N18 Book of Judgement discsussion

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Dec 29, 2017
2,022
1,697
138
Kristiansand
Talking about odd, check out the Threadneedle:

Threadneedle worms can only be used once, after which they are removed from the fighter's card. When Threadneedle worms are used, roll a D6 on the Threadneedle table. The worms are then used and removed from the gang's stash.​
1 - The Worms Turn​
3-4 - A Few Live Worms​
4-5 - A Few More Live Worms​
6 - A Can Full of Worms​
That level of quality!!! On a sidenote, that result 6 (A Can Full of Worms) is truly something. Roll an Injury dice for all enemy fighters on the battlefield! Luckily it treats Out of Action as Seriously Injured, but still looks like one of the most devastating effects in this game so far?
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Thorgor

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
3,312
7,148
138
35
Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130 France
So... the enforcer gang rules say that all the fighters can have multiple fighter cards... im i right? gangers with multiple cards?
Yes, this is also how I read them. I guess it's a roundabout way to let you drop the starting stub gun without letting you drop the starting stub gun (though it's unclear whether you can "destroy" the original stub gun card or if you are stuck with it for random selection games)

3-4 - A Few Live Worms
4-5 - A Few More Live Worms
I had to read that a few times before my brain stopped auto-correcting :LOL:
Well, obviously nothing happens when you roll a 2 and you get both results on a 4. Because RAW! :p
As a side note, the 4-5 result assumes players have three 5" Blast markers laying around, which doesn't seem very practical.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: TopsyKretts

Merzbau

Ganger
Nov 9, 2018
248
336
68
Philadelphia
Still trying to iron out how to have one of our players use Enforcers in a Dominion campaign here as the "Enforcers in Dominion campaigns" page is incredibly sloppily written.

1. No boons, period, seems like an obvious mistake that should be no non-income boons. Enforcers gain income from Rackets normally in a Crime & Misrule campaign *and* gain much higher bounties than they would for captives in a Dominion campaign (and have easier access to Bounty Hunters to make the actual capture itself even easier), so to have one campaign type starve them for cash with no justification given is bizarre.
2. Upon several rereadings it seems like "policing" a territory is analogous to occupying it and that the emphasis in "Enforcers cannot occupy and control territories like other gangs can" should be more on "like other gangs" than "cannot"- for example, the bonus rep "after every successful defense of the territory" is literally meaningless if they abandon it after policing it.
3. Challenges are a total botch as written. Following on from 2, it reads like any challenge to the Enforcers somehow represents an assault on their Precinct- this almost feels like two mutually exclusive sets of rules (one where policing involves sticking around to defend a territory, one where all fights are conducted at the Precinct and there's no constant police presence elsewhere) were badly integrated

Here's what I've been leaning toward as a resolution for our campaign, which is continuing with Dominion before gradually introducing the necessary elements to layer Crime & Misrule over it:
1. Enforcers gain income normally from Territories, but in lieu of any non-income boons, gain the bonus rep for successfully defending their territories.
2. Challenges for policed territories are handled normally.
3. Attacks against the Precinct itself are Zone Mortalis games with tiles placed entirely by the defending Enforcer player according to the scenario, which is determined using the usual table.
4. This is entirely a house rule, not anything informed by the "Enforcers in Dominion" page, and meant to make the unique Zone Mortalis rules come into play more often as Precinct attacks will likely be rare- Rescue Missions to free captives taken by the Enforcers will also be Zone Mortalis games in the Precinct.

How are other campaigns dealing with this rule set? Does this seem like a fair reading of the situation?
 

icekarim

Juve
Apr 12, 2018
37
109
38
Canada
merzbau, I like where you are going with this. When I first read the enforcers rules for dominion your house rules is how I interpreted it, with the enforcers still collecting income. Looking at it again, RAW they are crippled compared to other gangs as things go on.
 

Jacob Dryearth

Gang Hero
Sep 6, 2016
768
833
103
It seems like that is one of the benefits of being an Outlaw. Also Guild Bond Rackets allow you to ignore the test to see if they join a battle as well, and they are available to both Law Abiding and Outlaw gangs.

I'm tempted to house rule that Law Abiding gangs to form Criminal Alliances as well, but they add 1d6 to the alignment shift roll after each game, or 2d6 if they used the free fighters. The text supports these type of alliances, not to mention the Imperial Impostor's abilities.
 

Jacob Dryearth

Gang Hero
Sep 6, 2016
768
833
103
Still trying to iron out how to have one of our players use Enforcers in a Dominion campaign here as the "Enforcers in Dominion campaigns" page is incredibly sloppily written.

