Good morning
After a long time out our gaming group has recently started up a new Necromunda campaign.
I've gone with my favoured Delaques, and being completely unfamiliar with the new rules no-one raised any eyebrows when we rolled up both a drinking hole and gambling den for the campaign territories.
However, as the controlling Delaque player, the gambling den in particular feels disgustingly bent. Like, "can't look myself in the mirror" levels of bent.
It's hideous.
I've only used it in one game so far and it's just an auto nope for the opponent's best fighter.
So in an effort to reclaim a modicum of self-respect I've had a go at re-tuning the Delaque only rules for the gambling den. And by re-tuning I obviously mean "nerfing the crap out of".
I've tried to keep the mechanic for losing a fighter in line with the money-making aspect of the territory.
After the scenario has been chosen and the gang rosters have been selected, but before deployment, the controlling Delaque player may attempt to see if one of the opponent's fighters can be "persuaded" to absent themself from the encounter.
Nominate a suit and then draw a random card from a deck containing jokers.
If the card is of the correct suit the Delaque player can choose a fighter to be missing from the game.
A number card means they can only choose a juve or a ganger. A face card means they may choose a champion. The ace means they may choose the leader.
If the card drawn is the same colour then draw a random fighter to be missing from those available for the fight.
If the card is the incorrect colour then no-one has any gambling debts this time.
If the card is a joker then the Delaque's opponent gets to randomly select a Delaque fighter to be missing from the fight.
This feels far less bent and maintains the gambling vibe... and contains an element of risk that keeps things spicy.
What do you think?
After a long time out our gaming group has recently started up a new Necromunda campaign.
I've gone with my favoured Delaques, and being completely unfamiliar with the new rules no-one raised any eyebrows when we rolled up both a drinking hole and gambling den for the campaign territories.
However, as the controlling Delaque player, the gambling den in particular feels disgustingly bent. Like, "can't look myself in the mirror" levels of bent.
It's hideous.
I've only used it in one game so far and it's just an auto nope for the opponent's best fighter.
So in an effort to reclaim a modicum of self-respect I've had a go at re-tuning the Delaque only rules for the gambling den. And by re-tuning I obviously mean "nerfing the crap out of".
I've tried to keep the mechanic for losing a fighter in line with the money-making aspect of the territory.
After the scenario has been chosen and the gang rosters have been selected, but before deployment, the controlling Delaque player may attempt to see if one of the opponent's fighters can be "persuaded" to absent themself from the encounter.
Nominate a suit and then draw a random card from a deck containing jokers.
If the card is of the correct suit the Delaque player can choose a fighter to be missing from the game.
A number card means they can only choose a juve or a ganger. A face card means they may choose a champion. The ace means they may choose the leader.
If the card drawn is the same colour then draw a random fighter to be missing from those available for the fight.
If the card is the incorrect colour then no-one has any gambling debts this time.
If the card is a joker then the Delaque's opponent gets to randomly select a Delaque fighter to be missing from the fight.
This feels far less bent and maintains the gambling vibe... and contains an element of risk that keeps things spicy.
What do you think?
