N18 Collected Errors/Typos in N25 Bastions of Law (Enforcer)

[TopsyKretts]

Is scenario "Asset Seizure" entirely broken? Normal deployment is 12" from center line. There are 5 loot, defender start placing them, so gets 3. Attacker gets 2. Must be placed 3" from deployment zones and 6" from each other. So 15" from deployment zone. Defender needs to place loot within 1" of any battlefield edge to secure them, and secure 3+ loot to win (game immediately ends).

This is how it breaks:

• Defender places 1st loot on left side within 1" of battlefield edge (3" from defending deployment zone).
• Defender places 3rd loot on right side within 1" of battlefield edge (3" from defending deployment zone).
• Defender places 5th loot anywhere else at 3" from defending deployment zone.

2 loot on edges are automatically secured at the end of round 1. Nothing attacker can do, it is 21" away and they need to spend 1 action to destroy it. So they need to spend an activation moving 21" AND make a fight (basic) action. Infiltrate (and similar) normally breaks scenarios like these, but may be the only hope attacker has here.
Last loot must be carried normally, so without infiltrate, a fighter must carry it back, for example to the back side (within friendly deployment zone). It takes a fighter 1 action to move within 1" of the loot and another to move it 6" back. So a total of 4-5 actions for fighters with standard Move of 4" or 5". That's round 2, at worst round 3. Alternatively, move directly towards a side edge instead, can be as little as 7" away so achievable in round 1.

Even if you added a distance to the edges for placing loot as a bare minimum, it still only takes 3 fighters to carry 3 loot within 2, max 3 rounds. All while in their own deployment zone, attackers start 24" away.

If this stuff should work, each team should be forced to place loot in the enemy half of the battlefield, or add take other measures to prevent auto wins.

 

[Hobo86]

the power hammer I noted earlier is used by the ammo jack... (mea culpa)

there is however another error with the house agent stating you can't combine these with rolling on the (non-existant) house favor table

 

[TopsyKretts]

the power hammer I noted earlier is used by the ammo jack... (mea culpa)

there is however another error with the house agent stating you can't combine these with rolling on the (non-existant) house favor table

One generic favours table exists. And while it may not be entirely applicable to every single gang, it is effectively an universal rule. Certainly copy-pasted from any other gang where it most likely is applicable. I used to be real strict about such details, but I don't really see this kind of minor discrepancies as errors or mistakes anymore.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Scenario "Getaway" includes an escape vehicle which as stats, but they forgot to specified wheeled or tracked. I can only assume wheeled, but this should be stated for any and all vehicles.

 

[Hobo86]

One generic favours table exists. And while it may not be entirely applicable to every single gang, it is effectively an universal rule. Certainly copy-pasted from any other gang where it most likely is applicable. I used to be real strict about such details, but I don't really see this kind of minor discrepancies as errors or mistakes anymore.

roger, just found it in the main rule book (2023)

 

[TopsyKretts]

Puzzled by the tactics "Emergency Deputisation":

Add a free Enlisted Hive Scum with up to 50 credits of equipment to your starting crew for this battle. During the post-battle sequence you may pay their credits value in order to add them permanently to your Roster.

This is an Enforcer tactics, also usable by Badzone Enforcer. It gives you a temporary Badzone Enforcer juve! And further, it allows for buying it permanently. Tactics rarely allow to gain permanent content that is otherwise restricted?

Another tacitcs gives temporary access to any Prefecture. But while used by Badzone Enforcer, they can't use Prefecture. So I can only assume this is an exception to the rule (like so many tactics in general).

 

[Hobo86]

(1) i assume you can only keep the enlisted scum if you have the available slots to allow you to take him/her?

(2) agreed... even if lorewhise it's a bit odd

 

[TopsyKretts]

Juves don't require slots? They are the part of the main core of the gang. What I found strange is how it allows Enforcers to gain permanent access to a Juve from another gang (even if closely related).

 

[Hobo86]

the enlisted scum are still no gang fighters... so you would still need enough gang fighters to allow you to take the enlisted scum?
theoretically I could still allow enforcer gangs acces to infiltrators

 

[Beebopalulla]

I wonder if it's a typo. Elsewhere it's 60 creds not 50 of free equippement.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Haha sorry forgot already they don't have the Gang Fighter rule. So ridiculous. I don't get why that rule even exists, it should just apply to all Gangers and Juves regardless.

 

[Hobo86]

Haha sorry forgot already they don't have the Gang Fighter rule. So ridiculous. I don't get why that rule even exists, it should just apply to all Gangers and Juves regardless.

it does limit the badzone enforces to have an arbitrary 50% 'possible' infiltrators
maybe a balance nerf?

 

[TopsyKretts]

You mean from Cunning as Primary? Could be. But I never saw that as balancing problem before. So you made me curious and turns out not alot of gangs have Cunning as Primary. Delaque and Ash Wastes got a lot of it. Some other gangs have it partially like some of the Cults?

 

[Hobo86]

yes indeed.
for delaque, most have cunning
the nomads have a mix of cunning acces models and models without cunning.
Cgc and the other cults are some of the oldest gangs atm... they might be phasing them out?

(but for a full list: possibly venator & outcasts, cgc, gsc, helots and tapferkeit squat ancestry)

 

[TopsyKretts]

Completely forgot to mention all the flak armour variant problems! Did we grow so tired of them in N19? Nothing was done in the new book to fix the TP problems:

• Layered flak is same cost as hardened, and layered has lower rarity, but layered flak is always better.

However, new mistake was made in this book, making hardened flak more expensive than layered flak! But again, layered flak is always better.

Perhaps theoretically, if you could modify your armour save from hardened flak's 6+ to 2+, you could benefit from the AP reduction (min 1). But that's probably impossible and very extreme.

Considering layered flak is R8, if you can send a champ/leader to TP, you more than 50% chance of getting it. And when you can buy layered flak at 20, it is always better than buying hardened flak for 20 or 30. This means hardened flak is mostly a trap or dead choice.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Perhaps the ideal cost of flak armour variants would be:

Armour	Enforcer cost	TP cost	TP rarity	Comment
Flak	5	5	C	Reduced cost from 10 to 5. Who buys flak anyway?
Hardened	10	10	R8	Reduced cost from 20/30 to 10. Reduced rarity from R10 to R8. Mostly worse than Mesh, but conditionally better than flak.
Layered	20	20	R10	Increased rarity from R8 to R10.
Hardened layered	25	25	R11	Reduced cost from 35/40/50 to 25. Still only slightly better than mesh and layered.

 

[Beebopalulla]

It's one of these equipements from a house list that you avoid buying in favour of something else at the trading post or the black market.

 

[Hobo86]

@TopsyKretts that's likely a design choice to further differentiate subjugators (frontliners = cheaper or better armor) from palanites (backliners) further?
it's not the only place where such design choices are made

 

[TopsyKretts]

So who's buying hardened flak at 30? Nobody buys flak at 10. Flak should be realistically worth 5 creds. Hardened maybe 10, still worse than mesh in most cases. But for this differentiating purpose, it's priced at 30?!? They always made a mess of these from the start. I'm not buying this

There are some arguments the special flaks are no longer available from TP. FIrst, they are omitted in N23 TP. That in itself is not explicitly removing them. But another, more compelling argument I saw was that it's marked as 'E' (exclsuive) in this book. Still, I would like even more explicit ruling. Even markings like this has been wrong.

 

[Hobo86]

likely the new books overwrites the older books... but some confirmation of this by GW could be nice?
with sources spread over multiple books it's not a given and it's not a given everybody knows what has been updated where?