N18 Collected Errors/Typos in N23 Rulebook

It's worded fine. It's stating that instead of following the 'Hit Fighters become Pinned' section on pg117, you instead follow the 'I get knocked down' section. At the end of this hit (i.e. the 'I get knocked down' hit, not the original shot) the Fighter is either Prone and Pinned, or Standing and Active, but the actual shot still needs to be resolved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
Nah, pinning doesn’t get you out of being SI, otherwise people would be routinely lobbing frag grenades at their SI fighters to get them out of the condition to a state where they can stand up next round.
The rules on Shooting state that a 'Standing and Active' fighter will have their status changed to 'Prone and Pinned' when hit, so that wouldn't work on a fighter that is 'Prone and Seriously Injured', same as you can't pin someone who is 'Standing and Engaged'.

However, the Mounted rules allow for a fighter to be 'Standing and Active' when shot thus needing to test for being Knocked Down, getting Seriously Injured by that additional hit, changing their status to 'Prone and Seriouly Injured', and then after resolving that hit their status is changed to 'Prone and Pinned'. This can end up being moot though as the shot that knocked them down in the first place will then be resolved and might put them back to 'Prone and Seriously Injured' (although they would avoid the additional Flesh Wound for being Seriously Injured while already 'Prone and Seriously Injured').
 
The problem with the RAW is they forgot to re-state that mounted fighters can be seriously injured on the mounted rules on page 70. But surely most players would probably surmise that mounted fighters are covered by that condition, given they shoot and fight like other fighters with some modifications as per the page 70 mounted rules. Mounted fighters still get Seriously Injured and bleed out like other fighters – is anyone seriously playing them without this?

Mounts are not capital V vehicles, they are war gear of their fighters and do not get attacked – the mounted fighter is the subject of the attack.

To restate all the relevant RAW: mounted fighters are "fighters” as covered by the status lists on page 64 of the current core book.
The status “prone” has two sub-statuses, “pinned” and “seriously injured” (page 64).

To be taken out of pinned the fighter needs to perform a Stand Up Basic action (page 64), if mounted they need to pass an initiative test as well (page 70). Or alternatively they can be Engaged in close combat if in base-to-base contact with another fighter, which makes them Standing as a free action (page 64).

As an aside: the RAW are unclear as to whether Mounts would need to pass an initiative check - frankly this is where a rule making it possible for a fighter to unmount their vehicle mid-battle would be welcome (if they failed an initiative check). It is a bit weird that pinned fighters automatically stand up when someone swings at them from above but don't when shot at by something coming straight at them.

To be taken out of Seriously Injured the fighter can recover (taking a Flesh Wound) during the recover part of the end phase, or be coup-de-graced by an enemy fighter, or be reduced to zero toughness and go out of action, or be shot and go out of action via an inflicted injury dice. The act of being shot at does not make the already prone|seriously injured fighter pinned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
The problem with the RAW is they forgot to re-state that mounted fighters can be seriously injured on the mounted rules on page 70. But surely most players would probably surmise that mounted fighters are covered by that condition, given they shoot and fight like other fighters with some modifications as per the page 70 mounted rules. Mounted fighters still get Seriously Injured and bleed out like other fighters – is anyone seriously playing them without this?
The reason I mentined it in this thread and not as one of it's own is that this is the "Collected Errors/Typos" thread. I doubt anyone is playing it that way but my understanding was that this was place to mention where RAW falls down and/or rules conflict.

I am aware that mounts are wragear for fighters and follow the rules for fighters with the exceptions listed for the Mounted condition. Now, is there anywhere in the rules that states the only way a fighter can switch from Prone and Seriously Injured to Prone and Pinned is through rolling a Flesh Wound during their Recovery Check in the End Phase? If not, why does the statement "After this hit has been resolved, the fighter changes their status to Prone and Pinned." not apply to a Seriously Injured fighter? For comparison, the wording used in Recovery Tests is "If the result is a Flesh Wound, the fighter suffers a Flesh Wound and becomes Prone and Pinned.". To me, both of those are similarly straight forward instructions. I don't think that's the way it should be but, again, that's why I'm bringing it up in a list of errors.

Normal fighters that are Seriously Injured won't switch to Pinned because the standard rules for shooting only make Standing and Active fighters change to Prone and Pinned, and that takes effect before resolving the hit. This is a quirk specific to the "I Get Knocked Down..." wording and sequencing which allows for a Mounted fighter to take damage and then change to pinned afterwards, and it only applies to the damage from the additional hit they take for being Knocked Down as the initial hit from their attacker has yet to be resolved. The sequencing is where I think they have made an error.

The additional rules regarding Mounted fighters and Standing Up are not relevant to my point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
This is the rules lawyering part of the forum, and less important topics have been raised elsewhere (different font on the spine comes to mind haha). I guess it's worth having it mentioned here in the discussion. Hopefully most players don't need to think twice about it and instead read between the lines, because going from seriously injured to pinned doesn't make sense to anyone.
 
