OBW leader and exp bonus for winning

[enyoss]

Hi all,

Simple question: if my leader had to sit the game out due to an OBW flairing up, who gets the +10 leader experience bonus if I win?

Had a look in the FAQ section but couldn't find the answer, so any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[SirFrog]

Only models that participate get experience as a general rule, so no.

Also, models out due to OBW, infected wounds or other such source are also considered out of action for the purpose of after-battle effects, like Medic and the various tech skills.

 

[enyoss]

Thanks for the comment SirFrog.

I'm guessing that also means a Gang defending against a Raid won't get it if they win and the gang leader has yet to come on the board?

The original OBW situation cropped up during a Scavengers game we just played. We played so that the leader bonus would go to the model whose leadership was used for bottle rolls in place of the leader, with experience breaking ties.

Looks like I'll have to deduct that +10 then (which is a shame, as my OBW leader artificially inflated my gang rating by 350 out of 2000 by staying home, so in practice I ended up being the underdog and felt I kind of deserved it after pulling of the win anyway )

Does seem like a double kick in the nuts for gangs with OBW leaders though... Guess I'm going to have to pray for that bionic implant!

 

[Ben_S]

Only models that participate get experience as a general rule, so no.

That's certainly true in general, but I don't recall it actually being specified in the rules. Of course, you can't get experience for wounding hits and the like unless you were actually in the game, and the +D6 per model for surviving specifies (in NCE) that they must participate. But it's not obvious that the Leader bonus requires participation.

The +10 for winning Leader doesn't, so far as I can see, say that he has to have participated (remember the Leader could miss the game for reasons other than an OBW, e.g. due to the scenario's rules). This award isn't for anything that the Leader actually does in the game, so it can be understood to represent, e.g., his growing reputation for leading a successful gang and/or his successful planning of a raid, ambush, whatever even if he didn't participate - the other gang members were executing his orders.

 

[Azzabat]

We interpret it that the Leader still gets the bonus even though he didn't take an actual part in the game. It is HIS gang after all. The rules do not state the Leader must be present, just that "... the Leader of the winning gang gets +10 XP". As previously mentioned this reflects the status of the Leaders gang, not just Leader himself.

 

[enyoss]

I interpreted it the same way as Ben_S and Azzabat to begin with, but then my opponent pointed me to the first line of the experience section which says "Gang fighters earn experience when they take part in a battle".

That convinced me the leader couldn't get it. Then again, if this blanket rule exists, why has there been so much hand wringing in the past to add this exact caveat to the D6 experience award in each scenario?

For what it's worth I think it should go to the leader for the same reasons pointed put above - it's their leadership of the gang which has meant they're on winning form on the first place.

 

[Ben_S]

my opponent pointed me to the first line of the experience section which says "Gang fighters earn experience when they take part in a battle".

A fair point, but this sentence doesn't actually say that they get experience ONLY when they take part in a battle. It's true that gang fighters get experience when they take part (I believe all scenarios give d6 for surviving). But the Leader also gets +10, even if he doesn't take part.

Of course, if you don't like this then you're free to house rule it however you want (e.g. no one gets it or the participating model with highest Ld counts as Leader), but - so far as I can see - the rules don't require the Leader to take part in order to get the bonus.

 

[Tomcaet]

Was your opponent fine with this award being wasted? The first line of the section doesn't claim it's the only source of Experience, as @Ben_S said, nor does it provide exceptions. It does later say fighters have some experience on recruitment, so that's one other way. Would a Survives Against The Odds resulting from an out of game Injury also be wasted?

Leader bonus is unusual, as everybody notices. It's not actually for anything the Leader does. Our group plays that it goes to the Leader even if they weren't on the table. Not sure what we'd do if the Leader was currently being held captive somewhere, but that brings many other problems by itself already. Would have to be resolved individually.

 

[spafe]

I second @Azzabat , looking through it, I'd go with that, and put it down to their reputation growing, and maybe extra time spent at shooting gallery or gym to explain those stat increases they might cause

 

[enyoss]

My opponent was of the view that although my leader was exempt, someone should definitely get it, so we awarded it via Ld and existing experience.

This meant my heavy got it, who then blew it on a snake eyes choose skill which bagged her Sneak Up (ugh).

In future though, I'm now convinced it should just go to the leader. Thanks for all the responses!

EDIT: Do people think it's worth adding some clarification on this in an NCE update at some point?

 

[Anthony]

my opponent pointed me to the first line of the experience section which says "Gang fighters earn experience when they take part in a battle".

A fair point, but this sentence doesn't actually say that they get experience ONLY when they take part in a battle.

Hmm... actually I'm not so sure on this.

The first sentence in each scenario's Experience paragraph states "Fighters who take part in this scenario earn experience as noted below". If the intention of this sentence was to qualify only fighters who actively participate in the game get the exp, then it explains why the Survives and Winning Leader text is so loosely worded since they are already caveatted by the "taking part".

