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.

so...........can we move on to blast........or do we need to revisit this some more?

I have asked Mike whether we are rewriting or clarifying a half dozen times already.

I agree all this stuff about aircraft is rewriting.

Here's how it works RAW:

- aircraft can make (entry allowing) and take H2H attacks
- all aircraft can Parry H2H strikes
- aircraft are never engaged in H2H
- a mecha B2B with an enemy aircraft is engaged in H2H

I would say that all of this is quite clear RAW. Then again, I am reading it for comprehension rather than for the sake of argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Mike1975: Maybe I don't understand the issue but Blast seems fine as-is to me. Swabby's questions are more pressing because they deal with existing ambiguities in the published rules.

Except for the "the two are engaged" portion of Engaged in Hand to Hand, which is pretty clear to me of the Two To Tango Principle. (the ol' triple tee pee)

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

Why do conventional ground vehicles require bases? Are you worried TFG will claim it is the only way they can ever be B2B? See also buildings.

Can the convoy vehicle engage enemy mecha in hand to hand combat?

If a passing jet can do it, a slower moving conventional ground vehicle certainly can.

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.

Must be B2B. Oh God, buildings have no bases! It will ruin the tournaments!

Can a Regult on the rooftop of a building attack the building hand to hand?

It has a stomp attack, right? Nevermind, buildings have no bases and therefore cannot take H2H attacks.

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 specifies LOS can be blocked by "mecha, terrain, or anything else." As atmosphere completely fills the space between any two models, LOS is clearly always blocked.

 Manchu wrote:
I have asked Mike whether we are rewriting or clarifying a half dozen times already.

I agree all this stuff about aircraft is rewriting.

Here's how it works RAW:

- aircraft can make (entry allowing) and take H2H attacks
- all aircraft can Parry H2H strikes
- aircraft are never engaged in H2H
- a mecha B2B with an enemy aircraft is engaged in H2H

I would say that all of this is quite clear RAW. Then again, I am reading it for comprehension rather than for the sake of argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Mike1975: Maybe I don't understand the issue but Blast seems fine as-is to me. Swabby's questions are more pressing because they deal with existing ambiguities in the published rules.

However you want to consider this, we are doing an errata if that makes you feel better. In essence fixing problems with the rules within reason and filling in the gaps. Not re-writing the entire rules set. I have explained this.

- aircraft can make (entry allowing) and take H2H attacks (Correct)
- all aircraft can Parry H2H strikes (Correct Providing they have HtH options, part of the reason for the fix)
- aircraft are never engaged in H2H (Correct Providing that engaged means that they are in essence grappling/kung-fu fighting and must pay Command Points to move away)
- a mecha B2B with an enemy aircraft is engaged in H2H (False, again the word NEVER means that this is not possible)

So the problem is also defining engaged as requiring to pay Command Points to move out of combat since the units are grappling/kung-fu fighting.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why do conventional ground vehicles require bases?

Range is done B2B, so vehicles will need bases.

Can the convoy vehicle engage enemy mecha in hand to hand combat?

Yes, if the vehicle has a HtH attack listed, then you would also be required to be "engaged".

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.

Must be B2B. The only reason to ever really hit a building in melee is if you can do more damage that way (Invid) or have a scenario based requirement (save the pedestrian)

Can a Regult on the rooftop of a building attack the building hand to hand?

It has a stomp attack, right? (Correct)

Are model flight stands capable of blocking line of sight?

I see the point in asking this although in reality the answer is common sensical I understand that we cannot rely on tournament players to have common sense so I would say that no and will discuss this with PB.

Yeah most of those questions are asked to preempt problems rather than to attempt to get away with anything.

The base question for the convoy vehicle is important because according to RAW it is a mecha and not an inanimate object. Mecha require base to base contact for HtH. It probably should have a base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also important to note that the flight stand LOS block is perfectly legit with the wording in the current rule. Stupid, but legit all the same.

