Ok folks, consensus/interptretation time (I don't have my book on hand with page numbers as I'm at work but I'll try to be as spot on with the wording as I can as it left my group baffled and afraid at game last night if we're correct).

sFleeing is classified as moving away from an opponent engaged in melee without using the disengage action, this allows the person engaged with them that they're moving away from to get a free standard attack (no longer a free melee attack, so someone running away from you uncautiously you can shoot in the back as they haul).

NOW is when it gets interesting, under the Movement action, it drops the engaged in melee part, merely saying, when moving away from an engaged opponent, they get a free standard attack. Soooooo, our RT band is in a firefight with a group of say, mutants with guns. I take a half move that isn't parallel or toward them, and they all get a free standard attack on me (assuming they're in range, have ammo, etc), is how that's currently written.

Thoughts?

2nd question is about Basic classed firearms, if I remember right, the DH book blatantly says in the armoury that they can't be fired if the wielder is in melee, currently, under Basic weapon in armoury, the only special thing about it is that it can be fired one handed with a penalty, nothing about not being able to be fired in melee. Oversight, or intentional? IE: Under pistol it says that the wielder doesnt' get any bonuses or penalties due to range for firing in melee, so, if it's intentional, does that mean firing a rifle at the guy standing up to 3 feet from me will get the point blank bonus and the firing into melee penalty?

BrotherHostower said:

I think that's a typo/misinterpretation.

You can't be "engaged" in any other way than melee. Thus if you're not engaged in melee, you're free to run about as you like. It's just that if you try to turn tail and flee from someone you're in close combat with, that person get to take a free swipe at you or shoot you in the back.

Agreement with Tybalt on the engaged issue, and as for the basic weapons firing into melee, the easiest thing is to just not give them point blank range, but the penalty to fire into melee, I mean technically anything can be fired in melee, it just tends to be less advantageous than other weapons.

That's pretty much what myself and the other GM in our group were thinking on both counts, though with the movement action being typoed like that, it sure does force your PC's to use the cover to cover action (cant' remember the name) if they don't want to risk being riddled with holes.

Ya, as for part one of your question, the others have covered it. That free attack one comes if you flee someone you're engaged with and being engaged means being engaged in melee.

As for part two, you'll find the answer on page 244 under the heading "The Attack" where it states "Ranged attacks can not be made if the attacker is engaged in melee unless he is firing a pistol class weapon."

Could you use a Dodge to "Dive behind Cover" as defined in the IH? Would this put you out of Melee? Would they still get a free swing at you?

Darth Smeg said:

I'd say that you can do that. But it would be a rather useless tactic, because in my interpretation the "Dive behind cover" action in IH pretty much entails that you throw yourself desperatly behind cover and thus you would be prone on the ground afterwards. Also you can't "dive" very far from your starting position, which means that you'll easily be charged next turn by the one you were fighting with, and let's just say that it isn't very fun to be charged if you're prone on the ground...

Varnias Tybalt said:

Actually, if you really want to go by the RAW with the Dive Behind Cover action, you couldn't be charged by the fella you were in melee with since you can dive up to 2m away and in order to charge someone, they must be at least 4m away from you (never mind those pesky obstacles you dove behind and how they might react with a charging individual). Likewise, since the Dive Behind Cover is a reaction of the Dodge verity, there would be no fallow-up free attack from your attacker. That only happens if you Flee (which is defined as only happening when you preform one of the three fallowing actions: Disengage, Move , or Run) without preforming the disengage action. This is a great and easy way to get out of a melee you don't want to be in, or at least force your opponent to one half action attack since they'll have to chase you down while keeping your full action freed up for things like full auto blasts.

BTW, not only do i now feel dirty for having put forth the argument above, but I really don't like the Dive Behind Cover action for the reason put forth above and for other reasons. It was pretty much a crap idea to include in the rules, much like half the extraneous unneeded additions found in the IH. There might be a good reason why some of the additional skill actions found in IH also found their way into RT but not the Dive Behind Cover thing...

Edit: An addendum to my above statement regarding Charging: if the attacker has a whip and was standing at least 2m away while using it on you, then I guess he could, by the RAW and not considering placement of obstacles dove behind, charge you.

Graver said:

I don't mind the Dive Behind Cover shenanigan in this particular scenario, mainly because being prone on the ground when people are running around in melee range is still not very beneficial. When people are swinging swords at you, you want to be standing up not lying on the ground for an easy stab.

Dive Behind Cover is for firefights when a lot of lead is flying through the air, not close combat...

Darth Smeg said:

Yes, I think you can.

Yes, I think it would put you out of melee.

Yes, I think they would get a free swing but you would be protected by the cover.

No, I don't think its very usefull tactic unless you have a friend ready to shoot the enemy or a grenade just dropped on the enemy side of the cover.