N18 Collected Errors/Typos in N22 Rulebook (Ash Wastes)

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
6,433
6,740
193
Norway
The 5th rulebook, this time introducing vehicle & mount mechanics.

Previous discussions:


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

INTERNAL CONFLICTS
  • Reinforcements (p135): "always arrive at the end of the End phase.". Scenarios: "at the start of each End phase, the defender receives Reinforcements."
    • Comment: This is an old one stretching back to at least N18. Probably doesn't matter much if it is the start or end of the End phase?
EXTERNAL CONFLICTS (CONFLICT WITH PREVIOUS PUBLICATIONS)
  • Maintain Control (simple) action (p109): Continuous Effects end at the end of the fighter's activation.
    • Comment: This is the original text from a previous Rulebook (power ends at end of fighters activation if they don’t successfully make this action), ignoring the errata which ‘Corrected’ this to ’ends at the start of this fighter’s activation’.
  • Sneak Attack (Sentries): Same as N19. Doesn't define "Sentry Round". No automatic spotting the attacked when pinned by a ranged attack. Round doesn't go to End phase once alarm is raised.
    • N18:
      • Intro: “In these scenarios, the following rules are used”
      • Raising the Alarm: “Once the alarm is raised, the sentries rules are no longer used and the defender’s fighters follow all the normal rules.”
    • N19 & N22:
      • Intro: “In these scenarios, the following rules are used”
      • Raising the Alarm: “Once the alarm is raised, all sentries immediately gain Ready markers, the Sentries rules are no longer used, and the defender’s fighters follow all the normal rules.”
    • N21:
      • Intro: “In these scenarios, the following rules are used. This is called the ‘Sentry Round’”
      • Raising the Alarm: “Once the alarm is raised, the Sentry Round ends and play progresses to the End phase. Once this is complete, the battle continues as normal.”
  • Pitch Black (p137): Reversed to prevent charging.
    • Comment: 😖 N17-N19 prevented charging, N21 did not, then N22 prevents it again. Game would probably be better without this restriction.
  • Gang Hierarchy (p85): Previously called Leading By Example, this now applies to "friendly models". Sets the range of Leaders to 12" and Champions to 6".
ERRORS
  • Running Repairs (Driver skill, p165): If a natural 6 is rolled during a Handling check in the End phase for restarting a Stationary vehicle, "this driver has not only Restarted the vehicle" but also regained one lost Hull Point.
    • Comment: Minimum stat for Hnd is 10+ and a roll of 6 isn't automatically a success! GW forgot the stat uses 2D6?!?
  • Wasteland Encounter scenario (p152): Doesn't specify how many tactics to use.
    • Comment: No tactics for this scenario then (except underdog)?
NOTES
  • A missed opportunity to update Maintain Control / Continuous Effects (Psychic Power), because they are still very much useless without having a free action or some other mechanic to maintian them (foreboding, flame blast, quickening, arachnoasis).
CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS
  • Some old scenarios are reprinted (with or without changes). Typical updates include specification of battlefield types (ZM/SM/AW) and whether vehicles can be included in the crew or not. Still no clarification of what Fleeing the battlefield actually means in regards to voluntarily bottling and fleeing (two separate things that many scenarios consider synonymous).
    • Looters: Now has a Custom Selection limit of 10 models for the attackers.
    • Wasteland Ambush: Rename from Ambush.
    • Rescue Scenario.
    • Settlement Raid (renamed version of The Marauders - NOT the original Settlement Raid).
 
Last edited:
Aug 9, 2015
111
115
53
Sunderland, UK
Looks like the (i thought sensible) changes brought to the sneak attack/sentries rules in the Hive War (2021) Rulebook have been lost, with Dark Uprising Rulebook text retained - so bits below are NOT included:
  • Sentries:
    • Automatically spot the attacked when pinned by a ranged attack.
    • Defines a sentry round:: “In these scenarios, the following rules are used. This is called the ‘Sentry Round’”
    • Raising the Alarm: “Once the alarm is raised, the Sentry Round ends and play progresses to the End phase. Once this is complete, the battle continues as normal.”
      • Comment: Looks like sensible improvements.
Not necessarily errors, but does now mean:

1) pinning a sentry won’t (RAW) alert the sentry, and they wont raise the alarm
2) depending when the alarm is raised, the defender could suddenly get a full round of activations for all sentries, after the attacker has no activations left.

First definitely feels like an error, given they had corrected an omission in the rules, second just seems moving back to a rule set which gives one side a potential sudden advantage - a situation they also ssemed to have taken steps to fix.

For reference, text in other books as below (2022 Rulebook text is as for DU Rulebook - although with ‘fighter’ replaced by ‘model’).

