N18 Ash Wastes Questions

[PalatineKatinka]

Actually, all this raises an uncertainty I've always had with Retreat whether Mounted or on foot.. To Retreat you make an I check and if successful make a Move (Basic) up to D6", but is it only if this fails and the fighter remains Engaged that the enemy Engaging the Retreating fighter gets to make their own I check to get a Reaction attack, or do they get to I check to see if they're quick enough to swipe a Reaction attack at the Retreating fighter who successfully moves away having passed their initial I check?

From my reading of it it's either;

(a) If the retreating fighter passes their Initiative check they move away and Engaged enemies test to make Reaction attacks, if the retreating fighter fails nothing happoens and the action is wasted. In this case both moving away and reaction attacks are bound by the 'if it is passed' clause.

(b) If the retreating fighter passes their initiative check they move away, if they fail they don't. Engaged enemies test to make Reaction attacks regardless. In this case only the first part is bound by the 'if it is passed' clause.

There is no 'if it is failed' clause so I don't see Reaction attacks being reliant on the retreating fighter failing. Reaction attacks either only happen when Retreat is successful, or they always happen.

I am inclined toward option (a) as it fits with what happens with Broken fighters that are Engaged, where the rules mention that the enemies' Reaction attacks happen "before the Broken fighter is moved" and then afterwards actually has an 'if it is failed' clause (Broken fighter remains Engaged, can't make any actions, no mention of Reaction attack opportunity).

 

[Gdolkin]

Many thanks for the considered response, but now I'm more confused.. In your analysis, if the Retreater's I check fails there is no Retreat and thus no Reaction attack, right? I was understanding it as a failed Retreat opens you up to an I check-dependent Reaction attack as you bungle the attempted disengagement, but unsure if a successful Retreat could be interrupted by an I check-dependent Reaction attack just catching the Retreater as they move away.. I read it as Reaction attacks either only happen when Retreat fails, or they always happen.. Interesting polarisation of interpretation of the exact same rule eh..

 

[TopsyKretts]

Topic of attacks when retreating has been discussed for years:

N18 - Retreating from combat

Can a fighter safely retreat from CC if you outnumber an engaged enemy? Our group has been playing like this for a while now, but after I've decided to recheck rules, I can't find proof of this being legal anywhere. Also is it just me, or its incredibly silly to first roll Initiative and then...

yaktribe.games

N18 - To Fight or not to Fight (pass)

Two fighters are engaged with each other. One fighter activates and decides to not make a fight action (pass) to avoid being killed by the enemy's reaction attacks. Do you think this is rules as written? Rules as intended? Do you think this option makes the game better or worse?

yaktribe.games

(Broken fighter remains Engaged, can't make any actions, no mention of Reaction attack opportunity).

Broken fighters suffer a -2 hit modifier to Reaction attacks, so that implies Broken fighters can make reaction attacks.

 

[PalatineKatinka]

Broken fighters suffer a -2 hit modifier to Reaction attacks, so that implies Broken fighters can make reaction attacks.

Correct, they can make Reaction attacks when they are attacked but at -2 to hit (or -3 if needing to turn, maybe worse if outnumbered or have a rubbish weapon).

However, when it comes to the Broken fighter's own activation they must take an Initiative check and;
- on success run away as per a Standing and Active Broken fighter with the enemies they are engaged by taking Initiative checks to make Reaction attacks before the Broken fighter moves,
- on failure they remain Engaged and their activation ends without performing any actions and no mention of the enemy fighters making Reaction attacks.

I was only referring to what happens when a Broken fighter is forced to attempt to leave combat, not to what they might do during another fighter's activation.

 

[PalatineKatinka]

Further thoughts on Mounted Fighters... Can a Mounted Fighter that is Prone (either Pinned or Seriously Injured) make Ride By attack during a Crawl (Double) action and do they still benefit from the altered Movement Characteristic granted by the Mounted condition?

For example, could a Seriously Injured Fighter on an Escher Cutter perform a Crawl (double) action to move 4.5" and perform a Ride By during that Move? Similarly. if a Prone and Pinned Matriarch with Spring Up passes her Initiative check to get a free Stand Up (basic) action but then fails the Initiative check required to actually stand, could she then Crawl (double) and Ride By? If so, would she count as Engaged during the Ride By and thus automatically stand?

