(Finished!) YCE Rulebook draft (Proofread,Discussion)

I'm probably going to put the Rulebook's draft at slowburner until the end of the month. I going to have my hands full with IRL stuff and I need a breather after finishing the draft. Next time I work on YCE main rulebook (I'll keep calling it that for the time beeing) I plan to:
  • Add basic rules for psyker stuff. No spell disciplines, just basic rules on how to cast stuff and tables of perils, with the main change of 'maintain power' being a free action, rather than simple and having no risk of warp perils (its not clarified in the original ruleset). I'll think about allowing to maintain up to two powers at once, because a lot of GW disciplines have multiple coninuous spells in them and having more than 1 seems like a waste for a psyker.
  • Look at reworked HtH with a fresh perspective. I firmly want it to remain an attack/defence system, but I'd like to tighten wordings on it and see what can be improved.
  • A better wording for priority tests for shooting.
  • Bring back the original wording for Running to cover action for broken fighters. I've changed it and it was probably not needed now that I look at the draft.
  • General fixes of typos and grammar. Keep those comments comming, I'm very thankful for people proofreading the thing.
I'd be glad to see more members of yce committee showing up, perhaps @Orngog or @Commissariat could help organising practice games in TTS once the ball gets rolling?
Draft 1.1 is up.

  • Rules for using psychic powers.
  • Rules for interactive terrain.
  • Tighter rules for target priority when shooting.
  • Clarified rules for Close combat.
  • Running for cover is returned to GW variation, but with some clarifications.
  • Fixes for Bottle checks.
  • Less red highlights.
  • Grammar fixes.
Edit: Do you guys think that standard rules for deploying the battlefield and deploying fighters should be a part of Core rulebook or campaign rulebook, where scenarios will be listed?
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
As far as I can tell, some of the people in the YCE discussions are mostly here and all seem positive to what @JawRippa has done (@TopsyKretts, @Commissariat, @Al_Weeks, @JayTee ). @Orngog hasn't posted in a long time alas, hope they are ok. @thanejaw and @Icedman haven't either in a bit, again hope they are ok.

I think you are the main person objecting to this, which is really important to do so and thank you - but I'm not sure in the best way - I guess it would be helpful to playtest it with friends (maybe do a mini campaign over a day with it) and see what happens? I do think @JawRippa has been very transparent, and public, in his discussions - his various threads are testament to that.

Of course it will be good to have @Thorgor and @MrAndersson and the other excellent rules lawyers on the site offer their thoughts,, although I'm not sure how involved they were in the YCE itself. Equally @Underhiverscr as one of the biggest voices of the necromunda podcasting community, and @Merton too as one of the most read commentators on N17, might be really helpful, adding weight to your own thoughts, or giving their own, them just being the all-around brilliant folk they are :) if they'd like to, but I know they also might not too :)

Any from just off conversations, there clearly is a hunger for this. Yes its a first draft, things will and should change. If it truly is a yce, that's important, but equally the NCE itself has always been the child of one editor working with their own biases (currently @Tiny), but also working through discussion and sharing, which, one must note, is exactly what @JawRippa has done, through very open discussion here on yak, his evident concession to group decisions and his already extensive playtesting? 🤔
I can attest to how thorough this process has been. @JawRippa and I are in consistent (mostly text) communications on Discord to workshop ideas before they are brought to Yak. It's been a very good time and very good stuff have come out of Jaw's efforts.

I'd be glad to see more members of yce committee showing up, perhaps @Orngog or @Commissariat could help organising practice games in TTS once the ball gets rolling?

I can certainly do that! All of my Tabletop Simulator stuff has been happening on this Discord: https://discord.gg/QNT9UKN, but we could certainly put some use into the Yaktribe Discord: https://discord.gg/Qrhrjqk !
Last edited:
I was wondering how to make the Nerve check work properly: by GW rules you have to test nerves twice if someone gets injured and coup-de-graced in nearby hand-to-hand combat. It should be limited to either round or turn. Note that the term «round» is different to a term «turn» - a time frame during which a player activates one of their fighters and performs actions with them.

If it is a 'turn', then we have a lot more rolling, but no need to bookkeep. If it is 'round', we roll a lot less, but don't have to bookkeep. Also 'round' is slightly less punishing for hordes and ganging up in melee.
I've made a quick reference for the main rules. Most of imporant rules for YCE on 4 pages. Currently more up to date than the 1.1 draft.

I'll take a break for the YCE updates for the english language for a while; first I want to polish the original russian document, translate campaign mechanics. Also we've been planning to start the work on reworked house mechanics such as gene-smithing or different fighter types (prospectors/new champs).
Last edited:
Hello all. I've came far with the project's progress and our group has playtested it with a fair number of games.

I've decided that it is time to start translating an updated version of the main rulebook, but I need your help. The captions for pictures are a nightmare to edit later on, so I'd be grateful if you helped me with their proofreading or wording streamlining.

Last edited:
1: In the example above the Van Saar Ganger can draw line of sight to Cawdor fighters No. 1 and 2, No. 3 is not visible because they are fully obscured by the wall. Only fighter No. 2 is visible to the Van Saar, because he is both within the Van Saar's vision arc and line of sight can be drawn to them.

2: The fighter in the example above should be considered outside of the viewer's line of sight. This is because a model with a more relaxed pose would not be visible, and in reality a fighter would not be sticking their hand around a corner to be shot.

3: The Escher ganger in the example above has failed her initiative test when moving across the barricade, meaning she loses 2" of movement. This would mean she would end her move on top of the obstacle, which is not possible. She spends her second action to make another Move action allowing her to continue moving, otherwise she would have to stop short of the barricade.
[the x/2 numbers honestly just look more confusing than helpful, could they be removed?]

4: In the example above the Escher ganger is attempting to charge. She can choose to either take the shortest route, jumping over the pit, or a safer route moving around the pit. Both routes are equally valid.

5: The Goliath Ganger with 4" of movement in the example above is climbing a structure. He uses his first action to Move 2" towards the structure and climbs 1" up (spending 2" of movement). Whilst climbing he immediately spends his second action to make another Move action, climbing another 2" (spending 4" of movement) but this is not enough for him to place his base up onto the structure, meaning he would be stuck in mid air. He is placed back where he started his climb and his activation ends. If he had had 5" of movement, or began his turn closer to the start of his climb, he would have had enough movement to climb fully on top of the structure.
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: JawRippa