Forums of the Megaverse®

I haven't seen anything that officially addresses these in a search of the forums, so here goes...

1. The rules state that flyers ignore all terrain for purposes of movement, i.e. they can move across terrain of any height or type without penalties. However when it comes to shooting time and calculating LOS, the rules state that you draw true LOS from mecha to mecha. Is this really correct? It seems like a very poor mechanic. The RAW essentially grounds all flying unit types immediately after movement.

2. Related to my first question, can flying units take advantage of cover? Again, the RAW says yes, but this just seems silly.

3. The RAW allows for melee attacks against flyers. Again, I have to ask, "Really?"

FWIW, Here's my take on how LOS should work:
First off, it's clear to me that great effort was put into making the rules simple and easy, but LOS in particular seems to be too dumbed down. Logically, if you have a special ability that lets you fly and ignore terrain for movement, then you're still up in the air for everyone to see when the shooting starts.

If I had written the rule I would have said that if you use flight to bypass terrain then you are considered flying and have LOS to everything and everything has LOS to you. If you don't bypass terrain, you'd be considered flying nap of the earth and true LOS would be used instead. Alternately, you could set your altitude in whole inches at the start of the turn and true LOS could be measured to that point.

Finally, I'd only give cover to flyers using nap of the earth movement, and melee attacks would only be possible by other flying units (e.g. Guardian mode vs Recovery Pod)

Thoughts?

I sent corrections/suggestions on this back last year in September to PB and unfortunately they did not take it into account when they did the FAQ.

Correction/Modification
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.

Now as far as flight, a proposed fix was that you place a die next to the mini when they move. Every digit is 2 inches above the underlying terrain. So if you have a die with a 3 next to a mini then in essence the unit is 6 inches off whatever is under it. Players can also change up to 1 inch of height for every inch moved forward. So a fighter that is on the table and nosed into the back of a building does not magically fly straight up 12 inches and over a building instantaneously and then back to ground level as soon as he clears the building. It requires more tracking but does fill in and is fairly simple. Some ideas for moving in an arc have been thrown about too but those have their own problems.

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 listed on their stat card cannot Parry hand to hand attacks but may attempt to Dodge (paying one Command Point as normal).

Aircraft with hand to hand attacks listed on their stat cards such as the Glaug-Eldare can roll to Parry a hand to hand strike as normal without paying a Command Point BUT are not allowed a chance to Dodge the attack in addition to the Parry attempt.

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.



Shock Batons Vs Aircraft and Vehicles
Aircraft that do not have the Afterburner trait struck by a shock baton will move forward in a straight line at half their SPD attribute. The effect lasts until their next activation on the subsequent turn. They are not allowed to make a turn at the start of their movement phase until the effects of the baton have abated. If they fly off the table they are considered destroyed as normal.

Aircraft that have the Afterburner trait struck by a shock baton will move forward in a straight line at half their SPD attribute and make their full Afterburner move as normal. The effect lasts until their next activation on the subsequent turn. They are not allowed to make a turn at the start of their movement phase or for the Afterburner step of their movement until the effects of the baton have abated. If they fly off the table they are considered destroyed as normal.

Vehicle struck with a Shock Baton will not be able to move. The effect lasts until their next activation on the subsequent turn. They are not allowed to make a turn at the start of their movement phase until the effects of the baton have abated.

Mike,

Cool. Thanks for sharing. I think those are some good suggestions.

I'm new to the forums here. Do we get a lot of interaction with the powers that be on this site? i.e. will these (and other questions) ever get official answers or do we have to wait and see if they show up in the official FAQ?

i would assume that flying units are using Nape of Earth Flight..

so while moving they are popping up and over terrain.. but then dropping back down near the ground once over it. this is commonly used when flying low in a combat zone, because it affords the plane the most cover from enemy fire and the least chance of detection. during it they are often literally only a few feet off the ground.

it is dangerous when done in built up areas and forested/hilly/mountainous terrain, but if doing attacks against ground targets at low altitude it is the recommended approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njyhTcqtmto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFP9vDrgZOI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9QHqZaCd9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjqy_Kml0tU

I agree with what you are reading and asking. However, I think the definition of Aircraft implies that they cannot be attacked in hand-to-hand combat. It specifically says that they are 'never considered engaged' and then makes some unnecessary statement about movement which really implies that this is all about movement and not actually about being targeted. It is certainly against the spirit that a battle pod should be able to kick a VF-1 streaking overhead, even at 'nape of the earth' height as glitterboy explained, which I know from conversations at Gencon was what they were trying to portray. I think we are all on the same page here- I would simply suggest that you negate h-t-h attacks and either home rule the rest or just deal with it in a public setting.

