NCE Caravan and Loot & Pillage balance

[Tiny]

I notice that a few of the scenarios, particularly the outlaw ones, now have random numbers of attackers where once they didn't (caravan, loot & pillage) . This really limits which scenarios are worth choosing for larger gangs with poorer equipment (e.g. Scavvies, Ratskins, some outlaw House gangs).

I know that the Caravan scenario was an easy win for a full attacking gang vs a few defenders but limiting the number of fighters in these scenarios really makes gangs with a higher number of poorly armed fighters a lot worse off, particularly when combined with poor scavenging from Scrofulous Wastes, more expensive models (Scalies, Ratskin Chief) and Scavvies & Ratskins no longer getting free clubs.

The caravan is now usually a shooting gallery for the defender given that the gangs have the same (theoretically) number of fighters. If the attacker rolls poorly for his number of fighters compared to the defender, he may as well just not bother playing the mission. That is no fun for anyone. IMO it should either be full gang vs random (d6+3?) defenders plus reinforcements or a higher average random number of attackers (d6+6) vs defenders (D6+3).

Loot and Pillage can also end up with a seriously bad game for the attacker (2 attackers vs 6 defenders plus reinforcements) making for another first turn auto-bottle for the attacker. I would again go for full attacking gang vs (D6+2?) defenders with the defenders getting reinforcements as usual.

I also notice that Tox Bombs are now really poop with only one shot per game for 20cr. Either they need to be ammo: auto or more like 5cr. EDIT: Going to try them out a bit before further feedback.

I know some of these changes were likely made a while ago but it has been a while since I played last.

 

[p0dde]

I agree that Loot & Pillage could use some work. In our campaign, out of now 54 battles, it has never been played?

Caravan is the scenario with the highest potential gain, in terms of credits and the precious 'get a random rare trade'-loot. By having random fighters you make sure that the attackers will not win every time. Som combinations of skills will make caravan very easy to win. Combos lige sprint/leap combined with dive, can make stopping the attackers very hard. Also the attackers only need to get one through to get at win. caravan is a specialized scenario you pick if you have the right gang for it, and you are up against a gang that has a hard time defending it. If you are playing Scavvies, I would wait until I get som agility advances, and get some more speed.

About the Scavvies, in my experience, they will always seem very expensive and poor when you are starting out, but after 5-6 battles you will start to reap the rewards (and after 20 battles you will have scalies like this one!). Giving them a good Tox Bomb I think would sway the balance in the wrong direction. A 5 credit Tox Bomb means that all fighters could get one, and remember the Tox Bombs stays on the battlefield the entire game, so that could be some pretty powerful area denial. I do not mind having Tox Bombs as a flavorful and fun, but overprices piece of equipment (like all the other gas grenades)

EDIT: Removed point about Infiltration. I keep forgetting the next NCE will not allow special deployment for The Caravan.
EDIT II: Also, just though I would mention that I really like the Reinforcement rules for The Caravan, who ever came up with that did very well!

 

[Tiny]

Yeah, now you mention it a 5cr tox bomb would be broken and spammable. One shot weapons always look overcosted tbh. I will try them out in a few games and wee how we get on.

As for Caravan, the rewards for lower numbers of models breaking through have already dropped significantly. If you look at it as a win/lose scenario where the attackers "win" if they get one model off the board, yes its fairly easy, whereas if you see the attackers as "winning" if they kill a guilder and get a good haul of loot (i.e. an 8+ on the table) they need to get a lot more guys over the line. The lower loot levels will barely even replace losses after getting shot up by the defenders.

Problem is, getting the 5+ minis off the board to get the higher loot levels even with a good loot roll is all but impossible when you're starting with an average of 7 guys and your opponent has the same number, usually with a few heavy weapons, plus they get reinforcements.

The whole idea behind the scenario IMO was that it represented a horde of attackers trying to bum-rush a caravan (particularly now Infiltrate can't be used) while the defenders sit still and try to hold them back while reinforcements arrive to gun them all down. If a few attackers get through, its not the end of the world as long as no guilders are killed.

 

[p0dde]

The majority of scenarios have very random number of fighters for the attackers. This randomness means that It can go pretty bad, and that you will have to settle with less from the get go. It is easy to be critical about this kind of game design, but for me that is one of the core elements of Necromunda. And a discussion about this could get pretty long winded, so i won't go there =)

But after you bringing it up, i can see an issue reward structure for The Caravan. Namely that is punishes small gangs. If there was a point system, that gave points to the reward table based on your number of 'deployed fighters' / 'fighters that reached the caravan' it would be more fair.

