NCE Community Edition

[Anthony]

So I just noticed that the mung vase doesn't appear on the outlaw rare trade chart, both in the official rules and OCE. I don't know why that is, so I was looking over the rules as their randomness fits well with the outlaw trade.

Firstly I'm curious what people think about you having to commit to buying the vase before seeing how much it costs. On other forums It was a pretty common house rule to ignore this as I guess it can be annoying committing to buying it then being forced to sell a bunch of pistols because you rolled high, but I kind of like that uncertainty myself.

Also I was thinking one thing that might be interesting and help with that uncertainty would be if you could see how much the vase is worth as a post game action (representing the lengthy bartering) but didn't have to sell it. So you could wait out until you get a good price at the expense of rare rolls.

 

[ineptmule]

Also I was thinking one thing that might be interesting and help with that uncertainty would be if you could see how much the vase is worth as a post game action (representing the lengthy bartering) but didn't have to sell it. So you could wait out until you get a good price at the expense of rare rolls.

This is a great idea. It's fluffy and realistic, and makes the whole process more involved. It especially works well with the rule that only the leader knows where it is, as the longer you wait out to sell it at a good price the more chance you have of your leader getting killed and losing it forever.

 

[Tomcaet]

Wouldn't the Mung Vase give a potentially immense boost to an outlaw gang economy? I don't think an outlaw could afford one, but I would still try to buy it. I always try on lawful gang, I'm currently at a loss of 36 creds.

It isn't intuitive that you have to sell gear if you roll high for price. But if you take the uncertainty away, you boost the Vase, and it's currently (on average) profitable. Same goes for "rerolling" the sell price. Feels like a big buff, though I may look at it too much in the long term. Maybe the sell price ranges would need adjustment?

 

[ineptmule]

Proceeds from selling a Mung Vase don't get washed through the income table for Lawful gangs, so it's potential effect on the economy shouldn't really make a difference for Lawful/Outlanders. As you say it's less likely they can buy it in the first place.

Amusing side anecdote - I think it was @BeardLegend who had an inventor Juve (captured from my gang and abandoned) invent a Mung Vase... perhaps unsurprisingly it rolled up the 'obvious and worthless fake' result on the value table She didn't keep practicing her forger's craft as far as I can recall!

Edit: Actually I think the sale result was 'It's a fake but quite a nice one and the trader disappears never to be seen again' so in fact she 'invented' a 'real' vase which the trader snaffled for a handful of creds

 

[stealthvulture]

@ineptmule I've had the same thing happen! The dice gods know what's up.

That's definitely an interesting idea, and makes sense fluff-wise - your leader isn't going to want to sell the vase for nothing.

 

[Anthony]

Yeah the prices when selling it is a bit all over the place and not worth buying so could do with being looked at either way. Currently it's:

1: 0
2: 1d6
3: 30+4d6 (Avg 44 )
4: 30+6d6 (Avg 51 )
5: 5x2d6 (Avg 35)
6: 10x2d6 (Avg 70)

You could probably trim that down to a D3. Perhaps something like:

1-2: 2D6
3-4: 30+6D6
5-6: 2D6x10

I guess you could also add a caveat that the enforced-purchase only applies if you have the credits in your stash. Therefore you're not obliged to sell weapons.

 

[trollmeat]

Having to sell off equipment to buy a mung vase makes sense, in that the leader is duped into believing that it is worth a fortune and will do everything possible to acquire it.

It might be nice to have it no-longer treated as a wasted rare trade roll - Not ever had anyone in any campaign actually buy one.

 

[Anthony]

Having to sell off equipment to buy a mung vase makes sense, in that the leader is duped into believing that it is worth a fortune and will do everything possible to acquire it.

Ah yeah I do like that. Also I think I might have been rash reducing the chart to a D3 as I do like the fluff the lower rolls have in the official rules. Having a result that forces you to sell for a a few credits would be a nice balance against you constantly revaluing it every game until you roll super high and would allow you to add more of a 'jackpot' 6 roll. So perhaps something like this?

1: Duped: Must sell for D6.
2: 2D6
3-4: 30+6D6
5: 2D6x10
6: 3D6x10

 

[Tomcaet]

I doubt it helps in anything, but was curious for current probability of individual values of a Mung Vase and did a chart. While at it, I also did one for @Anthony's suggested values, but not accounting for choosing not to sell.

 

[Jembo17]

What are people's feelings about the campaign events table?

P.S. I'm sure that there used to be one, I just can't find it(!).

 

[Anthony]

It's in the original Outlanders rulebook. I don't know if it's in the vault but that whole Arbitrator Campaign section is really useful. I can put up a pdf if it's not, though I don't know what Yak's policies are on the old scanned material.

Btw, I'll try and update the CEs this weekend since there's fair amount of changes.

 

[spafe]

I would love to see the campaign scans! I don't think theres anything against it, as other stuff in there deffo looks like scans of older stuff. best double check with @Malo for an official verdict though

 

[cardyfreak]

I can't see there being a problem, storm the barricades and necromovies are already in there I believe so having the whole piece in one pdf shouldn't incur any more wrath than we've already had which I believe is zero.

