NCE Alternating activation for Necromunda Community Edition

[Llewy]

At least until Games Workshop finish releasing all the auxiliary rule supplements for N17, in our SOGG campaign we’re experimenting with porting a simple version of the alternating activation rules into our beloved NCE. To that end this thread will compile our attempts.


So far our experience with alternating activation has made for much more engaging play, however porting such a drastic change naturally creates all kinds of small problems for the way things interact with each other in the game. In the spirit of fun narrative play we found that we were able to make decisions to cover any inconsistencies that came up, or failing that we rolled for it. As we discover these small problems I will add our solutions to this thread and others are welcome to chip in.


---


Turn Sequence


Roll for first turn as usual. In every turn both players will activate all their fighters, however it still helps nominally to say that turn 1 is player A’s turn, and turn 2 is player B’s turn, and so on. (This helps to decide priority as well as the order for taking bottle rolls etc.)


Each turn is now split into three phases:

1. Beginning Phase
   
   
2. Action Phase
   
   
3. End Phase

The Beginning Phase


During the beginning phase bottle rolls are taken. If both players are taking bottle rolls the player whose turn it is takes their bottle roll first.


If there are any specific actions that take place at the beginning of either player’s turn they happen now, for example in Scavengers scenario you would now make the monster roll. In order to retain the same frequency as when playing without alternating activation you may need to make some rolls twice. For example, with the monster roll: in each turn both players now have the option of making the roll, meaning potentially there can be two monster rolls per turn.


Finally place a counter by every fighter on the board.


The Action Phase


The player whose turn it is gets priority. They choose one of their fighters and remove the counter next to that fighter. That model can now have one full turn in this order: movement, shooting, hand to hand.


If they are pinned and are able to test to escape pinning (for example if a friendly fighter is within 2”) they can do that first, exactly as if it was their own movement phase. However they can only test to escape pinning if they were pinned in the turn before (and not that same action phase).


After that model has completed its turn the other player can choose one of their fighters to activate and so on until all fighters have been activated.


The End Phase


In the end phase roll nerve tests for any fighters who were broken in the previous turn.

Roll recovery for all fighters who were already down from the previous turn.


---


Rules clarifications

Multiple combats

If you are fighting a multiple combat and you have another fighter in the combat who has already activated and fought, then you get the +1 to the combat resolution and +1 attack dice when the second fighter gets activated. Meanwhile for the outnumbered ganger they have to fight each of their opponents in turn when they activate.

Pinning

It is ok for a friendly fighter to position themselves next to a pinned fighter during their activation. When that pinned fighter is activated they can now test to escape pinning. (This is not possible if they were pinned in that same turn).


---


@The Duke @Ptrix

 

[spafe]

If they are pinned and are able to test to escape pinning (for example if a friendly fighter is within 2”) they can do that first, exactly as if it was their own movement phase. However they can only test to escape pinning if they were pinned in the turn before (and not that same action phase).

So am I right in thinking you could now have a mate run up to a pinned fighter, then when that pinned fighters turn comes up they can now test to escape pinning (and if they fail they just stand up at the end phase?). I really like that if that's how it works, very thematic.

Does this mean we can expect some updates in the SOGG campaign thread soon then?

 

[Llewy]

So am I right in thinking you could now have a mate run up to a pinned fighter, then when that pinned fighters turn comes up they can now test to escape pinning (and if they fail they just stand up at the end phase?). I really like that if that's how it works, very thematic.

Does this mean we can expect some updates in the SOGG campaign thread soon then?

Yeh I like that too Spafe Can't see any problem with that as long as they didn't get pinned in that same phase.

There's gonna be loads of little worm holes and things that work differently for us playing this way that we'll slowly uncover and make tweaks as we go, but as fairly seasoned nce players it actually brought a lot of life to the table, navigating a new way of playing overwatch for example, different tactical decisions here and there.

@The Duke took a lot of photos from our game and wrote extensive notes so I have high hopes a battle report might be coming but he also is a tremendously busy man.

