Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Theophony wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
What does rolling a 2 get you?

You’ll need to buy the next supplement for that answer.

Not falling for that again.
They'll just change it in a year or so with another compilation.

 privateer4hire wrote:
What does rolling a 2 get you?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that it is obviously intended to be 2-3 instead of 3-4. It's an easy enough error to correct for. Use the brain the good lord gave you. They are producing 128 page rulebooks on a four month schedule. Typos happen. It's annoying, but that's all it is.

Baxx wrote:
The new pet Hacked cyber-mastiff got an incorrect weapon "Jaws" which differ from the existing "Jaws" for Giant Rat. The new Jaws is however identical to Sump Croc's Ferocious jaws.
The new pet Grapplehawk also has an incorrect weapon "Talons" which differ from the existing "Talons" for Khimerix & Phyrr cat.

I appreciate you logging all the problems in these books, but I think at this point you need to accept that the unique hired guns gear does not count in that category. It seems to be the case that they're sometimes equipped with alternate versions of other weapons and still share the name.

That's a valid design choice, imo. Hired guns can't buy extra gear, and other fighters can't buy the hired swords' version of gear, so there's no rules issue. And I actually find it refreshing that a "heroic" character's stub gun could be slightly higher quality than the basic Trading Post stub gun without it needing to receive a personalized name, like a weapon from Destiny 2.

Probably wouldn't hurt if they just type in a few more words to make the weapon unique so Baxx can finally sleep well tonight.

To be fair, it's also just really impractical. Plenty of different weapons in the game already; having to remember or look up whether a character uses the first, second or third iteration of some particular knife really doesn't help anyone.

 Hawky wrote:
I now have a dilemma.

I like enforcers for their looks and lore, but I'm turned away by their fairly limited gameplay options and wargear.

On the other hand, I don't like Van Saar for their looks and lore, but I like their weapons and gameplay.

Any help, please?

Easy, buy the Enforcers and use Van Saar rules for them. Just swap out the weapons to ones more appropriate for Van Saar and you're good to go.

Baxx wrote:
The Threadneedle rule has multiple errors. First off, it doesn't show the distribution of the D6 correctly (no 2, double 4). And they repeated that it's usable once, then discarded.

"Threadneedle worms can only be used once, after which they are removed from the fighter's card."

"The worms are then used and removed from the gang's stash."

I'm not sure if there's an actual difference between removed from the fighter's card and removed from the gang's stash. The authors themselves have guaranteed no clue.

Well, Stuff in your stash you can assign your fighters;
removing it from the fighters card is the same as saying "it may only be used once per battle"
after which you can reassign it from the stash to a fighter

You know, for a feature that was supposed to make things easier to manage, the whole "fighter card" thing sure does seem to throw up a lot of extra verbiage and confusion.

Especially when the old-fashioned "remove X from your roster" was so straightforward.

 Sqorgar wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that it is obviously intended to be 2-3 instead of 3-4

Is it?

I mean, that's certainly likely, given the usual way GW approach tables like this, but it could also have been intended to be 1-2, with 5 and 6 on their own.

. It's annoying, but that's all it is.

Yes, that would appear to be the point that you're arguing against by making the same point...

Also Treadneedle worms are supposed to be the ultimate assassin tool (also in the fluff of the The Book of Judgement*).

So a gang gets hold of this biological tactical nuke, somehow manages to code it to the genetical fingerprint of all individual members of the opposite gang (atleast if rolling a 6) - and it does hardly any real damage...
I get ”Rule of cool” - but this is just strange.


*referring to ”The Book of Judgement” from FS/GW - not to be mistaken for ”The Book of Judgement” from FFG.
The former is obviously about Enforcers and the second about Adeptus Arbites. Not at all confusing compared to the book ”Enforcer” being all about Arbites

 insaniak wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that it is obviously intended to be 2-3 instead of 3-4

Is it?

I mean, that's certainly likely, given the usual way GW approach tables like this, but it could also have been intended to be 1-2, with 5 and 6 on their own.

Does it really matter? Necromunda is not a competitive game. You aren't playing a different stranger every week. You'll be playing the same group of people over multiple weeks in a campaign. If something doesn't work, fix it in the most obvious and simple way possible and move on. If you want the table to look like that, get your mates to agree and go for it. You've already put more thought into the table than the designers probably did.

. It's annoying, but that's all it is.

