N18 To Fight or not to Fight (pass)

Activating while Engaged and not making a Fight action is:

  • RAW

  • Not RAW

  • RAI

  • Not RAI

  • This makes the game worse (unreasonable, gamey and abusive)

  • This make the game better (reasonable, opens up new tactical options)

  • Don't know (or don't care)


Results are only viewable after voting.

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
5,443
5,435
193
Norway
Two fighters are engaged with each other. One fighter activates and decides to not make a fight action (pass) to avoid being killed by the enemy's reaction attacks.

Do you think this is rules as written? Rules as intended? Do you think this option makes the game better or worse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: spafe

Guydob

Ganger
Nov 19, 2018
83
514
103
Russia
100% RAW, 99,9% sure it's RAI. I like this little tactic, allows me to mass charge and tie down big guys with my familiars and then bonk them with my heavy-hitting melee specialist, and the assists make the reaction attack look less scary :)
 

Scabs

Gang Champion
Feb 4, 2014
364
442
73
San Diego. CA, USA
Sure. No disrespect to TK, this describes the situation exactly:

"One fighter activates and decides to not make a fight action (pass) to avoid being killed by the enemy's reaction attacks."

What about that sentence is not dumb and dumber? The part where a fighter in a hand-to-hand combat decides not to fight? Or, the part about his opponent in hand-to-hand combat cannot fight because his opponent chose not to fight?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scavvierising

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
5,443
5,435
193
Norway
When you say the opponent "cannot fight", that's wrong. The opponent is not prevented in any way from making Fight actions. On this topic, have you tried Kill Team? Blood Bowl? They are more balanced, more tactical games than Necromunda and allow a fighter to pass to avoid being killed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben_S

SirFrog

Gang Hero
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Honored Tribesman
Mar 1, 2015
655
2,237
143
Luleå, Sweden
I don't understand what you are trying to do. We have all heard your opinion, and you present no arguments of any substance to convince anyone to agree with you.

The text of the rules is clear.
The argument that "nobody actually does this" is difficult to hold in the light of the poll above.
The argument for realism holds no real water - Necromunda makes no attempts to be simulationist and need not adhere to any reality.
The argument that it is "dumb" is nothing but your opinion.

You are entitled to that opinion, and if you want to change the rule you can always houserule it away.
So far, I haven't seen any convincing arguments from you to make me or anyone else here change their mind, and you haven't presented anything new in this thread. Stop trying to get the last word in, please.
 

Toadmiester

New Member
Aug 2, 2020
9
5
13
So reading the Necro rule book page 59 clearly states "fighters that are standing and engaged may only perform the following actions: fight(basic) and Retreat"

there is no pass option

in reality to if your in a fist fight with someone you have two choices fight them or run..... seems pretty clear cut to me

bloodbowl much like rugby (Aussie rules) American football etc people hold each other on the scrum lines and not necessarily trying to hurt the opponent just stop them from moving which is why they can pass on performing an action in my view.
 

NoOneII.

Gang Champion
Honored Tribesman
Oct 6, 2021
263
489
83
Germany, Hessia
in reality to if your in a fist fight with someone you have two choices fight them or run..... seems pretty clear cut to me
From my not super indepht, but certainly existing experience with swordfighting i can tell you there is tons of nuance between those.
The moment fighter A uses his blade to strike for B, that blade cannot be used to protect A.
If A's primary goal is to stay alive, then not opening up, keeping the pointy thing between them and keeping that couple inches out of range is very much a viable option.
And this is pretty much what "passing" in melee would look like if we lived in a funny, asynchronous, stepped-motion world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben_S

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,734
10,968
148
37
Sevres 92130 France
So reading the Necro rule book page 59 clearly states "fighters that are standing and engaged may only perform the following actions: fight(basic) and Retreat"

there is no pass option
There doesn't need to be one. When activated, a fighter can perform up to two action regardless of status. This includes 0.
The rule you quoted should not be taken out of context. The goal there is solely to list what common actions fighters can perform depending on their status. It's not exhaustive nor limiting outside of this context, as demonstrated by the existence of actions such as Hurl, Headbutt or Flex that can also be performed by Engaged fighter.
 