 Swabby wrote:
Yeah most of those questions are asked to preempt problems rather than to attempt to get away with anything.

The base question for the convoy vehicle is important because according to RAW it is a mecha and not an inanimate object. Mecha require base to base contact for HtH. It probably should have a base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also important to note that the flight stand LOS block is perfectly legit with the wording in the current rule. Stupid, but legit all the same.

Agreed, just going through this makes me realize how much I'm glad I don't play against rules lawyers.

 Swabby wrote:
Also important to note that the flight stand LOS block is perfectly legit with the wording in the current rule.

So is my comment about atmosphere.

 Mike1975 wrote:
Agreed, just going through this makes me realize how much I'm glad I don't play against rules lawyers.

IMO rules lawyering is about precise understanding; what we have been talking about is intentional misunderstanding.

 Manchu wrote:
Why do conventional ground vehicles require bases? Are you worried TFG will claim it is the only way they can ever be B2B?

Because they are mecha

Must be B2B. Oh God, buildings have no bases! It will ruin the tournaments!

I am way more worried about TFG on this one, tournaments or not. Especially given the advantage removing a building can give you, especially if there are enemy units on the building. They actually do not define base to base or base to building requirements for attacking a building. Common sense says that you should be next to the building to attack it, but common sense is not a rule, or that common for that matter.

It has a stomp attack, right? Nevermind, buildings have no bases and therefore cannot take H2H attacks

The rules clearly state they can be attacked without clearly defining the limitation as per mecha. Simpe fix imo that takes away one more potentially annoying interaction with TFG.

RAW specifies LOS can be blocked by "mecha, terrain, or anything else." As atmosphere completely fills the space between any two models, LOS is clearly always blocked.

TFG!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agreed, just going through this makes me realize how much I'm glad I don't play against rules lawyers.

There is nothing more frustrating in the entire world (hyperbole obviously) than to play someone who pulls something like this then having the TO agree with their take on it because of sloppy rules. And it does happen. Better to fix anything we can find early on, no matter how dumb it sounds.

 Swabby wrote:

There is nothing more frustrating in the entire world (hyperbole obviously) than to play someone who pulls something like this then having the TO agree with their take on it because of sloppy rules. And it does happen. Better to fix anything we can find early on, no matter how dumb it sounds.

Not only does it happen, it happens all the time. It happens so often that poor wording and broken rules have to be used by players competing in any sort of level where there's money/prizes/reputation at stake, because the poor wording/broken rule is being uses by every other player and by not abusing it as well, you are handicapping yourself.

We can all get frustrated over this and claim some sort of moral high ground, but if this game has any hope of being played in tournaments - or even as a semi-competitive pick up and play game - it needs to have crystal clear wording with no room for mistakes. A successful miniatures game is one which has players that play against multiple other players multiple times per week; not one that is played once every six months before eventually being sold on ebay. Therefore the rules must have no ambiguity in them so that they are consistent between different people of varying education levels being able to comprehend them and play them the same.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Swabby wrote:

There is nothing more frustrating in the entire world (hyperbole obviously) than to play someone who pulls something like this then having the TO agree with their take on it because of sloppy rules. And it does happen. Better to fix anything we can find early on, no matter how dumb it sounds.

Not only does it happen, it happens all the time. It happens so often that poor wording and broken rules have to be used by players competing in any sort of level where there's money/prizes/reputation at stake, because the poor wording/broken rule is being uses by every other player and by not abusing it as well, you are handicapping yourself.

We can all get frustrated over this and claim some sort of moral high ground, but if this game has any hope of being played in tournaments - or even as a semi-competitive pick up and play game - it needs to have crystal clear wording with no room for mistakes. A successful miniatures game is one which has players that play against multiple other players multiple times per week; not one that is played once every six months before eventually being sold on ebay. Therefore the rules must have no ambiguity in them so that they are consistent between different people of varying education levels being able to comprehend them and play them the same.

