[BTB] 333 Exploration Unscrupulous Thief

(3 3 3) Unscrupulous Thief
The warband may hire the thief for 30+2D6 gold
crowns to force any chosen warband to play as
the defender warband in the "The Heist" special
scenario once.

Does this may the warband hiring the thief may also choose to play 'The Heist' or may they only name one warband as defender in 'The Heist'?

One of our Skaven clans (Silent Threat objective) found the Unscrupulous Thief. Can the 'force' themselves to play as the defender in 'The Heist'?

Shacru wrote:

(3 3 3) Unscrupulous Thief
The warband may hire the thief for 30+2D6 gold
crowns to force any chosen warband to play as
the defender warband in the "The Heist" special
scenario once.

Does this may the warband hiring the thief may also choose to play 'The Heist' or may they only name one warband as defender in 'The Heist'?

This means that the warband (with the Thief) may play the 'The Heist' scenario next, as the attacker, with any other warband as the defender.

Shacru wrote:

One of our Skaven clans (Silent Threat objective) found the Unscrupulous Thief. Can the 'force' themselves to play as the defender in 'The Heist'?

I don't see the benefit in trying to do so... Do they want to get rid of one of their possessions??? Anyways, if they chose themselves as the defender, then they would have to play against themselves (because they are already the attacking warband automatically - see above). So the short answer is "no".

'The Heist': The defender warband is the one which stole the item and refering to the objective The Silent Threat: The warband wins the campaign if they have won “The Heist” scenario as defender, against at least one warband of each of the objectives [...]
But I see the point - no sense at all, playing attacker and defender at the same time. We just thought that maybe they may force an other warband to play attacker instead, too ...

The defender warband in The Heist is the one who stole the item. So why does the warband who discovered the Unscrupulous Thief acts as the attacker and forces some other warband to play as defender?
Isn't the Unscrupulous Thief the one listed in the 'Heist' scenario?
Profile M WS BS S T W I A Ld
Thief 4 3 4 3 3 1 4 1 7

Thanks for your answers!

Ooooh yes! I hate this. I can't count the number of times I mixed the role labels for this scenario on one hand... Of course the point of the 333 result is to get to steal an item from another warband, so it should read: "force any chosen warband to play as the attacker warband in the "The Heist" special scenario once." Actually I think this is already mentioned in the latest version of the Errata, which is not online yet, but neither on my laptop, so I don't know for sure...

Puh, I am glad I asked ... The Skaven Assassine was quit happy about it when I told him!
There is some errata coming up? <leise winkend aus der letzten Reihe>

He he..
Yeah, whenever someone asks something or points out typos or unclear wordings in the rules I update my local version of the Errata file accordingly. Of course I also update the PDF files. However, I know that many people like to print PDFs and that is why I don't want to throw minor updates at them every few weeks. Instead I try to keep stable versions for at least a few months. There was one first Errata for which I updated the individual PDFs but not the entire book (due to stupid technical problems I couldn't merge the separate files into one). So the next update will include a new version of the Errata file, new individual PDFs and - hopefully - a corrected version of the all-in-one PDF with all errata included.