N18 Compendium YAQ (N18)

I've got to be honest with you guys, unless I get some serious help, I think the N18 YAQ will stay limited to the rulebook and GotU.

The tactics cards and various Book of ____ are so filled with filth that I don't think it's worth trying to salvage them. I haven't even read the Book of Judgement cover to cover yet.
For the tactics cards, I don't own them and can't seem to find a faithful and comprehensive transcript of them all (I know people have made text/image lists of them, but they all seem to already include corrections, and I need the original text to work with)
Total lack of official FAQ update from GW/SG doesn't really help either. They keep piling on the crap expansions and show no interest in fixing anything, so why should I?

I've been quite busy with annoying/tiring RL stuff these past... gosh, has it been more than a year now? 😖
I have a list of question for GotU in a .txt somewhere that I made... 2 months ago :whistle: that just needs formatting. I'll try to add them to the YAQ when I find the time and then that'll probably be it for the foreseeable future.
 
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.
Ok, my gut reaction was this is a new card with a new name that happened to have same effect as the original card. The way you describe it, it sounds like the free tactics cards pdf was (partially) a stealth errata of existing cards?
 
I've got to be honest with you guys, unless I get some serious help, I think the N18 YAQ will stay limited to the rulebook and GotU.

The tactics cards and various Book of ____ are so filled with filth that I don't think it's worth trying to salvage them. I haven't even read the Book of Judgement cover to cover yet.
For the tactics cards, I don't own them and can't seem to find a faithful and comprehensive transcript of them all (I know people have made text/image lists of them, but they all seem to already include corrections, and I need the original text to work with)
Total lack of official FAQ update from GW/SG doesn't really help either. They keep piling on the crap expansions and show no interest in fixing anything, so why should I?

I've been quite busy with annoying/tiring RL stuff these past... gosh, has it been more than a year now? 😖
I have a list of question for GotU in a .txt somewhere that I made... 2 months ago :whistle: that just needs formatting. I'll try to add them to the YAQ when I find the time and then that'll probably be it for the foreseeable future.
Sorry I did not mean to push or demand. It is totally acceptable. Often in these cases, new content is released faster than we're able to fix them. I've just recently finished my 100% complete rules document, and in the process of adding YAQ updates to it. In that context, I noticed that the stuff I've tried to fix and the stuff YAQ fixes were in many cases different. I don't want to contribute any further until there you have time and energy to continue.

It may also be futile to do further work now, as we have no idea what will come in the near or distant future. N20? More books? Long delayed FAQ? We've been surprised before, and could easily be surprised again. Spending too much effort in the Gang War era would be a wasted effort. It may be wasted in the current state too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kendoka
As a general note for any future work on the YAQ, I'd like to see more resolution. Personally I prefer getting an get-you-by answer than a perfect answer that has been thoroughly discussed. Of course this can become a pitfall if the solution doesn't cover the problem extensively, but I still prefer a "quick" solution than a long delayed solution. This is in reference to many of the "TODO"s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sumpthing
As a general note for any future work on the YAQ, I'd like to see more resolution. Personally I prefer getting an get-you-by answer than a perfect answer that has been thoroughly discussed. Of course this can become a pitfall if the solution doesn't cover the problem extensively, but I still prefer a "quick" solution than a long delayed solution. This is in reference to many of the "TODO"s.
I agree, perhaps different font colours could denote the difference between obvious typos, thoroughly discussed general agreements, and contentious/tentative rulings.

I do agree with the sentiment of "why bother if they just pile on more" though. I haven't really looked at the Book of Judgement because the imbalance just soured me so completely.
 
Well, I could give arbitrary answers to all of those pending questions, but they wouldn't be any better than the arbitrary answers you (or your group) can come up with. Ideally, I'd like all answers to be based on a community consensus, sound reasoning, or at least some FB post from one of the designers. This is supposed to be a community effort, so I'd rather try and eliminate as much personal bias as possible.

