N18 Compendium YAQ (N18)

[almic85]

No, unwieldy weapons cannot be used.

As you have said the become shoot (double) instead of shoot (basic) and RAW don’t work with the Overwatch rule.

Note that suspensors, third arms, and some other warhead may change this back to a shoot (basic) action.

 

[JawRippa]

Our group is confused on rules of jumping down: It is required to test initiative whenever you jump down 2" or more or fall and suffer a hit. However falling for less than 3" causes no damage. So, can a fighter be pinned from this "no damage" hit? And is testing initiative when jumping down 2"-2.9" even necessary, since there is no consequences for failing from such height? Even more confusing, there is a penalty of -1 to test for every 2" of jumping down, which adds even more confusion.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

I've interpreted it as if the fighter falls from, say, 2.5" they are still pinned but suffer no damage.

 

[spafe]

yeah, I've played it as it will pin you, but no damage.

 

[JawRippa]

So, would you test initiative for jumping down 0.6"? Feels a bit weird.

 

[Thorgor]

There also seems to be some rounding going on (the falling table has a line for 3"-5", then a line for 6"-8"... what if you fall from 5.5"?) so 2.5" should probably count as 3".

So, would you test initiative for jumping down 0.6"? Feels a bit weird.

That's how I read the rule. And you start getting a -1 modifier from 2.1" onward.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

Well since the rules say you only don't need a test if it's less than 0.5", yes you have to test for 0.6".

TBH, it's never come up for me though. The only structures we use are 3" or 5" with the occasional 2.5" half platform on a staircase in the latter.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

There also seems to be some rounding going on (the falling table has a line for 3"-5", then a line for 6"-8"... what if you fall from 5.5"?) so 2.5" should probably count as 3".

The rules specifically say round upwards don't they. So falling from 2.1" is counted as a fall from 3".

 

[JawRippa]

The rules specifically say round upwards don't they. So falling from 2.1" is counted as a fall from 3".

"Rounded up to the nearest inch"

Also there is no mention of "safe" distance to jump down. There is a Step-Up rule, but it talks about how you don't need to Climb when moving 1/2" vertically. So moving down the stairs with 0.1" steps would cause a lot of initiative tests RAW.

 

[Thorgor]

Oh, right, missed that.
Still wonder if you can get damaged from falling 2.1"-2.9", since while you are instructed to round up to the nearest inch, you still didn't fall '3" or more'.

1/2" looks fine for a safe Step-Down distance.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

I hadn't noticed that it only mentions a 0.5" step UP. So RAW it would seem that hopping down 0.1" would induce a 1" drop, so to speak.
Walking down a flight of stairs would take all day in the Underhive.

I think the intention is definitely a 0.5" step doesn't present any obstacles at all.
A 0.5" drop is about waist-high in the game, so I think it's reasonable that above that you stand taking the risk of landing awkwardly and falling over.

Another related question is at what point does a sloping floor that can be walked up become a wall that needs to be climbed at 1/2 movement.
Can a fighter walk up a 60 degree slope? 45 degree slope? 30 degrees?

 

[TopsyKretts]

Oh, right, missed that.
Still wonder if you can get damaged from falling 2.1"-2.9", since while you are instructed to round up to the nearest inch, you still didn't fall '3" or more'.

1/2" looks fine for a safe Step-Down distance.

From my quick overview, I'd say you need to fall actually 3" or more to take damage. In either case, the game doesn't *need* to damage fighters falling less than 3".

 

[TopsyKretts]

I've finally had time to start catching up with the YAQ linked in Thorgor's signature.

I'll start with 1 comment:

2.01 [Retreat] [Reaction attack] [Broken] (RB p59, 60, 69)
The two mechanics should work the same way. Engaged enemy fighters make their reaction attacks before the retreating fighter is moved. Even if they are seriously injured, the retreating fighter will move as if they were still Standing (either 2d6" or up to D6", depending on whether they are broken or not.)

Gut reaction is opposite. A fighter tries to move away, but is struck down before getting away.

1) The retreating fighter makes an Initiative test. If failed, the action ends here. If passed, continue.
2) Any Engaged (enemy) fighters makes an Initiative test. Any one that passed can make reaction attacks.
3) If the retreating fighter is still standing, move D6" (or 2D6" if Broken).

This is how it is done in Warmachine & Hordes which accurately and successfully describes this type of situation.

 

[almic85]

There was another thread about jumping down and falling here

N18 - Movement clarification questions

I'm rereading the rules and stopped into movement rules with couple of questions about things we had played in several ways during past games. It would be good to house-rule these so that complications wouldn't rise. Couple of these questions seem stupid to me but I decided to ask all open...

yaktribe.games

The general gist was that RAW you should be testing for every drop that’s not across an obstacle (a free standing terrain feature that is less than 2” high and 2” wide), but that RAI you shouldn’t need to test for falls less than 0.5”.

Also remember that when falling partial inches are rounded up so:
1/ falls less than 0.5” don’t test.
2/ falls between 0.5-2” test agility for pinning, but no damage.
3/ falls greater than 2” test agility for pinning and suffer damage.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

Noticed something else, with the Psychic Assault Wyrd power.
If the target fails a willpower roll, they lose one wound. And if they are reduced to zero by the assault they roll an injury dice.
RAW then, it would seem that it can't hurt fighters who are already on zero wounds, which seems like an obvious RAI oversight.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Fighters can have 0 wounds?

 

[Thorgor]

Fighters can have 0 wounds?

Sure. Any fighter who is reduced to 0 Wounds and not immediately taken Out of Action stays on the battlefield with 0 Wounds (there is no rule that states they go back to 1).
Psychic Assault should simply state that the target suffers 1 Damage (as any extra Damage dealt to a fighter with 0 Wounds results into an Injury roll)

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

Thats make me think - presumably it's meant to ignore armour, which potentially explains the strange wording.
However, that would require further clarification as atm both your suggestion and the RAW is still captured by the much more comprehensive definition of when you get armour saves.

 

[TopsyKretts]

The yaq is sadly falling behind!

For cards, I'd like to see the following updates:

• "Seize the Initiative" interactions with "Take the Initiative".
• There are 2 cards named "Last Gasp". The YAQ should specify which one it applies to.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

I always assumed that Seize the Initiative and Take the Initiative were identical cards, and that the later one was only released to clarify how the first one worked, by adding the instructions about rolling off if both players use it.