NECROMUNDA RULEBOOK:
- Intro: “In these scenarios, the following rules are used”
- Raising the Alarm: “Once the alarm is raised, the sentries rules are no longer used and the defender’s fighters follow all the normal rules.”

DARK UPRISING RULEBOOK:
- Intro: “In these scenarios, the following rules are used”
- Raising the Alarm: “Once the alarm is raised, all sentries immediately gain Ready markers, the Sentries rules are no longer used, and the defender’s fighters follow all the normal rules.”

HIVE WAR:
- Intro: “In these scenarios, the following rules are used. This is called the ‘Sentry Round’”
- Raising the Alarm: “Once the alarm is raised, the Sentry Round ends and play progresses to the End phase. Once this is complete, the battle continues as normal.”
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
6,433
6,740
193
Norway
Not necessarily errors, but does now mean:

1) pinning a sentry won’t (RAW) alert the sentry, and they wont raise the alarm
2) depending when the alarm is raised, the defender could suddenly get a full round of activations for all sentries, after the attacker has no activations left.
No no no, these are external inconsistencies and omissions - they don't take precedence. Not one step back!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirWalterManny
Aug 9, 2015
111
115
53
Sunderland, UK
So, ‘Pitch Black’ rules… another external inconsistency; (p137)

- have lost mention of ‘refractor field’ from 2018 rulebook, but retained mention of ‘photo lumens’ from ‘Dark Uprising Rulebook’ when describing who is subject to ‘hidden’
- but more importantly, has brought back text from the 2018 rulebook which prevents charging a model you can’t see (this was removed in the Hive War Rulebook).

The later of these is an internal inconsistency too, I guess, as I can’t see a requirement to see a model you wish to target with a Charge action in the rules for the ‘charge’ action or elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
6,433
6,740
193
Norway
Handling checks are 2D6 (like mental stats), right?

Curious because of the "Running Repairs" Driver skill:
  • "If, when making a Handling check to Restart this crew's vehicle whilst it is Stationary and Stalled, a natural 6 is rolled, this driver has not only Restarted the vehicle but repaired some minor damage. The vehicle regains one lost Hull Point."
A natural 6 on 2D6 is of course possible, but minimum stat is 10+ so it won't be an automatic success as indicated by "not only Restarted the vehicle". Are there any previous rules that mention rolling a natural 6 for a 2D6 roll?
1652466655431.png

Strange how vehicle's BS stat is marked in red background, thought this was used to indicate 2D6 tests, but here it looks like it indicates crew stats (as opposed to vehicle stats).
 
Last edited:

Galtarr

Gang Hero
Mar 1, 2017
1,159
2,069
143
Given their ruling on D3s, I assume it would be a 'natural 6' if either of the two D6s rolled a 6. So, an 11/36 chance...
So an automatic success is now easier than an actual success? (Based on comment of Hnd being 10+ i.e. 3/36)
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
6,433
6,740
193
Norway
The most direct way would be to say any single die that results in 6 triggers the effect. That clearly breaks the implied intention that it's a single die and 6+ is always a success. When you say 10+ (ie. should be probability of 6/36 --> 1/6), another more complicated interpretation came to mind. Requiring a success (implied) AND 1/6 change would trigger the effect, which would be represented by a 10+ result!
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
6,433
6,740
193
Norway
That's what I went with, but it will make it more probable than 1/6. The only stat we got is for the orlock quad, and it has Hnd 6+. That means 72.2% (26/36) chance of success and 30.5% (11/36) chance of success + heal 1 'wound'. Almost double the chance of getting the bonus then!

1652531944935.png

Not that I mind, I'm sure the skill could need a boost. Just something to be aware of.
 

JayTee

Gang Champion
Jun 14, 2015
257
485
63
I'd missed this entirely but they've changed/clarified Line of Sight as to be within Vision Arc only.

While I'm glad they've clarified, the wording is super-unfortunate. It is:

"If a straight uninterrupted line can be drawn from within the first model's vision arc to any part of the other model, the first model has a line of sight to them"

Rather unfortunately this doesn't specify that the line has to remain within the first model's vision arc, so I'm quite within rights to take a tangent from where the vision arc ends which gives me ~270degrees of LoS.

Now obviously that's ridiculous and not intended, but personally we're going to ignore this ruling as LoS makes more sense if it ignores vision arc entirely and the few instances where Visible should replace LoS are introduced. Last count I'm up to 13 instances though I've yet to properly scrub through the AW tactics cards, and most of those 13 are scenario wordings that are more consistent/logical.
 

Ben_S

Hive Lord
Yak Comp 3rd Place
Honored Tribesman
Jul 26, 2015
6,900
12,451
208
Southampton, UK
...the wording is super-unfortunate. It is:

"If a straight uninterrupted line can be drawn from within the first model's vision arc to any part of the other model, the first model has a line of sight to them"

Rather unfortunately this doesn't specify that the line has to remain within the first model's vision arc...

