Airing the possibility for NNCE/NCE20+

Project Focus


  • Total voters
    34
Status
Not open for further replies.

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,902
4,842
193
Norway
Poll: https://yaktribe.games/community/th...ng-a-new-community-edition-nnce-n20-ce.10578/

New Necromunda is almost 3 years old now. The game is rich and full of content, but also flawed. As far as I can see, the current YAQ has laid doormant for a while.

Are there anyone interested in collaborating a version made by the community for the community? A complete do-over. How this is best done is open for debate. Main communication is done in threads here at yaktribe. It will require a lot of work and should address topics like balance, campaign(s), scenarios, tactics, pretty much anything. I suggest weekly votes on singular topics to get things moving, with the possibility of revisiting earlier rulings.

Would people be interested, or are most players busy and/or happy with everyone using their own house rules or sticking to old NCE or classic editions?
 
Last edited:

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
171
279
63
I'd be keen to help. I've got very little experience in rules writing but I often find myself thinking that the lack of consistent basic terminology is something that really lets this ruleset down, and that would seem like a solid place to start
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,902
4,842
193
Norway
Yeah I imagine a free and open system where everyone can jump in when they want, share their thoughts and cast their vote.

Perhaps the first and most important topic is how much we want to change? Do we want the game as it is, just minor tweaks, fix the most critical bugs? Or big changes like re-balancing cost of all weapons/items or even stats?

The starting point should probably be the current latest rules (RAW). I would like to move some parts closer to NCE/original Necromunda, but any direction could be discussed.

However, there should at least be 10+ people on board, preferably many of the most active members here, but anyone else are welcome too.
 
Last edited:

Pierric

Gang Champion
Jan 22, 2020
337
1,003
168
Berry, France
You guys are ready for some Titan work, and for something GW employees are clearly not able to perform anymore, despite being paid for and sitting behind a studio desk every workday...

N17+ is a doomed issue as far as I am concerned. It has reached a level of complexity that is way beyond common sense, while lacking depth at the same time, which is the very recipe for a total failure in my book. It looks like an USSR administrative nightmare come true.

There is a saying that states that "only fools will expect a different result by repeating more and more of the same thing", which sounds just perfect for the House of book series and the current "rules system". We call such dysfonctional structures "gaz factories" in France (just adding a new mess of wires and pipes to an already big mess of wires and pipes).

What I am looking for is just the contrary of all of this : a simple, direct, instant rules system to play with a teenager who don't read, or a friend who come for an evening and is not a tabletop game geek and who has never played a GW game. It strikes me that there is no universal tabletop system which you could play with 1/72 plastic soldiers, 28/32/54 mm miniatures, or even Lego or Playmobil figures.

Tabletop games producers would like to enlarge their gamers/customers base, but they are all producing different rulesystems of variable quality and efficiency, with many booklets or books to read, such narrowing their audience, while their true added value is on their miniatures and background (their so-called IP). The rules are clearly being considered as mandatory chore to sell a world and its miniatures, and often lack sound playtesting.

What I would need are :

* A universal tabletop ruleset (UTR) for modern to post apo fights/battles, without any specific scale, without specific world or fluff, with the basic mechanics on how you create your unit (gang/militia/platoon/army), how you make them move and fight on the tabletop, and how you make them recover/evolve between fight/battles (experience/campaign).

* Several game environments from different manufacturers, with their own fluff, miniatures and factions.

Of course, makers believe that issuing half-assed contradictory and incomplete rulesest are a way to capture their customers in their own environment (ie. range of products), but how many are they rebuking to enter their game because of an absurd number of books to read and rules to know ? This is clearly the case for Necromunda now, and I'm pretty sure many gamers like the fluff and the miniatures but are thinking "there is no way I'm buying ten books and reading 800 pages before I play a game".

Sorry for the long post, but to me, it is just a very tedious and time consuming band aid application on a wooden peg. The maker won't go public and recognize the fact that this rulesytem is a failure and is rotten at the very core (which is logic and understandable when you know how it was developped).
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,641
10,696
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
I used to say we should wait for Geedubds to stop messing with N17's body before we try to patch it up, but it looks like we'll never get a stable version of Neomunda to play with, so fudge it...

So, let's say we do that, as a community. What should we aim for exactly? My preference would be for a remake of the original game (sans Outlanders, at least to begin with) in term of scale, (i.e. only 6 gangs that are not extremely different from one another, with access to a limited selection of weapons and items that do not overlap too much in role) but using the (good) modern design elements from Neomunda (and other similar games) like alternate activations.

Now, should we also consider other changes? (like, say, ditching the D6 system for something more granular, or reworking the leader/heavy/ganger/juve gang structure) I'd like it to happen, but I fear it may be too hard to achieve consensus on stuff like that.
 
Last edited:

Galtarr

Gang Hero
Mar 1, 2017
1,012
1,748
138
I'd be interested in helping. I like the core game but campaign and scenarios are weak on several counts and we had to rework them for our 3 campaigns.
Main culprits of N17++ are unnecessary complexity, too many rules that are nearly but not quite the same, plus unclarified rules interactions. List of weapons just too long...

