N18 Collected Errors/Typos in The Book of Judgement
- Thread starter Jacob Dryearth
- Start date
The fourth boon for Law Abiding gangs allows them to hire a bounty hunter for free, Venators cannot do this as they are forbidden from hiring Bounty Hunters, so you can have the situation where a specialised bounty hunter gang has less chance of capturing a fighter than another gang which gets this free upgrade and thus the +1 to the capture roll. I'm aware that this situation could arise naturally if another gang hired a Bounty Hunter but at least they would be paying for the +1 advantage.
It also means this boon is worthless to a Venator gang.
It also means this boon is worthless to a Venator gang.
That's a good point, but it isn't a typo, rather an oversight of Venator integration. Venators also have completely different captured fighter rules that are in conflict with the campaign rules. Should they get both their bounties for all captured and killed fighters in addition to the campaign rules for Outlaw bounties? Should the Law and Misrule bounties replace their normal rules?
page 15
the Imperial imposter, this allie protcts against becoming outlawed, however on page 13, it says oly outlaws can make an alliance with them
the Imperial imposter, this allie protcts against becoming outlawed, however on page 13, it says oly outlaws can make an alliance with them
It also says every game you test for outlawing.
This was covered in another thread. It seems you do not lose criminal alliances if you later become law abiding. It is possible to form an alliance with the Imperial Imposter while outlawed, get on the good side of the law and use them to help prevent further outlawing.
If that extreme edge case the intent? Maybe? Not a typo as it is too central to the alliance rules, probably something overlooked in a revision.
This was covered in another thread. It seems you do not lose criminal alliances if you later become law abiding. It is possible to form an alliance with the Imperial Imposter while outlawed, get on the good side of the law and use them to help prevent further outlawing.
If that extreme edge case the intent? Maybe? Not a typo as it is too central to the alliance rules, probably something overlooked in a revision.
If you change alignment, you have to test the alliance rolling 2D6, adding 3 to the roll. In addition, add +1 each time you test the alliance previously.
On a 7+, the alliance is broken. So you need to roll 1-4 on 2D6 if you never tested the alliance before? If you switch alignment, this is the chance to keep the alliance:
Tested Alliance 0 times before: 16.6% (83.3% change to break the alliance)
Tested Alliance 1 times before: 8.3% (91.6% change to break the alliance)
Tested Alliance 2 times before: 2.7% (97.2% change to break the alliance)
Also checkout the drawback for Imperial Imposters: Each time you use the Charlatan in battle, you roll a D6, and on a 6 you gang is outlawed.
Under the rules for switching alignments, the rules state that there are only 2 ways to switch alignment:
1) Forced: A gang can be forced to change alignment because they claim an Intrigue from a category that does not match their alignment are are caught.
2) Declared: Once during the campaign, a gang can declare to change alignment (between battles).
Here are some initial conclusions:
On a 7+, the alliance is broken. So you need to roll 1-4 on 2D6 if you never tested the alliance before? If you switch alignment, this is the chance to keep the alliance:
Tested Alliance 0 times before: 16.6% (83.3% change to break the alliance)
Tested Alliance 1 times before: 8.3% (91.6% change to break the alliance)
Tested Alliance 2 times before: 2.7% (97.2% change to break the alliance)
Also checkout the drawback for Imperial Imposters: Each time you use the Charlatan in battle, you roll a D6, and on a 6 you gang is outlawed.
Under the rules for switching alignments, the rules state that there are only 2 ways to switch alignment:
1) Forced: A gang can be forced to change alignment because they claim an Intrigue from a category that does not match their alignment are are caught.
2) Declared: Once during the campaign, a gang can declare to change alignment (between battles).
Here are some initial conclusions:
- The rules for when you can change alignment is incorrect. Allied drawbacks can also force you to change alignment.
- Only Outlaws can start an alliance with the Imperial Imposters.
- One drawback for Imperial Impostors is the gang becomes Outlaws.
- When switching alignment, there is a 83.3%-100% chance to break the Alliance.
