N18 Compendium YAQ (N18)

UnderhiveGangstar

Gang Champion
Jun 6, 2018
351
188
43
UK
That's not correct thorgor, the obstacle doesn't count as intervening cover if you are within 1"(?) when shooting I believe. In principle though, that is correct in that it is a shooting attack, so theoretically a whip with 3" range could have suffered a penalty.

Regarding your rule, that could definitely meet the requirements, I wont be implementing it though. I see nothing wrong with the old rule and no reason to penalise versatile weapons to the same extent as other weapons. -2 to hit for normal and -1 for versatile is a least more fair than equal penalty, and I would support a group decision to implement that. Otherwise I would use the N17 rule or no barricade rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoothSayer

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
3,949
8,972
138
35
Sevres 92130 France
That's not correct thorgor, the obstacle doesn't count as intervening cover if you are within 1"(?) when shooting I believe. In principle though, that is correct in that it is a shooting attack, so theoretically a whip with 3" range could have suffered a penalty.
You are right. I was thinking in terms of the target hiding behind a barricade, not the shooter.

Anyhow, and so that everyone is on the same page, here are the original rules for attacking across a barricade:
Underhive p64 said:
A fighter who is in base contact with a barricade counts as being Engaged with a fighter that is in base contact with the other side of the barricade, even though their bases are not touching, as long as the two fighters are within 1/2" of each other. Close combat attacks made across a barricade in this way have a -1 modifier to any hit rolls.
So, the "in this way" is the only thing that prevents the -1 modifier to apply to N18's Versatile attacks. However, it should be noted that it was completely superfluous since "this way" was, in N17, the only way to make close combat attacks across a barricade. I really don't trust the N17 writers enough to believe it may be some kind of future-proofing.

If the consensus is that close combat attack should be a thing in N18 and the rule has simply been forgotten (and I think it is), then I believe the simplest way to YAQ it into N18 is to drop the "in this way" part so that it applies equally to all CC attacks. I think it's easier to grok and doesn't penalize Versatile weapons too much.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

UncleFester

Ganger
Jun 12, 2011
151
108
48
Danville, CA, USA
I think you are absolutely right @Thorgor .

And as for whether it is supported in the rules, I think it is. the rules for Versatile let you engage at range and the rules for engaging over a barricade (if you allow it based on N17 rules) is that CC attacks over a barricade are at -1. It's totally by the book 100%.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
3,039
2,896
173
Norway
That's not correct thorgor, the obstacle doesn't count as intervening cover if you are within 1"(?) when shooting I believe. In principle though, that is correct in that it is a shooting attack, so theoretically a whip with 3" range could have suffered a penalty.

Regarding your rule, that could definitely meet the requirements, I wont be implementing it though. I see nothing wrong with the old rule and no reason to penalise versatile weapons to the same extent as other weapons. -2 to hit for normal and -1 for versatile is a least more fair than equal penalty, and I would support a group decision to implement that. Otherwise I would use the N17 rule or no barricade rule.
I don't see how this is penalizing to versatile? Same exact thing is done in Warmachine & Hordes. You can fight across a wall (same as barricade), but doing so gives you a negative hit modifier. Regardless of whether you hit with a close combat weapon with 2" range or not.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
3,949
8,972
138
35
Sevres 92130 France
SM uses true line of sight so a fighter's ability to target stuff should not be hindered by nearby barricades (as long as they don't go above shoulder height). The rule for ZM is nothing but an abstraction of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

UnderhiveGangstar

Gang Champion
Jun 6, 2018
351
188
43
UK
"I don't see how this is penalizing to versatile?"

Because the business end of the versatile weapon is effectively not fighting over a barricade, when a barricade is 1/2" wide and you have a 2" reach. That's the same as a normal fighter standing on the other side of the barricade. I don't think there should no barricade rule at all, I just think the N17 rule should be directly copied in to the new book.

That would give results as I am describing, and is probably what GW intended anyway, I don't think they meant to remove the barricade rule. If they copy and pasted that, polearms wouldn't have to suffer a -1 (except in contact with the wall which would then be -2?) and everyone else could still fight over them, every one wins.