Something like this, could be interesting to playtest, and see how it works.
1-24% reached the caravan = 1 point / 25-49% = 3 points / 50-74% = 5 points / 75-99% = 7 points and 100% = 9 points.

EDIT: or if you do not like percentages:

• All deployed fighters reached the caravan: 9 points
• Three quarters of the deployed fighters reached the caravan: 7 points
• Half of the deployed fighters reached the caravan: 5 points
• A quarter of the deployed fighters reached the caravan: 3 points
• Less than a quarter of the deployed fighters reached the caravan: 1 point

 

[Tiny]

Are we looking at the same rewards chart? I am seeing:

Once the game is over total up the number of attacking models that broke through to the caravan. Any fighters that made it through but were down do not count if they subsequently go out of action. If at least one fighter made it through, roll a D6 and add the number of models to the dice roll to find out what they managed to rip off from the guilders.

1-3 The attackers are miserably unsuccessful. Each model picks up D6 credits worth of stuff, but on a roll of 1 they get shot and suffer a serious injury. (same as ORB)
4-5 The attackers scavenge a few bundles dropped by the pack slaves as they flee worth D6x5 credits. (ORB 3d6 Credits per fighter)
6-7 The attackers bring down several pack slaves and escape with 3D6x5 credits. (ORB d6x5 Credits per fighter)
8-10 The attackers nail a guilder and strip his corpse gaining 2D6x10 credits. In addition the guilder was holding a rare item (roll on the normal Rare Trade Chart to see what item you steal). (ORB d3x10 Credits per fighter, no rare item)
11+ The attackers gun down several pack slaves and a guilder hauling in 3D6x10 credits and D3 rare items (rolled for on the normal Rare Trade Chart). (ORB 2d6x5 Credits per fighter, no rare item)

As in all but the lowest level of rewards are no longer based on the number of fighters who made it through.

If anything, this punishes larger, poorly equipped gangs most as limiting them to 2D6 fighters means they unless they roll a high number of fighters, they are unlikely to get anyone to the caravan. A smaller, well equipped gang will get to take their entire force and naturally take heavy weapons to cover their advance thus limiting the number of fighters they lose.

The majority of scenarios have very random number of fighters for the attackers.

This is in itself an issue for larger, poorly equipped gangs. Therefore making more of them random means they have even less scenarios to choose from. If I'm running a Scavvy or Ratskin gang and thinking of choosing Gang Fight or Scavengers for every fight, there's definitely something wrong with the outlaw scenarios.

 

[p0dde]

Are we looking at the same rewards chart? I am seeing:

Sorry, Im not sure what you are saying here, and how it relates to my previous post. Maybe i missunderstod something?

Going for Gang Fight/Scavengers in the first couple af battles seems to be a good strategy for scavviers and the likes. And once you get some advances and get more specialized, go for the Outlaw Scenarios. The outlaw economy is very volatile, and you need to play the long game in order to make it work. But if every 4-5th game is a big payday, you gang will grow very powerful over time.
In the beginning it way feel like you are falling behind but if you play the ratings game in the beginning that can also help a lot. The clever thing about barely winning The Caravan, is that you still get the Underdog Bonus, and that is a big deal for outlaws.

 

[Tiny]

i can see an issue reward structure for The Caravan. Namely that is punishes small gangs.

This is the bit I was referring to. Sorry, should have quoted it.

 

[trollmeat]

For scenarios with random numbers of models, not specifically the one(s) mentioned above, I like the house rule where Scavvies get to take twice as many and Spyrers get to take half.

Scalies would cost 2 scavvy points, or maybe 3, so equal to 1 or 1.5 normal models.

Ratskins don’t need any help, and can just scuttle along fine as is. >_<

 

[Tiny]

And once you get some advances and get more specialized, go for the Outlaw Scenarios. The outlaw economy is very volatile, and you need to play the long game in order to make it work. But if every 4-5th game is a big payday, you gang will grow very powerful over time.

As they are currently, there is no incentive whatsoever to choose Caravan, or Loot & Pillage, regardless of gang sizes. They are too hit or miss based on random number of fighters rolled. There are easier scenarios to make money.

 

[Tiny]

For scenarios with random numbers of models, not specifically the one(s) mentioned above, I like the house rule where Scavvies get to take twice as many and Spyrers get to take half.