Fluff-wise you can wing it any way and it doesn't make much difference balance-wise, but I'm beginning to think the intention of the official rules was that only gang leaders who "take part" in the scenario get the bonus (in the same way as Survives exp works).

 

[Ben_S]

If the intention of this sentence was to qualify only fighters who actively participate in the game get the exp, then it explains why the Survives and Winning Leader text is so loosely worded since they are already caveatted by the "taking part".

Fluff-wise you can wing it any way and it doesn't make much difference balance-wise, but I'm beginning to think the intention of the official rules was that only gang leaders who "take part" in the scenario get the bonus (in the same way as Survives exp works).

I agree that either interpretation makes sense (fluff-wise that is). Had the rules been written the other way, then I doubt that I'd be calling for a change. The question I'm addressing is simply 'what are the rules?' not 'what would we like the rules to be?'. (Obviously, in the context of NCE, the latter question may be more important, since it would be possible to clarify or revise the original rules.)

Assuming there aren't any other relevant passages that we've all missed, the RAW seem fairly clear to me. Where the RAW make sense, my default is to stick to the RAW, rather than assuming that the actual intention was something other than what's written. Of course, I know GW have never been particularly good at writing tight rules, so there's no guarantee that this approach results in playing the way that the author of the rules originally intended. But, if we don't accept what he wrote as accurately communicating his intention, and start simply making assumptions about what else he might have intended (but didn't actually say), then the rules could be anything.

EDIT: Although, re-reading your post, I see that you're not actually responding to the bit that you quoted, but pointing to something else. That clause does indeed make things less clear.

 

[Tomcaet]

The "Fighters who take part" part is problematic. What it means RAW depends on how "take part" is defined RAW - is it getting on the table, or is being part of a participating gang sufficient. In NCE I feel we're currently gravitating towards the former, and the term isn't originally defined.

I'm thinking of treating the sentence part as something like "Gangs who take part". This would fit the way our group plays it. Now the "participating gang"... It would mean one of the two gangs originally involved in a fight, plus any others coming along in multiplayer scenarios. The detail that experience actually goes to the fighters and not the gang is covered in the specific points, and it's either restricted to participants or not.

That could theoretically allow a gang to participate without any fighters making it to the table. It's possible, e.g. with proper Serious Injuries. Now I don't think there's a way for such a gang to actually win... no, that depends on the scenario. Caravan could work. Hilarious. Should the winning Leader get an award in such a case?

Now that I think about it, loosely on topic - Old Battle Wounds and the Leader. The scenario is chosen before OBWs are rolled. Let's go with The Hit. There's nothing RAW that would help if the target leader went OBW, is there? Actually, it's somewhat close to an instant win for either side, as the defending gang leader is treated similarly to Out Of Action, but will not ever go Out Of Action during the game. Would get dumb if the Leader had an Infected Wound. Easily hotfixed by dragging the leader out anyway but it does need fixing, even if on the spot.

 

[trollmeat]

Always play that any models can only gain XP (of any sort) if they put their base on the table - If the Leader was down at the Gambling Den burning the gang's creds on hookers and blow when another gang Raided their territory, then he would not gain the +10.

Compelling arguments for both ways in this thread, interested in seeing what comes out of it.

 

[Blood Donor]

Came across this while doing some housekeeping for the site.

XP for Winning Leader if the Leader wasn't there: I assume in those matches the next highest Ld in the gang acts as the stand in Leader for this. However, I would not think they get the early check to escape pinning or the 6" radius on Initiative Tests. @Anthony?

 

[spafe]

I assumed the leader still got the xp, even if not there. as it's kinda his rep that's growing, from the exploits of his gang... At elast that's how I'd justify it to myself.

 

[enyoss]

I assumed the leader still got the xp, even if not there. as it's kinda his rep that's growing, from the exploits of his gang... At elast that's how I'd justify it to myself.

That's how I used to play it, but I think there was some disagreement. In the end the "must be deployed on the table" line was added to the gaining experience section in each NCE Scenario to prohibit it.

As it stands, if your leader doesn't end up on the table for whatever reason (OBW, unused reinforcement etc) then they don't get the experience, and it's just wasted.

 

[Anthony]

Yeah I do wonder if the intention of the official rules was for the Gang Leader to always get the Exp as purely a gameplay design choice rather than for any fluff justification. Is it basically just a way for a scenario to reward a player for winning, and perhaps also to make sure Gang Leaders can't get left behind experience-wise.

 

[spafe]

To be honest I don't think it would matter one way or another... I've not had it crop up yet in my games so hadn't checked what the NCE says about it. But either way I'd be fine to play with, it'd even out over a campaign anyway.

 

[SirFrog]

Can we add a line to the sentiment "The leader gets this bonus even if he wasn't in the battle" to clarify?