NCE [CE Update] Proposed Rule Changes - 2018
- Thread starter Anthony
- Start date
No. The To-Hit chart is the same as it's always been. They have just done the job, and subtracted from 7 for you. Which means BS/WS 3, is WS/BS 4+ in the new system.
It means the extra shot that 2 heads grants, not +1A. I assume because they are exactly the same rule it is just for clarity of what happens if a model gains the skill later.
I quite like the 8th Ed 40k chart. A lot easier to remember. Equally, are we trying to write a new game to compete with N17 or are we just tidying up ORB/LRB? The protect really needs a set scope as this is far beyond simply removing bugs and tweaking rules for balance. This change has far reaching implications into weapon costs etc.
Edited: Should not post when I am tired.:
We have played with it since 8th came, or at least close to it. Nobody has had any problems with the costs so far.
I do realize that one campaign does not make much of a playtest, and considering how mental some people got over the first plasma change, it might be seen as a big change, but I don't think anyone in the group actually gave it any thought at all. It's just nice that it all flows better, and even the new guy can calculate his dice throws without help.
Last edited:
I strongly suggest we keep the to-wound chart as is. The new one is nice, sure, but it bears no resemblance to the ORB/LRB that NCE is based on and is an effectively unnecessary change to a key mechanic.
It's not just a case of the wounds... there are weapons of 3, 4, 5, 6 strength and so forth. Against a standard T3 ganger an S4 and S5 weapon become the same using that chart, so the costs of those weapons would need to be adjusted appropriately.
It's not just a case of the wounds... there are weapons of 3, 4, 5, 6 strength and so forth. Against a standard T3 ganger an S4 and S5 weapon become the same using that chart, so the costs of those weapons would need to be adjusted appropriately.
Aye, the main differences would be S5 and S7 weapons wounding T3 and T4 respectively. This would make Heavy Bolters worse than stubbers in most instances (wounding T3 on 3+, much worse ammo roll, armour not usually an issue).
Are you trying to make Scavvies as unplayable as possible? This is worse than they are currently and currently they're not exactly great. If this is the only way to "fix" them, leave them as they are.
Perhaps it would be better to replace "towards cover" with "towards a place they could hide". That way the player has the option of which cover to go for.
Depending on the hiding rule, that might not be possible. 'Any Cover', makes it the players choice. I should probably specify any cover, away from enemy fighters. Otherwise you could go forward.
Hm.. yeah I'm not so sure using something like "closest position" is feasible given it then just begs the question of the route of the move (e.g. will he jump off a ledge?) The official rules are very vague but they seem to leave a fair bit of allowance for exactly where the fighter must run to. As long as the requirement for recovering your nerve is "cannot be seen" then I think players will inherently try to run towards decent cover.
So I'm thinking the rules would be: Roll 2D6". The owning player may choose where and how far he runs with the following conditions. If he can stay where he is and hide then he may do so, otherwise he cannot end his move closer to the closest enemy fighter than at the start of the move. To recover he must either be hidden or the enemy not able to draw line of sight to him.
So I'm thinking the rules would be: Roll 2D6". The owning player may choose where and how far he runs with the following conditions. If he can stay where he is and hide then he may do so, otherwise he cannot end his move closer to the closest enemy fighter than at the start of the move. To recover he must either be hidden or the enemy not able to draw line of sight to him.
Last edited:
Reading through the updated rules, I have a couple of questions.
1) in the Missing Games section it says:
However, you do not have to pay any upkeep costs for missing fighters.
What does it mean by "upkeep"? The term is not defined anywhere. Does it mean you don't have to pay them if the missing fighter is a hired gun? Or does it mean that the fighter is not counted towards the total number of models in the gang when determining income for House gangs?
2) I thought it was decided to allow charging of hidden fighters to balance the new reduced restrictions on hiding?
1) in the Missing Games section it says:
However, you do not have to pay any upkeep costs for missing fighters.
What does it mean by "upkeep"? The term is not defined anywhere. Does it mean you don't have to pay them if the missing fighter is a hired gun? Or does it mean that the fighter is not counted towards the total number of models in the gang when determining income for House gangs?
2) I thought it was decided to allow charging of hidden fighters to balance the new reduced restrictions on hiding?
They don't count as gang members for "gang tax", and if they're outlaws you don't need to feed them.
Huh yeah. The hired gun's Hire Fee section does already state that they don't have to be paid if they were forced to miss the game, so I'm thinking the best way to clear it up is to add a similar sentence to the Collecting Income and So Many Mouths To Feed sections and remove the 'upkeep' sentence from the Missing Games section.
I think allowing hidden fighters to be charged would need a fair bit of playtesting, notably with horde outlander gangs since they may benefit a lot from it.
I think allowing hidden fighters to be charged would need a fair bit of playtesting, notably with horde outlander gangs since they may benefit a lot from it.
Has the upkeep change been discussed?
I remember a discussion of captured fighters, but I don't know if it's the best way to handle OBWs and other injuries. These people would still need feeding and, perhaps, medical supplies.
Was there a change in hired gun fees? The newest NCE that I have to hand is Sept 2015, and that states that hired guns DO need to paid even after games they don't participate in (p. 100).
EDIT: Having managed to open the draft update above, I see there is a change for hired guns forced to miss a game. But what counts as being forced to?