 

[Lunarcruiser]

I would say no. Dragging around your bike/giant bird/ cutter/cyber boat does not lend itself to ride by attacks.
The rules have a bit of a grey area in this case but it probably should be interpreted that move in this case should be from a Move (simple), Move (double) or a Charge action not crawling.
Technically with the rules as written mounted models can perform ride by attacks when the fall of drops, such as cliff edges, which is a little incredulous.

 

[PalatineKatinka]

Yeah, I feel like maybe Mounts should only confer their increased Movement to Standing Fighters and they should revert to normal when Prone. Also maybe make Stand Up a Simple action so Mounted fighters can try twice instead of failing and being left unable to act.
Fairly sure no form of involuntary move should allow a Ride By opportunity, be it falling, knockback, drag, being on fire, being broken or anything else.

Side note, Cutters wouldn't be able to Ride By while falling because they can't fall. They can be Knocked Down, but can't fall.

 

[SirWalterManny]

No worries. It is in my view dirty to be doing Versatile Ride By attacks from 1"-2" away and speeding off on your merry way without the target having any possibility of Reaction Attacks if they survive and don't have Versatile weapons of their own, so I'd propose that the target be allowed to treat any Sidearms they're carrying as Versatile in that situation and shoot you in the face from 1"-2" but as a close combat attack using their WS and no Shooting Acc modifiers just like any other close combat attack with Sidearms, but that's just me and what I find narratively realistic/fair to both players. Maybe with a -1/-2 to their WS depending on how fast the biker's going as he Rides By.. Happy Ride By's y'all..

I don’t get the need for that rule mod?

Why would this be allowed if a Mounted fighter hit a fighter whilst speeding passed… but not if a non-mounted fighter is swinging a whip at your fighter whilst ‘stationery’ 2” away?

What stops a fighter still standing after a Ride By just using its next action to shoot back anyway; the mounted fighter would likely only be 2-18” away? Why would it be fairer to allow a reaction attack with a pistol, immediately followed by a possible ranged attack in its activation?

 

[TopsyKretts]

I don’t get the need for that rule mod?

Why would this be allowed if a Mounted fighter hit a fighter whilst speeding passed… but not if a non-mounted fighter is swinging a whip at your fighter whilst ‘stationery’ 2” away?

What stops a fighter still standing after a Ride By just using its next action to shoot back anyway; the mounted fighter would likely only be 2-18” away? Why would it be fairer to allow a reaction attack with a pistol, immediately followed by a possible ranged attack in its activation?

One difference is you can ride by twice, against same target or 2 different targets?

Some versatile weapons got longer range than some pistols so it's not a catch-all rule to prevent this from happening.

 

[libratorr]

I've got one.
Can an empty passenger-operated weapon hardpoint be mounted and fired by a passenger who has said weapon on them? Either before/after a battle, or would it be a standard/double action?
Eg: my rockgrinder has a crew-mounted heavy stubber, and nothing in its passender-operated hardpoint (which is a standard hardpoint for a rockgrinder). Can my champion clamber over to the hatch, slap his special weapon in the empty passenger-operated hardpoint, and flame away using the benefits of operating a passenger-operated turret?
Does this action irretrievably marry the passenger-operated weapon to the hardpoint in the vehicle profile? Or can it be taken off/swapped out after the battle, so the champion can take the flamer off to refuel and possibly re-fry somewhere else?
At the moment the rules has "The fitted weapon can be swapped in between battles with weapons in the gang's Stash".

 

[Lunarcruiser]

Technically not in your champion weapon example.
Vehicles are limited to the weapons allowed on thier entries which would limit them to the allowed Trading post options and thier own list so some of the house specific weapons like fire pikes or las carbines for example.
However this situation would be limited if you are playing the weapon possession rule as written. As written a fighter may not get rid of a weapon off thier roster entry and are limited to three weapon slots, not including suspensor harnesses or that Goliath genesmithing thing, and thier weapons can be spread across different fighter cards if they have Tools of the Trade.
Should your group play the rule as written a fighter can not give up one of their personal weapons to the rock grinder. The gang can however swap weapons that are in thier Stash on to the vehicle but it must be fitted between battles.