Last edited:
What's your take on when Old Battle Wound applies? Immediately, when getting the injury, or starting only after the next battle?
Old Battle Wound: At the end of each battle this fighter participates in roll a D6, on a 1 the fighter goes into Convalescence.
 
IIRC Lasting Injuries are rolled as soon as the fighter goes Out of Action so they would aquire the Old Battle Wound prior to the end of the battle and would have to test for that battle. Unless they were Seriously Injured at the end of the battle then succumbed to their injuries and acquired the Old Battle Wound during the post-battle sequence, then they wouldn't have to test until next game. (Same if they acquire it due to Mnemonic Implant Spike or other stuff that happens between games.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
Maybe this was changed in an earlier book, but I think the versatile change is huge. Tldr: No more reaction attacks via Versatile.

Bolded the key bits.

HoF: The wielder of a Versatile weapon does not need to be in base contact with an enemy fighter in order to Engage them in melee. During their activation or when making Reaction attacks, they may Engage and make close combat attacks against an enemy
fighter so long as the distance between their base and that of the enemy fighter is equal to or less than the distance shown for the Versatile weapon’s Long range characteristic.

An enemy fighter is considered to be Engaged by a fighter armed with a Versatile weapon if they are within both the Long range of the Versatile weapon and the Vision Arc of that fighter. An enemy fighter may not in turn be Engaging the fighter armed with the Versatile weapon unless they too are armed with
a Versatile weapon, and so may not be able to make Reaction attacks.

At all times other than during this fighter’s activation or when making Reaction attacks, this Trait has no effect


N23: "The wielder of a Versatile weapon does not need to be in base contact with an enemy model in order to engage them in melee during their activation. They may engage and make close combat attacks against an enemy model during their activation, so long as the
distance between their base and that of the enemy model is equal to or less than the distance shown for the Versatile weapon’s Long range characteristic. For example, a fighter armed with a Versatile weapon with
a Long range of 2" may engage an enemy model that is up to 2" away.

The enemy model is considered to be engaged, but may not in turn be Engaging the fighter armed with he Versatile weapon unless they too are armed with a Versatile weapon, and so may not be able to make Reaction attacks.

At all other times other than during this fighter’s activation, Versatile has no effect."

It does not help that GW left the middle paragraph in unchanged, which contradicts and confuses by referencing reaction attacks. But seeing the deliberate changes elsewhere, it feels to me that GW wanted this change, just maybe did it sloppy.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: TopsyKretts
Maybe this was changed in an earlier book, but I think the versatile change is huge. Tldr: No more reaction attacks via Versatile.

SNIP
The enemy model is considered to be engaged, but may not in turn be Engaging the fighter armed with he Versatile weapon unless they too are armed with a Versatile weapon, and so may not be able to make Reaction attacks.

At all other times other than during this fighter’s activation, Versatile has no effect."
I might be missing your point, but it does state that reaction attacks are possible if the fighter has a versatile weapon that is in range. Reaction attacks are a "response" to the other fighters activation hence the caveat of "At all other times during this fighter's activation...." meaning the attacking fighter and not the responding fighter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: libratorr
I might be missing your point, but it does state that reaction attacks are possible if the fighter has a versatile weapon that is in range. Reaction attacks are a "response" to the other fighters activation hence the caveat of "At all other times during this fighter's activation...." meaning the attacking fighter and not the responding fighter.
If you look at the first quoted paragraph in each extract, you can see the ability has gone from "during their activation or when naking reaction attacks" to "During their activation". This is then reinforced by the final line. It has again changed from "during this fighters acrivation or when making reaction attacks" to "During this fighters a activation."

That is clear cut imo. Versatile only works when you activate and not during reaction attacks (like Pyromantic mantels). The middle paragraph inclusion of reaction attacks is I beleive a copy and paste error as it contradicts the rest of the ability and is nearly identicle to the original lines of text.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben_S
If you look at the first quoted paragraph in each extract, you can see the ability has gone from "during their activation or when naking reaction attacks" to "During their activation". This is then reinforced by the final line. It has again changed from "during this fighters acrivation or when making reaction attacks" to "During this fighters a activation."

That is clear cut imo. Versatile only works when you activate and not during reaction attacks (like Pyromantic mantels). The middle paragraph inclusion of reaction attacks is I beleive a copy and paste error as it contradicts the rest of the ability and is nearly identicle to the original lines of text.
The way I read it they are purely stating that during your activation you can engage a fighter using the versatile trait. They then note that the engaged fighter can also use a versatile weapon for reaction attacks if it has sufficient range.
 
The way I read it they are purely stating that during your activation you can engage a fighter using the versatile trait. They then note that the engaged fighter can also use a versatile weapon for reaction attacks if it has sufficient range.
For me, the final line contradicts that viewpoint. It clearly states that at all other times, except during your activation, versatile has no effect. Reaction attacks are not a part of your activation, therefore Versatile does not work. It's actually how Pyromantic mantels work as well, it's on during your activation but off at all other times.

I can see the confusion caused by the second paragraph. However, considering the other langauge changes (removing reaction attacks from the sentences at the begining and end of the trait) I personaly find it clear that the intent was to remove versatile as a reaction attack mechanic.
 
