GCE Core Rules feedback and suggestions

[Flamekebab]

dndbeyond.com gets a lot of hate because WOTC has sold out to Hasbro and they're just another big evil corporation trying to squeeze every penny out of people. BUT, dndbeyond is a good site for rules lookup and reference.

The main thing it does really well is focusing on the big search bar in the top middle.

The rest of the front page being filled with news updates is nice too.
In a really ideal world, we could have a mob calculator on there that can export to a PDF. That's trickier and more work, but good function.

For the purposes of this I'm imagining essentially a self-contained site for the GCE rules. There would be nothing else on there.
Interestingly YakTribe did have a beta version of a mob-management tool. I'm not sure what stalled that but perhaps one day it will be revived? @Malo

Personally I've always found digital rosters to be a nuisance to keep updated, but I'm the same way with digital calendars!

If we were really smart, we could find a way to use the stylesheets and have those auto-convert to the proper markdown tags.

Like if something is marked as title in the .ODT file, it would auto-apply to an h2. I dunno if that's possible, I'm just spit-balling here, but you get the idea. Maybe it's possible through a series of Find & Replace in the text.

That's what my code does - it takes the GCE books, in their ODT form, as inputs, and outputs Markdown.
The Markdown goes into a static site generator (probably Zola) which turns it all into HTML/CSS and that then gets thrown at a server. That way it's just a load of static HTML, CSS, some images, and so forth. No database, no CMS, nothing to get hacked and easy for any standard web browser to work with. Should run on a potato!

I could probably even write some shell scripts that would perform that process automatically, to be honest, although it's probably better for it to be a manual part of the release process so that work in progress versions don't end up being served...

The main stumbling block is literally just that I don't know how it should look to be good for people wanting to use it. It's got to work well on mobile devices of various sizes and whilst I know how to code stuff for that, it's a right faff! Any thoughts on any of these themes?

In the meantime, like the obsessive nutter I am, I've finally been implementing tUGS as a static site. It's nearly done (I have to fix some posts that have formatting issues and figure out how to get my Mekboy Gibberish Generator working - it does some PHP-based caching). Literally the only feature that's going away is comments, and that's something I think the site can live without anyway.

...I know this stuff would take years but you made my brain itchy. Finding the spare capacity takes time - actually doing the work takes days.

Sorry, I missed this last time.

I think this is good, but I'm curious if you can do a contained search that only looks at the 'uploaded book contents'

The search would cover just the contents of the site - which would only be the books (other than perhaps a simple front page with links to each book).

 

[Gornn65]

The main stumbling block is literally just that I don't know how it should look to be good for people wanting to use it. It's got to work well on mobile devices of various sizes and whilst I know how to code stuff for that, it's a right faff! Any thoughts on any of these themes?

Seagull or Clean Blog are good. (Seagull needs some different fonts, Clean Blog 'could' use new fonts, but is good as is.

The search would cover just the contents of the site - which would only be the books (other than perhaps a simple front page with links to each book).

Yah, now that I see you want it all on a contained site, that solves the problem too.



I have some suggested edits under the Serious Injuries chart and following section:

22 - Leg Wound

Reduce the Warrior’s Movement characteristic by 1 and randomly determine which leg has been injured.

Unless I missed it, there's no reason to determine randomly, other than flavour? I would also add that if a warrior's movement is reduced to zero, it is removed from the mob, along with their gear.

23 - Arm Wound

Randomly determine which arm has been injured. When using a weapon that uses User Strength in that hand in Hand-to-Hand combat reduce the Warrior’s Strength characteristic by 1.

My suggestion may be a better house-rule, but I would write this as: Reduce the Warrior's Strength characteristic by 1. If a warrior's strength is reduced to zero (or four times - whichever is the intention) then it's removed from your mob. The mob keeps their gear.

Reason is that, yes, I can see that someone using a choppa in their left hand could have their str reduced, but then couldn't the warrior move the weapon to their other hand? So, since the warrior is always going to use their best weapon, they'd always move their best Melee weapon to their healthy hand. I'd suggest simplifying this and just say -1 str and then the penalty is actually applied consistently with less micro management on the warrior.


If you add to the table that warriors are removed at 0 Move and Strength, then you can remove the first section on the following page: Cumulative Serious Injuries.

You can do the same with Old Battle Wounds as well, by changing that result:

33-35 - Old Battle Wound
You can accumulate multiple Old Battle Wounds (OBW). At the start of each game, you must roll over the amount of OBW you have for that Ork to participate in that game. If a warrior accumulates 6 OBW, then the Ork is removed from your mob along with its gear.


