Found it! Haha, my memory did not fail me! Pg. 220 boxed info describes the penalties and effects of fleeing and or leaving melee (if a withdrawal is not done or cannot be done, enemy gets a free standard attack, if the player runs or is forced to run, they suffer the free standard attack plus the attacker gains the running bonus to hit. From each person/monster they are engaged by: +30 to hit in total). Then on pg. 229 the rules to determine who is in melee says "If an attacking character is adjacent to his target, both the character and his target are considered to be engaged in melee."

I should point out though that it does indeed say "an attacking character is adjacent" not "If an character is adjacent", so I am now more inclined to believe it should be an attack or an action to would naturally lead up to an attack... I'll keep looking to see if I just made up the concept or if there was reason for it.

Right, but this still doesn't cover the scenario where you can just run past a wall of people wielding melee weapons and incur no punishment (on your own turn).

It also bears asking: What does adjacent mean in DH2? 0m distance, within 1m distance? At what point -exactly- is a character too far away to initiate a melee attack?

It seems like the system is plagued by having rules written as if a map, grid, or miniatures are used, while also being written if it has a more narrative take on things.

I sent in a request to the rules team to clarify; here is summary of what I asked, I let you guys know what they say.

I'll let you guys know when I know.

Got a response.

First point. When using minis or whatever method be it grid and paper or what have you, making base to base contact or simply being adjacent causes the melee engagement. Even if not intending to attack. So running past a long line of Orks, each one you go next to does indeed get the attack of opportunity. Or simply ending your turn next to a hostile, but not attacking them still places the player in melee. Though he did say, GMs call though for any arbitrary element.

Second major point. Wielding a shotgun or any other basic class weapon, if you move up to someone with your first half action intending to shoot, (base to base or adjacent) you are now considered in melee and cannot use said weapon for your second half action (unless it has the melee or pistol or whatever special attribute).

Yeah, there ya have it. I thought the rules read that way, but I can understand some of the hesitance. Hope this helps guys.

Got a response.

First point. When using minis or whatever method be it grid and paper or what have you, making base to base contact or simply being adjacent causes the melee engagement. Even if not intending to attack. So running past a long line of Orks, each one you go next to does indeed get the attack of opportunity. Or simply ending your turn next to a hostile, but not attacking them still places the player in melee. Though he did say, GMs call though for any arbitrary element.

Second major point. Wielding a shotgun or any other basic class weapon, if you move up to someone with your first half action intending to shoot, (base to base or adjacent) you are now considered in melee and cannot use said weapon for your second half action (unless it has the melee or pistol or whatever special attribute).

Yeah, there ya have it. I thought the rules read that way, but I can understand some of the hesitance. Hope this helps guys.

Only thing I don't like about that is running to a rifle-wielding enemy to engage them before their turn, even without actually having an action to attack with. It just feels weird.

Got a response.

First point. When using minis or whatever method be it grid and paper or what have you, making base to base contact or simply being adjacent causes the melee engagement. Even if not intending to attack. So running past a long line of Orks, each one you go next to does indeed get the attack of opportunity. Or simply ending your turn next to a hostile, but not attacking them still places the player in melee. Though he did say, GMs call though for any arbitrary element.

Second major point. Wielding a shotgun or any other basic class weapon, if you move up to someone with your first half action intending to shoot, (base to base or adjacent) you are now considered in melee and cannot use said weapon for your second half action (unless it has the melee or pistol or whatever special attribute).

Yeah, there ya have it. I thought the rules read that way, but I can understand some of the hesitance. Hope this helps guys.

So clearly they need to strike the text from the Half Move/Full Move action description then. No need to decide if you are engaged in melee or not if you have no choice but to be in melee.

Saying that someone that moves by an enemy and is momentarily adjacent can become the target of the free Standard Attack seems to be a stretch. Obviously they're the ones writing the rules, so they can say what they want. But if those rules aren't -consistent-, then I question why anyone would continue to use them. If its always going to come down to "Make a Rule 0 decision" then I'd just reply with "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." I don't use the DH2.0 rules because I feel its the -only- way to run a game of 40k in an RPG format. I use them because I'm lazy and don't feel like coming up with Mutants and Masterminds equivalents to all the 40k equipment and foes(as well as having to strong GM limit what a player using M&M could choose for character powers in a 40k themed game). Rules are a nice way to allow the players to feel like they have some consistency to rely upon, some common language they can use to communicate what they want their characters to do in the game. Now sure, perhaps the rules inconsistencies of DH2.0 are meant to highlight that the world of 40k is a dark place, and to be a man in such times is to exist as the whimsical playthings to uncaring and unknowable gods.