If that's the whole passage, it doesn't clearly say that the line has to be drawn from the first model.

I guess they mean 'vision arc' here to mean front quarter of the model's base, rather than everything in front of the model. But the usual meaning is the 90 degree cone/triangle in front of the model. So, on that basis, you only have draw the line from some point that the first model can (intuitively) see, to the second model - who might be not only outside of the first model's 90 degree arc but also around a corner.
 

almic85

Cranky Git
Oct 30, 2014
2,461
4,491
163
Palmerston, ACT, Australia
Only just getting a chance to actually read through the Ash Wastes rulebook due to some travel and a new born.

I have noticed that the Pitch Black rules on p.137 DO refer to Refractor Fields, just only in the second dot point where it states “in addition, models may not make a Charge (Double) action against enemies who they cannot see (for example, their target must be within 3” or have a Blaze or Revealed marker on them or be wearing a REFRACTOR FIELD).

As a strange aside though I find it really odd that a Refractor Field which just distributes the force of the impact over a larger area makes you possible to spot, but a Conversion Field which turns the impact into light energy (yes a big flash that blinds people) doesn’t.

I’ll keep reading through and see if I find any more issues.

I was also about to comment on the change to Vision Arcs.

Yes it can be wilfully misinterpreted but I think the bigger argument is actually where can you measure line of sight from as it has never actually been specified. It just says “stoop down to look from the models point of view:” followed by the above text from @JayTee .

You could argue that the model is able to actually move their head so it could be measured from anywhere they could feasibly put their head, or you could argue it has eyes in the front of its head so Line of Sight must be measured from the eyes as modelled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
6,433
6,740
193
Norway
Not overly happy about random/ambiguous mixing of the word "model" with "fighter" or "vehicle". For example in the rewritten dodge skill:

If the model dodges a weapon that uses a Blast marker or Flame template, a roll of 6 does not automatically cancel the attack - instead, it allows the fighter to move up to 2" before seeing if they are hit.
Not an actual problem (here at least), but I see no gain of first referring to a model, then specifying fighter.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
6,433
6,740
193
Norway
Noticed something fishy: The scenarios in this book specify whether vehicles can be included or not, but make no such comment on mounts. Example:

Looters
  • Zone Mortalis: no vehicles
  • Sector Mechanicus: no vehicles
  • Ash Wastes: vehicles can be included
However, many scenarios since then doesn't make a distinction between vehicles and scenarios. They will say "vehicles and Wargear that grant the Mounted condition cannot be included in either gang's starting crew".

RAW seems to be that mounts and vehicles are treated the same for the purpose of scenario crew limiations. Some gangs can have mounts, but no vehicles. Some can have vehicles and mounts. Some can only have vehicles. Both mounts and vehicles are released for ash wastes, and will be clunky and cumbersome to use in zone mortalis and sector mechanicus. Can't imagine this is intended?

If so, would you consider the limitation of vehicles and not mounts an error in this book?
 

JayTee

Gang Champion
Jun 14, 2015
257
485
63
As I said on Reddit, I think you've got the RAW backwards here (At least as far as the AW rulebook is concerned and the AW Scenarios PDF, that's the free one with The Great Rig Robbery and Breakthrough) and given that Mounts are not mentioned at all the only assumption must be that as they are Fighters (With the Mounted Condition on at least one Fighter card) they can be included in all scenarios.

Certainly I've never played that you can't bring a Stormcaller to a Rescue Mission (Reducing Visibility down to 6" to sneak in and rescue someone is clearly thematically excellent) or a Helamite to a Wasteland Encounter, it's too much of a kick in the pants to the Nomads if they can't bring their arguably 2 best fighter types.

There's a clear call-out on Pg134 regarding 'Vehicles in Crews' and if GW had wanted to restrict Mounts from things this would be the obvious place to put it, and given that Mounts appeared first in this rulebook I really struggle to believe they completely forgot about Mounts.

Mounts are ~less clunky to use in non-Ash Waste setups as they work like fighters, just with specific movement/terrain restrictions. Vehicles would spend most of their time smashing into things and getting Austin-Powers stuck. So I don't necessarily think a blanket 'no vehicles = no mounts' is appropriate, even if the Cinderak Burning book seems to be leaning that way.

I suspect the restrictions on the Cinderak Burning scenarios are more thematic than mechanical (Though I've yet to play any of the CB scenarios), it doesn't make a lot of sense for Escher Cutters to lounging in the bar when defending the bar in Bar Defence. Notably in Bar Defence Vehicles and Mounts can appear as Reinforcements for the Attacker (I assume. The restriction is not in the starting crew, but the 'rest of the Attackers form a Reinforcement deck')
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts