Airing the possibility for NNCE/NCE20+

Project Focus


  • Total voters
    34
Status
Not open for further replies.

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
171
279
63
I think a good first step would be to go through and find the areas of the rules that can be fixed with better verbiage, rather than outright rules changes. So things like
  • Attack being used to mean a single hit roll or all hit rolls in a fight action interchangeably
  • Turn being used to mean either 'activation' or 'round'
  • When something says 'double your movement characteristic' (like Sprint) does this include the effects of, say, Spur (add 2 to your movement characteristic)... Defining base characteristics and setting out clear guidelines (double -> half -> add -> subtract). What happens if you double a double? Is it x4 or +200%?
  • The new Group Activations in House of Blades specify 'Escher Fighters'. What are they? Any fighter in the Escher Gang, any fighter with 'Escher' in the name... this one might seem minor but it can have surprisingly wide reaching effects.
  • What are special ammos? They appear in three different equipment categories.
  • Field Armour uses the same wording as the not-save saves like Dodge and Omen of Fortune, but is a save apparently? But a Field Armour Save is not to be confused with an Armour Save since it can't be modified... but it can be ignored by Power, the way it's worded. But if successful, you ignore all the effects of the hit, but not the main effect (pinning) according to one designer... As you can see this one is a bit of a peeve for me.
  • The Dodge skill allows you to move out of the way of a template/blast and not get hit, but only triggers on a successful wound. As written you can't dodge a toxin attack
There's loads of things like this, and in at least the case of the basic definitions of interactions I think sorting them out first will make everything else going forwards much simpler regardless of the level of changes that eventually get made.

I also think the gang and rules structures of the 'House of X' books are going to be the way of things going forward, so just shifting every basic gang into the new style of Gang Fighters, Specialists and no 2-champ starting cap now will probably help
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,641
10,696
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
After all, it will be initiative of a small dev team (only a handful people will actually write main bulk rules and put to a vote few key questions), so it falls down to whatever you pick really.

The thing is, if we want this ruleset to have some legitimacy as a "community edition", it needs to involve the community as much as possible. Otherwise, it will get derided as just a few people's house rules and pet peeves. I know it will happen regardless (I got similar flak for the YAQ despite my best efforts, as did the NCE), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Otherwise, we risk a scenario similar to this:
standards.png
 

Galtarr

Gang Hero
Mar 1, 2017
1,012
1,748
138
I think a good first step would be to go through and find the areas of the rules that can be fixed with better verbiage, rather than outright rules changes. So things like
  • Attack being used to mean a single hit roll or all hit rolls in a fight action interchangeably
  • Turn being used to mean either 'activation' or 'round'
  • When something says 'double your movement characteristic' (like Sprint) does this include the effects of, say, Spur (add 2 to your movement characteristic)... Defining base characteristics and setting out clear guidelines (double -> half -> add -> subtract). What happens if you double a double? Is it x4 or +200%?
  • The new Group Activations in House of Blades specify 'Escher Fighters'. What are they? Any fighter in the Escher Gang, any fighter with 'Escher' in the name... this one might seem minor but it can have surprisingly wide reaching effects.
  • What are special ammos? They appear in three different equipment categories.
  • Field Armour uses the same wording as the not-save saves like Dodge and Omen of Fortune, but is a save apparently? But a Field Armour Save is not to be confused with an Armour Save since it can't be modified... but it can be ignored by Power, the way it's worded. But if successful, you ignore all the effects of the hit, but not the main effect (pinning) according to one designer... As you can see this one is a bit of a peeve for me.
  • The Dodge skill allows you to move out of the way of a template/blast and not get hit, but only triggers on a successful wound. As written you can't dodge a toxin attack
There's loads of things like this, and in at least the case of the basic definitions of interactions I think sorting them out first will make everything else going forwards much simpler regardless of the level of changes that eventually get made.

I also think the gang and rules structures of the 'House of X' books are going to be the way of things going forward, so just shifting every basic gang into the new style of Gang Fighters, Specialists and no 2-champ starting cap now will probably help
I agree with this. And that's why I had to vote B not C. We will have to define certain interpretations of core rules for the custom campaign to work. We can try light touch or go balls-in but not addressing ambiguities will undermine the whole process.

On the mention of the YAQ, I think it still covers many of the trouble areas even if it got left behind under the weight of new evolving issues. It's certainly worth reviewing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orngog

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,155
1,503
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
The thing is, if we want this ruleset to have some legitimacy as a "community edition", it needs to involve the community as much as possible. Otherwise, it will get derided as just a few people's house rules and pet peeves. I know it will happen regardless (I got similar flak for the YAQ despite my best efforts, as did the NCE), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
...
I'm afraid that unlike YAQ or NCE we have to rework a substantial chunk of the game rather than introduce minor tweaks, simply because N17+ was clearly designed with 2D cardboard tiles in mind, and they just stuck to that for some reason, even though they switched to pseudo-3d Mortalis and most players play on Mechanicus anyway.
 
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: Thorgor and Orngog

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
724
662
113
Wiltshire
Well, if we're at the point of making suggestions.. I suggest we follow the Case format and go through section by section, whilst keeping a thread open for potential upcoming changes.

I for one would like to see the bottle rules spelled out a bit clearer.

"I also think the gang and rules structures of the 'House of X' books are going to be the way of things going forward, so just shifting every basic gang into the new style of Gang Fighters, Specialists and no 2-champ starting cap now will probably help"

Easier said than done, when those profiles do not yet exist. I would suggest starting with clarifications as Jayward spells out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ledward

Galtarr

Gang Hero
Mar 1, 2017
1,012
1,748
138
Well, if we're at the point of making suggestions.. I suggest we follow the Case format and go through section by section, whilst keeping a thread open for potential upcoming changes.

I for one would like to see the bottle rules spelled out a bit clearer.

"I also think the gang and rules structures of the 'House of X' books are going to be the way of things going forward, so just shifting every basic gang into the new style of Gang Fighters, Specialists and no 2-champ starting cap now will probably help"

Easier said than done, when those profiles do not yet exist. I would suggest starting with clarifications as Jayward spells out.
On the note of bottle rules something that scales better for smaller and larger gangs would be nicer. Even at 10 gang members, add a couple of pets, an alliance and a hired gun and you can be rocking 16 or so. Having something that kicks in at a fixed 6 members, based arbitrarily around choice of die is clunky at best. Someone suggested a %of gang rule that was quite a simple change if I could remember which thread.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,641
10,696
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
I'm afraid that unlike YAQ or NCE we have to rework a substantial chunk of the game rather than introduce minor tweaks
You're correct. ORB was a more cohesive ruleset and easier to work with as a result. As far the YAQ, I tried to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible as the goal was to try and get the RAI from the RAW and other clues.

With this new CE, I think the objective should be to get a version of the ruleset that that everyone in the community would agree to play (even if they don't agree with every single choice we end up making). I believe the community should mainly be involved in setting the goals for this CE, but the means to achieve these goals (exact mechanics, technical writing, etc.) could be left to a small group of 'experts', with the larger community being tasked with proofreading, playtesting and general feedback.

This should, imo, be a layered process (start with the core rules with only a few dummy fighter and weapon profiles and a simple scenario just to check everything works correctly in the nominal case, then slowly build from there)
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,902
4,842
193
Norway
There’s no time limit (I didn’t set one), when you are ready to move to the next big question, just give me a new list of answers and I’ll edit the poll! 🙂
I had a limit in the original poll. I'm also looking at have multiple concurrent polls at the same time, as it looks like we are heading towards a much more
comprehensive approach.
This is not really a vote (for that you'd have to make it a global poll for forum, not just one thread).
I did originally make a global poll yes. You and me both have house ruled this game into how it should be. But neither of us have an 'official community edition'. I want what NCE have and what Blood Bowl have through NAF. I want traction and wide support, getting as many people on board as possible. Not sure how to achieve that without votes?
 
Last edited:

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
724
662
113
Wiltshire
I think the official support of Malo, Stoof etc would go a long way- I had similar concerns about my "hivewide events", I ended up dropping it because I felt without such a sanction I would be pissing in the wind.

However, I think the name itself carries a lot of weight- the NCE didn't originate on this site of course, it was an Eastern Fringe project for many years... and yet still is a recognisable (and indeed "officially recognised") term here 15-odd years later.

On the subject of which, I think the key to getting non-yakkers to accept the CE is making as few changes as possible.
 

Tiny

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Jul 12, 2011
3,906
9,428
178
South Wales, UK
www.tinyworlds.co.uk
On the subject of which, I think the key to getting non-yakkers to accept the CE is making as few changes as possible.

Absolutely this.

I would be looking to get N20 up to scratch as opposed to any other option.

NCE already has most of the options required to use new minis with the old rules so would simply be fan-made bits for things like Ogryns and a few obscure weapons etc.

Using a different dice system you may as well just look at other games systems that already use those dice and just use Necromunda minis with as much re-skinning as required to play them.

Also pick a different name. Otherwise its going to get confusing.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,641
10,696
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
Create a new thread then?
If we are going to use separate threads, maybe it could warrant its own brand new sub-forum for better organisation and visibility? @spafe, what do you think?

I think the key to getting non-yakkers to accept the CE is making as few changes as possible.
And that's still a lot of changes! 😈
 

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,155
1,503
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
I think we need to rework only specific stuff that absolutely cannot be left in. For example, while I'd be glad to make Strength vs Toughness more granular (revert it to older Necromunda, so S5 is not as situational), it is not an absolute must, nor it will get in the way of other, more needed changes to rules. Meanwhile inability of pinned fighters to engage in close combat with nearby enemies is just broken and should be dealt with.

Maybe a thread to narrow down what has to be changed, and then try to trim out all extra changes that the game would still be fine without to leave it as close to original as possible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiny

Ledward

Ganger
Jun 6, 2017
84
88
33
Belgium
"The good, the bad and the ugly" summary might be useful to get an overview which parts people love to keep or definitely need to change.
The S vs T roll as is seems fine for me as it's rather simple and during covid even my non gamer girlfriend got the hang of it rather fast. Not everyone is good in learning the old table by heart.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,641
10,696
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
I think the S/T table is mostly fine. It's just something you have to take into account when you create profiles and cost stuff. Maybe it could be improved though, probably worth a second look but not a priority imo.

As for the other thing, I think the over-arching issue is that (without crutch mechanisms like Overseer or the CGC various special rules), Melee doesn't work as well as ranged. There are a lot of possible solutions to this problem that should be examined (ranging from straight buff to Melee to real battlefield setup rules that ensure LoS are sufficiently blocked and enough cover is provided) and it should be done quite early in the process as many things depends on it.

I like the idea of making 3 lists: stuff we like as is, stuff that needs to be clarified, and stuff that we wish to change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kendoka

spafe

Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
Feb 8, 2013
10,292
14,229
283
Tilehurst, U.k.
If we are going to use separate threads, maybe it could warrant its own brand new sub-forum for better organisation and visibility? @spafe, what do you think?
As this seems to have enough following, and interest, I'll have a chat with Malo. In the first instance I think creating a sub folder in the necromunda area (similar to the inquismunda one) is the way to go, and we can monitor it from there. If Malo agrees with my suggestion it will still likely take a few days to be implimented.
 

cronevald

Gang Hero
Jun 5, 2016
794
1,541
103
Missoula, MT
I voted C. I've said previously that I mostly like the new rules but find the campaign and advancement systems disappointing. What I'd really like to see would be a slight tightening of the rules to give them stability and a new campaign with an advancement system closer in philosophy to ORB/NCE. I don't know if that really falls within the scope of the discussion here but it would be what I'm looking for.
 

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
724
662
113
Wiltshire
That's the problem with opinions, they cannot be accurately ranked. But different systems yield different information.
@cronevald would you mind expanding on your thoughts about campaign/advancement for me?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.