N18 Collected Errors/Typos in N23 Rulebook

P77, removal of line "to determine the success when a vehicle attempts to ram an enemy vehicle, and even" from description of the Handling (HND) characteristic. I can't work out why this was there (in Outlands and Ash Wastes) anyway, as I don't think this characteristic has any affect on a vehicle attempting to make a Ram (Double) action.
 
Superficial changes - change of use of term 'characetristic check' to 'characteristic test' in many, but not all instances. No effect on game, and can't be bothered to work out if an actual intention. Oddity is that on p77, under 'Characteristic Tests', every instance of the term 'check' has been changed to 'test'... and inthe last bullet, each instance of the term 'test' has been changed to 'check', I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
Haha I must admit I've had the exact same issue for my own rules summaries. Test and check is easy to mix up. At one point I took the time to change everything (hopefully?) from check to test. Looks like GW attempted the same (but failed).
Superficial changes - change of use of term 'characetristic check' to 'characteristic test'
You mean 'characteristic check' to 'characteristic test'?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SirWalterManny
Crew selection got expanded. In addition to Random (X) and Custom (X), there is now also Hybrid (X+Y). X is custom selection and Y is random selection.
 
More new stuff: Default tactics cards rules! Default is now Custom (2) + Random (1) per 100 credits difference in crew rating. This might not seem that meaningful, but there are a handful of scenarios where tactics are omitted which will be affected by this.
 
P77, removal of line "to determine the success when a vehicle attempts to ram an enemy vehicle, and even" from description of the Handling (HND) characteristic. I can't work out why this was there (in Outlands and Ash Wastes) anyway, as I don't think this characteristic has any affect on a vehicle attempting to make a Ram (Double) action.
Possibly some early development experimental rules that was later abandoned.
 
TBH i wish they redo palanites rules, they definitely need an overall update
That would probably mean scrapping Book of Judgement in favour of another new book. Not sure how many would be keen on that, though it would pave the way to erasing all pre-“House of” books from the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
That would probably mean scrapping Book of Judgement in favour of another new book. Not sure how many would be keen on that, though it would pave the way to erasing all pre-“House of” books from the game.
Perhaps it could herald a consolidated and updated ‘The Book Of Books’…🤔😂
 
The change to Capture (now a Lasting Injury result) has so many consequences!
  • Webbed: Updated to comply with new mechanics.
  • Restraint Protocol: Broken, needs house ruling (already mentioned)
  • Bounty hunter: Broken +1 modifier per Bounty Hunter. House rule or remove that part?
  • Hired Guns: Broken, could be sold without rescue attempt. However now they can no longer be captured. Simply remove that part?
  • Capture levels of various campaigns (11+) and Law & Misrule (13+) are now removed (?).
  • Water Guild's Water Harvest +1 bonus to Capture is broken. House rule or remove that part?
 
It took 6 years and 24 books to finally fix this:
1 XP if they took part in a battle (this XP is only gained if the scenario does not grant XP for a model taking part in the battle).
Does this effectively remove the 1 XP for taking part from any scenarios that have it? Because it is universal anyways and doesn't stack.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Timmythesupermonkey
Also under Mounted Condition, a clarification:

For the 'Ride By' rule, changed "during their movement" to "when performing a Move (Simple) action", which means can no longer throw in a combined ride by attack with a charge or retreat action. A positive change I think.
While I agree that's likely the intent, we are in a thread about errors so I feel the need to point out that the Charge (Double) action says "The fighter moves as if making a Move (Simple) action", and I'll concede that it is questionable whether 'as if' is enough to trigger effects that occur during a Move (Simple), but the wording of the Retreat (Basic) action is "they can make a Move (Basic) action" which I don't find so easy to argue against. Carry Loot Casket (Simple) also says "they may make a Move (Simple) action". It has blocked 'Ride By' while crawling, consolidating or using the Hip Shooting or Somersault skills though.
 
While I agree that's likely the intent, we are in a thread about errors so I feel the need to point out that the Charge (Double) action says "The fighter moves as if making a Move (Simple) action", and I'll concede that it is questionable whether 'as if' is enough to trigger effects that occur during a Move (Simple), but the wording of the Retreat (Basic) action is "they can make a Move (Basic) action" which I don't find so easy to argue against. Carry Loot Casket (Simple) also says "they may make a Move (Simple) action". It has blocked 'Ride By' while crawling, consolidating or using the Hip Shooting or Somersault skills though.

Good points. Think I still would see this as preventing the ride by action during a charge or a retreat action.

Retreat action allows fighter to make a Move (Basic) action of d6”, not a Move (Simple) action (not clear why bothering to call it a ‘move’ action with the distinction on the type here as doesn’t prevent a subsequent Move (Simple) action I don’t think).

I’d say in both instances these are pseudo moves (Charge (Double) is “as if making a Move (Simple) action” and Retreat (Basic) allows a free ’Move Basic) action of d6”, which is not the same as a Move (Simple) action of the fighter’s movement allowance characteristic - which is the specific action a ride by is permitted during).

The mental gymnastics and ease of interpreting differently resulting from wording which is too loose.

