The falling edge should probably be randomised if multiple edges are equidistant (and within 1").
NCE [CE Update] Proposed Rule Changes - 2018
- Thread starter Anthony
- Start date
At the moment it seems to be assumed players can figure out the best approach in those sort of situations. There's several similar rules (e.g. closest target when shooting) so I don't think it's a good approach to clarify it every time, but an option could be to add more of a general "Figure It Out Yourself" section as a catch all. For example.
@Anthony - I suggest clarification as well as to whether 3v2 etc counts as multiple combat, as it stands the rule states that it's multiple vs one opponent = multiple combat, so by extension even if it's 12v2 it's just bog standard combat. This might be one of those that grows legs though as there's no clear way of working out such a combat!
Indeed, perhaps the MULTIPLE COMBAT section needs rephrasing in more general terms.
- If there are more than three models in a combat, it counts as multiple combat.
- The player whose turn it is chooses one opponent model. All combats against that model are resolved one at a time (testing for falling after each one).
- For each combat that a model has already been in, their opponent gets a cumulative +1 A and +1 to the combat score.
- If there are more than three models in a combat, it counts as multiple combat.
- The player whose turn it is chooses one opponent model. All combats against that model are resolved one at a time (testing for falling after each one).
- For each combat that a model has already been in, their opponent gets a cumulative +1 A and +1 to the combat score.
I am generally in favour of rules being comprehensive. A player may feel hard done by if in one game their fighters fall according to one interpretation of the rules, but in a subsequent game against a different opponent they fall differently. Especially if they based their tactics on it.
It is still a good idea to have a "Figure It Out Yourself" section though, just in case.
Okay, so it appears N17 doesn't strictly have a hiding mechanic as such. The way it works is that if a fighter is Prone and is in at least partial cover from the perspective of the shooter then he cannot be targeted. Pinned and down fighters count as Prone and there's a special action called Take Cover that voluntarily pins your fighter.
So the oldmunda approximate would be a fighter can hide anywhere and would only be seen if he's in open ground. To me this seems the simplest and most consistent way of doing it, especially given the new Goliaths are so huge compared to oldmunda minis. If you went with the alternative of 'must be in full cover to prevent being seen' then you're going to have a situation where the new Goliaths can't hide behind a barricade oldmunda Goliaths can.
So I'm thinking the NCE should go with that approach. However, although that rule would work fine if you're only using Sector Mechanicus terrain it may cause oddities given the variety of homecrafted terrain. If you're using railings like below for example then there's it's going to be very difficult to spot him.
The LRB Hiding and Cover sections already seems to give players some degree of discretion so I'm thinking just clarify that, except the discretion would only apply to partial cover and probably based on how much is obscured (e.g. if just a foot or hand is obscured then he would be seen, as would the fighter behind the above railings).
So this would be the proposed rule wording for the moment. Not ideal having subjection in there but I'm not seeing an alternative given the variety of terrain and now differing model sizes.
So the oldmunda approximate would be a fighter can hide anywhere and would only be seen if he's in open ground. To me this seems the simplest and most consistent way of doing it, especially given the new Goliaths are so huge compared to oldmunda minis. If you went with the alternative of 'must be in full cover to prevent being seen' then you're going to have a situation where the new Goliaths can't hide behind a barricade oldmunda Goliaths can.
So I'm thinking the NCE should go with that approach. However, although that rule would work fine if you're only using Sector Mechanicus terrain it may cause oddities given the variety of homecrafted terrain. If you're using railings like below for example then there's it's going to be very difficult to spot him.
The LRB Hiding and Cover sections already seems to give players some degree of discretion so I'm thinking just clarify that, except the discretion would only apply to partial cover and probably based on how much is obscured (e.g. if just a foot or hand is obscured then he would be seen, as would the fighter behind the above railings).
So this would be the proposed rule wording for the moment. Not ideal having subjection in there but I'm not seeing an alternative given the variety of terrain and now differing model sizes.
The biggest difference for hiding in N17 that cannot easily be ported to Oldmunda is that in N17 it takes a Basic action to come out of hiding (stand up from prone). This makes it rather less useful, since you effectively halve your actions when you come out of hiding, and can't run or charge.
I fear that allowing hiding "anywhere" (with reasonable partial cover) will make it too ubiquitous in NCE. This might be counterbalanced if charging hidden fighters is allowed though.
Unfortunately, I can't see a better way past this problem than what @Anthony suggested. In the current time new Goliaths are almost twice the size of the old, and may end up on the table together. #ScaleCreep #ThanksGW
It might be worthwhile mentioning in the new rule that you can't hide behind a chain-linked fence or a lamp post as examples.
I fear that allowing hiding "anywhere" (with reasonable partial cover) will make it too ubiquitous in NCE. This might be counterbalanced if charging hidden fighters is allowed though.