I have been using his brilliant day-glo ratskins which has also brought new life to things for me having somewhat played orlocks to death both figuratively and literally.

 

[spafe]

@The Duke took a lot of photos from our game and wrote extensive notes so I have high hopes a battle report might be coming but he also is a tremendously busy man.

Well there's a subtle hint if ever I saw one! Mrs Spafe would be proud of that subtleness... BUT! This is the underhive, subtle has no place here! @The Duke , get ya self over to the campaign thread and write us a report darn it! *

Have you considered how multiple combats might work? (I'm thinking player 1 charges player 2, both survive, player 2 then charges somone into player 1's fighter.... who fights this combat again?)


*in jest of course, I know dukey boy has a lot on these days (why he should have been an engineer not an architect, paid overtime!), so whenevers clever dude!

 

[The Duke]

Well there's a subtle hint if ever I saw one! Mrs Spafe would be proud of that subtleness... BUT! This is the underhive, subtle has no place here! @The Duke , get ya self over to the campaign thread and write us a report darn it! *

Have you considered how multiple combats might work? (I'm thinking player 1 charges player 2, both survive, player 2 then charges somone into player 1's fighter.... who fights this combat again?)


*in jest of course, I know dukey boy has a lot on these days (why he should have been an engineer not an architect, paid overtime!), so whenevers clever dude!

Hahahaha, I’ll see if I have some idle time when I’m away on my hols next week in the Lake District (might squeeze-in some idle hours of batrepping, in between guitar practice for a friends wedding and a cycling challenge around the Lakes, friends babysitting, long-distance project management and food prepping!!!)

I wish I could clone myself like the captain!! @CaptainDangerous

@spafe hahahaha you are a gentleman and a scandalous bounder sir!!

I bite my tooth at thee!

 

[Llewy]

Have you considered how multiple combats might work? (I'm thinking player 1 charges player 2, both survive, player 2 then charges somone into player 1's fighter.... who fights this combat again?)

Yeh this is definitely a situation where things get confusing. Duke and I had one of these in our game...

I'm inclined to think when a fighter charges into the fray the whole combat should be fought again from the top with the player who activated the fighter choosing the order of the combat.

Likewise if fighter that was originally charged has not yet been activated, and trusting all three fighters are still standing, they could now be activated and a whole new round of multiple combat would ensue, meaning potentially more than two rounds of combat can happen in a turn. I think this is fair enough cos combat is fast and bloody.

Another thing that comes up is: player 1 charges player 2. Player 1's fighter dies. Player 2, although they have fought a round of combat, can now be activated and move and shoot if they wish. I think that works ok. More playtesting needed

 

[Ben_S]

I'm inclined to think when a fighter charges into the fray the whole combat should be fought again from the top with the player who activated the fighter choosing the order of the combat.

That sounds too much to me. It would make ganging up on people lethal.

I would suggest that when you activate a model in combat (whether he charged that turn or was already in combat) then either:
i) That model and one opponent fight
or
ii) That model and all opponents fight.

Note also that if A and B are locked in combat, this means that they can fight twice in each complete turn, which is fine because that's how the game originally worked too (two combat phases for each player's shooting phase, as you fight combat in your opponent's turn).

However, you may want to address whether a player can opt not to activate in combat. For instance, suppose model A charges model B (a Heavy, let's say). Somehow, B manages to survive. Does B have to initiate another round of fighting at some point in the turn? Or can the player limit that combat to just one resolution this turn, in the hope that he can get model C in next turn?

 

[Llewy]

I would suggest that when you activate a model in combat (whether he charged that turn or was already in combat) then either:
i) That model and one opponent fight
or
ii) That model and all opponents fight.

I think ii) is what I originally meant though I phrased it badly.

EDIT - on second thoughts this might not be quite what I meant however I think this is how Duke and I played it. Keeping this, thanks Ben.

However, you may want to address whether a player can opt not to activate in combat. For instance, suppose model A charges model B (a Heavy, let's say). Somehow, B manages to survive. Does B have to initiate another round of fighting at some point in the turn? Or can the player limit that combat to just one resolution this turn, in the hope that he can get model C in next turn?

I really like this idea although am inclined to keep it simple and have B initiate another round of fighting. My thinking behind this is so as not to move too far into the obviously much cooler n17 style where you have more options for actions available but instead keep it as similar to nce as possible for simplicity's sake.

 

[spafe]

so as not to move too far into the obviously much cooler n17 style

Embrace the change... come to the ...new side... yeah, that's a thing, with hipsters and recycling and ... .stuff!

instead keep it as similar to nce as possible for simplicity's sake.

I disagree here (obvs play however you want, though I am about to sway you to my way of thinking). In NCE you could charge a combat menace, gang up on him, let the juves fall by the wayside in order to let your combat threat (but not yet a true menace), get the bonuses of assists to help win that combat. However, how you are wanting to play, mook 1, sap 2 and redshirt 3 all charge in order to help 'threat' 4 win over the combat menace, but in fact, menace will smush each in turn (as they activate and charge), meaning your combat threat is still out menaced by that menacing meanie over there (likeing standing in a sticky red puddle now).

Having the option to charge but not have to fight, means they can lend assists and their sacrifice will not be in vain.

however I leave it to you to decide if this is something you guys want to worry about, as I am aware it is a bit of a oddball situation.

@spafe hahahaha you are a gentleman and a scandalous bounder sir!!

I bite my tooth at thee!

....

 

[Llewy]

Having the option to charge but not have to fight, means they can lend assists and their sacrifice will not be in vain.

Is that how it's worked out in n17? How would you write that as a rule? I'm not so great and working these things out hypothetically and in game we're pretty loose anyway but it does make sense to avoid arguments where possible!

I agree in nce if 1, 2 and 3 charged in then 4's sitch looked dubious (although I did have this backfire at least twice!).

Maybe (again to try and make it like nce), if you are fighting a multiple combat and your other fighter in the combat has already activated and fought then you get the +1 to the combat resolution and +1 attack dice when the second fighter gets activated. Meanwhile for the outnumbered ganger they have to fight each of their opponents in turn when they activate.

 

[spafe]

Is that how it's worked out in nce?

cos it was a mass combat phase, if your juve charges along side your leader, your juve fought first (got splatted), then your leader got plus 1 to his combat score and (I think) an extra attack dice for being 2nd in line, and so on if there was a 3rd or more guys.

How would you write that as a rule

maybe just a tracker of how many people that fighter has fought this turn, I can't imagine there will be 'that' many mass combats happening that it is difficult to track. So then for each different enemy a fighter has fought (without moving), their enemy gets the bonuses. This is all reset as soon as they have moved (or activated without being in combat).

for example, ted is charged by juve 1, he fights and smushed him, then ted is charged by juve 2, he fights and juve 2 gets the bonuses, juve 2 is smushed too. Ted then activates and advances and fires his pistol, pew pew. Juve 3 charges ted, gets no bonuses as ted has moved, is smushed. Ganger albert charges ted, gets 1 set of bonuses (from smushed juve 3), but not from smushed juve 1 and 2 as there was ted’s move in between there.

Example 2, ted is charged by juve 1, draw! Charged by juve 2, bonus for juve 2, draw! Ted activates, kills or not both juves 1 and 2. No matter, the point is he hasn’t moved or activated apart from combat, so when juve 3 and ganger albert charge him they get 2 and 3 bonuses respectively.

 

[Ben_S]

I don't see why moving should make a difference. If someone gets penalised for fighting three enemies in a single turn, why not for fighting two, moving, and then fighting a third?

Also, does @spafe 's Ted example work? I assumed you kept to the normal order of operations so, if Ted has fought, he can't then move. (However, if he'd killed juves 1 and 2 in their activation, without having activated himself, he would then be able to move - even to charge juve 3.)

 

[spafe]

why not for fighting two, moving, and then fighting a third

To keep it close to NCE where in player 1 turn they charges 2 juves, then player 2 turn he moves, then player 1 turn the other juve charges... the alt activation here shows that ted has had his turn in between, breaking that link.

I assumed you kept to the normal order of operations so, if Ted has fought, he can't then move.

I was assuming when ted was smushing juves 1 and 2:

he'd killed juves 1 and 2 in their activation, without having activated himself,

he would then be able to move - even to charge juve 3

yes, unless... say juve 3 was too far away (coming back to the first point of it being broken into different 'turns' under NCE, so no bonus (also why I suggested ted moved forwards and shot, to bring him theorectically into charge range of juve 3 or whatever)).

Edit: this is assuming when I say ted fights and smushes stuff its him winning the WS plus d6 roll off and killing stuff rather than him activating to attack back, sorry, wasnt clear in the examples!

 

[JawRippa]

Alternative activation and multiple combat:
When activating fighter in melee, player has to choose a target for combat in base to base - opponent may choose to immediately activate targeted model in return, spending his activation; Models that are selected for combat, but have not been activated yet during this turn before combat started, suffer amount of hits equal to attacker’s number of attacks. If you have other fighters in the same combat, then for every activated fighter against the same target you gain +1A and +1WS.

In multiple combat you essentially resolve combats 1 by 1, wasting each other's activations. However if you want, you can skip activation phase for fighter in combat (probably sacrificing an attacked/charged fighter) in order to activate someone else. Maybe that Heavy outside a fight needs to get into cover ASAP and you'd rather sacrifice a juve.

 

[Ben_S]

If I'm following that proposal, it would mean two models only fight one round of combat per turn, rather than two. Also, I'm not clear what happens if a model that has already activated earlier in the turn is selected as a target.

 

[enyoss]

We wrote up some rules for this so we could have proper multiplayer rules in our last NCE campaign. They seemed to work quite effectively, and no reason you couldn't just use them for two players.

They were heavily influenced by (i.e. a direct rip-off with bells and whistles attached) by some discussions on here at the time about alternate activations.

If people are interested I'll dig them out and post them up.

 

[JawRippa]

If I'm following that proposal, it would mean two models only fight one round of combat per turn, rather than two.

This is correct. Close combat is lethal enough I think.

Also, I'm not clear what happens if a model that has already activated earlier in the turn is selected as a target.

If it was activated beforehand for anything, then combat between target and attacker happens as normal (basically, no freebie hits)

If people are interested I'll dig them out and post them up.

Please, do that, it’d be helpful.

 

[Ben_S]

This is correct. Close combat is lethal enough I think.

Fair enough, but that's a further change to the game, favouring shooting over close combat.

I think the consensus is that close combat gangs get a bit of a raw deal already, so I don't think it's desirable to implement alternate activations in a way that nerfs combat, if it could be done in a way preserving the current balance.

 

[JawRippa]

Fair enough, but that's a further change to the game, favouring shooting over close combat.

I think the consensus is that close combat gangs get a bit of a raw deal already, so I don't think it's desirable to implement alternate activations in a way that nerfs combat, if it could be done in a way preserving the current balance.

I don’t see how much it is different to normal NCE combat resolution. Most combats are solved on initial charge anyway.

 

[CaptainDangerous]

Hahahaha, I’ll see if I have some idle time when I’m away on my hols next week in the Lake District (might squeeze-in some idle hours of batrepping, in between guitar practice for a friends wedding and a cycling challenge around the Lakes, friends babysitting, long-distance project management and food prepping!!!)

I wish I could clone myself like the captain!! @CaptainDangerous

@spafe hahahaha you are a gentleman and a scandalous bounder sir!!

I bite my tooth at thee!

I think it highly likely there exists a Council of Tim...

“You stand accused of using resin, how do you plead?”



Iv never played bolt action yet but I find the use of the dice bag most intruiging, is this something the sogg Lords would consider trying out or looking into?

P.s. hope ptrix is doing well?