1. No boons, period, seems like an obvious mistake that should be no non-income boons. Enforcers gain income from Rackets normally in a Crime & Misrule campaign *and* gain much higher bounties than they would for captives in a Dominion campaign (and have easier access to Bounty Hunters to make the actual capture itself even easier), so to have one campaign type starve them for cash with no justification given is bizarre.
2. Upon several rereadings it seems like "policing" a territory is analogous to occupying it and that the emphasis in "Enforcers cannot occupy and control territories like other gangs can" should be more on "like other gangs" than "cannot"- for example, the bonus rep "after every successful defense of the territory" is literally meaningless if they abandon it after policing it.
3. Challenges are a total botch as written. Following on from 2, it reads like any challenge to the Enforcers somehow represents an assault on their Precinct- this almost feels like two mutually exclusive sets of rules (one where policing involves sticking around to defend a territory, one where all fights are conducted at the Precinct and there's no constant police presence elsewhere) were badly integrated

Here's what I've been leaning toward as a resolution for our campaign, which is continuing with Dominion before gradually introducing the necessary elements to layer Crime & Misrule over it:
1. Enforcers gain income normally from Territories, but in lieu of any non-income boons, gain the bonus rep for successfully defending their territories.
2. Challenges for policed territories are handled normally.
3. Attacks against the Precinct itself are Zone Mortalis games with tiles placed entirely by the defending Enforcer player according to the scenario, which is determined using the usual table.
4. This is entirely a house rule, not anything informed by the "Enforcers in Dominion" page, and meant to make the unique Zone Mortalis rules come into play more often as Precinct attacks will likely be rare- Rescue Missions to free captives taken by the Enforcers will also be Zone Mortalis games in the Precinct.

How are other campaigns dealing with this rule set? Does this seem like a fair reading of the situation?
That's a logical fix for Dominion Campaigns. I am combining the two campaigns, and only using the Dominion part of the rules for Territories, while using Law and Misrule for Rackets.

As a side note: Venators in a L&M campaign collect bounties on everyone, Outlaw and Law Abiding. I suggest ignoring the Claiming Bounty section for Vanators and using L&M bounties as written, with an additional bonus of D3+1 rep for each bounty taken alive, much like Enforcers can get extra rep for policing.
 

spafe

Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
Feb 8, 2013
9,421
12,234
283
Tilehurst, U.k.
Manacles... what are they for? why would it be better to 'lock in' a enemy fighter rather than hitting them? It still counts as an attack, so you will get retalation attacks against you, even if it is successful (although harder to hit for sure). A slightly higher chance to capture... seems to be the only benefit...
 

el_guestos

Ganger
Aug 2, 2018
197
114
43
Leeds, England, UK
I wash thinking if you go up against a brute or a fighter that’s inherently better than you in close combat, seems like a good way for a nimble Escher to even the odds against a renderizer wielding heavily armored Goliath, especially if she’s got a few parries
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Dec 29, 2017
2,022
1,697
138
Kristiansand
With manacles and that new skill, you could potentially have +2 modifier to capture roll? It's a niche item for those who have high priority to capture some one. Sounds like Enforcers to me.

Edit: No effect on capture.

If you start the activation already Engaged, you often have an action to spare anyway, so why not use it on magnacles?
 
Last edited:

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
3,312
7,148
138
35
Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130 France
Manacles... what are they for? why would it be better to 'lock in' a enemy fighter rather than hitting them? It still counts as an attack, so you will get retalation attacks against you, even if it is successful (although harder to hit for sure). A slightly higher chance to capture... seems to be the only benefit...
It seems made for fighters with poor CC stats, as it doesn't use any of the user's stat, only the targets' initiative.
Maybe it's made for high Movement/high Initiative juves? Charge the big guys with low initiative, tie them up then disengage and repeat? It still seems risky though, as the juve will have to survive at least one reaction attack (it's kinda strange that magnacles don't count as disarming the target btw).

If you start the activation already Engaged, you often have an action to spare anyway, so why not use it on magnacles?
Because they use up your Attack (Basic) action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: el_guestos

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Dec 29, 2017
2,022
1,697
138
Kristiansand
Hey, if they messed up the Magnacles in such a way that it is useless, why not also take Attack as a new unique separate action? Maybe those two mistakes can balance each other out, making Magnacles viable? This would at least be strictly RAW?
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Dec 29, 2017
2,022
1,697
138
Kristiansand
Interesting to see the similarities and differences between Guild Alliances and criminal alliances. All alliances share the "Band A Part" special rule.