Are you going to convince the Cawdor players in your group that your rule should supersede the official N17 rule, or current no rule situation? That would be a hard sell unless that player is you. They don't need to worry about the opponent fighting back over the barricade anyway, so I suspect they would rather use the N17 rule or no barricade rule. Either way they can still fight you and you cant hit back, you are really just forcing them to willingly take a -1 penalty that isn't supported in either of the official rulebooks.
 
Last edited:

UnderhiveGangstar

Gang Champion
Jun 6, 2018
351
188
43
UK
"SM uses true line of sight so a fighter's ability to target stuff should not be hindered by nearby barricades (as long as they don't go above shoulder height). The rule for ZM is nothing but an abstraction of that."

Exactly right, a barricade by definition cant block line of sight otherwise it is a wall.
 

UnderhiveGangstar

Gang Champion
Jun 6, 2018
351
188
43
UK
"So, the "in this way" is the only thing that prevents the -1 modifier to apply to N18's Versatile attacks. However, it should be noted that it was completely superfluous since "this way" was, in N17, the only way to make close combat attacks across a barricade. I really don't trust the N17 writers enough to believe it may be some kind of future-proofing."

The "in this way" was superfluous as the versatile weapons at the time would have made a shooting attack to hit, but as I mentioned, they wouldn't have had a to hit penalty then either (unless the whipper stood further than 1" away from the barricade, then its -2 probably).

Topsykretts is suggesting a penalty should be imposed that was never really applicable under any combination of the official rules. Everyone is welcome to play however they want for the most fun but If I were playing Cawdor in his group I would not support that proposed change. I'm assuming that his opponents have some say in the matter, I could be wrong, but that's like turkeys voting for christmas.

I would insist that the N17 rule was imposed, or the N18 no barricade situation, or reconsider a polearm based list entirely (which makes Cawdor a poor choice). They would still be good in normal fights but would surrender some of their cost effectiveness. The ability to attack over a barricade without penalty is as important to a Cawdor player as the ability to attack over a barricade in general is to everyone else. Without that, the high cost of the weapons probably makes other loadouts more viable.
 
Last edited:

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
3,039
2,896
173
Norway
"I don't see how this is penalizing to versatile?"

Because the business end of the versatile weapon is effectively not fighting over a barricade, when a barricade is 1/2" wide and you have a 2" reach. That's the same as a normal fighter standing on the other side of the barricade. I don't think there should no barricade rule at all, I just think the N17 rule should be directly copied in to the new book.

That would give results as I am describing, and is probably what GW intended anyway, I don't think they meant to remove the barricade rule. If they copy and pasted that, polearms wouldn't have to suffer a -1 (except in contact with the wall which would then be -2?) and everyone else could still fight over them, every one wins.

Are you going to convince the Cawdor players in your group that your rule should supersede the official N17 rule, or current no rule situation? That would be a hard sell unless that player is you. They don't need to worry about the opponent fighting back over the barricade anyway, so I suspect they would rather use the N17 rule or no barricade rule. Either way they can still fight you and you cant hit back, you are really just forcing them to willingly take a -1 penalty that isn't supported in either of the official rulebooks.
Is the business end of any weapon effectively fighting over a barricade? I don't see it. In other games, it doesn't matter how long your close combat weapon is, if you fight across a wall, it's going to be harder to hit the opponent. I don't see how long weapons bypass this.

I don't think it's fair to use previous rules as guide in this situation, because everything was all different back then. Specially versatile.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
3,949
8,972
138
35
Sevres 92130 France
Barricades don't block LoS but they can provide cover. So, against everything else, it's either a -1 to hit (CC attacks and most ranged attacks) or +1 armour save (Template/Blast). From a gameplay point of view, I don't see a good reason to give Versatile weapons a special ability to ignore barricades that neither CC attacks nor ranged attacks have.
I'd rather let both Versatile and barricades do their thing (which are, respectively, to allow the fighter to do CC attacks from range where they are protected from most reaction attacks, and to give the fighter hiding behind them some kind of protection).