Finally, the house of books has been too divisive in my local club. Not that they're bad, just people didn't want an army book style game when they bought into the game. A slimmed down game, more concise ruleset might be what I need to stop people drifting back to games like KT, which was being mooted even before HoB was delayed.

Early doors decisions will be needed on topics such as which gangs are we covering? Tactics cards - rework or drop? Campaign style? And probably whether to tone down power levels?
As for ZM. I'd say 3d only with tunnels being limited to scenario specifics.. it never needed the separation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,902
4,842
193
Norway
I used to say we should wait for Geedubds to stop messing with N17's body before we try to patch it up, but it looks like we'll never get a stable version of Neomunda to play with, so fudge it...

So, let's say we do that, as a community. What should we aim for exactly? My preference would be for a remake of the original game (sans Outlanders, at least to begin with) in term of scale, (i.e. only 6 gangs that are not extremely different from one another, with access to a limited selection of weapons and items that do not overlap too much in role) but using the (good) modern design elements from Neomunda (and other similar games) like alternate activations.

Now, should we also consider other changes? (like, say, ditching the D6 system for something more granular, or reworking the leader/heavy/ganger/juve gang structure) I'd like it to happen, but I fear it may be too hard to achieve consensus on stuff like that.
In general, it would be best to be open for anything and let the vote decide. Personally I envisioned having (almost) all the new content. Any new gang or weapon would be included. Perhaps that's too much to start with?

I see so many good suggestions and house rules from the community, often much easier and better than what GW makes, but it is all scattered about. Would be awesome to collect, make it into a single game and put a unified stamp of approval on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kendoka and Galtarr

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,641
10,696
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
In general, it would be best to be open for anything and let the vote decide. Personally I envisioned having (almost) all the new content. Any new gang or weapon would be included. Perhaps that's too much to start with?
"Everything" seems a bit too much to start with, yes ^^'

Also, I'm a bit surprised that you want to replicate the "bazillion guns" approach, juve specialists, etc. Isn't profile-bloat something we should try to fix instead?
I'd rather we come up with a robust yet relatively simple base that can then easily be expended upon (because future-proofing is a thing and we know it).
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,902
4,842
193
Norway
I'm willing to make sacrifices, go with the best argument and majority vote. I'm very skeptical to losing content. If someone made an escher gang with a chem thrower, I want the rules to support that. I can throw juves under the buss though, they don't have a proper model anyway, and the new prospects serve the same purpose.

It is weird to explain, I don't want a single new weapon, but if one is made, would I let it go?

I wish I could update this thread with a poll, but I made one here instead: https://yaktribe.games/community/th...ng-a-new-community-edition-nnce-n20-ce.10578/
 
Last edited:

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,641
10,696
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
If someone made an escher gang with a chem thrower, I want the rules to support that.
Ok, if the rule is that any miniature built from the current Necromunda range must be usable in our ruleset, I can go with that. I'd rather have a miniature-agnostic ruleset, but I understand the reasoning.
That doesn't mean, however, that we must have prospects (as long as we have something "young escher" miniatures can be used for) or that we need an entry for each variant of similar-looking weapons (we could get rid of brute cleavers, etc.)
 

Pierric

Gang Champion
Jan 22, 2020
337
1,003
168
Berry, France
I agree with Thorgor on the D6 system : it is obsolete and lacks depth, thus generating an artificial need for loads of modifiers and "traits".

I'll even be more radical. Let's ditch the characteristics profiles, those 80's fossils of a rules system when RPG was the main reference.

And I agree with Topsykretts on the content. No need to sacrifice part of it, people shall not confuse depth with complexity. It is possible to make simple rules for several hundred weapons, it is your system that should be simple, not its scope.

I've just read through HoB tonight and I find the Smugglers party and the Ulanti court advisors great additions to the game. Great modeling opportunities, nice fluff, diversity on the tabletop, it would be sad not to include such novelties. But just dump all the presented rules, keep the spirit of them and include them in a way more simplier system.
 

Pierric

Gang Champion
Jan 22, 2020
337
1,003
168
Berry, France
D6 was a sales driven concession made by people who thought you could get more players (customers) by using common dices instead of "weird" D10 dices for example. From a game point of view, it is a huge constraint that forces you to use many modifiers to get back some granularity. And it is a bad move IMO since every non RPG player I ever presented a D10 immediatly undestood it was just a "funny" dice with more results.
 

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
171
279
63
I have no strong opinion on d6/8/10 either way; there's loads of games that work with all of them (and 2d6 as well, if you like bell curves instead of linear). But every single number in the game would be based off of what you choose, so I'd say a fairly clear choice for first decision is 'Do we change the dice?'
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

Galtarr

Gang Hero
Mar 1, 2017
1,012
1,748
138
Read a vary old article about founding of GW years ago D6 was stuck to as that's the die people would have in the house. Ironic now GW sell multiple sets per gang (looking at you urine yellow Escher dice🤢).
If you're pushing selling dice less reason to stick to D6. Anyway Id vote D12 if dice is up for grabs however I happy to settle with D6, and would say I do like the firepower die.