Unfortunately, I can't see a better way past this problem than what @Anthony suggested. In the current time new Goliaths are almost twice the size of the old, and may end up on the table together. #ScaleCreep #ThanksGW
It might be worthwhile mentioning in the new rule that you can't hide behind a chain-linked fence or a lamp post as examples.
IMO the only way to do it and not be ambiguous is for the fighter to remain in full cover or out of sight. If they leave full cover then they forfeit hiding.
The new wording is better than old. It's still pretty grey, but better. I am also strongly in favour of hidden fighters returning to being chargeable.
I do like how the N17 system of hiding/taking cover gimps your ganger. It makes it more of a tactical decision with consequences rather than something some players do as a matter of course with basically no drawbacks.
I am biased in that I hate playing against a hidey gang though
I do like how the N17 system of hiding/taking cover gimps your ganger. It makes it more of a tactical decision with consequences rather than something some players do as a matter of course with basically no drawbacks.
I am biased in that I hate playing against a hidey gang though
True, this would be less ambiguous. But it disadvantages players that want to use the new (larger) miniatures, potentially alienating new players. On the other hand, Oldmunda juves were significantly smaller than gangers, probably as much as old gangers are compared to the new, so there is already some historical bias. In our group it is not uncommon to see the same juve model continue being used even after they gained enough XP to become gangers.
Whether FW eventually release N17 juve models remains to be seen. Hopefully in the not-too-distant future.
What is the reason for not allowing terrain to be charged in HtH? Is it to stop games getting silly when people use house rules that allow all terrain to be destroyed?
Not being able to charge a destroyable piece of terrain is yet another way to favour shooting over close combat. There's already enough of that in the game.
As much as I prefer NCE, loads of things have changed in it since I last started a campaign a few years ago. From the list of proposed changes it looks like there are a lot more to be made.
IMO it is possibly time to stop just changing one thing after another and look to critically analyse some of the previous changes instead? Seems practically everything in the game has one change or another from ORB. Possibly time to look at the overall scope for the project. Do we want a tweaked version of ORB which fixes only the exploits and typos or a completely different game with a book full of mostly red text?
Confirming that Hurl Opponent doesn't work on a water still isn't required IMO. Perhaps an FAQ document to clarify these kind of common sense things rather than changing a different rule to fix the exploitable one?
Same goes for other changes, e.g. the Caravan changes I brought up in the other thread. The scenario was giving gangs too much reward, so rather than just lowering the rewards, instead the scenario was altered into something very different. More of a sneak in and steal than an all out assault.
Ideally NCE should be changing things as little as possible to make them work, not making such sweeping changes.
As much as I prefer NCE, loads of things have changed in it since I last started a campaign a few years ago. From the list of proposed changes it looks like there are a lot more to be made.
IMO it is possibly time to stop just changing one thing after another and look to critically analyse some of the previous changes instead? Seems practically everything in the game has one change or another from ORB. Possibly time to look at the overall scope for the project. Do we want a tweaked version of ORB which fixes only the exploits and typos or a completely different game with a book full of mostly red text?
Confirming that Hurl Opponent doesn't work on a water still isn't required IMO. Perhaps an FAQ document to clarify these kind of common sense things rather than changing a different rule to fix the exploitable one?
Same goes for other changes, e.g. the Caravan changes I brought up in the other thread. The scenario was giving gangs too much reward, so rather than just lowering the rewards, instead the scenario was altered into something very different. More of a sneak in and steal than an all out assault.
Ideally NCE should be changing things as little as possible to make them work, not making such sweeping changes.
Last edited:
@Anthony I am not particularly attached to the idea of charging buildings myself. I suppose to underline the distinction you could phrase it less like HtH with terrain, and more like "Demolition" of said terrain in the rules. Be it with a gun, melta bombs, or a huge hammer. In the same sense as your WS (i.e. combat prowess) is useless against it.
@Tiny To be fair, most of the changes in the NCE are borne of the need for clarity and consistency in the rules. In some cases the action of doing so also changes the game balance, such as the Hiding rules. Such changes tend to be discussed here at length until some consensus is reached, and possibly changed again after some more playtesting.
In my opinion, the reason the NCE has so much red text is because the LRB/ORB were badly written. And if the rulebook is good, there is no need for an FAQ either. Overall, I think NCE is on the right track.
@Tiny To be fair, most of the changes in the NCE are borne of the need for clarity and consistency in the rules. In some cases the action of doing so also changes the game balance, such as the Hiding rules. Such changes tend to be discussed here at length until some consensus is reached, and possibly changed again after some more playtesting.
In my opinion, the reason the NCE has so much red text is because the LRB/ORB were badly written. And if the rulebook is good, there is no need for an FAQ either. Overall, I think NCE is on the right track.
Agreed, most of the changes were indeed necessary. Some just go a little bit too far from the intent of the original for my liking though. I think Anthony has done a fantastic job thus-far of curating the project and long may he continue.
