Which given their track record could be intentional or a cock up. It’s a coin flip to decide which.
N18 Collected Errors/Typos in The Book of Judgement
- Thread starter Jacob Dryearth
- Start date
I just want to thank everyone for their contributions here, I'm using the top post as a supplement to my local group's house rules and errata list. Keep them coming and please try to limit side topics to a minimum.
I assume this will all be included in the YAQ eventually, so this work is a good headstart on that, even if these suggested solutions aren't what the YAQ settles on.
I assume this will all be included in the YAQ eventually, so this work is a good headstart on that, even if these suggested solutions aren't what the YAQ settles on.
It's all been highly helpful for my rules compilation too. It is way more than I could have spotted myself.
P. 30
Dominion campaign rules for Enforcers have two things that are in conflict with each other:
"Homeground
If challenged in Takeover phase, the ensuing battle will automatically take place within Palanite Precinct...
...A gang can never take control of a Palanite Precinct. If, however, a gang should assault the Palanite Precinct and win the ensuing battle, that gang will gain +5 Reputation"
"Takeover Phase:
...
If, however, another gang challenges the Enforcers during the Takeover then the gang is assumed to be launching a bold assault against the Enforcers' Palanite Precinct Territory"
These two excerpts point towards a rule where you cannot conquer any of Palanite held Police Territories. But... under the Police Territory rules there is a hint of Police Territories being conquerable:
"Immediately after taking control of the Territory and after every succesful defence of the Territory, the Enforcers gain D3+1 Reputation"
Dominion campaign rules for Enforcers have two things that are in conflict with each other:
"Homeground
If challenged in Takeover phase, the ensuing battle will automatically take place within Palanite Precinct...
...A gang can never take control of a Palanite Precinct. If, however, a gang should assault the Palanite Precinct and win the ensuing battle, that gang will gain +5 Reputation"
"Takeover Phase:
...
If, however, another gang challenges the Enforcers during the Takeover then the gang is assumed to be launching a bold assault against the Enforcers' Palanite Precinct Territory"
These two excerpts point towards a rule where you cannot conquer any of Palanite held Police Territories. But... under the Police Territory rules there is a hint of Police Territories being conquerable:
"Immediately after taking control of the Territory and after every succesful defence of the Territory, the Enforcers gain D3+1 Reputation"
spafe
Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
I'm being thick, how do those rules conflict?
The enforcers defend their territory, they get D3+1 rep, if they lose, the other gang gets 5 rep but don;t get the the territory, jsut the one off bonus to their rep. whats the issue?
The enforcers defend their territory, they get D3+1 rep, if they lose, the other gang gets 5 rep but don;t get the the territory, jsut the one off bonus to their rep. whats the issue?
Palanite Precint is no police territory. Police Territory is an action performed to cleanse a free or enemy held territory (other option is to take Grant Territory action):
"Territory actions
If the Enforcers win control of unoccupied or enemy held territory, they must perform one of the followin actions during the Wrap-up:
Police territory:
The enforcers clear up the Territory. In series of shock assaults and raids, they shut down the criminal enterprises and flush out troublemakers:
* the enforcers gain control of the territory, but gain no boons of it.
* Immediately after taking control of the Territory and after every succesful defence of the Territory, the Enforcers gain D3+1 Reputation"
"Territory actions
If the Enforcers win control of unoccupied or enemy held territory, they must perform one of the followin actions during the Wrap-up:
Police territory:
The enforcers clear up the Territory. In series of shock assaults and raids, they shut down the criminal enterprises and flush out troublemakers:
* the enforcers gain control of the territory, but gain no boons of it.
* Immediately after taking control of the Territory and after every succesful defence of the Territory, the Enforcers gain D3+1 Reputation"
The Enforcers can choose to Police a territory when they win a game (they can't take control of it as normal). They then get a bonus for defending this specific territory in later games.
However, when Enforcers are attacked, their starting territory (the Palanite Precinct) is automatically chosen as the territory to be attacked. This means territories that have been Policed can never be attacked, so they can never be successfully defended, so the bonus can never be earned.
I think the defense of the precinct counts as defending the policed territory, it just gives the Enforcers the benefit of setting up all the tiles and doors. At least that's how I interpret it.
Last edited:
That's a fair interpretation. One I'm going to dictate. I've promised to arbitrate a campaign (this was before Enforcers came along) which now is about to start soon, so a try to get a sense of overall dominion rules. Enforcers will be one of the gangs and their mechanics has puzzled me.
Way the given page (30) is organized it seems to me that they had two things in their mind: possibility to conquer Police Territories during takeover phase and that being impossible. Most of the page leans towards Palanite Precinct being only way to attack the Enforcers.
I think that it'll be more interesting to have Enforcers to occupy certain territories so that they'll be kinda "out of the game". That D3+1 rep is a decent reward for defending the police station. Still a think that the line: "and after every succesful defence of the Territory, the Enforcers gain D3+1 Reputation" and where it is written point that Policed Territories were (at some point) meant to be challenged.