Very true, but once we agree on something we need to get moving along to the next and not continue to beat one thing to death ad nauseum

 Mike1975 wrote:

Very true, but once we agree on something we need to get moving along to the next and not continue to beat one thing to death ad nauseum

We also need to really know the intent on some of these things. For instance, if we're carte blanche removing H2H from Aircraft, but the designers intended for the G-E to fight in H2H, then it's points value would need to be adjusted down to represent a slight loss in usefulness. If we say Aircraft cannot be attacked in H2H, but the designers intended for Aircraft to be attacked (Invid on Alphas) then anything with Aircraft would need it's points value to go up as now they just ignore close combat threats entirely. And so on.

IRL there will always be ambiguities. And even if a rule set contains no mistakes in the rules, there will (as demonstrated above) be mistakes in how players read them. Asinine behavior is just the icing on that cake. This is why all competitions involve impartial people qualified by expertise to act as judges/referees.

IMO a FAQ is supposed to address ambiguities that a judge/referee acting in good faith could not resolve purely as a matter of a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

I think the currently published rules are clear as to these points:

- aircraft can make (entry allowing) and take H2H attacks
- all aircraft can Parry H2H strikes
- aircraft are never engaged in H2H
- a mecha B2B with an enemy aircraft is engaged in H2H

Even the last point is clear: the aircraft special rule only supersedes the general rule as to the aircraft.

Therefore, none of this requires FAQ. That said, I think these points add up to turning up silliness and turning down theme.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Mike1975 wrote:

Very true, but once we agree on something we need to get moving along to the next and not continue to beat one thing to death ad nauseum

We also need to really know the intent on some of these things. For instance, if we're carte blanche removing H2H from Aircraft, but the designers intended for the G-E to fight in H2H, then it's points value would need to be adjusted down to represent a slight loss in usefulness. If we say Aircraft cannot be attacked in H2H, but the designers intended for Aircraft to be attacked (Invid on Alphas) then anything with Aircraft would need it's points value to go up as now they just ignore close combat threats entirely. And so on.

I spoke to Jeff at PB about it today and our interpretation that Aircraft can be attacked made perfect sense to him. I will have another call Friday where I hope to hammer things out some more.

Okay guys. Opinion time. Page 80 (again) lists the airborne assault special rule for scenarios. This is not the whole rule, just the pertinent bits:

"The player places the blast template anywhere on the board in open terrain" (snip) "and the mecha are placed ON the blast template"

Does anyone else see an issue with having a squad sit on the blast template? I mean you might need that thing. Just seems weird that you would actually put your minis on it. Especially given that nothing bad happens if you have too many mecha in the squad to fit on it.

Also take a look at the interations between airborne assault and strategic deployment. Both these rules are kind of a mess, especially given that airborne assault modifies strategic deployment. I honestly dont even know where to begin with them at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mike there needs to be something added to rules priority section that special scenario rules can both further modify standard rules and special abilities (such as cumbersome under the bad visibility rule) as well as other special scenario rules.

Such as the Monster not being able to shot further than 36 inches in Bad Conditions?

I think maybe a sentence in the beginning that says scenario rules override standard rules for game play or some such?

I think that is a given....or I'm misunderstanding your point.

As far as the Blast template you would hope people would have the brains to remove the template once the units are in place, but then again we are talking Tournament players.

Heavy gravity special rule takes flight away from all mecha with it and replaces it with leap. Ummm... Seriously? *Head desk*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

As far as the Blast template you would hope people would have the brains to remove the template once the units are in place, but then again we are talking Tournament players.

It would be better to place them under the template so you could just lift it away. As written it could be used for fudging movement and it is generally a pain in the ass.

The bit about cumbersome is that the entire board becomes rough terrain, unless the mecha involved have the cumbersome special rule. It is at the very end of the rule description, and suddenly exempts cumbersome mecha from itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would add a sentance at the end to the effect of "special scenario rules can further modify standard rules, special abilities and even other special scenario rules"

And while it is a given it can lead to some really weird rules interactions.