There is absolutely no way the designer's intent, when writing the N17 barricade rules, was to exempt Versatile weapons from the -1 to hit, as Versatile worked very differently back then. Using the letter of this rule to try and determine the interaction with modern-day Versatile is not gonna work. In my opinion, the intent was clearly for all CC attacks made across a barricade to get that -1 to hit (but you are of course free to come to a different conclusion).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benoksen

UnderhiveGangstar

Gang Champion
Jun 6, 2018
351
188
43
UK
"Is the business end of any weapon effectively fighting over a barricade?"

Topsy come on that's ridiculous, I'm not drawing you a picture. Do the maths, a barricade can only be 1/2" wide, and you have a 2" reach. The tip of your polearm clears the obstacle by a 1 1/2" (minus a few mm so you aren't in b2b), so yes the business end of the weapon is easily over the barricade.

A sword's strike range is determined as being from the base of the model (0"), so is effectively being given 1/2" bonus range if you fight over a barricade. You are suggesting that Versatile wont be penalised with -1 to hit. They clearly will, if they currently don't suffer it, but they are already penalised before that, as they are not given any bonus strike range. If the versatile players range was added to the barricade (ie 2" from the other side if the barricade), the situation is slightly more fair.

The whole point of spears is that you have added reach, that's why they work. Normal sword fighters aren't hindered because they will suddenly start chopping in to a wall are they? The difficulty in striking is that you cant lunge for a thrust strike, the spear can still lunge due to its reach. If anyone thinks they should be equal, perhaps read some fighting treatises or watch some combat. There were historical duelling tournaments where a wooden screen barricade was placed between the fighters, a sword vs spear is at a serious disadvantage in this situation.

They are not equal weapons, the spear is better than a sword many times over, entirely due to range. That should be reflected in game, and under N17 or N18 rules, it is. You and others seem to dislike this, but it is realistic.

A sword is a sidearm for most pre 17th Century historical soldiers, the spear is the main weapon. This is not my opinion, this is a historical reality. Just watch some HEMA spear vs sword fighting on YouTube. There are plenty of people that have tested the effectiveness of pole weapons vs short ones, and I can tell you the spears wins 90% of the time.

Thorgor, the versatile weapon would almost never have suffered a - mod, either as a shooting (within 1") or CC attack (no b2b contact), we just established that no rules set supported that outcome. Your interpretation of the designers intent is quite different to what the designers actually implemented, because as I can see it they did want versatile attacks to have some advantage in that situation, and either ruleset supports my interpretation.
 
Last edited:

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
3,949
8,972
138
35
Sevres 92130 France
Thorgor, the versatile weapon would almost never have suffered a - mod, either as a shooting (within 1") or CC attack (no b2b contact), we just established that no rules set supported that outcome.
No we didn't. It depends on the relative positions of both fighters and the barricade.
Scenario 1: Alice is standing 3" away from Bob who is hiding behind a barricade and Alice shoots at Bob. Alice certainly has a -1 to hit, maybe even a -2.
Scenario 2: Alice is standing behind a barricade and shoots at Bob who is 3" away in the open. Alice doesn't suffer any penalty.

Assuming most Versatile attacks will be made by fighters charging at other fighters, scenario 1 should happen more often than scenario 2.
With the N17 rules, all CC attacks made across a barricade suffered from -1 to hit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

UnderhiveGangstar

Gang Champion
Jun 6, 2018
351
188
43
UK
Assuming Alice has a whip,

1. Correct (-2 for heavy cover probably) but if Alice was within 1" of barricade, there would be no penalty at all in N17 (shooting attack), or in N18 with the same barricade rule (CC attack is not in b2b with wall so attack is made as versatile, not "in this way" as b2b is done).

2. Correct, not relevant to this situation though, as the versatile fighter doesn't want to be in contact with barricade at all.

Scenario 2 should never happen to a savvy plyer with versatile. They are only at a disadvantage, either under my rules preference or the alternative. Doing so allows attacks back on them, a versatile fighter should never make contact with a barricade they are behind.