I like that house rule, although it doesn't translate well to adding a rule to NCE and also doesn't help the person with the Juve-heavy outlaw house gang (although they are usually less reliant on scenarios for cash due to better territory). Also 4 Scavvies vs 12 defenders in a caravan still isn't worth bothering.

 

[sebwiers]

Its my experience (under the original game rules) that scavvies can do very well without the income of the caravan raid, even if you never resorted to cannibalism. I agree it should be worth playing, but if its not (for them), then ... well, don't play it. In fact, I'd even say its "realistic"; scavvies survive by SCAVENGING, not by taking out guilder caravans! It seems fine to me if certain gang build encourage / discourage playing certain scenarios, and maybe even a good thing. Outlaws can get a lot of scenario table modifiers (by sending lots of dudes to the trading post) so can avoid scenarios they are not well suited for.

If I was writing the caravan scenario from scratch, I'd start with a pile of loot counters (say 12 of them) "off table" on the defenders side. At the end of each turn, the pile would get smaller (remove one counter) to represent the caravan moving on. If the attacker manages to get a fighter through, they grab some of the remaining loot counters (not sure how to do that... was thinking half the remaining counters, but that makes it way to good to get just one or two guys through). When cashing in the loot counters, roll a die - on a 6, its a rare trade item, instead of normal loot.

 

[Tiny]

Its my experience (under the original game rules) that scavvies can do very well without the income of the caravan raid

That was indeed true. ORB Scavvies did very well. Back then they had free clubs all round, 20% discount on weapons, cheaper Scalies, a limitless supply of much scarier plague zombies, they foraged twice as much, could have a territory that provided income and could feed the whole gang for 25 credits.

Not saying that they're still not playable but by neutering the two most lucrative scenarios, they're going to struggle pretty badly nowadays.

scavvies survive by SCAVENGING, not by taking out guilder caravans!

The original caravan mission was practically written with Scavvies in mind. If anyone is going to raid guilders for loot it is Scavvies. They're the only ones desperate enough to do it.

The description of the mission mentions "Hence the gangs act as vanguards and flankers, fighting off mutants and Outlaws that come anywhere near the caravan". Since nobody else gets mutations, I am guessing it refers to Scavvies.

Outlaws can get a lot of scenario table modifiers (by sending lots of dudes to the trading post) so can avoid scenarios they are not well suited for.

Hmm... get scenario table modifiers or forage... tough choice, particularly when you can't make much from scenarios and have no income from territory.

Also no point modifying the scenario roll when the scenarios you would have chosen are now awful.

If I was writing the caravan scenario from scratch

It doesn't need writing from scratch. That is not the point of NCE. It has just been modified too far from its original intended scope. A few tweaks and it will be fine again. IMO just reducing the rewards was enough but returning the attacker to a full gang and giving the defenders more fighters would be a good option.

What appears to have happened here is that ORB Scavvies needed nerfing but they have been nerfed from every angle, both in terms of gang rules and scenario choice. The gang rules are pretty spot on as they are, provided they can still make an income from scenarios.

* *​

EDIT: I realise this has gone off topic and whether or not the scenario is worth playing is nothing to do with how good or bad the Scavvy gang is.

Point is, the scenario has been meddled with and made more difficult for the attacker from every angle.

• Both players now have random number of models where previously entire gangs were used. Since outlaw gangs tend to be larger (outlanders or house gangs) than law abiding gangs, this usually works in favour of the defender. The defender also now gets reinforcements.

• Defender now has a larger deployment zone, where the attacker has a smaller one. Previously it took the attacker at least 4 turns to get off the opposite edge. It now takes at least 5 turns.

• The rewards for making it off the table have got a good deal lower, particularly lower down the table meaning an attacker who only gets 2-3 models off the table will not get much income. They need to get 6 guys off the table on average to get the good results. Bearing in mind that there is a 58% chance of having 7 or less fighters starting, this is unlikely in the extreme.

• Due to the random numbers of fighters, the Defender has a 58% chance of having the same amount or more fighters on the table at the start of the game, making it pretty difficult for the attackers to get any fighters off the table.

• The main problem with random numbers is when the rolls are skewed. If the attacker rolls poorly for the random number of fighters and the defender rolls high, he may as well just bottle on the first turn. This does not make for a fun game.

In order to make this scenario more appealing, I would simply revert to using full gangs as originally intended. Coupled with the need to survive 5 turns to get off the table instead of 4, along with reduced income, this should make the scenario a little more balanced and fun for everyone.