In terms of attacking structures, now I read the original intention, charging structures was not actually allowed so clarifying it makes sense. Seems we have been playing it wrong for 20 years.
I have to admit, I have only had time to read the first post in this thread, but still wanted to give my opinions here. I apologize if they have been said before.:
NCE
- Hiding: A model can hide anywhere. Discretion in seeing the hidden model only applies to partial cover.
I feel you should be able to hide in partial cover. Lying down behind a low wall f.ex. There are enough things to measure and discuss already. So it's nice to say: "He has cover, he can hide." It doesn't always matter if it makes sense. The board most people play on are not that detailed. (Railings and such). The enemy can still get within initiative range, take initiative test to charge, or go on overwatch to shoot when he cancels the hiding.
- Breaking Fighters: If multiple fighters are required to take a nerve test then the owning player can choose the order they are taken.
I thought this was how it is already? It's the way we play at least?
- Broken Fighters: Replace "away from the enemy" with "away from the closest enemy fighter (ie he cannot end the move closer to that enemy)". Replace "towards cover" with "the closest position where all enemy fighters cannot draw line of sight to him."
Not sure about this one either, as the ganger panics, he runs to the closest cover, away from what he deems horrifying. He is not thinking straight. And might open himself up to other lanes of fire. It's another rule that is simple and makes play flow more fluently. Could be that the wording might be changed to: Any cover within the range of 2d6. Just to give the fleeing player some options, since taking control from a player is seldom a good thing. To find the one spot where he cannot be shot at, will take more time.
- Breaking from HtH: The free hit doesn't apply in the case of a multiple combat (i.e. if all enemy fighters flee then only the last suffers a hit).
This is a nice change.
- Falling: If a fighter is pinned or goes down in mid-air then he falls.
Another one we already play with.
- Fear & Terror: If the model has multiple rules that cause fear/terror then each subsequent rule will incur a -1 Ld penalty to the nerve tests he inflicts through fear/terror (duplicates of the same rule don't count - e.g. multiple Chem Pit scars).
Yes, this is nice. Rule of One.
OCE
Two Heads: Replace extra attack with "starts with the Gunfighter skill."
This should increase the cost in my opinion, as Gunfighter is a lot nicer than 1 extra attack.
Other stuff:
I also think we should implement the strength and toughness table from 8th ed. Warhammer. It's just easier, and quicker, while still being basically the same. Equal str = 4+ to wound. Higher = 3+. Lower = 5+. Double either way = 6/2. It will make toughness 2 gangers slightly better, and T5 insignificantly worse. I know most of us old timers know the S/T charts by heart, but for new players it's a pain to refer to.
NCE
- Hiding: A model can hide anywhere. Discretion in seeing the hidden model only applies to partial cover.
I feel you should be able to hide in partial cover. Lying down behind a low wall f.ex. There are enough things to measure and discuss already. So it's nice to say: "He has cover, he can hide." It doesn't always matter if it makes sense. The board most people play on are not that detailed. (Railings and such). The enemy can still get within initiative range, take initiative test to charge, or go on overwatch to shoot when he cancels the hiding.
- Breaking Fighters: If multiple fighters are required to take a nerve test then the owning player can choose the order they are taken.
I thought this was how it is already? It's the way we play at least?
- Broken Fighters: Replace "away from the enemy" with "away from the closest enemy fighter (ie he cannot end the move closer to that enemy)". Replace "towards cover" with "the closest position where all enemy fighters cannot draw line of sight to him."
Not sure about this one either, as the ganger panics, he runs to the closest cover, away from what he deems horrifying. He is not thinking straight. And might open himself up to other lanes of fire. It's another rule that is simple and makes play flow more fluently. Could be that the wording might be changed to: Any cover within the range of 2d6. Just to give the fleeing player some options, since taking control from a player is seldom a good thing. To find the one spot where he cannot be shot at, will take more time.
- Breaking from HtH: The free hit doesn't apply in the case of a multiple combat (i.e. if all enemy fighters flee then only the last suffers a hit).
This is a nice change.
- Falling: If a fighter is pinned or goes down in mid-air then he falls.
Another one we already play with.
- Fear & Terror: If the model has multiple rules that cause fear/terror then each subsequent rule will incur a -1 Ld penalty to the nerve tests he inflicts through fear/terror (duplicates of the same rule don't count - e.g. multiple Chem Pit scars).
Yes, this is nice. Rule of One.
OCE
Two Heads: Replace extra attack with "starts with the Gunfighter skill."
This should increase the cost in my opinion, as Gunfighter is a lot nicer than 1 extra attack.
Other stuff:
I also think we should implement the strength and toughness table from 8th ed. Warhammer. It's just easier, and quicker, while still being basically the same. Equal str = 4+ to wound. Higher = 3+. Lower = 5+. Double either way = 6/2. It will make toughness 2 gangers slightly better, and T5 insignificantly worse. I know most of us old timers know the S/T charts by heart, but for new players it's a pain to refer to.