Way the given page (30) is organized it seems to me that they had two things in their mind: possibility to conquer Police Territories during takeover phase and that being impossible. Most of the page leans towards Palanite Precinct being only way to attack the Enforcers.
I think that it'll be more interesting to have Enforcers to occupy certain territories so that they'll be kinda "out of the game". That D3+1 rep is a decent reward for defending the police station. Still a think that the line: "and after every succesful defence of the Territory, the Enforcers gain D3+1 Reputation" and where it is written point that Policed Territories were (at some point) meant to be challenged.
How would it work exactly?
Do you think the Enforcer gang can be challenged for any Policed territory, and, even though the battle takes place within the Palanite Precinct, this territory is the one at stake (meaning the Enforcer gang gains D3+1 Reputation if the defense is successful, and the enemy gang takes control of the territory otherwise, but they don't get +5 Reputation for having assaulted the Precinct)
Or do you think the Enforcer gang can only be challenged for the Palanite Precinct, but they gain D3+1 Reputation for each Policed territory they have whenever they defend it successfully (and the enemy gang gain +5 Rep but no territory if they don't)?
Or something else?
Someone asked earlier if other specialist games were as bad.
Aeronautica Imperialis is showing the same sort of things, although not as much.
And the Devs are taking the same stance of "the rules are written exactly as they should be " ... "the way this rule works is <direct contradiction to the written rules>".
I think the reason it's so bad is because it's same small team (I believe Andy Hoare mentioned it was ~10 people in his interview) managing multiple game systems which are often quite expansive.
But releasing the rules as a PDF and getting the community to vet them would do them a world of good.
It must be so off-putting to new players to see such a huge list of errors and no end in sight. Hell, it's off-putting to me and I'm well down the rabbit hole now.
Aeronautica Imperialis is showing the same sort of things, although not as much.
And the Devs are taking the same stance of "the rules are written exactly as they should be " ... "the way this rule works is <direct contradiction to the written rules>".
I think the reason it's so bad is because it's same small team (I believe Andy Hoare mentioned it was ~10 people in his interview) managing multiple game systems which are often quite expansive.
But releasing the rules as a PDF and getting the community to vet them would do them a world of good.
It must be so off-putting to new players to see such a huge list of errors and no end in sight. Hell, it's off-putting to me and I'm well down the rabbit hole now.
Pretty much what Srednak said I guess. If you'll excuse me, I don't really have the mental bandwidth to dig deeper on this or come up with anything better or more enlightened right now, as I'm inundated with campaign prep right now! I'll talk it over with my resident Enforcer player during our first game.
@Jumbley made a comment about Hardened Flak Armour when discussing the Book of Ruin (https://yaktribe.games/community/threads/book-of-ruin-general-discussion.9563/).
There has been a paid stealth errata for this armour in the Book of Ruin!
Original from Book of Judgement:
Updated in Book of Judgement:
Difference is AP reduction is changed from "minimum 1" to "minimum -1".
There has been a paid stealth errata for this armour in the Book of Ruin!
Original from Book of Judgement:
"Flak armour grants a 6+ save roll. Against weapons that use a Blast marker or Flame template, this is increased to a 5+ save roll. Additionally, when an enemy fighter makes a ranged attack against a fighter wearing hardened flak armour, the Armour Penetration of the weapon used is decreased by 1, to a minimum of 1."
Updated in Book of Judgement:
"Flak armour grants a 6+ save roll. Against weapons that use a Blast marker or Flame template, this is increased to a 5+ save roll. Additionally, when an enemy fighter makes a ranged attack against a fighter wearing hardened flak armour, the Armour Penetration of the weapon used is decreased by 1, to a minimum of -1."
Difference is AP reduction is changed from "minimum 1" to "minimum -1".
So as I read this a natural AP value of -1 is going to to be unaffected by this rule. It only kicks in if the value is -2 or better. Is this correct, or do I need another cup of coffee before I go reading things on the internet today?
Hopefully new are going to see an FAQ / errata that clarifies this for non owners of dark uprising in the near future.
I would accept the new year being a release date to allow them to also cover dark uprising and BOR ina single pdf
I would accept the new year being a release date to allow them to also cover dark uprising and BOR ina single pdf
Booo! My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined.
Seriously though - is it too much to ask for proper errata, or any consistency with the mother-loving rules? Anyone who doesn't pick up this book (or find this thread) doesn't know about this change.
I believe the '1' was always a typo anyway.
Iirc, the French said '-1' and the German said '0'.
So again, we won't get an FAQ. Just new books with the rules reprinted.
Iirc, the French said '-1' and the German said '0'.
So again, we won't get an FAQ. Just new books with the rules reprinted.
The new FAQ has corrections for the following identified errors:
25 (incorrectly fixed),33,47,81,86,87,92,93,94,98,99,100,101,104,105 (incomplete),107,108 (incomplete),111,117,121
25 (incorrectly fixed),33,47,81,86,87,92,93,94,98,99,100,101,104,105 (incomplete),107,108 (incomplete),111,117,121
Similar threads