In terms of fixing Loot & Pillage, the main issue was that the defenders roll low on their random starting fighters and get murdered turn 1. Rather than giving the attackers a random number of fighters (why would they ever raid the enemy's base with only 3 fighters?), leave the attackers with a full gang and instead increase the average number of starting defenders (D3+3?).

On the subject of random fighters, 2D6 is a bad number. Why I hear you cry?

Well, it is due to the skew such a large set of results can cause. Given that these 2D6 figures were added to "balance" the scenarios, I would argue that in fact it makes them awfully unbalanced or just plain un-fun most of the time.

Sometimes you will roll low. You will get 2-5 fighters and will feel cheated. This is not fun.

Sometimes you will roll high and get an 11 or 12. You get to take your whole gang. Yay. Unfortunately if your opponent rolled low and got 2-3 guys, this will be a very unfair match-up, which again is no fun.

Both gangs roll a 7. Great. A balanced game. But wait, both players have an objective and the objectives aren't necessarily balanced. Also, one gang's fighters are weaker than the other gang's fighters. Again, un-fun.

The only way this would ever be equal amounts of fun for both players is if they both rolled enough to take their whole gangs. In which case the 2d6 roll is pointless.

Also note, it is OK for the scenarios to be a little biased in favour of an attacker. They got to choose the scenario and usually means they have the lower gang rating, so should have a slight advantage. If not for these advantages in scenarios where there is an attacker and defender, we should all just play Gang Fight.

 

[sebwiers]

That was indeed true. ORB Scavvies did very well. Back then they had free clubs all round, 20% discount on weapons, cheaper Scalies, a limitless supply of much scarier plague zombies, they foraged twice as much, could have a territory that provided income and could feed the whole gang for 25 credits.

The gang I ran never really used the clubs (or HtH), never used ANY plague zombies, and I don't recall if I resorted to cannibalism or not but I think no - I was trying to run a "no scavvie cheese" scavvie gang, and ended up being twice as cheesy as normal. I just had a whole lot of dudes (20+) with crappy guns (plus two scallies packing scatter cannons), all running around in groups of 3+ to make up for their lousy BS, and like half of them getting sprint or leap or infiltrate after their first couple fights.

I'll have to look at the new rules ... I do remember I did rather well from foraging, I forget what my territory was. The new pinning rules would also be hard on such a gang, as one advantage they had was with such huge numbers, they could put lots of guys on overwatch and establish a perma-pin by shooting at folks as they un-pinned.

So yeah, I'd agree - it sounds like a case where the scavvies had lots of good stuff (enough that you could ignore loads of options and still do well) and ALL of it got nerfed, either to hard or in a way that added up to a bigger hit than individual changes would imply.

And yeah, having a reward (let alone the only real payoff) for getting 6+ guys off the edge of the table when you aren't always allowed to take 6 fighters (and don't know before picking the scenario how many you will get) ... is dumb.

I agree that the ORB (again, the only one I played) caravan raid probably would have worked fine with just some small changes. Some of the ones I see in NCE make sense, but yeah, the 2d6 deployment, does not.

 

[Anthony]

Using full attacking gangs just encourages horde play who choose nothing but Caravans all day.

 

[spafe]

Maybe changing rewards to percentage based of number of attackers then? It does strike me as stange you might only get 5 attaackers and never actually be able to make anything off raiding the caravan.

 

[Anthony]

Looting the caravan is D6 + the number of fighters you get off the board, so you only need to get 1 fighter through for a 1/3 chance of 3D6x5 credits. I guess I wouldn't mind maybe playing around with the higher rolls so there's more granularity up there (and/or making more of them based on the number of fighters through), but the scenario is somewhat intended to be a gamble otherwise why would outlaws choose any other scenario?

 

[p0dde]

I have player The NCE Caravan and spectated others player the scenario multiple times, and I think that it is neatly balanced. I see the very random number of attackers as a necessary precaution to The Caravan and all the other outlanders sceanrios, to maker sure that outlawed gangs economy doesn't run away. In guess something like 4 x D3 Deployment, would be a bit better, as anything under 4 is very tough?

And in relation to @Anthony point about the rewards. 3D6 x 5 Credits is pretty good for an outlawed gang. That averages about 50 credits of profit. A regular gang at the size of 16 gangers would need an income at 230, to get a profit at 55.

The only 'not-fun' experience I have had with The Caravan, is that the Defenders are not allowed to run away, meaning that if it goes 'real bad' for them, they have to stick around the never-ending torture, until the entire gangs is Down/OOA. In these case the mood around the table can turn sour, and that is a shame. We have decided to play with gentleman rules, and allow defender to always be able to run away in those cases.