Scenario 1 should be more common than 2, but more likely than both is that Alice charges to within 2" of the fighter and stops there to attack, regardless of whether you make the suffer -1 or not. They are still never going to make b2b contact with the barricade, as they will then be -2 to hit as they suffer -1 anyway.
 
Last edited:

Benoksen

Ganger
Mar 15, 2016
205
280
73
47
Oslo
So, while a shield is helpfull against a spear, a wall can not be? I have no doubts that a polearm is better over a wall than a sword is. However, Munda is not a very sophisticated or realistic combat system and on a D6 there is hardly room for a lot of subtle adjustments. Anyway, as the disussion contiunes, maybe this is an issue for a seperate thread?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

UnderhiveGangstar

Gang Champion
Jun 6, 2018
351
188
43
UK
A shield is moveable and attached to you, far more effective than a short wall vs a spear. Maybe less so vs a sword, where you can just step backwards to avoid the incoming attacks. Then the wall is as useful as a shield maybe more so. That is really the crux of my argument, and I'm glad you brought it up. The pole weapon can still lunge at you if you step backwards, a sword can't. That is realistically represented if you just copy the n17 rule in to n18.

But yes, it's probably best in another thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benoksen

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
3,949
8,972
138
35
Sevres 92130 France
1. Correct (-2 for heavy cover probably) but if Alice was within 1" of barricade, there would be no penalty at all in N17 (shooting attack), or in N18 with the same barricade rule (CC attack is not in b2b with wall so attack is made as versatile, not "in this way" as b2b is done).
As I already said earlier, the "in this way" can be pretty much ignored as their was no other way to make CC attacks across barricades at the time. It didn't carry any special meaning when it was written, and retroactively have it exclude Versatile attacks is a big stretch in my opinion.
In N17, Versatile would have used shooting rules at range and therefore would have suffered from cover penalty to hit. Except of course if you play in ZM and Alice stands in the very narrow band that allows her to be more than 1" away from Bob but less than 1" away from the barricade Bob is in b2b with (all of this with no pre-measuring allowed). Why focus on this [1", 1.2"] range so much and disregard what happens in the [1.2", 3"] range?
 

nooobody

Juve
Sep 11, 2018
12
7
3
earth
About Knockback trait:
N18: "If the fighter cannot be moved
the full 1" because of impassable terrain or another fighter, they move as far as possible and the attack’s Damage is increased by 1.
"
N17: "... because of a wall, obstacle or another fighter ..."

1. In N17 (presumably N18 too), you can move through friendly fighters. So can a fighter move through friendly fighters when it's knocked back, to avoid the D+1 penalty? (Assuming it can end its move without overlapping.)

2. Can you move vertically when knocked back? (eg. stepping up 1/2 and move back 1/2, left half of your model's base overhanging)

3. The rules of involuntarily move in N:U P.47 is missing in N18:

"They must move the full distance (unless they would move into a wall or closed door) "
"They cannot change their facing at the end of the move."

So can I change the model's facing at the end of the Knockback move now? (eg. turn Goliath figters around to use their better front armor)
 

nooobody

Juve
Sep 11, 2018
12
7
3
earth
About Knockback trait:
N18: "If the fighter cannot be moved
the full 1" because of impassable terrain or another fighter, they move as far as possible and the attack’s Damage is increased by 1.
"
N17: "... because of a wall, obstacle or another fighter ..."

1. In N17 (presumably N18 too), you can move through friendly fighters. So can a fighter move through friendly fighters when it's knocked back, to avoid the D+1 penalty? (Assuming it can end its move without overlapping.)

2. Can you move vertically when knocked back? (eg. stepping up 1/2 and move back 1/2, left half of your model's base overhanging)

3. The rules of involuntarily move in N:U P.47 is missing in N18:

"They must move the full distance (unless they would move into a wall or closed door) "
"They cannot change their facing at the end of the move."

So can I change the model's facing at the end of the Knockback move now? (eg. turn Goliath figters around to use their better front armor)
Edit: stepping up a 1/2" platform is free, so no overhanging