Development discussion

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,624
4,554
193
Norway
YCE (Yaktribe Community Edition for N20+) - Development discussion
After some discussion and a vote, the community should focus on a full blown community edition for new Necromunda (N20+). This means a full overhaul of the rules, clarify, simplify, improve, and rebalance. However, it is a big job and we have to make severe limitations in order to have a realistic chance of achieving the goal.

If any official rule is questioned, it is important to note that we decide how the game should be. Not how GW has written it or how GW wants the game to be (RAW & RAI).

Disclaimers:
  • This development will NOT including radical changes to the official rules like changing dice (from D6 to D12 for example).
  • Anyone who wants to do something completely different are free to do so, but organize and discuss that somewhere else.
  • This is a big project so we must have rapid progress with quick decision making. No topic should drag on for more than a week. Hopefully this project can be completed within a couple of months.
  • We could always go back and revisit previous decisions later.
THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Suggestion phase (closed)

Collect suggestions per section/category:
Suggestion phase document:
PM me with email to get access to edit this document.

Decision phase
Go through all suggestions, make decisions on what to change/improve/clarify/rebalance.
Finally, we go back and forth between writing the rules changes, playtesting and proofreading.

TIME SCHEDULE
  • Suggestion phase (first pass):
    • Finished
  • Decision phase (second pass):
    • In progress (General Principles)

LONG TERM DISCUSSIONS (LOW PRIORITY)

VISION
  • Eliminate ambiguity: Ideally, we should be able to completely remove the "roll-off when you are not sure what to do" rule.
  • Reduce complexity: Complexity is good when it brings depth. Otherwise, it should be removed as much as possible.
  • Increase player agency: And I mean real agency. That encompasses stuff like reworking the Sentry rules (that rob one player of their agency) and balancing weapons (more meaningful choices to make = more agency).
  • Increase player engagement: That's where false agency can help. We want both players to be invested in the game at most times and having them do stuff can help, even if it's just rolling dice to determine a random outcome.

THE RESULT
  • After all work is done, we will have a final YCE rules document. This will be a simple diff, explaining which rules are changed with page references to the original book. For example "replace text abc on page x with this text def". Players can use this document combined with official Necromunda books to play YCE. This will be a Common item at the Trading Post.
 
Last edited:

Scavvierising

Undisputed Doom Spooner
Yak Comp 3rd Place
Honored Tribesman
Aug 3, 2016
763
1,688
153
London
First thing first (wiggle your big toe), what is the first thing on the agenda?
Once upon a time the movement phase started things of in necro. So I'm going to raise a few things I've seen about movement in the rules threads.

Is the rule of 1" needed?

Is M+D3 the charge range the game needs?

Do modifiers to M that are additions/subtractions take place before things that multiply/divide or after?

Jumping gaps is as long as you have the movement to clear it you can do it. When skills, tactics, drugs and maybe more get involved. This can be a ridiculous distance.

Simple actions state that if your first action is a simple action you may fully resolve it before declaring your second action. But movement rules say all movement actions must be declared before any measuring can take place.

Despite not being obligated to move your full movement allowance. If you don't have the movement to cover where you hoped to end. You must now move your full allowance in that direction.
Are people happy with this?

This should get the ball rolling. To tell the truth I told myself I wasn't going to get involved. As I've only played the new stuff skittle bit. But I don't mind saying what confuses me or just feels a bit off about the ruleset. And then letting someone else fix it.
 

Tiny

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Jul 12, 2011
3,733
8,878
178
South Wales, UK
www.tinyworlds.co.uk
First thing first (wiggle your big toe), what is the first thing on the agenda?

I don’t know much about N17++ but can give my general thoughts from experience.

IMO the first thing to do is set out the scope for the project in a more granular way. Is it to simply fix errors and balance as opposed to making changes to core rules? Sweeping changes to turn structure or how movement works or the wound chart for example, aren’t what 99% of players are looking for. Unless there’s something that seriously makes the game unplayable or unfun it maybe best to leave it as is and concentrate on balancing weapon profiles, improving the campaign experience and ensuring the rules read correctly and are not ambiguous in any way.
 

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
723
657
113
Wiltshire
Its a real shame the Eastern Fringe is gone, the discussion on the original was excellent. If anybody knows how to contact Antony Case we could ask if he had any thoughts on first steps, beyond that we do have This as a reference.

I would suggest two things: firstly, moving through the rulebook from start to finish, one section at a time. This will provide us with some much needed structure.

Secondly, to make two passes- the first identifying problems to be discussed, the second to focus on how we might fix them.
 

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
167
275
63
For me we need to clear up areas of rules-based inconsistency first. Ideally changing as little as possible; as @Tiny says I think it's our best shot of being the most useful to the largest number of people.

I like @Orngog 's suggested two-pass method as well.
 

Ledward

Ganger
Jun 6, 2017
78
78
33
Belgium
@Orngog it seems indeed the best idea to go through the entire rulebook section by section and see what needs to be addressed and make a full list, as one change might affect another if we're not careful.
@TopsyKretts how would you like to see this happen, maybe if we'll all follow the same template from section to section with everything that needs attention we could come up with an overview which we can use as a starting point. As the movement which is addressed before is only one specific (most important) action and opening my rulebook it all starts with characteristics profiles, which in my eyes doesn't need a change but it might be noted that some secondary characteristics are over/underused.
 