 

[Tomcaet]

As an update is imminent, I got some questions on the changes:

Fleeting charger - is the Initiative test only for the ganger taking the charge, others still shoot "freely"?
Heavy Weapons firing - is that specifically on topic of Fast Shot? Or more?
Wounding awards - if that's getting awards now, I got an obscure example - what if an opponent is bled to death with flesh wounds (Flesh Wound on a WS1/BS1)? Technically no award, happened to me twice in one match lately. Was denied an appeal for hit awards. Amazing by the way, 3 wounds on a WS3/BS2 ganger I think and all Flesh. Plus one earlier but on an already Flesh Wounded juve.
Outlaw Rare Trade - removal of the higher-tech grenades from there isn't accidental, is it?
Spyrers wounding - would that make wounds on grudge matches quadruple?

 

[Anthony]

Okay just uploaded the PDF to the vault here.

Fleeting charger

Yeah, it's basically an extension to the -1 charging mod. Outside of that the usual fleeting rules apply.

Heavy Weapons firing

Yeah if I recall it was only Fast Shot that was causing the issue.

Wounding awards

There's a fair amount of oddities to do with wounding hits, Hurl Opponent being a good one. Generally I don't really want to go down that quagmire, there isn't room for starters, but Malcadons are potentially losing a fair amount of exp from finishing off webbed fighters. Plus finishing off choking fighters is quite a nice tactic that feels like it should be rewarded.

Outlaw Rare Trade

Yeah it's to create room for the mung vase, though on second thoughts I think it might be better to instead change the Icrotic Slime to 1-3: Icrotic, 4-6: Mung Vase.

Spyrers wounding

Ah yeah, I'll word it so it's "+10 instead of +5" rather than "double" which would then be doubled by a grudge match.

 

[Jembo17]

There was previously listed in the 'proposed changes' on page 1 of this thread changes to frenzy and the berserk charge skill, have these now been binned as they've been removed...?

Thought they sounded quite good from a 'how they read' point of view, can't back that up with any playtesting experience though.

 

[Anthony]

Yeah I do think that rule is fitting for frenzy, but I don't like how Berserk Charge would be basically frenzy-lite. I guess I could still add it to Frenzy but not Berserk Charge, but either way I think Berserk Charge could do with being replaced really. Three ideas spring to mind:

1) Rename it to Berserk and give it some sort of general boost, perhaps a once-per game boost or kicks in when hurt.
2) Steal Muscle's Hard as Nails, though the original Crushing Blows skill needs updating.
3) Something entirely new, though I don't have a firm replacement idea.

 

[piromanwwr]

- Spook: 61-66 is not treated as None. Clarify if a 65-66 is rolled you may choose the Primary Power table or to control D3 pets.

What about to change the rules for Scavvy Wyrdo mutation, to have a chance to roll on the Primary Powers too, like the Spook do? However, the power is need to be re-rolled after each game.

I think it will not boost up to much Scavvy's as they are now, and add some more gamble when using it ( increased temptation to use Primary Power if PP was rolled, more chance to get possessed and hurt yourself).

Rolls on Wyrd Minor Power table with result 61+ could looks like this ( only for Scavvy mutation):

61-62 - Multiple Minor Powers
63-64 - Beast Master Primary Power
65-66 - Roll D6: 1-2 - roll for random PP from Pyromaniac PP table, 3-4 - roll for random PP from Telepath table, 5-6 - roll for random PP from Telekinetic PP table

 

[trollmeat]

I do love that the Wyrdo changes powers each battle, and they do look like a lot of fun, but I can't justify the Cost with a Ld6 & Perils of the Warp (always happy to let a hired gun get eaten by a daemon, or sucked into the warp, but they aren't player-characters and don't advance) :-\

Spoiler: ignore me, i donut know what i am doing

Been thinking about what I might suggest if I run a Wyrdo in the next campaign, and I do like the idea of them being able to get a Primary Power for a battle...

For Beast-Master I was thinking of something similar to Karloth Valois' Zombie Master, rather than straight Beastmaster ability. That way the zombies/pets could move outside of 16" of the Wyrdo, but any zombies nearby would gain a bonus: Zombie Master - The Wyrdo brings D3 additional zombies to the battle, and all zombies within 9" the model's Ld in " roll an extra dice for their movement, for a total of 3D6, and then pick two dice for their move distance. Zombies in hand-to-hand combat within 9" the model's Ld in " of Valois the Wyrdo also gain +1 to their Weapon Skill and +2 to their Initiative. This power works all of the time and doesn't need a Leadership test.

............and, 'cos a Wyrdo would be a model that I wouldn't want to explode in a ball of warp-fire, I was thinking that instead of Perils of the Warp on a 2 or 12, maybe having any failed Ld test for a Wyrd power potentially causing damage as the Wyrdo's brain is wracked, the model rolling to see if they are wounded by a hit with a Strength equal to how much they failed the test by (but not having the model pinned unless wounded?)
- Ld6 test rolls 8, they failed by 2 so take a S2 hit.
- Ld6 test rolls 12, they failed by 6 so take a S6 hit.
This would have the model taking more damage than the 2-12 perils, but, I haven't really spent much time thinking about this.

ps: I really like that the mutations have been dropped in price. :-D

 

[Anthony]

I think giving them potential primary powers would be just too good really, and is more interesting as a simple curios mutation rather than something every scavvy gang will absolutely always want.