B with an enemy aircraft never causes a mecha to be considered engaged. It does not mean that a mecha is not engaged any time it is B2B with an enemy aircraft.

Dodge and Parry are not duplicative. They mean different things in terms of mechanics and in terms of what they simulate.

You lost me there man. The fact that the word NEVER is included should speak for itself. Explain. What does Never Mean?

Never means "not at any time" or "in no case" -- as in, there is no case where a mecha is considered engaged in H2H combat because it is B2B with an enemy aircraft. "There is no case" specifically refers to it not mattering whether the enemy aircraft does or does not have H2H attacks.

 Manchu wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
I'm not sure how you are reading it other than "mecha are never considered engaged in hand to hand combat because they are in base to base contact with an aircraft"

I am reading it exactly as it is written -- a mecha is never engaged because it is B2B with an enemy aircraft. That means being B2B with an enemy aircraft never causes a mecha to be considered engaged. It does not mean that a mecha is not engaged any time it is B2B with an enemy aircraft.

This is the curse of poorly worded rules.

"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."

"An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat " - pretty cut and dry. Aircraft do not suffer the effects of Engaged In Hand To Hand Combat.
"and mecha are never considered engaged in hand to hand combat " - okay, next up, all mecha, friendly and enemy, are never considered engaged...
"because they are in base to base contact with an aircraft." - they are never considered engaged, and why? why is that? because they are in base to base contact with an Aircraft, any Aircraft.

This is why rules need to be written so that there is no confusion due to wording.

 Manchu wrote:

Dodge and Parry are not duplicative. They mean different things in terms of mechanics and in terms of what they simulate.

Yes, Dodge is a Piloting roll and a Parry is a Piloting roll, absolutely different in terms of mechanics.

Again, we've all entered very dangerous territory where we are creating rules and not clarifying them; we are also creating rules with no playtesting to back them up.

So IF I understand you correctly you are saying that Aircraft like the G-E cannot be engaged in HtH. Which is fine. That means that it does not need to spend command points to disengage but that does not mean that it cannot perform HtH attacks.

I think the proper thing, as mentioned before is defining "Engaged" as being in a grappling combat that units cannot break out of without paying a Command Point. Units can do flyby attacks.

Again I think that although important to define this is ultimately useless because there is no reason to attack in HtH when you can shoot and do more damage UNLESS you have something like the Invid Scout that only has HtH attacks. We are defining situation where there is not practical reason to perform them at this time. A Battlepod will not try to jumpkick a passing veritech when it could shoot it.

 judgedoug wrote:
"and mecha are never considered engaged in hand to hand combat " - okay, next up, all mecha, friendly and enemy, are never considered engaged...
"because they are in base to base contact with an aircraft." - they are never considered engaged, and why? why is that? because they are in base to base contact with an Aircraft, any Aircraft.

A strained, willful misreading does not evidence confusion except regarding the merits of an argument (or lack thereof). "Because they are in base to base contact with aircraft" cannot explain why "mecha are never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat" given that the latter phrase does not describe what is the case generally (as you would misinterpret it). Given this is a rule set, the statement is prescriptive rather than descriptive: here "because" means "as caused by."

Dodge and Parry are clearly defined by RAW. As explained above, one must ignore RAW to equate them.

 Mike1975 wrote:
A Battlepod will not try to jumpkick a passing veritech when it could shoot it.

Then the simplest answer is: as a general rule, do not allow Aircraft to make or take H2H attacks.

That was where we landed before discovering the G-E entry includes H2H attacks and my suggestion there was to FAQ them away. The Zentraedi strap Eldare boosters onto Glaugs to command flights of Gnerl fighters -- not to engaged in some kind of fly by boxing match.

Assuming the G-E entry evidences intent that aircraft make and take H2H attacks, we have to then look at the rest of H2H combat which is not designed to simulate a jet zooming by and somehow punching and deflecting punches as it goes.

This does not ignore RAW, but rather defines them specifically for the cases of Aircraft as being distinct.

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 or Leap can make hand to hand attacks on aircraft.

Aircraft without hand to hand attacks cannot Parry hand to hand attacks but may attempt to Dodge (paying one Command Point as normal).

Aircraft with hand to hand attacks can roll to Parry a hand to hand strike but are not allowed a chance to Dodge the attack in addition to the Parry attempt.

Yes agreed, that is why I suggested it.

Edit plural to singular for consistency, replace "attack" with "strike":

An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat. A mecha is never considered engaged in hand to hand combat because it is in base to base contact with an aircraft. Only a mecha with Flight or Leap can make hand to hand attacks on an aircraft.

An aircraft without hand to hand attacks cannot Parry a hand to hand strike but may attempt to Dodge (paying one Command Point as normal).

An aircraft with hand to hand attacks can roll to Parry a hand to hand strike but is not allowed a chance to Dodge the strike in addition to the Parry attempt.

 Manchu wrote:
A strained, willful misreading does not evidence confusion except regarding the merits of an argument (or lack thereof). "Because they are in base to base contact with aircraft" cannot explain why "mecha are never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat" given that the latter phrase does not describe what is the case generally as you would misinterpret it. Given this is a rule set, the statement is prescriptive rather than descriptive: here "because" means "as caused by."

Dodge and Parry are clearly defined by RAW. As explained, one must ignore RAW to confuse them.

Having played in and run tournaments and done this exact job as an MI for Mongoose I can absolutely tell you that strained willful misreadings are what ruins games for the tournament scene (and then requires dozens of pages of faqs, erratas, clarifications, etc, like the 40k tournament bibles) as well as pick up and play games in stores as there can easily be multiple interpretations. Even if a "strained, willful misreading" may only occur in one out of ten interpretations, there are now one out of ten players who are playing the game incorrectly. Why not write the rule clearly in the first place so there are no chances of "strained, willful misreadings"?

Regardless, I'd like Mike to ask his contacts whether they'd like complete rewrites of the rules or simply clarifications. We are very much doing the former.