Yes, that would appear to be the point that you're arguing against by making the same point...

I'm advocating for a little self effort here. GW isn't running your campaign, you are. You are not a passive bystander. Nothing happens unless you make it happen. Take control of that power to make a more enjoyable game experience.

I've been reading people complaining about the scenarios in a recently delivered kickstarter game, and they think the game is literally unplayable because of all the errors - but look at what they are complaining about and 95% of the time, it is either a typo where the answer is obvious, or it is something where the outcome is not measurably changed either way. The other 5% of the time, it's something which can go one of two ways - pick the one you like better, or heck, play it both ways and see the difference for yourself. But you end up with people selling off their games or waiting for version 1.5 before touching the game because they treat game rules as sacred - and when these sacred texts conflict or are lacking, they have no choice but to wait for further communication from the game gods before moving forward. They are ruining their own enjoyment and experience just because they become so obsessed over minutiae that they can't see anything else.

It's like some sort of game rule anxiety. People aren't responding to the minor annoyance of an obvious typo. They are responding to the anxiety that comes from an official rules conflict, and are seemingly unable to respond to that conflict in any constructive way without official say so. It's the weirdest thing.

Edit: I just realized that this was the root cause behind the initial issues people had with the first edition of Age of Sigmar.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Does it really matter? Necromunda is not a competitive game. You aren't playing a different stranger every week. You'll be playing the same group of people over multiple weeks in a campaign. If something doesn't work, fix it in the most obvious and simple way possible and move on. If you want the table to look like that, get your mates to agree and go for it. You've already put more thought into the table than the designers probably did.

I agree it doesn't matter, but when listing up all the errors in this book (on top of all the errors in previous books), it is cases like this on every other page. I'd rather pay for rules that didn't need so much duct tape. Want to try Magnacles? Good luck trying to figure RAW from RAI. Yes, any unclear rule should be a matter of a simple roll-off if players can't agree. But I want some consistency, permanent solutions. Not a random rules set each game, where you have to roll off to decide which of 3 different Scouring (Wyrd Power) rules to use. The state of the game today, we don't know what stuff do. And we got silly things like Gunk ammo dealing various amount of ammo, depending on which gun it was fired from. Or more silly, Wyrd Powers and weapons that differ depending on which fighter uses it!

There is a long list of errors in this book, nicely summed up here:
https://yaktribe.games/community/threads/collected-errors-typos-in-the-book-of-judgement.9166/page-2#post-204423

One silly example:
On page 47, you can choose to pay 3 XP or 4 XP to increase WIllpower. But no way to increase Leadership. They couldn't even copy-paste the damn table!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Coenus Scaldingus wrote:
To be fair, it's also just really impractical. Plenty of different weapons in the game already; having to remember or look up whether a character uses the first, second or third iteration of some particular knife really doesn't help anyone.

Exactly! It used to be, "I'm hitting you with a boltgun", great, now I know it has Strength 4 and 2 Damage. But not, it's like, nevermind what weapon it is, which fighter is attacking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:

I'm advocating for a little self effort here. GW isn't running your campaign, you are. You are not a passive bystander. Nothing happens unless you make it happen. Take control of that power to make a more enjoyable game experience.

It's like some sort of game rule anxiety. People aren't responding to the minor annoyance of an obvious typo. They are responding to the anxiety that comes from an official rules conflict, and are seemingly unable to respond to that conflict in any constructive way without official say so. It's the weirdest thing.

Edit: I just realized that this was the root cause behind the initial issues people had with the first edition of Age of Sigmar.

Look at the publishing history for N17/18:

N17 Rulebook (toxic garbage)
GW1 (garbage)
GW2 (garbage)
GW3 (garbage)
GW4 (garbage)
Chaos v1 (garbage)
Chaos v2 (garbage)
Chaos v3 (future garabage?)
Genestealer cult v1 (garbage)
Genestealer cult v2 (future garbage?)
Bounty Hunters v1 (garbage)
N18 compilation books (rules & gangs)
Perils (future garbage?)
Enforcers (future garbage?)

This is a very special game to me, I have fond memories of it. I hate how careless GW is when making rules for such an old classic gem of a game. I want proper quality, not some loosely organized ideas reprinted on paper in book after book.

And I'm trying desperately to fix it, compiling my own documents for all cards, all rules and all house rules / campaign fixes. It takes a ton of work to fix this game properly!

