N18 Eternal Campaign Variant

[almic85]

Mostly because I am sick of seeing people complain that they don't like the Dominion campaign as presented in the rule book below is a proposed alternative campaign structure for anyone to use if they so wish.

Feel free to change it or alter it as you see fit to make it work for your group.

If there is any feedback feel free to leave a comment below.

The intent of this campaign variant is to bring it closer to the previous edition of the Necromuda rules known as the NCE.

It is not my intention to rewrite other sections of the rules such as the gaining of experience, credits, or random skill/stat selections however feel free to use any house rules you come up with alongside these rules.

Eternal Campaign Variant
For those that wish to play a never ending campaign (similar to that in the NCE) this set of rules has been written just for you.

Use all of the rules for a Dominion campaign with the following changes.

Starting Territories
Each gang starts with 5 randomly selected starting territories.
(alternative each gang starts with 1 random house specific territory, and 4 randomly selected territories)

Campaign Structure
Play every game using the Takeover Phase rules presented in the Dominion campaign.

Assign and Reassign Territory
Please note only the following scenarios allow a territory to be taken over by the winning gang
Zone Mortalis
Tunnel Skirmish
The Trap
Sneak Attack

Sector Mechanicus
Stand-Off
Ambush
Border Dispute

(Alternative rule - In addition to the above instead of choosing the territory being fought over the winner should receive one territory from the loser at random)

Ending the Campaign
This is the Eternal variant. The campaign doesn't end.

 

[almic85]

The only thing I think your missing with the eternal concept is scope for gangs to drop out or for new gangs to join...

If a new gang joins, simply grant them 5 newly discovered territories to start.

If an old gang withdraws, their territory become free-game for the first opposing gang to challenge for it. At the same time, 5 random territories from across the campaign collapse as a result of hive quakes and are removed from the campaign.

I think it would be simpler to just have new gangs gain 5 territories and retiring gangs leave with all their territories.

Otherwise the existing gangs will all lose territories and there will be a number of vacant territories back in the campaign. This will mean that all the existing gangs will need to be notifie which territories they have lost and becomes an administrative pain.

 

[Ironside83]

I think it would be simpler to just have new gangs gain 5 territories and retiring gangs leave with all their territories.

Otherwise the existing gangs will all lose territories and there will be a number of vacant territories back in the campaign. This will mean that all the existing gangs will need to be notifie which territories they have lost and becomes an administrative pain.

There are two issues I see... first that the campaign could balloon out with more territories than is reasonable... and second that new gangs - even with 5 territories gifted to them are at a serious disadvantage (read - not fun to play with no chance of success) against existing gangs.

For the first issue, say a gang loses 4 of their 5 territories in the campaign and then rage-quits. The last remaining settlement gets removed, but the remaining players of the campaign now have four additional territories to fight over (which are generating more income).

By randomly deleting five territories, odds are the more successful gangs - those with the most territories and those that have the most capacity to deal with a reduction in available real estate are more likely to bare the effects of normalising the number of locations. This also acts as a retardant on the establishment of super unbeatable gangs with endless resources.

... edit ... that was my logic for making the more complex suggestion, anyway.

 

[almic85]

I’d be more worried that a gang that has already lost territories randomly loses more territories as a result and is potentially crippled.

 

[Ironside83]

I’d be more worried that a gang that has already lost territories randomly loses more territories as a result and is potentially crippled.

Good point... perhaps you could force fairer normalization on the leading gang/s by having the gang with the most territory forfeit their claim to a random territory.

Make the starting settlements immune, then if multiple gangs have equal number of territories roll off to see who cops it.

 

[SumpRat]

Maybe a retiring gang could lose a certain amount of territories, d3 or so? Then if they come back, they have the remaining territories on their roster. Thematically you could argue they’ve handed over a peace signal, and the gangs are leaving them be to grow old, like an unofficial rule they all follow.

One of the things i’m Hoping to focus on in the next campaign is cooperation between gang leaders. Making an NPC gang that would require multiple players to take on, in order to see how the interaction of help each other for a greater goal/betray at the last minute works.

Hopefully it’ll give me a better idea of smaller gangs, and new gangs, joining together to take down bigger, more established gangs.

 

[el_guestos]

Couldn't you simply hand the 5 territories of the outgoing gang to the incoming gang, would stop infinite expansion of the hive or stripping of resources from already weakened gangs?

 

[Ardavion]

Couldn't you simply hand the 5 territories of the outgoing gang to the incoming gang, would stop infinite expansion of the hive or stripping of resources from already weakened gangs?

Given that this is the Eternal Campaign, adding territories isn't that bad an issue; you don't want to necessarily have the territories stagnate, and you would want competition between gangs to acquire more territory.
The old Necromunda campaign events random table had several entries that said (roughly) "generate a random territory, the gang that improves their gang rating the most in the next [game playing cycle] gets the territory".

Also, handing territories from one gang to another could potentially either reward or hamstring the new gang depending on the territories and the gang, and assumes that all gangs only ever have five territories, no more, no less.