Ledward

Ganger
Jun 6, 2017
78
78
33
Belgium
I like the charm of no pre measuring but it's starting to feel outdated and creates more problems than joy. And if you play on the cardboard or plastic tiles you can triangulate everything fairly well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paupoi

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
723
657
113
Wiltshire
Because a turn represents a moment of time, in real life we can guess if we'll reach point x before someone else does but we can't know for sure. If you only charge/fire when you know it will achieve what you want it removes a lot of chance from game and suddenly you're playing mathhammer. I forget the details but there was a good discussion here about why you shouldn't have inch grids on your tabletop, as range is one of the few things that can not be accurately determined using a calculator.

That said of course this is a debate, and I'd love to hear about these headscratchers...
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,219
1,584
128
Bristol, UK
How distinct do we want this to be from the YAQ?
Although I agree that just clarifying and tying up loose ends is a great idea, I believe that's the aim of the existing YAQ.
 

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
I have mixed feeling about allowing pre measuring.

I find in larger games (like 40k)I appreciate being allowed to pre measure, but in smaller model count skirmish games like Necromuda and Adeptus Titanicus I feel no pre measuring helps add to the flavour of the game.

Maybe it could be in a sort of arbitrators optional rules section?

Happy to pitch in on this project.

I assume we are limiting the scope of this project to the core rules only and not looking at further changes (costs, adding or removing traits from equipment etc).
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,624
4,554
193
Norway
How distinct do we want this to be from the YAQ?
Although I agree that just clarifying and tying up loose ends is a great idea, I believe that's the aim of the existing YAQ.
The big difference is I'm not interested in what GW's intentions are. I don't care about a discussion of RAW & RAI to understand the original intent. To put it in other words, we should determine how we want to play the game, not how the official rules try to instruct the game. Case in point, the recent "rolling a natural 1 on a D3" discussion has a lot of people divided about what the rules actually mean. Here, we will decide one way or the other, based on what's best for us (based on balance/game/fun).
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,624
4,554
193
Norway
Because a turn represents a moment of time, in real life we can guess if we'll reach point x before someone else does but we can't know for sure. If you only charge/fire when you know it will achieve what you want it removes a lot of chance from game and suddenly you're playing mathhammer. I forget the details but there was a good discussion here about why you shouldn't have inch grids on your tabletop, as range is one of the few things that can not be accurately determined using a calculator.

That said of course this is a debate, and I'd love to hear about these headscratchers...
I've played Necromunda as close to RAW in the start, and lately further and further away from RAW. I've played with the 1" rule (which causes many issues with rules, such as the recent 1" versatile on the new Orlock hammer), and I've played the last couple of years without it.

In my experience, playing without the 1" is rule a much more enjoyable and balanced experience which accidentally also solves many of the problems.
 

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
The big difference is I'm not interested in what GW's intentions are. I don't care about a discussion of RAW & RAI to understand the original intent. To put it in other words, we should determine how we want to play the game, not how the official rules try to instruct the game. Case in point, the recent "rolling a natural 1 on a D3" discussion has a lot of people divided about what the rules actually mean. Here, we will decide one way or the other, based on what's best for us (based on balance/game/fun).

So summarise, were there is a rule that is agreed to be problematic, we as a community will decide what is the best solution, not how the rule was intended to function (although it may serve as a guide).

In that case, I agree, section by section (starting with either movement or the round structure) we should identify which areas are I need of attention.

Ideally I think that we should aim to change only what is needed, and that ideally the changes should be as simple as possible.

That doesn't mean we should avoid complexity and nuance I'd required though.
 

RonBSM

The Upside Down Troll
Tribe Council
Mar 26, 2020
501
839
138
39
Port Talbot
You need to keep pre-measuring off the table.

Having played GW games for almost 30 years its a rule which is designed to encourage better judgement and strategy. Should you attempt the shot? Should you try and maneuver closer first?

Its a risk/reward rule that works both ways and having played in a few competitive games in the long dark past against players that were cheating by measuring areas of the board pre-game I find that no pre-measuring keeps players on thier toes.

To touch on a different but relevant point, charge distance.

The original rules of double movement distance as charge range was always better for me. I dislike the randomness introduced to a stable statistic- it combines the worst aspect of pre-measuring/judgement and randomness to melee. I've always felt that the addition of the D3 "Second half" of the movement element of what I consider to be the "double move" aka "charge" to be a counter intuitive move in a game where judgement before action is a thing.

I'd suggest that D3 added move to charge be scrapped in favour of treating a charge as a double move.

On the overall subject.... I think that a move through the book stage by stage is a great idea. I'm personally up for contributing to a clarification and simplification of the rules that lend well to the narrative feel of Necromunda .
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,624
4,554
193
Norway
But most importantly, where do we start? Here are some issues people have mentioned:
  • The 1" rule
  • Charge range (M+D3)
  • Modifiers to stats (for example movement), are additions/subtractions applied before or after multiply/divide
  • Jumping gaps can reach ridiculous distances when combined with various special rules (skills, tactics, drugs ++).
  • Simple actions state that if your first action is a simple action you may fully resolve it before declaring your second action. But movement rules say all movement actions must be declared before any measuring can take place.
  • Despite not being obligated to move your full movement allowance. If you don't have the movement to cover where you hoped to end. You must now move your full allowance in that direction.
  • Premeasure.
How do we organize this project? Should we move through the rulebook from start to finish, to identify what we want to change (problems, balance, simplification etc.) to make a complete list of topics? And after that, discuss how to fix them?

What should be done first, inconsistent rules, or something else or additional points like balance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RonBSM and Al_Weeks