The rules are/were a mess. It's obvious that it's a small team working on this and many things that would be caught if someone who has fresh eyes tried to actually use the text in a game are simply not being caught. If all their playtesting always involved people who knew how it's is supposed to work, it's very easy for them to miss the fact that that's not exactly what the text says.

It's like the entire first underhive, gang war and white dwarf articles were a public playtest they made people pay quite a large amount of money to participate in.

There's already some of the exact same issues in the newest books. Can enforcers take hand cuffs? Doesn't look like it. Worst police ever.

Baxx wrote:

Look at the publishing history for N17/18:

Wow.
That is a LOT of rules for less than two years.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Wow.
That is a LOT of rules for less than two years.

5 garbage books, hundreds of inconsistent rules, constantly changing or sneakily updated: weapon profiles, costs, stats, skills, wyrd powers ++.

Most frustrating right now is they seem to be on a second wave of (future) garbage with the 2 latest book. Total lack of quality control. And why should they bother? Both Perils and Judgement may very well be invalid within 6 months anyway.

Are you actually doing anything useful with all these issues you spot, like say reporting them to the publisher for correction, or even opening a thread in the appropriate forum to discuss them? Or is clogging up the news thread with not-news how you get your hobby fix now?

I've noticed that Necromunda players are the most accepting of rulebook piracy of any miniature gamers ever. I think they're just tired of paying for unfinished books that will be swiftly invalidated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Are you actually doing anything useful with all these issues you spot, like say reporting them to the publisher for correction, or even opening a thread in the appropriate forum to discuss them? Or is clogging up the news thread with not-news how you get your hobby fix now?

Yaktribe has taken to working these rules out for themselves. If I recall correctly they assembled a huge list of issues and questions and sent it to the appropriate faq related email address and nothing ever came of it.

Isn't it news though, that the new enforcers with the new book of judgement come out and they made it so the police can't get hand cuffs even though the models clearly have them? Seems newsworthy for anyone thinking about getting into the game because of the new cool models to know the rules support is awful and you will have to house rule basic things like equipping the models with what they have on them. This is really no different than when the WD article for Genestealer Cults came out and they had no way of of getting the third arm that many of them had even though it was an entry in the options.

The news is that the poor quality rules continues.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Are you actually doing anything useful with all these issues you spot, like say reporting them to the publisher for correction, or even opening a thread in the appropriate forum to discuss them? Or is clogging up the news thread with not-news how you get your hobby fix now?

Sure I'm doing something useful! I mentioned this in the news thread because Book of Judgement is still one of the latest releases. There's a lot of discussion about the new models, but not much talk about the new rules. I tried commenting on errors last year to GW, but they don't care, give mindless replies. I've seen others share their experience when asking about rules and errors, the replies are usually worthless, makes little sense or even increase the confusion.

Removed

Baxx wrote:
Look at the publishing history for N17/18:

N17 Rulebook (toxic garbage)
GW1 (garbage)
GW2 (garbage)
GW3 (garbage)
GW4 (garbage)
Chaos v1 (garbage)
Chaos v2 (garbage)
Chaos v3 (future garabage?)
Genestealer cult v1 (garbage)
Genestealer cult v2 (future garbage?)
Bounty Hunters v1 (garbage)
N18 compilation books (rules & gangs)
Perils (future garbage?)
Enforcers (future garbage?)

I very much think your classifications of "toxic garbage", "garbage", and "future garbage" are a histrionic overreaction. These books and PDFs are good 6s or 7s out of 10. Some better, some worse. They have issues, but they have a lot of good stuff in them too. Lot of good stuff. In fact, the Necromunda books are my favorite publications that GW puts out, just for the sheer variety of content they introduce. Necromunda is a game with very few models, but a whole crap load of things to do with those models. It's almost like the limitations they have for making the models have made their rules more interesting (and plentiful) to compensate, and I find that to be an interesting and inspiring change from the majority of miniature games out there. Every book is a collection of haphazard, half developed ideas - but so, so brimming with creativity and passion that I just don't see from most other, more corporate-feeling games. Necromunda is punk (in more ways than one) and that's awesome.

No, I don't think these books are perfect, but when your scale is "okay" and "garbage", with nothing in between, it doesn't allow for nuance or discussion. A 128-page rulebook with a page's worth of errata is hardly garbage. It's flawed, but not worthless.

frozenwastes wrote:I've noticed that Necromunda players are the most accepting of rulebook piracy of any miniature gamers ever. I think they're just tired of paying for unfinished books that will be swiftly invalidated.

