WOIN Which source is the latest?

[TheHirumaChico]

Hi again. My players and I were trying to clarify the Ambush turn in our session today, and we discovered that we can reference three different sources for the rules:

1. WOIN NOW Rulebook v 1.2, p. 145
2. WOIN RPG web site
3. WOIN Rules Reference Document

Note that the web site (#2 above) states the following: "When attempting to access the ambush turn, participants must declare their intended target and action. It is possible that various combatants in one encounter can ambush other combatants who are in turn ambushing still further participants – the ambush turn is a relative concept between the (hopeful) ambusher and the intended target only. Groups don't ambush each other; individual combatants ambush specific other individual combatants. However, if two combatants successfully ambush each other, neither gets access to the ambush turn."

Items #1 and #3 seem to contradict the sentences I highlighted in the prior quote as they say "Getting an ambush requires a group check. Either the whole group succeeds, or none of them do. This check is opposed by the leader (or the lookout, or the otherwise most alert or perceptive) of the target group. As always with group checks, success requires more than half the participants to make a successful check." I suspect that #1 and #3 are more recent and thus the correct versions, but I thought I should request confirmation. Interesting that multiple, and potentially contradictory, rules sources can be found depending on which web search result one clicks

 

[Morrus]

Yikes, how did you even find that #2 page? It's a very old version of the rules reference document and isn't linked to from anywhere (I hope!) -- you can safely ignore #2 in favor of #3.

 

[TheHirumaChico]

The woinrpg.com links are the first ones that show up, top of the list, when one web searches "WOIN RPG".

 

[Morrus]

Huh. I don't control Google. I removed all links to those in favor of the new rules reference document.

 

[TheHirumaChico]

OK, thanks for the quick replies, as always!