N18 Compendium YAQ (N18)

[Thorgor]

I mean every single Tactics cards that exists.
I'd be interested in a text-based (searchable) word-for-word, letter-for-letter, down to the last comma, transcript of all the cards.

People tend to auto-correct things when they copy them (and maybe even add their own errors). What I'd need is an exact transcript of the original cards with all the original mistakes and errors, big or small. For instance, I know one of the Good Day/Bad Day cards is completely wrong (says the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do), but it has been corrected in all the online resources I can find. People who only own the physical version would still need it addressed in the YAQ though.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

The rules are pretty explicit that a close combat attack is the entire sequence initiated by a Fight (Basic) action, and that consists of multiple attack dice.
So a fighter with 3A and one weapon that charges makes a single Attack with four Attack Dice.

The problem is many rules use 'attack' when clearly 'attack dice' is intended.
The Counter Attack skill is the most obvious. It uses 'attack dice' correctly in the first sentence, but switched to 'attacks' in the second, when only 'attack dice' would make sense.

Unfortunately it casts some doubt in a few cards/abilities on whether they actually mean attack or attack dice.

 

[JayTee]

The problem is that it is very much not explicit. The first two pages of Close Combat (68 & 69) uses CCA to both mean the entire attack sequence and an individual roll of the dice, and the reference to the 'Fight (Basic)' action refers to Close Combat Attacks. It gets worse with Gang of the Underhive and the 'Digi' weapon trait grants an 'additional close combat attack' which is utterly utterly broken if it means the entire sequence, clearly here they mean 'additional attack dice'.

Might be easiest, though some work, to look at everything that references 'an attack' or 'a close combat attack' and the like, and make some sort of decision as to what that is referring to. For instance, You're Coming With Me and Last Gasp have weirdly different language but likely mean the same thing of an entire attack sequence. Whereas Dodge clearly means 'attack dice' and avoiding a single wound, rather than the RAW which implies a single roll of a 6+ with Dodge, negates the entire attack sequence.

Or simply change all the instances of CCA to Attack Dice where it obviously should be Attack Dice, such as Counter Attack.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

Page 68 about close combat attacks makes it pretty clear that it's supposed to be a single attack with multiple dice.

Although this convention seems to be immediately forgotten by page 69.

You are right that many other rules do not follow this convention and often use 'attack' to refer to what is actually 'attack dice'.
I mentioned in my previous comment that Counter Attack was perhaps the most egregious example of this.

I believe that if the page describing close combat describes it that way then that's the intention - other rules are just wrong.

 

[Thorgor]

If one rule says something and other rules say the opposite, then the rules as a whole are ambiguous. Hence the question.
You can't unilaterally decide one is correct and the other is not.

Also, don't forget that a Fight action can result in attacks dice that are resolved against multiple enemy fighters. Would that still be a single close combat attack in your book? (would you make a single Injury roll at the end?)

I think trying to define what a close combat attack is is actually futile: it means everything and nothing, it's always context-dependent. What we need to understand is how the close combat sequence is supposed to work. If you have 2 attack dice against target A and 2 against target B, how are they resolved?
Here are a few possible sequences (H: Hit roll, W: Wound roll (incl. armour save), I: Injury roll):

1. HA1 -> HA2 -> WA1 -> WA2 -> IA1 -> IA2 -> HB1 -> HB2 -> WB1 -> WB2 -> IB1 -> IB2
2. HA1 -> WA1 -> IA1 -> HA2 -> WA2 -> IA2 -> HB1 -> WB1 -> IB1 -> HB2 -> WB2 -> IB2
3. HA1 -> HA2 -> HB1 -> HB2 -> WA1 -> WA2 -> WB1 -> WB2 -> IA1 -> IA2 -> IB1 -> IB2

Rolls cannot be technically simultaneous (even if you often can roll them together). Now that Severe it's a thing, it's easy to create a situation where at least injuries need to be resolved in sequence (Say the target has 2 Wounds left and you have 4 damage to resolve, 2 with Severe and 2 without, how many injury dice are automatic OoA? 1 or 2?)

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

What constitutes a close combat attack is significant because there are many rules which grant or affect close combat attacks. Whether that means one dice or several can be an important distinction.

I would probably er on the side of copying 40k's resolution stages. IE, you roll one dice from start to finish at a time.
Although I personally prefer (and currently play) simultaneous resolution, it doesn't really work when mixing melta/severe and regular attacks. Forcing a more procedural method to be used.

 

[Thorgor]

What constitutes a close combat attack is significant because there are many rules which grant or affect close combat attacks. Whether that means one dice or several can be an important distinction.