I've noticed this too. In fact, when Underhive and the first Gang War were first released, I saw people linking to compiled rules documents on reddit within the first few days, updated with rules transcribed directly from the newly released books. Truly some gifted individuals, getting tired of paying for unfinished books when my preorder hadn't even shipped yet...

When Necromunda was a dead game, it made sense to openly share the game rules. But Necromunda isn't a dead game anymore, and I don't find "garbage rules" to be a particularly compelling moral argument for piracy.

The direct analogue of physical to digital property is not obvious when you don't grow up with only physical property. When you constantly deal with digital property and are endlessly encouraged to share everything on social media, the same moral intuitions will not be present. In fact, the opposite ones will be formed. When you do not have the moral intuitions to tell you not to do something, you simply don't require a moral justification to do it.

As for the fan compilation, it was a direct result of the issues with the rulebook. When you can tell the errata is going to be voluminous, an editable electronic version is essential. Furthermore, GW stupidly launched the game with no electronic version of the rules available. Especially if the community is going to have to handle things themselves. GW took forever to respond to any questions about the rules after their initial launch. When they finally said an FAQ would come soon, people on Yaktribe compiled a list of questions and then the FAQ came out and introduced more questions than it answered. It was a mess.

I'm more included to base my games on FFG's Dark Heresy RPGs, but some local people are interested in checking out N17 and I'm definitely thankful that the fan compilation/edit and YAQ exist.

You know, it'd be real nice if people didn't discuss piracy here - it's dead easy to make your argument when anyone who might be inclined to make a counterpoint is prevented from doing so by the forum rules.

Do it or don't, but spare us the "kids these days fnar" moral analysis, eh?

If you think I was making a "kid's these days" analysis, might I invite you to think about the implications of the anti-piracy intuitions not being universal and based on having to extrapolate physical intuitions to a digital world where the basic characteristics are simply not analogous. It's the boomer intuitions that are off base here, not the zoomer ones. I removed the "generational" thing from my last post to help it be more clear. Even if the pre-internet intuitions are what trip people up on the piracy issue and those are largely generational.

But sure. I'll drop the topic.

It is sad though how poorly the editing is on Necromunda publications. The YAQ should not have to exist. All of those questions should already be resolved by either the text itself or the designers in a FAQ.

Saw this article over at /r/Games and thought of this thread:

One danger is that it’s very difficult to tell which members of The Community are open to discussion, and which are simply Engaged Detractors who are making bad faith arguments in the interest of contributing to the overall scale of the outrage.

The Storytellers emerge with their own posts. These people are most interested in situating the most recent Bad Change within a longer framework of Bad Changes that The Devs have done over the years. “This is just one mistake among many, and the pattern is clear,” they warn. The other members of The Community here begin reposting arguments which were upvoted in earlier threads — the goal here is to solidify permanent reputational loss for The Devs as punishment for failing to revert or otherwise fix the Bad Change.

Heck, even I show up:

Advocates (members of The Community who are generally willing to give The Devs the benefit of the doubt) will tend to shout down Engaged Detractors at this point, and Engaged Detractors will accuse Advocates of being shills. As in all online arguments, no one ever actually wins. Here the 48 Hours of Gamer Hell generally concludes.

It's an interesting article, worth reading. I disagree with its conclusion though.

I'm someone who was hyped at launch, disappointed once I got to grips with the rules and then have only returned to having interest because the Enforcer models are so damn awesome. I am sadly again disappointed with the editing of the published rules.

If you're referring to Baxx, he's someone who took the time to make a house ruled compilation of the rules so he can play with a version of the game he likes. That's simply not the action of a so called "engaged detractor."

The necromunda community kept the game alive for years and years, asking nothing in return for their community edition. If people find the editing in an official publication to be worse than what the fans make for themselves, that isn't them participating in some campaign to "solidify permanent reputation loss for the Devs as punishment."

Sometimes publications just have issues and people point them out.

Also, one of the central ideas of that article is that there's some disliked "Bad Change" but that's not the case with Necromunda. The community edition is alive and well. GW did not sick their lawyers on forums or facebook groups dedicated to the original game. There is both the current Necromunda and fan versions living happily side by side. There is no "bad change" like a change in a video game where you can't just keep playing the old version because of updates or online servers requiring the latest version be used.

 frozenwastes wrote:
If I recall correctly they assembled a huge list of issues and questions and sent it to the appropriate faq related email address and nothing ever came of it.