 

[Lunarcruiser]

Personally I think that GW has not put enough thought in to this system.
I agree with thier idea of fighters hoarding and getting attached to thier weapons although I accept others would like to say pass on thier old stubgun to a new blood juve as a hand me down. Having vehicles being able to buy thier list weapons and swap them out with ones in the Stash freely will lead to abuse in some cases.
The rock grinder can freely buy a twin linked autocannon or mining laser before game one then swap it out for another gun dumping the high powered weapon in the Stash where any Fighter that can equip it can then grab it effectively ignoring Rarity or trade rolls getting a much too powerful weapon early on.
Yes you might get a early high rarity roll on a trade action but this should be rare and should not be used to bypass the normal gang advancement thus unbalancing the gang and instantly turning you into "that guy".
I think that all weapons bought for your vehicle should have a trait added to the weapon that limits thier use to vehicles. A machine gun for a real world APC is quite a different weapon to a gun designed for a person to carry. The GW weapons mounted on a rock grinder are significantly bigger than the hand held versions and like real world vehicle guns are integrated into the vehicle. The scale of GW vehicles is actually a smaller scale than thier infantry models as well they are scaled down to make them easier to handle on the board thus thier weapons would be even bigger (a Land Raider for example would have to be almost twice the produced models size to actually fit in all those Terminators and vehicle bits that would need to actually run the tank). I would love to see a life size Rhino that could actually work as described and hold ten fully life size 7.5 feet tall power armoured space marines in combat deployment capability.

 

[TopsyKretts]

No you are not supposed to modify vehicle weaponry during a battle. You can only assign weapons to the vehicle's weapon "slots" before/after the battle. Come on, hardpoint is just a vehicle renaming of weapon slot. Same as wrecked is out of action for vehicles.

Can't point to rules for this but got a strong impression this is the intention.

 

[drdrybrush]

I've got one.
Can an empty passenger-operated weapon hardpoint be mounted and fired by a passenger who has said weapon on them? Either before/after a battle, or would it be a standard/double action?
Eg: my rockgrinder has a crew-mounted heavy stubber, and nothing in its passender-operated hardpoint (which is a standard hardpoint for a rockgrinder). Can my champion clamber over to the hatch, slap his special weapon in the empty passenger-operated hardpoint, and flame away using the benefits of operating a passenger-operated turret?
Does this action irretrievably marry the passenger-operated weapon to the hardpoint in the vehicle profile? Or can it be taken off/swapped out after the battle, so the champion can take the flamer off to refuel and possibly re-fry somewhere else?
At the moment the rules has "The fitted weapon can be swapped in between battles with weapons in the gang's Stash".

Id say just have your champ climb on and start blasting ONLY IF there is the "transport bed" (I think it's called) the thing that allows a model to be on board a vehicle without taking and agility check when it moves.

That way seems absolutely fine to me and is how we run thing in my group using all the normal shoosting rules 😊

I'd also say that if a weapon is purchased for use on a vehicle hard point, then that is where it stays until swapped for another suitable weapon for that hard point using the vehicles armoury, or in campaign, with access to trading post etc then goes into the stash.

Does raise the question though if it's a separate "vehicle stash" or just the regular one though.

I'd assume it's intended that folk won't just ass hat their way into 3 super duper weapons pried off a Hull and handed to gangers but also Necromunda isn't exactly a tightly written non shenanigans capable game 😂

If it's part of campaign play ask the arbitrator who's running it mate 😊 they will see you right.

Plus, if a passenger fired weapon on a vehicle hardpoint has to be fired by a passenger (for example on a ridgerunner with the front arc) I'd say you'd be better off just posting up on the transport bed and blasting everything you can see since it's not limited to arc.

Hopefully any of that made sense 😂

 

[drdrybrush]

Hills 1

• drdrybrush
• Wednesday at 11:05 PM

Hills 2

• drdrybrush
• Wednesday at 11:05 PM

Turns out hills make the ash wastes more enjoyable with bottlenecks, vantage points and places to board vehicles!

Anyone played around with them yet?

 

[MusingWarboss]

Hills 1

• drdrybrush
• Wednesday at 11:05 PM

Hills 2

• drdrybrush
• Wednesday at 11:05 PM

Turns out hills make the ash wastes more enjoyable with bottlenecks, vantage points and places to board vehicles!

Anyone played around with them yet?

Makes perfect sense, Gorkamorka used similar scenery to great effect.