 Swabby wrote:
Heavy gravity special rule takes flight away from all mecha with it and replaces it with leap. Ummm... Seriously? *Head desk*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

As far as the Blast template you would hope people would have the brains to remove the template once the units are in place, but then again we are talking Tournament players.

It would be better to place them under the template so you could just lift it away. As written it could be used for fudging movement and it is generally a pain in the ass.

The bit about cumbersome is that the entire board becomes rough terrain, unless the mecha involved have the cumbersome special rule. It is at the very end of the rule description, and suddenly exempts cumbersome mecha from itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would add a sentance at the end to the effect of "special scenario rules can further modify standard rules, special abilities and even other special scenario rules"

And while it is a given it can lead to some really weird rules interactions.

I don't see a big problem with the Leap deal and light gravity. It's like you have bounding Destroids. The only problem is units like the Male Power Armor that do have flight are not written as to gaining Leap so and neither is a veritech in Battloid mode so not you have Destroids outrunning them. That needs to be fixed.

I agree on the template. The only point is to keep them all in a 5 inch radius BUT if you have 12 Battlepods from an Attrition squadron that can be a problem. Then you could add 2 Support Squadrons and a Glaug and have 25 units trying to fit on a 5 inch radius and now you REALLY have a problem.

And like I said a quick statement that scenario rules could override normal rules like if you have damaged mecha with limited ammo or something.

The problem is that that aircraft are mecha with the flight special ability.

Instead they become aircraft with the leap special ability.

Bounding, leaping gnerls.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The thing about the template is that it doesn't matter if you have extra models that dont fit under it. They just snuggle up base to base.

I have two issues with the airborne assault special rule, putting the minis on the template itself and the constant rerolling of scatter until you find a suitable location for them to land (which could very well end up off the table).

The problem is that that aircraft are mecha with the flight special ability.

Instead they become aircraft with the leap special ability.

Bounding, leaping gnerls.


No...stupid mecha terminology. All Units WITHOUT Flight or Leap gain Leap. So now Male Power Armor only have a SPD of 5 and Destroids have a Speed of 5-7 AND Leap so now they are magically faster. It SHOULD read that units with Flight that are not Aircraft also gain the Leap trait OR that units with Flight and Aircraft gain the Afterburner trait.

That is light gravity Mike, read heavy gravity.

I have no issue with light, that makes sense.

Again, same thing....a failure of the stupid decision to put mecha every freaking place. The first thing I did when I rewrote the rules was replace half the mecha with Models and the other half with figures. Both Light and Heavy are wonky due to using the term mecha and forgetting that mecha is also aircraft and vehicles and everything else. A bounding convoy vehicle in light grav!

Haha indeed. Vehicles and aircraft should not be considered mecha. It would avoid so much nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Convoy vehicles in light gravity gives the defender a ridiculous advantage.

Light Gravity
Under the effects of light gravity, all mecha without either the Aircraft, Vehicle, or Flight abilities, except those with the Cumbersome Ability, gain the Leap special ability for the duration of that battle. Mecha that have Leap or Flight special ability may multiply their SPD attribute by 1.5 for the duration of that battle.

(In essence Destroids and similar stuff gain Leap while Veritech in Battoild, Male Power Armor and Female Power Armor get 1.5 time their SPD while Battlepods multiply their SPD by 1.5 while retaining Leap)

Heavy Gravity
Under the effects of heavy gravity, like a gravity mine, all the mecha have their SPD reduced by half (to a minimum SPD of 1). Mecha that do not have the Aircraft or Vehicle special ability but have the Flight special ability lose it but gain the Leap ability, while those with the Hover or Leap ability lose it for the duration of the battle. Mecha with the Aircraft special ability reduce their SPD by half (to a minimum of 3, if the result is less than 3 cannot operate in Heavy Gravity).