Anyway, I deleted it from an earlier post for brevity. We need single hand axe, double handed axe, powered and chain versions. Brute cleavers and the nonsense going on in CGC list can be covered by aforementioned 6 variants. However Chem-thrower and Harpoon launcher feel mechanistically different from the rest. Wouldn't mind breathing life into rivet gun either.

I love the pets, brutes, hangers-on and alliances both thematically and modelling wise but the rules for them vary from inefficiently costly to game breaking.

Let's get 6 house gangs right first, After that we can look at enforcers, and Ogryns. As for cultists etc prefer a 7th neutral house list than can be for non-house affiliated or minor house. Then separate rules to chaosify or GSC or whatever the psychic cult was or whatever else peeps want to dream up. These can apply to all 7 houses (maybe Orlock was the neutral list originally but it no longer feels it in N18).

Personally CGC can go take a... Sorry CGC should be played as a chaos cult with their backstory, it's a cool backstory but it didn't need it's own unique gang that sort of was but wasn't a chaos cult...
 

Scavvierising

Undisputed Doom Spooner
Yak Comp 3rd Place
Honored Tribesman
Aug 3, 2016
769
1,701
153
London
I agree with Thorgor on the D6 system : it is obsolete and lacks depth, thus generating an artificial need for loads of modifiers and "traits".

I'll even be more radical. Let's ditch the characteristics profiles, those 80's fossils of a rules system when RPG was the main reference.

And I agree with Topsykretts on the content. No need to sacrifice part of it, people shall not confuse depth with complexity. It is possible to make simple rules for several hundred weapons, it is your system that should be simple, not its scope.

I've just read through HoB tonight and I find the Smugglers party and the Ulanti court advisors great additions to the game. Great modeling opportunities, nice fluff, diversity on the tabletop, it would be sad not to include such novelties. But just dump all the presented rules, keep the spirit of them and include them in a way more simplier system.
Well there is a reason that the whole #notmynecromunda thing exists. In regards to N17++.
Trying to completely reinvent the wheel for a second time might not be a good idea. That's not a community edition that's just making a completely different game.

If however a kind of N17+CE is your goal.

I would suggest taking the YAQ or something similar to apply to the core mechanic's.


Then make a new community campaign type. A lot of the new edition's problems (for me anyway) exist in the campaign rules. You can control things like the trading post, income, injuries, XP advances, tactic cards. I would lean towards doing something closer to retromunda myself.
Maybe create a more generic starting weapon list that house gangs can start with. With each house getting their house weapons added on. This should remove all those fancy gun sights and other items that are a bit much for a starting gang.
Maybe tweak the house weapons so they are at least all viable. Otherwise only change equipment/weapons etc cost in the trading post.

Keeping things like alliance faction subplot what ever. As an optional thing for arbitrators to apply. Might be a good idea for the first draft. Walk before you can run and get some player feedback on the initial stuff first.

I think pushing it as a new/different campaign type as opposed to reinventing the game. Will get more people trying it out.

Even the folk who are going to play the core system RAW with no YAQ. Might be up for experimenting with a different campaign type.

Just my 2 pennies.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,902
4,842
193
Norway
Well there is a reason that the whole #notmynecromunda thing exists. In regards to N17++.
Trying to completely reinvent the wheel for a second time might not be a good idea. That's not a community edition that's just making a completely different game.
Maybe what I really wanted was an updated YAQ with custom campaign? People share creative ideas, but some are radical and very distant to new Necromunda. On the other hand, a vote should show what people want or not.
 

Ben_S

Hive Lord
Yak Comp 3rd Place
Honored Tribesman
Jul 26, 2015
5,867
10,038
208
Southampton, UK
D6 was a sales driven concession made by people who thought you could get more players (customers) by using common dices instead of "weird" D10 dices for example. From a game point of view, it is a huge constraint that forces you to use many modifiers to get back some granularity.

I don't think modifiers really help anyway, if they're only +/-1 (etc) as you're still limited to 1-6 results. What they do force is more separate rolling.

You have your roll to hit, then your roll to wound, then your armour save. Since any or all of those can be modified, this is what gives you more possibilities.

In contrast, in FG you just roll one d20 each (with a modifier), the higher score wins and does (that score minus armour value) damage to opponent. Some people don't like that system, but it gets everything done in a single (opposed) roll.

I'm willing to make sacrifices, go with the best argument and majority vote.

I'm not an expert on game design, but I do study politics. I think trying to do everything by some kind of vote is a recipe for disaster.

Even trying to refine an established rule set through community consensus and discussion can be difficult enough (as shown by the history of NCE) but starting from basics, like which dice to use, will make things even harder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.