If he misses a game because the scenario doesn't use your whole gang, is that forcing him to miss the game? If so, I don't see what the sentence about having to pay him for games he doesn't participate in means.
Further, being Captured is specifically used as an example. What if you play a Rescue scenario with him as the captive? Does he need paying for that?
I remember a discussion of captured fighters, but I don't know if it's the best way to handle OBWs and other injuries. These people would still need feeding and, perhaps, medical supplies.
Was there a change in hired gun fees? The newest NCE that I have to hand is Sept 2015, and that states that hired guns DO need to paid even after games they don't participate in (p. 100).
EDIT: Having managed to open the draft update above, I see there is a change for hired guns forced to miss a game. But what counts as being forced to?
If he misses a game because the scenario doesn't use your whole gang, is that forcing him to miss the game? If so, I don't see what the sentence about having to pay him for games he doesn't participate in means.
Further, being Captured is specifically used as an example. What if you play a Rescue scenario with him as the captive? Does he need paying for that?
Last edited:
I am not experienced enough with the Outlanders gangs to be able to say one way or another. Perhaps the people that play by the LRB rules would be able to say, since you can charge hidden fighters in that ruleset.
In the case of Old Battle Wounds and Infected Wounds it would make sense to have them still count towards your gang tax, but perhaps not in the case of Captured. Both are currently treated the same, as fighters 'missing games'. For the sake of simplicity I would say that they should all be treated as still part of the gang in terms of gang tax or feeding. You could rationalise that for Captured fighters as the owning gang paying bribes for rumours of where their team-mate is being held.
We have been struggling with these two ambiguities regarding Hired Guns in our campaign lately.
In the first case, if you cannot take your whole gang, but are still able to choose the hired gun, we assumed that you still have to pay them, even if you decide not to take them. For example, if you have the hired gun waiting in reinforcements that never arrive, they would still demand payment. In other scenarios it says that you can't take your whole gang because the others are doing something important elsewhere, so the hired gun can also be presumed to be working. Not sure what their excuse would be to be paid after a Shoot Out they don't attend though, but that's probably not worth worrying about.
In the second case, there isn't really a clear way to interpret the rules. Say the hired gun gets captured, they presumably aren't around to collect their payment afterwards if they never get rescued. But what if they do get rescued? Would they then demand payment for both the original mission and their brief participation in the Rescue mission? Personally, I think that's what should happen, as a rescued ganger would gain experience for the Rescue mission where they were the captive.
The issue with including captives in upkeep is you have the oddity of outlaw captives potentially starving to death. The simplicity is nice but I'm not adverse to treating 'missing' and 'captured' differently for upkeep purposes now that their effects are explained in the relevant income sections, and it looks like they are going to have to be treated separately for hired gun fees (i.e. if a hired gun suffers an Infected Wound that game then he should still be paid for that game, but obviously cannot if he's captured).
Since some hired guns have uses outside of showing up to a fight I think the general principle is if they are capable of being useful then they should be paid. In the case of capture I'm thinking the simplest solution would be to defer payment until the next appropriate time. So in the case of a Rescue he would be paid twice (though I think you could argue he should only be paid once), in the case of a ransom he would be paid pretty much alongside the ransom (so it would also need clarifying ransoms are paid during step 5 of the post battle sequence).
Since some hired guns have uses outside of showing up to a fight I think the general principle is if they are capable of being useful then they should be paid. In the case of capture I'm thinking the simplest solution would be to defer payment until the next appropriate time. So in the case of a Rescue he would be paid twice (though I think you could argue he should only be paid once), in the case of a ransom he would be paid pretty much alongside the ransom (so it would also need clarifying ransoms are paid during step 5 of the post battle sequence).
Hmm, I hadn't thought about outlaws starving to death while captured. Maybe it would be better to treat Captured fighters separately and simply not count them towards gang tax or feeding. The Missing games section could have
However, you do not have to pay any upkeep costs for missing fighters.
changed to
However, you do not have to pay any upkeep costs for Captured fighters and they are not counted during income collection.
Putting the ransom in step 5 of the Post Battle Sequence would support this, since income collection happens in step 4.
Outlaw gangs follow the rules in those sections too.
This seems reasonable. I suppose players might feel its a bit unfair to pay a Hired Gun for the Rescue mission in which they were the captive. Especially since the Hired Gun can't use any of their normal equipment after being untied. The intricacies for Hired Guns regarding back-payments can be explained in their Hire Fee section.
On the subject of equipment it might be worthwhile mentioning somewhere that Hired Guns must be ransomed with their gear. Otherwise they would never be able to carry another weapon again.
EDIT: Merry Christmas to the YakTribe family!
I'm finding the bit about demolition charges in the Attacking Terrain section a bit confusing.
The bomb is placed during the HtH phase, but is considered as shooting. Also, there is no stipulation that the model can't be engaged in HtH with another fighter while doing this, as it does in the subsequent paragraph on hacking structures with melee weapons. Perhaps the following would be better:
The bomb is placed during the HtH phase, but is considered as shooting. Also, there is no stipulation that the model can't be engaged in HtH with another fighter while doing this, as it does in the subsequent paragraph on hacking structures with melee weapons. Perhaps the following would be better:
