N18 Collected Errors/Typos in Aranthian Succession 1: Cinderak Burning


Hive Lord
Dec 29, 2017
Another book, let's see what we can find! A discussion and investigation into potential problems and solutions

Previous discussions:

A summary of various findings (contributed by several yaktribe champions).

  • ?
    • Comment: ?
  • ?
    • Comment: ?
  • Escher vehicle crew (Helion) has bio-booster in equipment list.
    • Comment: Why? This is useless for crew/vehicle.
  • Minor typo (p67): "Stim-slug stash".
    • Comment: Correct name is "Stimm-slug stash" (?).
  • Bar Defence scenario (p98): Defender has reinforcements, but it is hardly mentioned elsewhere:
    • "The defender uses the Custom Selection (4) method to determine their crew. The attackers uses the Random Selection (D3+3) method to determine their crew. The rest of the attackers for a Reinforcement deck."
    • "The attacker can use Reinforcements [...] up to two random fighters from each gang will arrive in the End phase on a random battlefield edge."
    • Comment: Defenders got reinforcements or not? Presumably no, but it's not exactly clear. Looks like copy-paste error.
  • Chem Exhausts (Tactic) inflicts hits with Toxin and Gas.
    • Comment: Don't usually includes tactics here, but this was literally the first one in the list. How is this even supposed to work? Easy to pile on bucketloads of new tactics when you don't have to take the actual rules into consideration...

  • Fleeing the Battlefield seems to imply that only the bottling out needs to be voluntary for the gang to automatically lose (and the opponent to win). Not sure if this is the best way, but it is certainly clearer than previously.
  • New scenarios tend to have round limits, a much needed change from the ~100 previous scenarios without round limit. Not sure it solves everything, but should be step in the right direction. A much needed improvement!
  • Gunk War is a reskin of the very old Sabotage scenario. And with some much needed improvements: The target can only be damaged by melee attacks! And when it is destroyed it explodes for added fun. Not sure if realistic, but could potentially help improve what was originally a very broken scenario. Sentries are also gone, and it includes a negative hit modifier to ranged attacks. All very good improvements.
  • A bunch of scenarios are reprinted, renamed and/or tweaked:
    • Sabotage --> Gunk War
    • Rescue Mission --> Escape From Hive Zalktraa
  • Scenarios tend to specify whether vehicles & mounts can be included, while previous publications only specified vehicles.
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dale Cooper
  • Gorshiv Hammerfist got 2 skills (Bull Charge & Walk It Off), but only Walk It Off is reprinted on his page. Weird.
  • Athera got 2 skills (Acrobatic & Counter-attack) and conditionally Spring Up, but only Acrobatic is reprinted on her page. Weird.
Bull Charge, Counter-attack, and Spring Up are skills printed in the rulebooks, while Walk It Off and Acrobatic are Muscle and Finesse skills, from HoC and HoB respectively. The reprint allows someone to use the models without needing those House books.
That makes sense, thanks! I feared another possibility that the reprinted skills were somehow reworded here. Probably not then, luckily. I'll remove those comments as they're not worth it in the summary.

Something completely different, scenarios and fleeing the battlefield: Noticed a reworded sentence including the word "subsequently". A subtle change that I can't remember seeing before. Fleeing the battlefield now says "if either gang voluntarily bottles out and subsequently flees the battlefield". That sounds like a huge affirmative update, or as much as one could expect. Doesn't this imply that only the bottling is voluntarily? Ie:
  1. A gang bottles out voluntarily.
  2. The gang later flees the battlefield (for whatever reason).
  3. The opponent gang automatically wins.
It's tempting to assume this is what they always meant and have retroactive affect all previous scenarios with this rule?!?
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dale Cooper
GW likes to give some weird and useless criteria for ending the battle. Example:
  • "If either gang has no models left on the battlefield at the end of any round, the battle ends immediately."
  • "The battle ends when only one gang has models remaining on the battlefield at the start of a round."
  • "The battle ends in the End phase if either gang's Leader has been taken Out of Action or only one gang has fighters left on the battlefield."
  • "The battle ends when either only one gang has fighters remaining on the battlefield or if the vat of Wild Snake is destroyed."
Looks like this is inconsistent wording for essentially the same thing? It doesn't matter much when these rules say stuff like "immediately", "end of round", "start of round" or "End phase"? If it doesn't matter, why bother specifying it?
I don't know if it started in this book, but scenarios tend to mention that reinforcements (scenario special rule) are deployed on a random battlefield edge. What does that mean? Each fighter arriving as a reinforcement has to roll 3+ to have the controlling gang deploy it, otherwise the enemy can deploy it. Is the random battlefield edge in addition to this? So either gang can deploy the reinforcements, but the edge is randomized and cannot be chosen?
The new Escher & Goliath crew leaves the existing Orlock crew misaligned. Because Orlock was released with a default crew configuration from the universal crew (same skill access and equipment list). Escher & Goliath however comes with gang-specific configuration. Example: Goliath crew can take Bolt pistol which is according to Goliath theme (commonly available for most Goliath fighters). Orlock can take las pistol, but this is not in their theme (not commonly included in the equipment lists for Orlock fighters).