Right and Wrong.....It says they cannot be engaged and some argue that when it talks about requiring a unit that is engaged in HTH to pay a Command Point to leave HTH as being the reason it is stated that way. A fighter can be attacked....but can never be engaged....or forced to remain in the melee. I know that's splitting hairs but that IS the argument and I do find it a valid one.

This is a minis game, not an RPG, so some things require a ruling. House rules are not going to help anyone in a Tournament or when you have a game that has no GM to arbitrate. The rules are the arbiter.

Mike, that's exactly how I interpret the rule. It specifically states that "An aircraft is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat. A mecha with the Aircraft ability can move out of base to base contact with enemy mecha without having to pay Command Points to do so." The second sentence clearly states that aircraft may leave base to base contact and that means that they can enter base to base contact--otherwise there's no reason to say that they can leave it.

As written, the rules allow for a very broken tactic. If your opponent is out of command points, you can use your aircraft to keep some of the opposing force from doing anything during the turn; except for making melee attacks against your aircraft. Here's how:

Assume that the Zentradi player has 0 command points left and one squad of artillery battle pods that have not been activated. The UDF player moves an aircraft (say a VF-1A) into base-to-base contact with an artillery battle pod. The battle pod is now engaged per the rules and may not use its weapons at all. The only thing it can do is make a melee attack against the VF-1A. They both have equal piloting skills, so it's a straight opposed D6 roll. Do the same thing with a Super VF-1S and your piloting is two better than the artillery battle pod, which improves your chances of not being struck in melee. All of that is doable in the RAW. Seems against the spirit of the rules to me.

If you look further at the H-T-H rules the "Engaged in hand to hand combat" section states once the mecha are in b2b contact they are considered to be engaged. And the "Aircraft" rule states that mecha with the aircraft rule can never be engaged. Yes the first paragraph says you only need to move into b2b contact. However they would not repeated use the word Engaged if were not important to the topic. I understand it that you can not engage mecha with the aircraft rule in h-t-h.

I agree but the very fact that their is discussion on this means that errata/clarification should be made.

Absolutely I'm definitely bending things there to try and make a point. It's vague and some errata/clarification from the powers that be would be great. In a casual game, this particular issue is never going to be a problem as I think common sense will prevail, but I'd hate to be in a tournament with this sort of stuff still unsettled.

Anyone remember the movie Firefox? In order to pilot the experimental fighter Eastwood had to 'think Russian." I think to read through big chunks of this rulebook you have to 'think Palladium.' That being said, I think we are all on the same page on this one: The book only implies things, it does not spell them out. It probably would be more clear if it had fewer sentences in this instance. I've been ruling Aircraft cannot be engaged, which also means targeted. Yes, it would be great to get an official word on this. Anyone care to give one?

Official word? We'll be lucky to get a vague response filtered through a third party that describes "intent" while managing to go against everything that the rulebook actually does spell out!

I still laugh when I look at that giant list of "playtesters" in the front of the rulebook. None of ya saw this stuff and wondered...???

Well, as the third party in this reference, I try to get answers to the questions that appear here and other places. I do this because I like the game, I do this as a volunteer. And even though some of the rhetoric seems more aimed at starting a flame war than getting questions answered, I still work when I can to get the official answers (despite what I believe to be right or wrong).

I have a call into the team this afternoon, I will bring this topic up.

Please try to keep this civil.

Nope - no intent on a flame war. I think it is great the work you do and I appreciate it and extend my thanks to you for being 'up front' on this.
But do you REALLY think you are the one, as a third party volunteer, who should be responsible for taking questions on an OFFICIAL company website to the company themselves? Pretty sure the guys at PB have access to this site, right?

The question you should ask them is why they don't show up here and support their product with timely and official responses. Or at least say that is not their intent so we can stop wondering. Designer? Developer? Head playtester?