Light Gravity
Vehicle = Unchanged
Aircraft 1.5x Normal
Veritech in Battloid SPD 7.5 and Flight
Veritech in Guardian SPD 15 and Flight
Veritech in Fighter SPD 18 plus Flight and Afterburner
Tomahawk SPD 5 and Leap
Battlepod SPD 7.5 and Leap
Glaug SPD 10.5 and Leap
Male Power Armor SPD 7.5 and Flight
Female Power Armor SPD 18 Flight

Heavy Gravity
Vehicle = 1/2 Normal
Aircraft 1/2 Normal
Veritech in Battloid SPD 2.5 and Leap
Veritech in Guardian SPD 5 and Leap
Veritech in Fighter SPD 6 plus Afterburner
Tomahawk SPD 2.5
Battlepod SPD 5
Glaug SPD 7
Male Power Armor SPD 2.5 and Leap
Female Power Armor SPD 6 and Leap

Jumping back on this Mike, was there a confirmation from your sources about some of our assumptions and what clarifications they needed from the community?

Disappointing that the same topic ("melee combat with aircraft") is still being discussed on pg. 9. Can we move on please?

As a side note, when I saw the rules two years ago, my comment was an over-empathize on melee rules. I can count on one hand the amount of hand to hand attacks I saw in Macross. The same with Masters and Invid Invasion- where the basic Invid Mecha had no ranged attacks! The show was all about shooting, not melee attacks.

Also at the time, a VF-1A could "jump kick" a Battle Pod and do more damage then it's Gun Pod (but not as much as a missile...).

Nice to know the rules haven't changed since then.

Well, weren't the rules suggestions/FAQ supposed to be offered up to Palladium a couple of weeks ago?

Any update on their thoughts, how it's being handled, if policies are going in place to work out and provide FAQ and Errata for players? Even just "yeah, there's going to be a webpage that's easily found on the site".

Obviously it's not particularly pressing, as only a few hundred boxes (if that) seem to have gone out, but they'll probably want to address it sooner rather than later. Given how long it took them to get the RRT subforum set up on their own forums, and an email address for people to contact them with issues, it may take a while to get that arranged as well, and once people start playing games, they're going to start having questions.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Disappointing that the same topic ("melee combat with aircraft") is still being discussed on pg. 9. Can we move on please?

As a side note, when I saw the rules two years ago, my comment was an over-empathize on melee rules. I can count on one hand the amount of hand to hand attacks I saw in Macross. The same with Masters and Invid Invasion- where the basic Invid Mecha had no ranged attacks! The show was all about shooting, not melee attacks.

Also at the time, a VF-1A could "jump kick" a Battle Pod and do more damage then it's Gun Pod (but not as much as a missile...).

Nice to know the rules haven't changed since then.

That was two weeks ago. Additionally, there's not a great emphasis on H2H in the rules. Shooting is usually the best option and very few mecha can cause any considerable damage in H2H - the exceptions being Spartans and characters, or dumping a large amount of CP to make an effective H2H happen. H2H takes up a grand total of 1.5 pages and the H2H options another 0.5 page.

I can also count on one hand the number of times we see destroids in Macross. I know every single time it happens, because I used to use frame by frame on my laserdiscs to study the scenes back in the mid 1990's. That doesn't mean that there's no destroids. I can also count the number of times we see the Salamander Tactical Corps mecha in Southern Cross (once- episode 46), but again, that doesn't mean they don't exist in the series. There's more melee combats in the series than scenes involving Destroids, yet I am not advocating for there to be more melee than Destroids in the game.

My melee rules:

Melee
To make a hand to hand attack, an attacking unit only needs to move into base to base contact with the enemy unit that it wishes to attack (during the Movement Step), then it may make hand to hand attacks against the unit in base to base contact.