Some kind of rating system could be helpful though. I like the idea. Something like that maybe:
★★★ : The answer was obvious and you probably figured it out yourself
★★☆ : This has been thoroughly discussed and the community reached a consensus
★☆☆ : Reaching a consensus was really hard and a sizable part of the community still disagrees with it
☆☆☆ : Your guess is as good as ours
 
Well, I could give arbitrary answers to all of those pending questions, but they wouldn't be any better than the arbitrary answers you (or your group) can come up with. Ideally, I'd like all answers to be based on a community consensus, sound reasoning, or at least some FB post from one of the designers. This is supposed to be a community effort, so I'd rather try and eliminate as much personal bias as possible.

Some kind of rating system could be helpful though. I like the idea. Something like that maybe:
★★★ : The answer was obvious and you probably figured it out yourself
★★☆ : This has been thoroughly discussed and the community reached a consensus
★☆☆ : Reaching a consensus was really hard and a sizable part of the community still disagrees with it
☆☆☆ : Your guess is as good as ours
That's a nice rating system. But could be difficult to apply in all situations.

When I say I want more resolutions and "quick" answers, I don't mean necessarily that you have to do that by yourself alone. Instead, it would be enough to have 2 persons discussing it and posting an answer. Best case is of course thoroughly discussed with as many players as possible. This is not always feasible and people can also be silent when they agree. I haven't participated in much of the YAQ items currently listed, but I agree with them, or if I don't, I share my disagreement here and/or find an alternative house rule with my friends.
 
Thorgor I really like that rating system!

I do think that an arbitrary answer in the YAQ is better than a 'local' arbitrary answer, because it would allow a group to just say "it's all in the YAQ" without having to discuss it with the group.

That's what I view the YAQ as. Obviously a group could do this all by themselves, but it's much easier to simply produce a document than a 100 page list of issues and possible resolutions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al_Weeks
I'm surprised that (collective) you haven't put the YAQ into a wiki to make that collaborative and consensus building aspect easier. Forums are fine for discussion, but are a terrible medium for building documentation. Similarly, while a downloadable object is great for printing, maintaining said document and tracking changes is an exercise in frustration.

Or make a Trello/monday board and run a workflow to track YAQs from question to suggested answer to consensus.

Anyway, there are plenty of technical solutions to both lessening the workload of Thorgor and improving the ability to collaborate and reach pseudo-consensus on answers.
 
Not to mention the deluge of straight-up errors, omissions, and inconsistencies...
 
I'm surprised that (collective) you haven't put the YAQ into a wiki to make that collaborative and consensus building aspect easier. Forums are fine for discussion, but are a terrible medium for building documentation. Similarly, while a downloadable object is great for printing, maintaining said document and tracking changes is an exercise in frustration.

Or make a Trello/monday board and run a workflow to track YAQs from question to suggested answer to consensus.

Anyway, there are plenty of technical solutions to both lessening the workload of Thorgor and improving the ability to collaborate and reach pseudo-consensus on answers.
Occurs to me there's an even simpler solution, as the YAQ is already in Google Docs just turn on collaboration.

Sharing -> Get Shareable Link -> Change to 'Anyone with the link can comment' so people with the link can comment and suggest changes, but not actually change the document. Thorgor then retains responsibility for approving changes, and can easily add additional approvers via email who can also approve changes. Will need a little fiddling with as the comments/changes won't be synchronised with YakTribe user accounts, they'll be tagged with your google account/anonymous, but it's a start.
 
Docs also has versioning built-in, it's fairly robust for collaboration.
 
We now have an official 'how to play Necromunda' video. Unfortunately yet entirely expectedly, it's very basic stuff and doesn't really tell us anything.
 
We now have an official 'how to play Necromunda' video. Unfortunately yet entirely expectedly, it's very basic stuff and doesn't really tell us anything.

You forgot the main purpose of let's play videos is to give us more Becca Scott content :-D

Actually learning to play (correctly) would be a side effect.
 
Do you mean Enforcer Tactics Cards?
Just asked, how should such a faithful and comprehensive transcript look like?
 