All guilders have some identical rules not shared with Recidivists:

GUILD BENEFITS
AID
Each Alliance will specify a Success Level number. In the pre-battle sequence, the gang may attempt to add Alliance Representatives to the battle.
Aid roll: D6 + Reputation
  • Equal to or less than the Success Level:
    Successful, the allies deigns to aid their allies on the battlefield.
  • Greater than the Success Level:
    Failed, the allies decide that the gang can cope alone.
GUILD DRAWBACKS
All Guild Alliances have the following drawback:
GUARD DUTY
If the gang has the option to choose the scenario, the gang must Test the Alliance to do so. Or roll a D6.
  • 1-3: Defend in Looters, Smash and Grab, Caravan Heist or Escort Mission.
  • 4-6: Choose freely.
If defending in Looters, Smash and Grab, Caravan Heist or Escort Mission, the allies must be included. Roll for Aid (as described). If failed, the gang is unhappy about this forced interference and must Test the Alliance.
REPRESENTATIVES
Most Guild Alliance details consist of 3 or 4 Hired Guns:
  • 1 Leader (Guild Procurator)
  • 1 Champion (Guild Factotum)
  • 1-2 Gangers (Bodyguards)
Compare this to Recidivists. No shared Benefits or Drawbacks. No shared (additional) titles. No shared scenarios they show up to. Some don't even specify scenarios. Different amount of fighters: 1, 4, 5. No roll to aid. Those who include Bodyguards do however share the bodyguard special rules (Bodyguard, Indentured fighters).

 

Baffo

Ganger
Aug 2, 2018
135
215
53
Ljubljana
Agreed, Recidivists are more varied in flavor and specific rules, which makes some sense from a 'lore point of view' (the guilds more uniformly treat with allied gangs, while criminals each have their own quirks).
That said, you can get around the 'roll to see if guild allies deem to help you in battle' by controlling one of the 5 Guild bond rackets (interestingly there isn't one for the Iron guild). Should be interesting to see what Rackets gangs tend to aim for on their first and second challenge
For my Enforcers the first Racket they'll try to take control of is the Water guild bond, so I can field the syphoning delegation and a generic free bounty hunter for a possible +4 on Capture roll + the option to instantly sell captive to guilders, which fits Enforcers very well from a storytelling perspective (and actually makes them extra scary to face in battle even in late campaign).
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

Merzbau

Ganger
Nov 9, 2018
248
336
68
Philadelphia
It seems like that is one of the benefits of being an Outlaw. Also Guild Bond Rackets allow you to ignore the test to see if they join a battle as well, and they are available to both Law Abiding and Outlaw gangs.

I'm tempted to house rule that Law Abiding gangs to form Criminal Alliances as well, but they add 1d6 to the alignment shift roll after each game, or 2d6 if they used the free fighters. The text supports these type of alliances, not to mention the Imperial Impostor's abilities.
You might want to double-check this- Outlaw gangs only get Bounty Hunters and Hive Scum out of the Guild Bond rackets, as Guild alliances are restricted to law-abiding gangs in Crime & Misrule.

I'm going to have to do an audit of the criminal syndicates vs Guild alliances to see if the comparative ease of getting aid from criminal syndicates needs fixing, but again, law-abiding guilds can circumvent this by controlling a Guild Bond (probably the intent behind not requiring criminal syndicates to test), which also seems like it might allow them to switch alliances mid-campaign phase.
 

Merzbau

Ganger
Nov 9, 2018
248
336
68
Philadelphia
Agreed, Recidivists are more varied in flavor and specific rules, which makes some sense from a 'lore point of view' (the guilds more uniformly treat with allied gangs, while criminals each have their own quirks).
That said, you can get around the 'roll to see if guild allies deem to help you in battle' by controlling one of the 5 Guild bond rackets (interestingly there isn't one for the Iron guild). Should be interesting to see what Rackets gangs tend to aim for on their first and second challenge
For my Enforcers the first Racket they'll try to take control of is the Water guild bond, so I can field the syphoning delegation and a generic free bounty hunter for a possible +4 on Capture roll + the option to instantly sell captive to guilders, which fits Enforcers very well from a storytelling perspective (and actually makes them extra scary to face in battle even in late campaign).
The lack of a bond for the Iron Guild might be in part because they don't have a delegation (they just send Hive Scum) and because their benefits are solely $AVING$! HOT BARGAINZ 4 GUN! which, in the already higher-income Crime & Misrule campaign, could quickly get out of hand even if they didn't have an easily exploitable loophole. My group is leaning toward banning the Iron Guild outright since it would take too much work to fix them and even then, they would be far less interesting than the other Guilds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jacob Dryearth