Also, seriously, 0m range for melee? I've seen players suffer enough with this games movement system, and now its just going to make it worse. The idea that a melee character could still strike at point blank range was helpful to at least give melee characters in situations where charging wasn't an option a way to get a hit off from a Half Move. Sure, 0m = adjacent/melee range does at least give rise to Point-Blank Range being a thing that can actually occur, but that is about the only positive I can see it providing.

And yet somehow still -running- directly into the deadliest of ranged weapons is what the metagame now recommends.

For the "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight" folks

To be fair, he didn't have his weapon readied.

The issue here is that the weapons can be drawn, ready to be fired, and even in a state of open hostility, and yet still someone can just run in the game and lock a basic or heavy weapon.

Got a response.

First point. When using minis or whatever method be it grid and paper or what have you, making base to base contact or simply being adjacent causes the melee engagement. Even if not intending to attack. So running past a long line of Orks, each one you go next to does indeed get the attack of opportunity. Or simply ending your turn next to a hostile, but not attacking them still places the player in melee. Though he did say, GMs call though for any arbitrary element.

Second major point. Wielding a shotgun or any other basic class weapon, if you move up to someone with your first half action intending to shoot, (base to base or adjacent) you are now considered in melee and cannot use said weapon for your second half action (unless it has the melee or pistol or whatever special attribute).

Yeah, there ya have it. I thought the rules read that way, but I can understand some of the hesitance. Hope this helps guys.

So clearly they need to strike the text from the Half Move/Full Move action description then. No need to decide if you are engaged in melee or not if you have no choice but to be in melee.

Saying that someone that moves by an enemy and is momentarily adjacent can become the target of the free Standard Attack seems to be a stretch. Obviously they're the ones writing the rules, so they can say what they want. But if those rules aren't -consistent-, then I question why anyone would continue to use them. If its always going to come down to "Make a Rule 0 decision" then I'd just reply with "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." I don't use the DH2.0 rules because I feel its the -only- way to run a game of 40k in an RPG format. I use them because I'm lazy and don't feel like coming up with Mutants and Masterminds equivalents to all the 40k equipment and foes(as well as having to strong GM limit what a player using M&M could choose for character powers in a 40k themed game). Rules are a nice way to allow the players to feel like they have some consistency to rely upon, some common language they can use to communicate what they want their characters to do in the game. Now sure, perhaps the rules inconsistencies of DH2.0 are meant to highlight that the world of 40k is a dark place, and to be a man in such times is to exist as the whimsical playthings to uncaring and unknowable gods.

Also, seriously, 0m range for melee? I've seen players suffer enough with this games movement system, and now its just going to make it worse. The idea that a melee character could still strike at point blank range was helpful to at least give melee characters in situations where charging wasn't an option a way to get a hit off from a Half Move. Sure, 0m = adjacent/melee range does at least give rise to Point-Blank Range being a thing that can actually occur, but that is about the only positive I can see it providing.

And yet somehow still -running- directly into the deadliest of ranged weapons is what the metagame now recommends.

I can understand the arbitrary concepts being a pain in the ass (I've played white wolf games...) but honestly I don't see this ruleset being all that problematic. But I play with minis, a grid map and terrain. So we treat combat well... like a wargame. For us it works very well and it makes sense tactically in that mind set, but I understand if you don't use minis and you and the players are just narratively doing combat why this could be problematic, but I would just say and I agree with what I was told, (I'll paraprhase) "If the GM doesn't think it works in the situation, then don't do it."

I understand the complaint, but I don't really see a problem. You can have it your way if you don't like the tactical combat, just do it how you want or whatever makes sense for the circumstance. I personally feel that this is the biggest strength and weakness of Pen and Paper RPGs, you can do anything, but rules can only cover so much.

Edit: I play a lot of war games, both 40k tabletop and others, be it video games or pen and paper RPGs. I see the ruleset as just that a mechanic not necessarily something wholly realistic. If that helps to explain my disposition.