 

[Tiny]

There is a reason that everyone ran hordes and played caravan. The rewards for even getting a small number of guys off the board was (and still is) too high. In fact, in cases of small numbers of fighters making it off the table, the current rules give more reward. Remember that in ORB, one guy off the edge only got a 1/3 chance at 1D6x5 credits, not 3D6x5. You needed 3 guys off to get the same reward.

It is not so much the risk/reward factor that makes full gangs more appealing. More that it is no fun to play with a small number of fighters in this kind of scenario. Potentially you get 2 attackers vs 12 defenders and most likely you will get 7 vs 7 which is still poor odds for the attackers. Either way, a good way to waste a choice of scenario. Also, small, well equipped gangs have their go-to scenarios in Shoot-out and Raid. Hordes need scenarios too.

This scenario is a lot easier for the defenders than for the attackers, particularly now the attackers get a much smaller deployment zone and no use of infiltrate. Now if they want to get off the table they must spend 5 turns running. All the defenders have to do is sit back and shoot. The attackers have all of the risk.

Why is it ok to have horde gangs in the Scavengers for example but not in the Caravan?

Part of the problem comes in the form of how the attackers "win". Currently it is all or nothing. One attacker over the line and the defenders "lose" (although they don't really lose much).

The other half of the problem is the huge amounts of loot that could be gathered by getting only a small number of fighters off the table. A possible 3D6x5 for getting one guy off is too much.

Possibly make the rewards lower again around the middle of the table (2d6 x 5 instead of 3d6 x 5?). That way the attackers only really get anything if they get a few dudes off the table. Also add that the game is a draw unless the attackers get an 8+ on the table (the guilders only care if a guilder gets hurt, small losses are to be expected), thus no underdog bonus. Alternatively increase the numbers on the table a little so the 6-7 bracket (3d6 credits) becomes 8-10 and have that be the "win" point (i.e. the defenders only count as losing if a pack slave gets killed and the attackers make off with a large amount of booty. Small losses are to be expected).

Table could look like:

1-5 The attackers are miserably unsuccessful. Each model picks up D6 credits worth of stuff, but on a roll of 1 they get shot and suffer a serious injury. (same as ORB)
6-7 The attackers scavenge a few bundles dropped by the pack slaves as they flee worth D6x5 credits. (ORB 3d6 Credits per fighter)
8-10 The attackers bring down several pack slaves and escape with 3D6x5 credits. (ORB d6x5 Credits per fighter)
11-12 The attackers nail a guilder and strip his corpse gaining 2D6x10 credits. In addition the guilder was holding a rare item (roll on the normal Rare Trade Chart to see what item you steal). (ORB d3x10 Credits per fighter, no rare item)
13+ The attackers gun down several pack slaves and a guilder hauling in 3D6x10 credits and D3 rare items (rolled for on the normal Rare Trade Chart). (ORB 2d6x5 Credits per fighter, no rare item)​

Now the game becomes all about getting a good few guys off the table to win and the defenders don't feel they've lost as soon as one guy makes it off. The attackers still get a pittance for getting one or two off but not enough that the scenario becomes an auto-pick.

 

[Tiny]

I see the very random number of attackers as a necessary precaution to The Caravan and all the other outlanders sceanrios, to maker sure that outlawed gangs economy doesn't run away.

So the best idea we can come up with for stopping horde gangs from becoming too powerful is to make all of the scenarios useless for them so that nobody wants to take large gangs? In that case we need 2D6 fighters for Gang Fight, Scavengers and all the other scenarios where horde gangs may win.

I would rather the scenarios be fun enough to pick, rather than have a list of scenarios nobody wants to play. I certainly would never choose Caravan or Loot & Pillage as they are, regardless of the gang I was playing.

Limiting the amount of easy loot from a scenario is the way to stop outlaw gangs from getting too powerful too quickly, not ruining the scenarios themselves.

I agree that not allowing the defender to bottle could get nasty. They should probably get the 50% bottle rule instead but some kind of punishment (no money and likelihood of outlaw maybe?) Also possibly remove the 50% rule for the attackers to give the defenders a higher chance of bottling them.

 

[p0dde]

So your idea of stopping horde gangs from becoming too powerful is to make all of the scenarios useless for them so that nobody wants to take large gangs?

I feel this debate is getting a bit too heated. That is not really something I am looking for right now.