You're right. I think these effects are supposed to grant the fighter the equivalent of a Fight action. But I know some people disagree with that.

I would probably er on the side of copying 40k's resolution stages. IE, you roll one dice from start to finish at a time.

That's also the only way I can see it work, yes. However, it's not very practical, as it means you can never fast roll in Necromunda, since FW reducing Toughness and making the subsequent Wound rolls easier is not exactly a corner case. It can also create interesting situations where the target may move out of range in between resolutions (either because they are knocked back, or teleported by their displacer field, or both). Should you still continue resolving the attack dice that were assigned to them? (that said, Twin Gun Blazing has a similar issue with fighters in cover becoming Prone, but it's pretty clear there that the two attacks are fully resolved in sequence)

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

In regards to TGB, I have an email from the FAQ team saying both to-hits are simulataneous, then sequential from there.
The problem is, they framed it as "as it says in the rules..." yet that is a direct contradiction to the rules.
So... *shrugs*

We've also seen on the new How to Play Necromunda video that Becca fast rolled the to-hit rolls and to-wound rolls, although unfortunately only one wound actually made it through (perhaps they didn't want to have to deal with this question themselves...). Granted that's not an in depth explanation of the rules for us hardcore 'Mundans, it's as good as we're going to get I feel. I also don't really like the idea of fleshwounds affecting to-wound rolls of the same attack.
Perhaps you should fast roll up until injuries, then roll injuries sequentially?

 

[almic85]

As an aside as a recently returned 40k player (from playing back in 3rd ed) I find it really frustrating that 8th ed requires you to roll roll in sequence so often.

I also don’t recall hitting this problem with OCE/NCE, but I think it just bypassed the issue because the close combat rules were significantly different.

To work through the rules properly you need to define the terms Attack, To Hit Roll, and To Wound Roll and then go through the rules again and correct them all.

Personally though I think that all injury rolls for a single attack sequence with a single weapon against a single enemy fighter need to be rolled together.

 

[Morghot]

Sorry guys for the question that may be or seem "old" but ive not found it in the compendium or in the previously post... Smoke Grenades! How they work? Like normal template/blast grenades using hit roll and scatter dice or what? If they miss they miss with no effect at all?

 

[TopsyKretts]

Yes that's pretty much it. 5" blast. Does not cause pinning or damage of course.

 

[Thorgor]

Sorry guys for the question that may be or seem "old" but ive not found it in the compendium or in the previously post... Smoke Grenades! How they work? Like normal template/blast grenades using hit roll and scatter dice or what? If they miss they miss with no effect at all?

I believe consensus is that they should basically have Blast (5"), except they can't target fighters (and ignore target priority rules as a result, assuming Blast weapon are normally subject to them).
So you target a point in LoS, roll to hit as normal, and if it fails it scatters.

 

[Morghot]

Thanks guys!

 

[TopsyKretts]

I would like to see the point about invalid Grenade traits be generalized to fit any grenades. There are more grenades now with invalid traits than when the YAQ ruling was made.

 

[Amarok]

I believe consensus is that they should basically have Blast (5"), except they can't target fighters (and ignore target priority rules as a result, assuming Blast weapon are normally subject to them).
So you target a point in LoS, roll to hit as normal, and if it fails it scatters.

Talking about that, how community handle grenades shooting to upper floors in 3d? As you said, you have to target a point in LoS, which is impossible from bottom to top, eventhough grenades are the most sensible weapon to clear a roof or a higher catwalk... in our gaming group we proposed to be able to do that but always scattering in the old 40k/wh fantasy fashion of indirect firing. It could bring other problems though. What do you think? Is there any consensous about this?

 

[Stoof]

New official FAQ up yo!

HERE.

(Edited for latest version 12/12/19)

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

Id like to take à second to appreciate the copy/paste in the FAQ, regarding natural 1s in close combat.

But the FAQ is great, clarifies a few things, although unfortunately isnt entirely comprehensive.

Woe betide the idiot the ever decides to throw a plasma grenade ai guess?

 

[Stoof]

Hah, yeah. Throw a plasma grenade, that you've paid good creds for, and you have a 50% chance of taking yourself out of action and likely less than 50% chance of taking the opponent out of action... the grenade having the mysterious property of being able to both catastrophically overload in your hand and explode somewhere over there. Best to avoid them I think

 

[Aulenback]

The trouble caused by the ubiquitous and careless use of the phrase "as normal," with all its in-built ambiguity, eh?

 

[Jaraii]

At least Twin Guns Blazing got an official clarification.