- You will almost never be able to transfer Imperial Imposters from an Outlaw gang to Law Abiding gang!
Last edited:
Nice analysis. They should probably be treated as an exception to only outlaws being allowed to hire criminals. Personally I'm not allowing alliances this upcoming campaign. When I do I'll hope for errata or fix it myself.
Last edited:
You're in the position to allow or deny stuff? When I play with my friends, none of us are in that position of power! I started a campaign one and a half year ago, and we still play the same campaign (eternal). I hope to continue the campaign within a month or two, after having read and understood most of the new stuff. At that point, I'm eager to test out all the new stuff, specially Alliances.
They insist on having "Rackets" and "Territories", but are unable to separate them in writing. Page 73 (Linked Rackets and Enhanced Boons):
An Enhanced Boon is in addition to a standard
Territory Boon. So a gang will gain all of the Boons
listed for controlling the Racket and for controlling
linked Rackets. The exception to this is Income.
A gang will claim the highest Income Boon
available, not all of the Income Boons available.
I'm currently updating my own rules document with Rackets and the new campaign, merging the two campaigns together. I simply call them "Resources" and that solves silly errors like this!
P. 13 in the new book says to roll 1D6, not 2D6. So if you've never tested the alliance before, you have a 50% chance of keeping it when you change alignment. Or am I missing something?
About the Linked Rackets errors on page 86 (The Ressurection Game & Peddlers of Forbidden Lore).
What Enhanced boon requires both Linked Rackets? The Specials? Income already specifies it requires 1 Linked Racket.
What Enhanced boon requires both Linked Rackets? The Specials? Income already specifies it requires 1 Linked Racket.
Found some weird Racket Boon categorizations:
Page 76, Xenos Beast Trafficking has a "Special" Boon that gives 2D6x10 credits. This should be income instead. Since you have to choose the highest "Income" Boon if more than one is available, RAW this allows multiple Income Boons, since one of them is labeled "Special".
Page 81, Gambling Empire:
Income is used twice, but the enhanced/linked income does not actually give income, it denies the opponent to use one of their fighters in a battle. If you get at least one linked racket, RAW this denies you the actual income (based on gambling on a card deck suit).
Page 76, Xenos Beast Trafficking has a "Special" Boon that gives 2D6x10 credits. This should be income instead. Since you have to choose the highest "Income" Boon if more than one is available, RAW this allows multiple Income Boons, since one of them is labeled "Special".
Page 81, Gambling Empire:
Income is used twice, but the enhanced/linked income does not actually give income, it denies the opponent to use one of their fighters in a battle. If you get at least one linked racket, RAW this denies you the actual income (based on gambling on a card deck suit).
Last edited:
If you look at rackets such as Life Coin Exchange and Whisper Brokers you'll see that even their "special" enhanced boons follow the same pattern as the "Income" boons. The fist enhanced boon requires 1 link, the 2nd requires 2. Only Guild Bonds break this pattern. Some Rackets don't have a 2nd enhanced boons, but every single one that does follows the established pattern except for those on page 86. Furthermore, page 73 explains that enhanced boons require linked rackets.
Well one way to get an answer is post some sweet conversions of human sized Void Born Scum, with your reasons and get the leed developer of the game commenting on your post....
Note you'll need to join the EOH: Gang Bang group on FB to see it.
Well now to figure out a conversion for 2? orgyns in space suits that doesn't involve the FW Charonite Orgyns.......
It may have to be Charonite based unless someone has a better idea (cunning play GW :-D )
I'm getting 404ed with this link. Maybe it's because I don't have a FB account, but it seems the page has been lost to the Warp.
What did my good friend JTY say?
It's a closed Facebook group.
The reply was from Andy Hoare basically that the void born scum are indeed ment to be orgyn/brute sized and that the stats are as intended (no typos)
I'll just flat-out say it, that's bullshit and a lie. Also I'm not joining any Facebook group with gang bang in the title!
Similar threads