So taking some of the unanswered questions and applying some (reasonable) logic:
1.04 [Close combat attack] [Attack dice] (RB p68)

What exactly is a Close combat attack?
The simplest explanation is that a 'Close combat attack' is a single dice roll against an enemy model, so a model with a profile of 3A using a single weapon makes 3 Close combat attacks. This is somewhat supported by the wording on pg69 under Assists which states that 'When a fighter makes a close combat attack, they can claim an assist... Each assist claimed in this way adds 1 to the result of the hit roll'. Also there's discussion about 'Reaction Attacks' in the rules, which seems to imply the same. It's absolutely not clear, but the simplest explanation and one that aligns with the 40k rules which Necromunda is (loosely) based upon, is that 1 die = 1 Close combat attack.
2.05 [Psyker] [Peril of the Warp] [Whispers from the Warp] [Insanity] (RB p60, 76)

If a Psyker triggers the Whispers from the Warp peril while casting a Simple or Basic Psychic power as their first action, can they make a second Simple/Basic action as normal or should they immediately roll for Insanity?
My thinking is the latter. Reasoning being that the two actions are clearly consecutive, otherwise a double-Move action would not do anything, so the second action takes places after the first is entirely resolved. This includes effects from the first Action, so if your first action is to toss a grenade 2" which explodes and gives you a Flesh Wound, you should apply the -1T to your second action. Thus you should roll for Insanity immediately.
6.03 [Experience] (RB p84)

A fighter gains Experience "if their action directly causes an enemy fighter to go Out of Action". What does it mean exactly? For instance, if a fighter falls on an enemy fighter and they both go Out of Action as a result, does any of those fighters get XP? If a fighter uses a weapon with Knockback to have an enemy fighter fall on another enemy fighter and they both go Out of Action as a result, does this fighter get XP for both enemy fighters? If a fighter Seriously injures an enemy fighter and they go Out of Action during the Recovery phase of the same turn, does this fighter get XP?
My rule of thumb for this is that if the fighter deliberately does an action that causes an enemy to go OOA they receive experience. So taking the examples in turn:
1. If they fell deliberately then they get XP, the enemy gets nothing. If they fell by accident, neither fighter gets XP.
2. Rule-of-cool, if they somehow manage to get this pulled off they absolutely deserve XP for both!
3. Yes.

There's absolutely some complexity around recovery, to reduce book-keeping I'd say you only get XP if they go OOA on the same turn as your action. So if they go OOA 2 turns later due to recovery rolls, you get nothing.
7.04 [Drinking Hole] (RB p102)

Should the marker that non-Delaque fighters get for using the Drinking Hole special boon be treated as a "drunk" condition, or are they cumulative? (if a fighter rerolls two Cool checks during the game, do they get a -2 to hit penalty?) Is there any limit on the number of Cool checks each fighter can reroll this way during the game?
There's no mention in the rules about it stacking, so I'd say once you've used the boon on a character he can re-roll any/all Cool checks but only ever suffers a -1 penalty.
7.05 [Mine Workings] (RB p105)

If a player controls a Mine Workings territory, can they send Captives working the mine before their owner had a chance to attempt a Rescue mission?
Yes. Income is part of the post-game sequence, while Rescue is done in the pre-game sequence. There's no complex interaction between these tbh.
7.07 [Archeotech Device] (RB p107)

How does the Archeotech device work exactly? Are the chosen traits and affected weapons locked once and for all, or can you change everything during each post-battle
Typo here, it's Archaeotech :)

I'd say once picked it is fixed and cannot be changed. You can add the same trait to new weapons purchased, but once selected the trait is locked in. I'd also say that you can add the trait to existing weapons at a later stage, otherwise it's additional book-keeping to track when weapons were purchased, lost, sold, etc.
7.08 [Archeotech Device] [Close combat] [Unstable] (RB p107 — GotU p144)

Can the Archeotech Device be used to give traits to close combat weapons? If so, what does Unstable do on a close combat weapon?
Hrm. I'm tempted to allow Close Combat Weapons to receive traits, if nothing else to try and keep some semblance of parity between shooting and melee (hah). I'm in two minds here, either melee weapons should gain Reckless (Which aligns with the Rogue Factoria counterfeit weaponry boon) or if you want some hilarity you roll a firepower dice with every attack dice using that melee weapon and on a 1-3 the melee weapon takes your fighter OOA. Reckless is a bit 'bleh' and not a huge drawback, but not all the traits have much of an effect on a Melee weapon so maybe it evens out?