So we hit a question we couldn't quite find the answer for in the book last night during a quick 'figure it out' game...

Say you choose an action (shoot) and when it comes time for the unit to take the action it cannot for whatever reason (engaged in this case). What then? Does the unit do nothing, does the unit count as having 'taken' an action but didn't do anything? Does it 'pass' its action? Can it use any applicable modifiers on the action (defense, rally, whatever) AFTER not performing the action?

Nothing happens and you move onto the next activation.

It depends on your modifier. Ranged attacks and marches get canceled when you are engaged, so it is possible to have that action canceled before you reveal your command tool. In the case of marches, movement modifiers (RR-56) like charge, turn, and wheel modifiers will have no effect if the march is canceled, while if an attack is canceled, enhancement modifiers (RR-35) like hit, morale, and surge will be canceled (RR-15).

If you selected a different modifier, like Defense, Shift, or Skill, for example, you will still perform that modifier's bonus action, even if your main action was cancelled (RR-14.2).

But I wish they'd use consistent language. 65.2..."A unit cannot perform a ranged attack if it is engaged" would have been nice if it said a unit's ranged attack is canceled if it activates with that action while engaged (or something similar)...

That's the bit I was trying to find. Language to support 'cannot perform'. Canceled seems to be the term.

Hmm. Looking at 47.2, I think that the language on 65.2 about canceling is just an omission. Hopefully it will be added in as an erratum.

47.2: "A unit that is engaged with an enemy unit cannot perform a march ( ? ) action. If it reveals a march action, the action is canceled."

65.2: "A unit cannot perform a ranged attack if it is engaged."

I agree that it should have been consistent. I would have worded 65.2 as, "A unit that is engaged with an enemy unit cannot perform a ranged attack. If it reveals a ranged attack action, the action is canceled."

3 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

Hmm. Looking at 47.2, I think that the language on 65.2 about canceling is just an omission. Hopefully it will be added in as an erratum.

47.2: "A unit that is engaged with an enemy unit cannot perform a march ( ? ) action. If it reveals a march action, the action is canceled."

65.2: "A unit cannot perform a ranged attack if it is engaged."

I agree that it should have been consistent. I would have worded 65.2 as, "A unit that is engaged with an enemy unit cannot perform a ranged attack. If it reveals a ranged attack action, the action is canceled."

Cancelled is also clearly defined under Rule 15: Cancel

Pretty definitely just an omission from 65.2

Yeah, that's probably it. Can go in their first errata.

If cancel is defined then I don't think it is an omission not needing of errata *shrug*

34 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

If cancel is defined then I don't think it is an omission not needing of errata *shrug*

"Cancel" is defined, but nowhere in the rules does it say that your ranged attack is canceled if you are engaged. It just says you can't perform the action. Now, canceling also means you can't perform the action, but that doesn't mean they are identical. After all, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. They really need a line in there about canceling.

Errata the ranged attack action to match the language in melee. Right now the second bit's missing.

1 hour ago, Budgernaut said:

"Cancel" is defined, but nowhere in the rules does it say that your ranged attack is canceled if you are engaged. It just says you can't perform the action. Now, canceling also means you can't perform the action, but that doesn't mean they are identical. After all, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. They really need a line in there about canceling.

Ah, I wasn't looking at the the rules, just going off of what was being said here. I did this realize that inconsistency was there.

I think the Cancel keyword most commonly will come up with Immobilize tokens, which can be spent to cancel an Move or Shift action (12.1.ii), and the Stun tokens which can be spent to cancel a modifier (12.1.iv) but not an second action (14.2) or a modifier (15.2). So a player chooses a Move+Special action, the enemy spends the Immobilize token on them to cancel the Move, they still must perform the Special action (great to hit a Uncontrolled Geomancer with). When a player chooses a Move+Charge action, the enemy spends the Stun token on them to cancel the Charge modifier but they still perform the move, except now when they collide they don't get an attack and take a Panic token to boot!

I think the closest comparison we can look at is to compare 65.2 against 47.2. When a unit is engaged and reveals a Move action, that action is automatically cancelled (even if it is engaged on its rear arc, or occupying terrain). 65.2 simply says that an engaged unit cannot use a Ranged Attack action.

I think the reason for this difference in language is probably from the upgrade card that allows units to use Ranged Attacks while engaged, and they have specifically added a difference in language to allow that card as a loophole.

We have a section in the Modifiers that states a Modifier that does not match the stance of the chosen action, specifically saying that the modifier is 'ignored'. This is a different language than cancelled. I would argue that a new point needs to be added to the Actions rules that specifically states something like "If a unit is engaged or has another condition that prevents it from taking the selected an action on its command dial, (such as a unit's command dial has selected the Ranged Attack action while engaged with an enemy unit) that action is ignored."