Guydob

Ganger
Nov 19, 2018
83
514
103
Russia
So reading the Necro rule book page 59 clearly states "fighters that are standing and engaged may only perform the following actions: fight(basic) and Retreat"

there is no pass option
On p57 it says that a player must pick ready fighter and make UP to two actions. So he can activate an engaged fighter, make exactlly 0 actions and immediately end the activation.
 

mateyboy3000

Ganger
May 29, 2017
121
93
28
So reading the Necro rule book page 59 clearly states "fighters that are standing and engaged may only perform the following actions: fight(basic) and Retreat"

there is no pass option
So, I have survived your charge, have fought and failed to kill you, survived your reaction attacks and MUST now attempt to retreat?

This is your logic. There is a reason you can take UP TO 2 actions during your activation.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
5,443
5,435
193
Norway
There are multiple arguments going at the same time here. I think it helps to split it up. Here are some points:
  • Balance/gamey/abusive: Many highly competitive games allow pass to avoid close combat without it breaking the game. If other games can do this, so can Necromunda.
  • Unrealistic: Do you imagine a fighter passing actions in close combat is the same as the fighter standing still? If there was a skill that allowed a fighter to make a 'dodge' (double action) instead of fight, automatically negating all reaction attacks, would that be unrealistic too? In fact, fighters are not standing still while engaged, this is exemplified by the Ranged attack penalty targeting engaged fighters, an abstract way to represent fighters moving back and forth (even if the minis doesn't physically move). If this is unrealistic in Necromunda, is it also unrealistic in kill team?
  • RAW: I'll take a pass on this one hehe. It is however RAW explicitly in the most similar skirmish game from GW (kill team).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben_S
Aug 9, 2015
79
63
23
Sunderland, UK
I really hadn’t considered this option, but think this is RAW and RAI, and is a good thing: it makes a team up more feasible and realistic. On a group activation, a couple of juves (or pets, ignoring the ‘breaking if outside 3” rule for now) charge in, concentrating on ducking and diving and not getting hit, but also reducing there opportunity to get a meaningful hit in. Your leader / champ then charges in for the big hit against the distracted/overwhelmed opponent (In rules, benefitting from the ‘assists’, whilst the opponent is outnumbered so their reaction attacks suffer interference).

To often, charging the juve/petin first just results in them being ko’d before the heavy follows them in to the melee and gains any benefit. That in itself is far less realistic (my view) in a group activation that may represent just a few seconds difference between activations.

EDIT: Just seen the earlier thread. Seems I’ve missed a trick here.
 
Last edited:

spafe

Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
Feb 8, 2013
10,372
14,433
283
Tilehurst, U.k.
I think this topic is fairly well covered now. I will leave it open so the poll can remain up (although looks fairly conclusive), and if anyone has a NEW take/reference/point, they can post it.

However please only post reasoned points, rather than 'I disagree'. Thats what the poll is for.
 

Amarok

Juve
Nov 25, 2019
23
13
8
To reply the poll, it is RAW. But I voted it makes the game worse. Why? Because I think that is not the RAI. There is an action to Retreat (Basic) in the MRB that covers when your fighter really do not want to fight. Activating but not doing any action so you don't get any reaction attacks from a far superior rival basically renders this action useless because... why would you run away from an enemy who can kill you outright if you can avoid that simply staying there?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the point of those who say it can be said the fighter is fainting and dodging, keeping his rival on deck. But if you are in close combat, you either attack or flee, no other actions are implied in the rulebook. You could do nothing while nobody is next to you trying to hit you, but not not while you are engaged in close combat.

In short: the existence of the retreat action (basic) makes me think you should take that action if you don't want to fight (this is RAI, I know)
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
5,443
5,435
193
Norway
Oh - there are many situations where retreating would be a better choice. I think where your argument fails is that you can avoid being killed by simply staying put. That's not true at all.