When fighting in hand to hand, both units roll a 1d6 adding their piloting skill. The higher roll wins the hand to hand and inflicts their melee damage on the loser. Ties are inconclusive and neither unit takes any damage. If a unit does not have the Hands trait, it is a -3 to this roll. If the winner roll is 2x or higher the loser’s roll, double damage is inflicted. If a unit does not have the Hands trait, it cannot do more than its standard damage in hand to hand with its cumbersome strikes.

Each additional attacker gains a +1 to their attack roll, while the defender uses their single roll for all opponents. For attacks against an opponent’s back side, a +2 is added to the attacker’s die roll. For attacks against the side of a unit, a +1 is added to the attacker’s die roll.

No ally can fire into hand to hand combats unless a command point is spent to order that unit. Even when the command point is spent a -1 to hit is applied, and any roll (natural or modifier) of a ‘1’ hits the ally instead. There is a single other exception that does not require a command point be used, and that is for units with the Temper trait, which are allowed to fire into melee but will hit their own troops on a natural or modified 1 to 3.

Note that all my units have a single # that represents their damage in a melee. 'Temper' is something Khyron has, or Miriya as a Zentraedi.

To me, in a melee you either win or lose, it isn't boxing but it is doing everything possible to hurt your enemy. It won't have precise maneuvers (where is the "pick up a beam and take out the opponents head" or "rip front chest off with bare hands" maneuvers?).

Who cares about if the attack was a punch, power punch, kick, or whatever?!?!?

Oh well, just my opinion I guess, surely there are folks that like that. However Jeff told me at Gencon he didn't care for that rule either, but he was overruled. I didn't ask Carmen about it :(

This was my post on the other thread regarding melee; I'll copypasta it over here as it was quickly buried.

I am an advocate of abstraction over granularity if the results are the same. Hence why I'm a fan of the (aforementioned) Bolt Action combat which is very quick and very decisive and there's no H2H combat over turns. However, many players used to more detailed systems like 40k are totally thrown off by it. RRT is obviously more complex than BA but the H2H is still simpler than 40k's # of Attacks at WS vs WS then S vs T then Armor Save, which is already is quite natural for many players. RRT just has several H2H options, many of which won't be relevant for models with only one attack, and many mecha can't use them all. I haven't even played yet and I've already memorized what each does - basically like memorizing the base stats for models in traditional tabletop games. Use it a few times and you'll know it by heart.

As a summary;

Body Block - great for positioning
Club - effectively an "attack with melee weapon", once per turn
Grab - great for restraining mecha. Can easily see this being used in scenarios
Kick - can only be used once per turn
Jump Kick - once per turn and costs 1 CP
Punch - unlimited
Power Punch - costs 1CP
Stomp - can only perform if you have multiple attacks

A Regult can only perform BB, Kick, Jump Kick, and Stomp. Since Regults have one attack, Stomp is useless unless it's a character of some sort. BB only causes 2 points but maybe you want to knock a Destroid off a cliff? So that leaves Kick or Jump Kick. Jump Kick costs 1CP and causes 5 MD. Kick is 3 MD. Your Regult's particle beams cause 4 MD. There's not going to be many circumstances where you're gonna be flying your Regults into H2H.

the H2H attacks like Stomp, Punch, etc are really only going to be used by mecha with multiple H2H attacks which - correct me if I'm wrong - are only the Spartan and a few characters which get +1 or +2 H2H attacks. You may spend 1CP per additional attack - but that's going to drain your CP pool quickly if you do a Kick then a Power Punch, which will cost you 2 CP (1 to make an extra attack and 1 just for the Power Punch alone).

TL;DR while I agree that the H2H options are excessive but the majority of them will only be used by a few mecha or characters in the game, or during especially gnarly H2H combats. It's effectively one half of one page that contains a list of all 8 of the melee weapons and options in the game. Meanwhile almost every mecha has several of it's own unique ranged weapons systems; dozens and dozens of unique weapon systems versus a handful of generic/shared H2H attacks puts it closer to warboss' desire of "You can probably find several DOZEN shots of ranged combat for EACH melee combat shot in most every episode" desired ratio.