For 31-Blinded in one eye, it states the mob keeps the gear, so I don't know why that one is different? Or should that also read Remove them from your mob along with their gear.

 

[Gornn65]

actually doing the work takes days.

Depending on how my work goes over the next short while. I will have time to help how i can.

 

[Flamekebab]

I have some suggested edits under the Serious Injuries chart and following section:

22 - Leg Wound

Reduce the Warrior’s Movement characteristic by 1 and randomly determine which leg has been injured.

Unless I missed it, there's no reason to determine randomly, other than flavour? I would also add that if a warrior's movement is reduced to zero, it is removed from the mob, along with their gear.

Depending on faction the treatment may be randomly applied to legs. It's possible to lose a healthy leg and gain a pegleg, for example.

I can see multiple reasons to allow an immobile warrior to remain in the mob. Drivers and gunners, for one - they don't need to move independently (sometimes they want to but most of the time being immobile wouldn't matter). Also if they're removed at this stage it means they couldn't be taken to have their legs treated, due to order of operations.

Also GCE adds the explicit option to fire Warriors - so the player could just give them the boot if they want.

23 - Arm Wound

Randomly determine which arm has been injured. When using a weapon that uses User Strength in that hand in Hand-to-Hand combat reduce the Warrior’s Strength characteristic by 1.

My suggestion may be a better house-rule, but I would write this as: Reduce the Warrior's Strength characteristic by 1. If a warrior's strength is reduced to zero (or four times - whichever is the intention) then it's removed from your mob. The mob keeps their gear.

Reason is that, yes, I can see that someone using a choppa in their left hand could have their str reduced, but then couldn't the warrior move the weapon to their other hand? So, since the warrior is always going to use their best weapon, they'd always move their best Melee weapon to their healthy hand. I'd suggest simplifying this and just say -1 str and then the penalty is actually applied consistently with less micro management on the warrior.

This presumes they're only carrying a single weapon that uses User Strength. If a Warrior is carrying, say a choppa and stikkbombs (effectively two choppas) then half their hits will be at -1 Strength. Dedicated hand-to-hand loadouts are common so this comes up quite often. Players already have to take into account the different weapon profiles that a given Warrior is armed with when resolving hand to hand so it's the change of a single modifier.

For 31-Blinded in one eye, it states the mob keeps the gear, so I don't know why that one is different? Or should that also read Remove them from your mob along with their gear.

It's basically different because the warrior is literally getting robbed blind!

However it occurs to me that the rules should be changed for blind warriors as they could be treated, meaning they wouldn't have to leave. Hmmm.

 

[Gornn65]

I can see multiple reasons to allow an immobile warrior to remain in the mob. Drivers and gunners, for one - they don't need to move independently (sometimes they want to but most of the time being immobile wouldn't matter). Also if they're removed at this stage it means they couldn't be taken to have their legs treated, due to order of operations.

I think you would have to change the rules then wouldn't you?
Under the section "Cumulative Serious Injuries" (The one, I'm suggesting you remove) the rule already states that the warrior should be removed if their movement reaches zero. I was just trying to consolidate that text to make the chart consistent. For example: currently, Blind has the consequence of reaching 0 written into the chart. While arm and leg wounds were put into the following section, I was just trying to suggest a way of putting all the relevant info into the chart.

This presumes they're only carrying a single weapon that uses User Strength. If a Warrior is carrying, say a choppa and stikkbombs (effectively two choppas) then half their hits will be at -1 Strength. Dedicated hand-to-hand loadouts are common so this comes up quite often. Players already have to take into account the different weapon profiles that a given Warrior is armed with when resolving hand to hand so it's the change of a single modifier.

aah ok, I checked the rules earlier, but I missed this part in the core rules. I was drawing from my old memory of 2nd ed 40k, where I think you just used the best weapon for all hits. Maybe I'm misremembering?
For my own games, I may still house-rule this different, depending on how much micromanagement my players want to deal with, but never mind about the rules change in the GCE.

However it occurs to me that the rules should be changed for blind warriors as they could be treated, meaning they wouldn't have to leave. Hmmm.

I think you can either keep the severely wounded warriors or have them leave. Just as long as it's consistent and doesn't compete with page 13 (see next reply)

Also GCE adds the explicit option to fire Warriors - so the player could just give them the boot if they want.