I take the final "this fighter's activation" - especially given the second paragraph doesn't make sense otherwise - as being "*a* fighter activating with Versatile".

Clunky, but makes sense.

I.e. Versatile only has effect during an activation in which the activated fighter has Versatile. Even for reacting fighters who aren't themselves activated - they can tap-into that benefit. Sortof.

So if you (A, Versatile) are reacting to fighter B (no Versatile) , you (A) can't poke fighter C, 2" away from A, with your (A's) versatile weapon.

(That's assuming - & without double-checking! - that Rreaction Attacks occur within an opposing fighter's activation.

If they're separate and the Activation ends with an opportunity for reaction attacks [like how Underworlds structures things] then my interpretation doesn't make any sense and should be treated with vicioua contempt.)
 
I would put it even stricter - all this is during an action. Perhaps RAW is activation? But it's still only relevant for Fight action (or equivalents). Reaction attack should be during the action if I remember correctly.
That is clear cut imo. Versatile only works when you activate and not during reaction attacks (like Pyromantic mantels). The middle paragraph inclusion of reaction attacks is I beleive a copy and paste error as it contradicts the rest of the ability and is nearly identicle to the original lines of text.
For once, I don't expect copy-paste error (and that's rare for me haha). What makes most sense to me is to prevent versatile reaction attacks when not attacked by versatile. Now it only allows to make versatile reaction attacks when attacked by versatile?
 
Last edited:
The first situation that comes to mind where it would be useful to say that you can only use Versatile during Reaction attacks if the attacker also used Versatile would be when the attacker has Knockback. The attacker can follow up but does not have to, which leaves the attacked model unable to make Reaction attacks due to no longer being base to base thus not Engaged.

Reaction attacks are indeed part of an action, typically the Fight action, and would happen during the attackers activation, possibly with them still having an action left afterwards. Reaction attacks can also be made as part of an enemy fighter's Retreat action. Reaction attacks can actually be made during your own fighter's activation if you Charge an enemy with the Lightning Reflexes skill (Escher Finesse list) as it allows them to interrupt your action and make a free Retreat action, which in turn may grant you a Reaction opportunity, or if you Seriously Injure/take Out an enemy and cause another Engaged enemy to Break and Run for Cover, forcing them to attempt a Retreat during your activation.

I'm not sure how this interacts with Overseer which allows a friendly to make two actions "as though it were their turn to activate". Is that clause enough for it count as being during their activation for Versatile, or does Versatile do nothing when using Overseer as it's actually the activation of the fighter with the skill? This could be important for fans of the Mercator Pallidus Corpse Harvesting Party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
You point out some cases I didn't think about. The usual situation I thought about was 2 fighters B2B, defender has versatile and can use reaction attack to attack someone else completely at range (for example up to 6" away). It still irks me that reaction attack can target someone else, but with versatile it is even more unusual compared to traditional game mechanics.

For Overseer, you could certainly ask that question, but I prefer to not overthink. Treat it (almost) exactly as a normal activation. It just isn't worth having these types of rare exceptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PalatineKatinka
The usual situation I thought about was 2 fighters B2B, defender has versatile and can use reaction attack to attack someone else completely at range (for example up to 6" away). It still irks me that reaction attack can target someone else, but with versatile it is even more unusual compared to traditional game mechanics.
That's possibly the situation this change of wording is trying to address by making the use of Versatile dependent on the activated fighter, but possibly still allowing Reaction attacks if the target has Versatile too. So you can attack back against the fighter that engaged you but can't elect to engage other targets outside of your own activation.

It gets even madder if you add Reckless into the mix.
 
Not sure if mentioned but Juve/Prospect promotion requirement during Downtime (phase 2) is reduced from 5+ advancements (which was existing universal standard) to 3+ advancements. It has since remained the default for succesion 3 campaign after this book.

What does this mean for all other rules? Assuming it is the new standard, it would replace any and all references to 5+ advancements (for example older campaigns and Badzone Enforcer promotion of Enlisted Hive Scum). Or it is specific to the cases it mentions, ie. Dominion (v2) and Succession 3 only? For simplicity I'd like it to be universal, but there are no shortage of fluff excuses to keep this complicated ("those older campaigns are more difficult to learn and develop in" 😖).
 
Not sure if mentioned but Juve/Prospect promotion requirement during Downtime (phase 2) is reduced from 5+ advancements (which was existing universal standard) to 3+ advancements. It has since remained the default for succesion 3 campaign after this book.

What does this mean for all other rules? Assuming it is the new standard, it would replace any and all references to 5+ advancements (for example older campaigns and Badzone Enforcer promotion of Enlisted Hive Scum). Or it is specific to the cases it mentions, ie. Dominion (v2) and Succession 3 only? For simplicity I'd like it to be universal, but there are no shortage of fluff excuses to keep this complicated ("those older campaigns are more difficult to learn and develop in" 😖).
I’m pretty sure it is a new universal promotion rule 🤔