I feel dirty even trying to justify my interpretation (or the opposing), and can’t imagine arguing this over the tabletop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
Thanks for excellent clarification and insight. I would fully lean towards that this should only apply to the normal Move you make, not part of any other action or special rule. The distinction between Move (Simple) and Move (Basic) is futile here, because the book also for the first time clarifies that this is meaningless (unless otherwise noted), and I don't think it's noted here? As a side note, I'm not sure if any rule anywhere makes such a note?

I think Ride By would be much better as being a Ride By (Double) action which allows 1 Move action which can be interrupted at any time to make the Fight action. That's still a strong option to take in some circumstances but without all the loopholes and overpowerdness of doing other stuff in addition, like shooting.
 
Wondering how exactly the change in XP to universally grant 1 XP for taking part affects the vast variants of scenarios that exists up until now. On paper it seems easy enough. All fighters gain 1 XP for taking part in a battle. But what about stuff like "Last Round"? It grants 1 XP to attacking fighters only. Does this override the universal XP, preventing defenders getting XP? Or does the universal XP always apply, so the limitation of only attacking fighters getting XP for taking part is overridden? :unsure:

Arguably, RAW the new rulebook says if the scenario rewards XP for taking part, the universal XP for the same doesn't apply. So those scenarios which limit XP for taking part to the attacker effectively prevents defenders from gaining XP for taking part. But is this intentional? Meaningful? Why? I'd argue it's only a handful of scenarios and that wording at that time could very well be experimental or not thought through. It would be more beneficial to streamline away seemingly meaningless distinctions.

Similar duplicate rewards exists for other XP rewards, but are not explicitly limited. For example Market Mayhem (v2 - Succession - Ash Wastes) rewards XP for taking an enemy Leader/Champion OoA. This would stack with the universal XP reward. Another example is Dust Bowl Skirmish, awarding 2 XP for taking an enemy Leader OoA. In addition to universal rules, this would grant a total of 5 XP for taking an enemy Leader OoA, 6 if you include taking part of the battle.

Edit: So far it looks like this specific limitation is made for end-game scenarios where the defender is the big gang playinjg it's last battle, so doesn't matter if they gain the XP or not. Possibly this makes it intentional, but still irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Retreat action allows fighter to make a Move (Basic) action of d6”, not a Move (Simple) action (not clear why bothering to call it a ‘move’ action with the distinction on the type here as doesn’t prevent a subsequent Move (Simple) action I don’t think).

The distinction between Move (Simple) and Move (Basic) is futile here, because the book also for the first time clarifies that this is meaningless (unless otherwise noted), and I don't think it's noted here? As a side note, I'm not sure if any rule anywhere makes such a note?
There's a note in the list of types of action about not being able to do a (Free) action and a (Basic) action with the same name in the same activation, but there's no mention of combining (Simple) and (Basic) in that. I suspect the intention of Retreat (Basic) granting a Move (Basic) is to prevent the fighter's a second action from being a Move (Simple), but from what I can tell it actually only prevents a Move (Free), and I don't recall anything that grants that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
Haha absolute madness! Based on the clarification on changing action types - again - I don't think GW means much distinction when specifying that an action is 'Basic'. It might just be intended as a placeholder? So a Free action cannot be combined with Basic action with the same name (or Simple or Double or whatever). Of course can't defend that fully based on rules, but that's the way the wind is blowing.

That's another rules update to summarize.

Also, with the introduction of Free actions, shouldn't Spring Up grant a Stand Up (Free) action? I think an old wording is used instead: "the fighter may make a Stand Up (Basic) action for free". Hypothetically, if a similar rule granted the same for a Simple action, would that be a Free action or Simple? For example "the fighter may make a Move (Simple) action for free".
 
Last edited:
Is there anyway to equip vehicles from House Lists yet? It's fucking BS that I CAN equip a vehicle with a Chem Thrower if I want, but it must come the stash. The only way I can see to get a Chem Thrower into the stash is to retire a Fighter equipped with one..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
There appears to be quite a substantial change to the free "Coup de Grace" and I can't see how it works.

Coup de grace


Page 104


If this fighter is not engaged with any other fighters , choose one Prone and Seriously Injured enemy fighter within 1” and within the vision arc of this fighter. That enemy fighter immediately goes Out of Action.


A fighter performing a Charge (Double) action may make a free Coup De Grace (Simple) action instead of a free Fight (Basic) action if they end their move within 1” of a Prone and Seriously Injured fighter and are not engaged with any other enemy fighters.


Page 122


If all enemy models the attacker was engaged with are now either Prone and Seriously Injured or wrecked, the fighter may make a free Coup De Grace (Simple) action against one such enemy fighter.

I thought previously you could Charge (Double), then Fight (Basic) free and then Coup De Grace (Simple) free any Seriously Injured fighters. The above rules indicate that the free action after a Charge (Double) is either Fight (Basic) OR Coup de Grace (Simple).

This seems to mean that you require at least two Fighters to charge an enemy to be sure you can Coup de Grace.
 
To be able to charge a seriously injured fighter and then make a coup de grace doesn't remove step 8 of combat sequence:
8. Consolidate or Coup De Grace

Noticed something else while skimming through those rules:
When a Prone and Pinned fighter is successfully charged they will automatically change their status to Standing and Engaged, however for the purposes of Reaction attacks they count as having turned to face the enemy.
Clear and precise ruling - great!