Either way, someone owes you a beer or two, Phaze!

Ok... I'll accept that. Thanks.



In most circumstances I would agree with you. But the thing most people don't realize is that Palladium isn't a company like GW or wizards. Palladium is a hand full of guys who really try to please their audience. In some ways that's cool, but in others it can lead you astray from your intended path and direction.

Now throw in working with another company that has it own ideas,
then send the collaboration to the owner of the IP who has its own ideas that trump yours.
Then go around in a circle until all parties are happy.

Then post the progress to your fans, who proceed to tear your work to shreds. And sometimes this firestorm causes you to go back to the drawing board and start over.

You see...I'm selfish. I want my minis (wave 2). Every minute I spend doing this for Palladium is one minute they can spend on the task of finishing the stuff to the Kickstarters. I have had many conversations with Kevin and Jeff that they trusted me as an MA coordinator, then later as an unofficial spokesman for rules considerations because I try to be unbiased and objective. While I have stake in the game as a kickstarter supporter and MA, I remember that I didn't design the game and I can't inject my opinion into their answers, right or wrong. When asked, I give them my opinion, but I always try to keep it objective and constructive.

I could have been one of those who started screaming during the kickstarter, or when the first runs of the Spartan appeared a year ago (commonly referred to as Spatangate). But I chose to keep quiet, be careful with what I said, and try to be encouraging. It has gotten me much closer to my end goal...To have fun playing Robotech. I have met more people I would consider friends in the last year, than I can keep in touch with from all over the US and Canada; like Pete from my neck of the woods; Nate , victor, and Damion from the West coast; the unimaginable NMI from here in the Midwest; Matt (Mr Awesome GM and the Watcher of the Star Alignment, or some such nonsense) and all of the Palladium staff. From my position I can organize and help out MAs running all Palladium games. The reward? Good times.

Shouldn't Palladium do their own errata? Ideally yes. The question I have for you is would you rather have a Palladium staffer searching the boards for questions to answer, or packaging product to ship out?



Lol... Well, Palladium has been good to me, and I have had a lot of fun playing their games.

I could ramble on but I have a group of my sons friends that are dying to play Rifts....gotta go.

Later Peeps.

With Flying and Jumping massive anti grave capable mecha and such silly fantastic things I don't find it odd at all to attack a flyer in melee. But don't forget the MOST important part of them not being engaged. First they can leave combat whenever they want with no command points So on So on... ALSO if they get jumped buy 3-4 pods they are not engaged by anything so none of those enemies gets the Bonus +1's for ganging up on you.

"Shouldn't Palladium do their own errata? Ideally yes. The question I have for you is would you rather have a Palladium staffer searching the boards for questions to answer, or packaging product to ship out?" -- Phaze

I would rather they pay attention to these forums for the questions, concerns and issues with the product they have already shipped / produced before they potentially add to those concerns, in this case - by greatly adding to the number of mecha that can fly or use Blast that will appear in Wave 2.

Now I have no facts in hand, but does not dealing with this create less interest / demand for Wave 2? Does it keep people from playing Wave 1 as they sit on the sidelines waiting for input? I don't know. I do know there are about 6 players in my group and we have started to step back from the game due to these concerns. And if the overseas shipments just recently went out, could the same questions happen when they've assembled their figs and start playing? Do we want them here seeing 3 month old conversations that have not been officially addressed?

So yes - I guess I do expect them to be here dealing with this as opposed to figuring out how to configure a sprue for some Wave 2 mecha.

And to reiterate my appreciation - thank you for your input!

Pete

PS : As an aside - another thread just popped up with queries around Blast, so it does seem to need some attention.

There is one problem with this scenario, and that is that the Aircraft unit "is never considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat". If that unit is not, neither is the unit it is in base to base contact with. Therefore, the tactic of trying to tie up that pod that has no CP doesn't work as it's not engaged and is free to do as it pleases. One unit cannot be considered engaged if the other is not. The entire concept requires both to be engaged in H2H.

A reasonable assumption, but it's not clearly stated. adding 'Cannot be engaged or engage another model in H2H' removes the ambiguity.

I know that's a pedantic stance to take, but given some of the RAW shinanigans I've seen pulled off at tournaments for other games, you need to be crystal clear on this sort of stuff.