 

[Ardavion]

As a side note, most of the old understanding of territory meant that when a gang retired, their territories "vanished", and when a new gang was made they would start with 3 random territories (1 outlaw territory if they were outlanders), so the overall count of territory could fluctuate.

 

[Benoksen]

For an ever ongoing Dominion campaign, one possibillity could be that players could define, say, two territories as part of their base along with the settlement, and that these can not be attacked. Flufffwise gangbases can be outside the terrainmap if one is used

 

[almic85]

As a side note, most of the old understanding of territory meant that when a gang retired, their territories "vanished", and when a new gang was made they would start with 3 random territories (1 outlaw territory if they were outlanders), so the overall count of territory could fluctuate.

I’m pretty sure that under NCE (and ORB) that all gangs start with 5 territories. There are no special rules for gangs joining partway through, you just create a new gang.

Outlanders on the other hand all have special rules that dictate what territory (if any) they can start with. Ratskins and Pit Slaves are the only gangs that starts with a random outlaw territory. Scavvies start with scrufulous wastes, Redemptionists have their own territory table, Spyrers don’t hold territory.

 

[almic85]

I had originally intended that gangs only got 5 random territories (no extra settlement) but looking at the territories again it could mean some gangs end up with no income generation.

I’m torn between being reasonable and saying tough luck.

 

[SumpRat]

I had originally intended that gangs only got 5 random territories (no extra settlement) but looking at the territories again it could mean some gangs end up with no income generation.

I’m torn between being reasonable and saying tough luck.

Could give them a settlement, a House Territory, and then 3 random generated?

Fluff wise

Clan House and it’s manufactory/business.

3 territories are loyal to the House?

That way you’ve a starting point at least.

 

[FerociousBeast]

My issue with Dominion is that its focus is more heavily on territories and getting more of them whereas the focus traditionally is on gang development. Which is fine for a temporary conflict/campaign, but making Dominion eternal in my opinion would exacerbate this situation.

 

[Ironside83]

My issue with Dominion is that its focus is more heavily on territories and getting more of them whereas the focus traditionally is on gang development. Which is fine for a temporary conflict/campaign, but making Dominion eternal in my opinion would exacerbate this situation.

I can see where the concern comes from, but on the flip side, is a territory not just another element of gang development?

The 'boons' granted by territories are not largely dissimilar to the Savant abilities. But rather than providing 'fighters' they provide a consequence and reason to fight out games.

The real advantage of territories is that they replace the income generation that was previously tied to champions. In the old turf war, there was a disincentive to put your champions in harms way because any injury crippled your income generation. In this way, territories actually bring gang development back to being a primary consideration - both by promoting accumulation of both experience and income.

 

[almic85]

My issue with Dominion is that its focus is more heavily on territories and getting more of them whereas the focus traditionally is on gang development. Which is fine for a temporary conflict/campaign, but making Dominion eternal in my opinion would exacerbate this situation.

ORB and NCE both have mechanics to gain and lose your starting territory, and having the right territory was always a big part of campaign success.

Is the issue that the territories change hands too often or that they have too much influence on the post game?

Or is it just that you would prefer the focus of the game on the tabletop and less on the post game results?

 

[FerociousBeast]

I think the focus on fighting over territory takes some of the abstraction out of it... which is weird to hear myself say because I’m a big fan of realism/simulation in games. But the ORB/NCE focus on gangs made campaigns more flexible to meet different groups’ desires. You could draw up a map and duke it out over territories if you wanted, or you could keep it more casual and just throw some dice and laugh as juves get pasted and gangers lose limbs.

 

[almic85]

I’m not quite sure where the distinction is being drawn on your side.

In NCE you started with 5 territories and fought over them as your gang developed.

In the alternative N17 you start with 5 territories and fight over them as your gang develops.

The main difference between the two is that ORB/NCE had much stricter guidelines on how territories changed hands (usually cause 3 times as many casualties as the other gang) than this alternative which is just win certain scenarios.

Would it be more ORBy if the conditions on winning territories were tightened.

Would it be more ORBy if the territory you win was randomly selected instead of chosen before the fight starts?

 

[FerociousBeast]

"The Dominion Campaign is based around gangs fighting battles for the control of Territory. Each game in the campaign is fought for the control of a Territory, with the winner either gaining a new Territory, or holding onto one that they already have. The Territory being fought over is the stake of a game, and every game has a Territory at stake on the outcome."

This focus on territories is definitely different from original Necromunda. Shoot out, Rescue, Ambush, and many other scenarios in ORB/NCE are fought with nothing to do with territories but tons to do with your gang. Just my opinion, but I prefer the gang focus instead of the territory focus.

 

[almic85]

@FerociousBeast understood.

Take a look at my first post of proposed rule changes which includes restricting which scenarios allow territory to change hands.

The point of this thread is to identify how to bring the dominion campaign back to and NCE feel without too many rewrites.