So, in this case I think the rules need some clarity or an update, since there's competing information:

In the campaign books on page 13, it says you can "retire" a warrior at any time and get their gear back, but in this chart on page 11 for blindness, and in Cumulative Serious Injuries, essentially, once a warriors stat hits zero, the warrior leaves and takes their equipment, unless robbed because of blindness. (Although, just for argument's sake, a Warrior with no Str, or a Warrior with no movement could also be robbed pretty easily)

Something to think about.

 

[Bester]

I think you can either keep the severely wounded warriors or have them leave. Just as long as it's consistent and doesn't compete with page 13 (see next reply)


So, in this case I think the rules need some clarity or an update, since there's competing information:

In the campaign books on page 13, it says you can "retire" a warrior at any time and get their gear back, but in this chart on page 11 for blindness, and in Cumulative Serious Injuries, essentially, once a warriors stat hits zero, the warrior leaves and takes their equipment, unless robbed because of blindness. (Although, just for argument's sake, a Warrior with no Str, or a Warrior with no movement could also be robbed pretty easily)

Something to think about.

Hi Gornn65,

The emphasis should be on "Retiring" of Warriors in the GCE rules.

We tried to make it clearer to the player that they have more control over hiring and "firing" than they did in original Roolz.

Looks like we failed but its a good spot!

There should come a point when a Warrior is just too beat up they can't even be relegated down the mines for example (something not all Mobs have access to).

Remember, keeping seriously injured Warriors still counts towards Mob Rating and Income so they are a type of bloat for most Mobs and its a disincentive to keep them.

Probably on the right track "Cumulative Serious Injuries" needs a rework. I think the original intention was to save the immediate dismissal of blinded warriors and their equipment. Especially when there are ways to fix eyes which GCE has expanded on.

 

[Gornn65]

There should come a point when a Warrior is just too beat up they can't even be relegated down the mines for example (something not all Mobs have access to).

I can definitely see the intention, and after reviewing the original book, I can see it wasn't even accounted for in the original book (at least not in the same chart where I was looking)

So, it was a good notion to address in the GCE. After looking deeper in the serjery tables, I can see that this goes into the weeds a bit. So, I'll leave it with you ll as something to think about.

Also Good point on the bloat, most players would retire a mob before it got to the point of hitting zero in a stat.
So, this may all be a moot point anyways.

 

[Flamekebab]

The issues with Serious Injuries are hopefully addressed in the 1.21 release of the campaign book that just went up!

 

[Gornn65]

The issues with Serious Injuries are hopefully addressed in the 1.21 release of the campaign book that just went up!

Wonderful

Also, I love the new scenario book so far.

 

[Flamekebab]

Would you be interested in doing a version of your rosters using the design language of the GCE datacards? (PSDs here)

I'd really like us to do a big release of documents at the end of the week as the Orktober finale and we don't currently have a GCE roster to speak of!
It's short notice, I know, but I only had the idea last night.

I've got two more books to redo the layout on but hopefully I can get that done. Hmm, I wonder where we ended up landing on templates. I know I did some work on them!

 

[Gornn65]

The Ork Klan Rules are under a permissive licence - you could have a bash at it!

Ok, so, I am looking at this now as well, as a replacement for the gorkers and morkers factions in the GCE faction book (but still using the rest of the details in the faction book - so this would be more like an appendix to the GCE faction book). So far, I have only added a third bullet to each klan, so there are two positives and one negative for each klan, but we'll see what happens as I play the game some more. (about to start up an 8-person league for the winter) and build up some more ideas, and get feedback from my playgroup.

This is still early and rough, but honestly, I don't think that each klan needs a full codex like the muties or others. I kind of like the idea that they all go to the same mektown from the GCE faction book after a day on the road and recovering scrap. (It adds the possibility for an interesting scenario down the road as well.)

At the very least, it can also lead you into a good ol' game of Space Gitz

Would you be interested in doing a version of your rosters using the design language of the GCE datacards? (PSDs here)

Sure, I'll try and get that done today after work.

 

[Flamekebab]

Ok, so, I am looking at this now as well, as a replacement for the gorkers and morkers factions in the GCE faction book (but still using the rest of the details in the faction book - so this would be more like an appendix to the GCE faction book). So far, I have only added a third bullet to each klan, so there are two positives and one negative for each klan, but we'll see what happens as I play the game some more. (about to start up an 8-person league for the winter) and build up some more ideas, and get feedback from my playgroup.

This is still early and rough, but honestly, I don't think that each klan needs a full codex like the muties or others. I kind of like the idea that they all go to the same mektown from the GCE faction book after a day on the road and recovering scrap. (It adds the possibility for an interesting scenario down the road as well.)