What happens if a future book released with future Orlock mounts? Will they get a Crew version 2 with equipment list and skill access customized for Orlock theme and different from the universal crew? Or perhaps Orlock (together with Van Saar) won't be included in any new book about vehicles and mounts because they already have wreckers and grav-cutters already taking a similar role to mounts?
If they do a second wave of vehicles van saar and orlocks will still get in on the action, I think they would avoid mounts though, because as you say jump boosters and grav cutters exist. I would see this as a all houses get rules book though they would be running out of Ash wastes content at that point I would think
And how does that work exactly? All other agents you have to petition AND pay a set credit cost (depending on the petition result).
Says in her rules that you roll on the petition table for House Agents. All of the "House of" books have the same generic table under House Agents, with 40 or 80 credits, no hire, and 2d6x10 credits fine.
  • Like
Reactions: BearsWillEatYou
Ok so default petition is generic with cost of 40/80. Thanks! That wasn't clear to me from reading the book, as this is the first time agents are released without the petition table (and costs). No other special character agents have that cost, they have either 100/200 or 50/100.
It's pretty cheap, but there's also a lower dice threshold for hiring the generics. The special character agents have a (1-8)(9-15)(16+) breakdown for their charts, with low cost / high cost / no hire. The generic uses (1-5)(6-10)(11-15)(16+), with low cost / high cost / no hire / fine.
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
The fine is implemented in such a way that it will never happen and therefore effectively doesn't exist though.
  • Like
Reactions: VikToLive
Or put it the other way, can you explain in which situation it can happen? :p It's reported and explained for books that includes the petition table.
could you please explain why 16+ can never happen for generic agent? where is this MAX X REP from?
To petition for a house agent, you roll D6 + your rep. In order to get the 16+ result, you'd have to have a rep of 10, in which case there's no point in rolling on the table: the minimum result of 10 + D6 is 11, which gives a "no hire" result.
This is also why the max rep for hiring is 9: 9 rep + 1 on the D6 can still give you a 10, to hire at the higher cost.
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
Possibly falls under errors:
The Gang Tactics section of some scenarios, such as Street Fight, state that one player can get additional tactics cards based off of the difference in "total credits value of fighters in [the] starting crew." It specifies "fighters," even on scenarios where gangs can take vehicles. Since vehicles aren't fighters, are their costs not calculated for starting crew value, or should this be "models" instead of "fighters?"
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
What happens if a future book released with future Orlock mounts? Will they get a Crew version 2 with equipment list and skill access customized for Orlock theme and different from the universal crew? Or perhaps Orlock (together with Van Saar) won't be included in any new book about vehicles and mounts because they already have wreckers and grav-cutters already taking a similar role to mounts?
If Orlock get featured in a future book, I get the feeling that it'll likely end up being a case where the unique Crew entry will supercede the old one, much as it was with the "House of" series superceding entries from Gangs of the Underhive.

As for the matters of mounts and vehicles, Orlock Jump Boosters and Van Saar Grav-Cutters are in an awkward spot where only prospects and those promoted from them have access to them, and of the two only the grav-cutter can really be considered a mount in the classical sense. Whilst I get the idea behind why a fighter with either piece of wargear would be ineligible to acquire a mount of some other kind, I don't think it's a done deal just yet as a gang-wide matter.

With that said, whilst Orlock already have their Outrider Quads, Van Saar might very well be among the first gang in Necromunda to get a medium or heavy house-specific vehicle that contrasts with their relatively slow foot-slogging (transport skiff, perhaps?).
Was curious how people interpret cutters and availability to death maidens (specialist champs). The rule specifies "Leaders", "Champions" and "Prospects". So RAW would mean yes. However all are plural, even leader which will always be singular, so the mention of plural champion isn't guaranteed to include death maidens? Some how it doesn't feel intentional to have death maidens on grav cutters, but who knows.