When you say "no other actions are implied in the rulebook" you're arguing from RAW. When you say "do nothing while nobody is next to you trying to hit you, but not while you are engaged in close combat" you are arguing from fluff. To counter the fluff argument, I think that "do nothing" is a lack of imagination of what passing an action is. To counter the RAW argument, mayeboy said it better:

So, I have survived your charge, have fought and failed to kill you, survived your reaction attacks and MUST now attempt to retreat?

This is your logic. There is a reason you can take UP TO 2 actions during your activation.
I wonder, for people who think pass is doing nothing - would it be acceptable to have a skill/ability that gave access to a Dodge (Simple) action allowing to do the same thing?
 

Ben_S

Hive Lord
Yak Comp 3rd Place
Honored Tribesman
Jul 26, 2015
6,161
10,693
208
Southampton, UK
To reply the poll, it is RAW. But I voted it makes the game worse. Why? Because I think that is not the RAI.

The poll combines three questions - is it RAW, is it RAI, and does it makes the game better or worse. I think each of these is independent.

Even if it's not the RAI, that needn't mean that it makes the game worse. It could be that an unintended loophole actually made the game better than the designer's intentions.

Of course, you're perfectly entitled to think that it's worse, as well as not RAI, if it seems somehow gamey or abusive to you - but it's not worse simply because it's not the RAI.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Thorgor
Aug 9, 2015
79
63
23
Sunderland, UK
There is an action to Retreat (Basic) in the MRB that covers when your fighter really do not want to fight. Activating but not doing any action so you don't get any reaction attacks from a far superior rival basically renders this action useless because... why would you run away from an enemy who can kill you outright if you can avoid that simply staying there?
You can pass and avoid reaction attacks. But this does not render the Evade action useless - your fighter will get attacked if you are still there when the opponent activates.
 

Amarok

Juve
Nov 25, 2019
23
13
8
The poll combines three questions - is it RAW, is it RAI, and does it makes the game better or worse. I think each of these is independent.

Even if it's not the RAI, that needn't mean that it makes the game worse. It could be that an unintended loophole actually made the game better than the designer's intentions.

Of course, you're perfectly entitled to think that it's worse, as well as not RAI, if it seems somehow gamey or abusive to you - but it's not worse simply because it's not the RAI.
Of course, it's not worse simply because it's not the RAI. It' s just giving my reasoning why I think it makes passing a gamey or abusive thing. But I can understand why other people can see it perfectly legal and/or in character with the game.

As Topsy Kretts said, if there would be a dodge (basic) action, it would be with no doubt. But there is not. The only actions you can take are fight or retreat while engaged. One implies you want to fight, the other that you do not. All RAI, as subjective as it can get. RAW, you can take none.

Most of the times, you don't want to activite when somehow your less than capable fighter (lets say a juve) somehow survived a combat monster (lets say a killy corpse grinder leader) and you want to tie him into combat so he can't kill another more valuable fighter next round. why taking the risk of retreating while you can be "safer" just staying there? (Tactically speaking)

My take on this (totally fluff wise) is you should at least either fight or retreat (or both) to represent the actual outcome of the fight from your fighter point of view. The saving grace of this is that if you fail the initiative test on the retreat action, you can't leave, and no reaction attacks are being made. That way, that hypotetical "dodge" action happens... :D

Again, I know RAW you can do nothing at all, I can understand the benefits of that tactically speaking. It's just I find it out of character (and I fight against grinders often, Im the one injured here :D)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toadmiester

spafe

Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
Feb 8, 2013
10,372
14,433
283
Tilehurst, U.k.
that if you fail the initiative test on the retreat action, you can't leave, and no reaction attacks are being made.
Huh? Doesn't the other person still get a I check to smack you one whether you actually get away or not?
 

Amarok

Juve
Nov 25, 2019
23
13
8
Huh? Doesn't the other person still get a I check to smack you one whether you actually get away or not?
We play it as "make an initiative test for this engaged fighter. If it's passed..." as a clause that enables (or not) the reaction attacks. If the initiative test is not passed by the fleeing fighter, he didn't actually retreat, so no initiative test for the rival, and no reaction attacks produced.

If they are not cumulative clauses, then you are right. But we find it a decent middle term between "you can do nothing" and "you have to attack"