At the very least, it can also lead you into a good ol' game of Space Gitz

Amazing!

That's basically the long term plan for the Gorker & Morker faction pack - tack on appendices. The Ork Klans rules are already under a suitable licence so pulling them in is relatively trivial. If you're doing some playtesting then that'd make it an even better addition.

Sure, I'll try and get that done today after work.

You absolute star!

 

[Gornn65]

A4 Roster Cards

GCE-RosterCard-A4.pdf

drive.google.com

Letter Roster Cards

GCE-RosterCard-Letter.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[Flamekebab]

Ooh, very nice!

A few tweaks, if that's okay?

• The weapon statline uses a different format. I think your setup is better but everything else for Gorkamorka/GCE uses a different format so it feels like it's probably going to be confusing for players old and new.
• Include "equipment" in the box out
• Create a version without the faction branding (having a faction-specific one is cool and that can go into GCE too, but it'd be good to have a generic one for everyone else)

 

[Gornn65]

I can try, although with the little space I have, once you separate the short and long from the bonuses, you now have to say "Long range bonus" and "short range bonus". So you have Short, Long, short bonus, long bonus, adding in 2 words to that line will make all the text a lot smaller.


For the symbol, that's just a filler, but as far as I could tell, it was just the generic symbol for Orks.
Although I see what you're saying now with muties and diggas. My mindset is that this is an Ork game, and dam the rest of the factions. . But I suppose I can remove it.

I'll update again later today.

 

[Flamekebab]

I can try, although with the little space I have, once you separate the short and long from the bonuses, you now have to say "Long range bonus" and "short range bonus". So you have Short, Long, short bonus, long bonus, adding in 2 words to that line will make all the text a lot smaller.


For the symbol, that's just a filler, but as far as I could tell, it was just the generic symbol for Orks.
Although I see what you're saying now with muties and diggas. My mindset is that this is an Ork game, and dam the rest of the factions. . But I suppose I can remove it.

I'll update again later today.

There's also a licencing element at play - where did you source the image from?

The good news is that I have basically all the glyphs redrawn with permissive licences (another thing I need to get around to publishing, argh!).

You okay with the standard Creative Commons licence that GCE uses for your roster?

 

[Gornn65]

There's also a licencing element at play - where did you source the image from?

Who even knows at this point, I likely pulled an image from somewhere and redrew it in illustrator, which I know doesn't make it copyright acceptable, so it's gone now.

You okay with the standard Creative Commons licence that GCE uses for your roster?

Yep totally fine.


letter

GCE-RosterCard-Letter.pdf

drive.google.com

a4

GCE-RosterCard-A4.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[Flamekebab]

This is fantastic!

I'm hoping to get the Digga faction pack update out the door today and then do a cumulative release for the last day of Orktober. With your rosters (and the templates - found 'em!) that's a complete package!

I'm rather excited, if I'm honest.

I have one question though - did you mean for one of the four cards (on the A4 one) to not have a label for its big box (as an alternative option, I'm assuming)?
Just want to check so that if it was unintentional it doesn't annoy you down the line

 

[Gornn65]

I have one question though - did you mean for one of the four cards (on the A4 one) to not have a label for its big box (as an alternative option, I'm assuming)?

Nope, that's just me accidentally deleting things.
I'll fix that after work and reupload... although I don't hate it without the title... but, I'll put it in on all 4.

Also, I have some (but not all) of those templates in STLs that I recreated, if you want those too?

Specifically, I have the flame template and the standard blast marker.
The rest could be made pretty easily although I don't know how that rat stinger template works.

I'll send links to those too later on and if you want to use em, then cool, if not, no biggie.

 

[Flamekebab]

Nope, that's just me accidentally deleting things.
I'll fix that after work and reupload... although I don't hate it without the title... but, I'll put it in on all 4.

Both are good so I thought it concievably was intentional - but I know it does my head in when I release something only to spot a typo later when I can't fix it. In face I just spotted one in the Gorker & Morker faction pack!

Also, I have some (but not all) of those templates in STLs that I recreated, if you want those too?

Specifically, I have the flame template and the standard blast marker.
The rest could be made pretty easily although I don't know how that rat stinger template works.

I'll send links to those too later on and if you want to use em, then cool, if not, no biggie.

Send 'em on over, always good to have options!

The Dust Rat stinger marker is simply a rectangle (4" x 1", I think) that stays on the board representing a spike strip,