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)So... the enforcer gang rules say that all the fighters can have multiple fighter cards... im i right? gangers with multiple cards?
I had to read that a few times before my brain stopped auto-correcting3-4 - A Few Live Worms
4-5 - A Few More Live Worms
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.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?
It seems made for fighters with poor CC stats, as it doesn't use any of the user's stat, only the targets' initiative.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...
Because they use up your Attack (Basic) action.If you start the activation already Engaged, you often have an action to spare anyway, so why not use it on magnacles?
Ah, yes, you're correct.I thought that was the Fight (Basic) action? I don't remember seeing the Attack (Basic) action before, looks to be unique for Magnacles.
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.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.
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.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).