I could E-mail it to Andy directly. I'm sure he'd scream at me for doing so, but it couldn't hurt.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
If I recall correctly they assembled a huge list of issues and questions and sent it to the appropriate faq related email address and nothing ever came of it.

I could E-mail it to Andy directly. I'm sure he'd scream at me for doing so, but it couldn't hurt.

So I went digging for the old thread and found that things morphed with the publication of the new books. Tons of those issues were resolved in the 2018 rulebook and Gangs of the Underhive. So here's a work in progress document of the N18 YAQ. It incorporates all the published official FAQ and does it's best to solve the further issues.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mmafTQRNFY16rPPe1AqyDDn4IDXPELI5ba869QE5InI

I want to add that I was also wrong saying that nothing ever came of it. Nothing ever came of it before I stopped paying attention. Underhive + gang war 1-4 issues could easily have been resolved with the publication of the 2018 rulebook and Gangs of the Underhive. So they did deal with the issues at least to some degree. I think I stopped paying attending around the release of Gang War 3, so two publications later is only about half a year or so. So it's quite possible the emailed list got through and the questions that were deemed important got answered and the rest got addressed with the new rulebook.

Actually between the two GW books, the community compilations and the YAQ, it looks like Necromunda might be a really solid game as it currently stands. The issues with editing notwithstanding. Although looking through the YAQ document I'm surprised by the number of things in Underhive that got cut from the 2018 rulebook. Like being crushed in a door, what a standard move means, fighting over barricades and so on. I actually have no idea if these will come up in a game or not but it is strange that entire rules like fighting over barricades were cut from the new rulebook. Or perhaps the intent is now that you can't engage someone behind a barricade because you can't get base to base?

Kindly keep this thread for news and rumours, as I've said before in the past, take all discussion of custom house rules and how many errors one can find to a thread of its own please.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
If I recall correctly they assembled a huge list of issues and questions and sent it to the appropriate faq related email address and nothing ever came of it.

I could E-mail it to Andy directly. I'm sure he'd scream at me for doing so, but it couldn't hurt.

Do it! Do it! Do it!

Even to get an answer of "We're working on the MEGAFAQ, ok? It'll be done when it's done!"

 Graphite wrote:
Do it! Do it! Do it!

Yeah, so, it turns out the eyes of GW are everywhere, as Andy E-mailed me before I could E-mail him.

If we want to give constructive good-faith feedback right to the horses mouth (so to speak), then I can pass it on.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
Do it! Do it! Do it!

Yeah, so, it turns out the eyes of GW are everywhere, as Andy E-mailed me before I could E-mail him.

If we want to give constructive good-faith feedback right to the horses mouth (so to speak), then I can pass it on.

I think the main thing would be to let us know what's meant to be an update to an existing rule or stat line, what's meant to be an alternative version of an existing rule or stat line, and what's just typos.

And ideally, in future, for them to A; actually point out in the book itself when they've decided to change something with a little "Editor's Note" popout box or something, B; for them to indicate when something is meant to be an alternative by giving it a distinct name(even something as basic as "Guy Randomname's Stub Gun"), and C; just generally to please allow a little more time in their schedule for thorough proofreading and maybe an extra round of editing.

Now that they have the "core" game completed and in the main two books and all the House gangs I'd be happy buying a couple of these expansion books a year(and have done) so long as they don't end up being pointless due to needing such extensive FAQ'ing - people don't mind paying premium prices so long as they're actually getting premium product.

Oh, and one other thing: ancillary products like card packs. If they're going to insist on doing teeny-weeny runs of sometimes very useful things that aren't in the books and which sell out pretty much immediately when they go up for preorder, it'd be good if they would either publicly commit to doing a reprint in future(even if it's not right now, just some firm indication that folk who miss out don't need to indulge the scalperscum is enough), or else do what they did with the Titanicus terminals and put them up on Warhammer Community as a print-ready PDF. We want to buy this stuff, but if they can't manage to produce enough to satisfy demand and they're not willing to commit to doing so in future, then they could at least give us a DIY version(and it's not like they're losing out on anything - people are already hoisting the Jolly Roger to get copies when the stock runs out)..