N18 Last Rites for the Machine victory conditions....what?

[UncleFester]

So we tried the Last Rites For The Machine scenario from House of Artifice. It sounded like a good scenario at first, and the concept is funny: a Legendary fighter is getting old and wants to go out in a blaze of glory, but literally starts breaking down on the battlefield.

However, if I'm reading them right, the Victory conditions are weird:
So, the Fading Legend (FL) is on the Defenders' side, and the defender wins if "at the end of the battle, the FL has not gone Out of Action."
The Attackers win if "at the end of the battle, the FL has gone Out of Action as a result of the "None of us are getting any Younger!" special rule.
Any other result is a draw.

"None of us getting any younger" rule is that in Rounds 4 and higher, FL suffers some negative effects. The most important effect is that he gets -1 Wound and if he gets to 0 he goes OOA. He has 2 Wounds. So that means at end of Round 4 he drops to 1 Wound, and end of Round 5 he drops to 0 Wounds and goes OOA. So you have, at most, 5 Rounds.

In other words:
The Attacker's job is to just last 5 Rounds without taking the FL OOA.
The Defender has to get the other gang to completely bottle-and-flee before the end of Round 5.

So, the "Attackers" most likely successful strategy is to turtle-up in a defensible corner of the field.
Meanwhile, the "Defender" has to go on an uber aggressive attack spree.

As the defender, even with recklessly advancing, I think I got off about 5 shots and never even came close to forcing a bottle-roll in time.

Were we doing something wrong? Is this a winnable scenario for the defender?

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

Scenarios are almost never playtested and glaring errors aren't uncommon. Its just a bad scenario.

 

[MusingWarboss]

So, the "Attackers" most likely successful strategy is to turtle-up in a defensible corner of the field.
Meanwhile, the "Defender" has to go on an uber aggressive attack spree.

Looks like they got their sides backwards. It’d make more sense for the FL to be on the attacking side for that one last bout of glory.

Sounds on paper to be a fun scenario but I guess it’s not been vetted much above the concept.

I mean that is a hilarious concept that the FL wants to go out in glory but his chosen opposition deliberately don’t play ball and let him keel over as a decrepit failure.

 

[JayTee]

Also, the "Hated Foe" special rule will almost never be used. Since the Attacker wants the FL to go OOA from their special rule, they don't ever want to shoot at the FL, so why does the special rule allow them to target the FL regardless of target priority?

I suspect the rules were actually meant to be:

"The attacker wins if, at the end of the battle, the Fading Legend has not gone Out of Action as a result of the "None of us are getting any Younger!" special rule"

This way the Hated Foe rule has an effect, the Attacker is trying to drop the FL by shooting/hitting them, and the Defender is trying to protect the FL and get the attacker to bottle before Turn 5. 5 turns might be a bit tight, with an average starting crew of 9, I'd be tempted to adjust the rules so the FL goes OOA after Turn 6 instead though it depends on how small your battlefield is.

 

[UncleFester]

Also, the "Hated Foe" special rule will almost never be used. Since the Attacker wants the FL to go OOA from their special rule, they don't ever want to shoot at the FL, so why does the special rule allow them to target the FL regardless of target priority?

I suspect the rules were actually meant to be:

"The attacker wins if, at the end of the battle, the Fading Legend has not gone Out of Action as a result of the "None of us are getting any Younger!" special rule"

This way the Hated Foe rule has an effect, the Attacker is trying to drop the FL by shooting/hitting them, and the Defender is trying to protect the FL and get the attacker to bottle before Turn 5. 5 turns might be a bit tight, with an average starting crew of 9, I'd be tempted to adjust the rules so the FL goes OOA after Turn 6 instead though it depends on how small your battlefield is.

That seems to make sense. That way, the attacker wants to engage and take the FL out - making the Hated Foe rule make sense - and the defender still needs to take the whole other gang out in 5 rounds.

We actually had mentioned that when we were setting up the scenario, but it was countered that the defender would then want to hide the FL, but I think you're right, because if they need to take the whole gang out in 5 rounds, they will probably need to use the FL, and the Hated Foe rule makes it harder to hide him.

Thanks!