N18 House of Blades (General discussion)

[MusingWarboss]

And I'd say those rules encourage you to outfit your guys thematically from their house lists rather than a naked start before hitting the trading post, but that's up to you.

They might do now but back in the early days there were huge conversations on this topic.

Remember the mini-lists for each fighter type is a new thing from HoC onwards. Prior to that people were wanting to load, say Juves, with pistols not on their House list. Because they could. Now they can’t.

 

[enyoss]

Yeah that's what others referred to as 'cynical'.

To be honest, I’d say it’s only cynical if you do what you said before - turn up to game one and throw it ASAP by sending some unarmed juve to go OOA so you can bottle.

Keeping some money aside to buy stuff after the first game, but otherwise playing normally and with a normal gang in that first game, isn’t that bad. You’ll probably pick up a few injuries for your plan, but that’s just how it goes.

As for gangs starting with brutes, is this that bad? Yes, I think so, because they’re pretty unbalanced. That’s a bigger issue though I guess. Without changing their points or gang rating, and focusing on this specific access issue, I’d prefer brutes to require rep 5 or more, which gets round the whole first game issue you describe above.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Keeping some money aside to buy stuff after the first game, but otherwise playing normally and with a normal gang in that first game, isn’t that bad. You’ll probably pick up a few injuries for your plan, but that’s just how it goes.

I'm not 16 anymore, not spoiled having 2 game nights per week. Real life takes up most of my time, and the little game time I got left is not going to be wasted on grinding miniature games, useless games or a hopeless first battle like you describe. What's cynical is rules written in such a way that we're having this discussion in the first place. That doesn't happen for other games, one could wonder why.

 

[Jam Warrior]

You need to pick one or the other really.

Either accept that the rules aren’t designed for you to start with things outside your house list and instead extra stuff should trickle in during the campaign, or house rule allowing the brute/trading post etc purchases from the start.

Loopholing the system by gimping your first game until you can go to the shop is just a bit silly in my opinion.

 

[Smigs]

What's cynical is rules written in such a way that we're having this discussion in the first place. That doesn't happen for other games, one could wonder why.

I can't think of a lot of other campaign games I've played where starting with the big stuff is normal...
outside of GW... (Company of Iron, Star/FrostGrave, gangs of rome...) Judge Dredd is the only one that comes to mind.. and even that, you pay a heavy toll to do. . .
unlike you, I like the campaign to build up a story, even though I only get a couple game nights a month...
but again, there are also rules for "one off, experienced gangs battling" ... alas, in my experience, it becomes "minmax away!" because people want to try out the combos they'd never pull off in a campaign...

 

[TopsyKretts]

unlike you, I like the campaign to build up a story

I advocated for rules that wouldn't encourage loopholes. Tried Mordheim? This situation doesn't happen there. As I remember, it was the opposite - you could purchase certain items with a discount before the first game, but pay full cost after. Blood Bowl? You can start with ogryns if you want. Is your argument that starting with an ogryn means you don't like to build up a story? I'm having a hard time understanding the arguments here.

 

[EAfirstlast]

The problem with that attitude is that nobody can agree what sits in what category.

This doesn't matter over all, because the people who have to agree is the group you play with, and agree only in so far as they are willing to play with an arbitrator's house rules as opposed to not playing at all.

 

[irishwizz]

I did not mean to cause a schism

 

[enyoss]

I advocated for rules that wouldn't encourage loopholes. Tried Mordheim? This situation doesn't happen there. As I remember, it was the opposite - you could purchase certain items with a discount before the first game, but pay full cost after. Blood Bowl? You can start with ogryns if you want. Is your argument that starting with an ogryn means you don't like to build up a story? I'm having a hard time understanding the arguments here.

Dangerous terrain bringing blood bowl into this as I’d say it has no deep narrative anyway . Just to stoke the fire in that never ending war

Edit: should point out this is a very tongue in cheek comment at the pitched battles we see between the fan bases for these games in our club

 

[enyoss]

I did not mean to cause a schism

I remember seeing a very similar comment on warseer years ago about the schism between the churches of 40k and Warhammer fantasy - it now seems quite quaint that our bickering could ever have been aligned on a perspective outside the minutiae of a single gaming system Oh for simpler times.

Seriously though, all this discussion is a great example why the NCE was organised (and maybe still is?... I’ve fallen out of orbit a bit) by one person. The community is a collection of different viewpoints, but rarely do they all align. In truth, anyone who puts the effort in to modify or adjust rules to improve the game in some way, and puts it out there for others to benefit from, is doing a great service to the community. But you’ll never please everyone in it, and I guess that’s not the point anyway. I try to improve and tweak N18 for my own gaming group and it’s hard enough pleasing 10 people in a campaign, never mind the whole N18 mob.

And it’s a hard job which is 100% voluntary and shouldn’t really require justification of the whys or wherefores stuff was done, it just was. And the fact some people will like those changes and either play them as is or use as inspiration for their own adjustments, is kind of cool.

Now, that said, who’s with me to go and burn down that uppity Church of Brutists over there?

 

[Smigs]

I advocated for rules that wouldn't encourage loopholes. Tried Mordheim? This situation doesn't happen there. As I remember, it was the opposite - you could purchase certain items with a discount before the first game, but pay full cost after. Blood Bowl? You can start with ogryns if you want. Is your argument that starting with an ogryn means you don't like to build up a story? I'm having a hard time understanding the arguments here.

Way to cherry pick a partial sentence.

But yes, I have played mordheim and have seen how a group starting with say.. shadow warriors to start does cripple gameplay for the other players.

Bloodbowl, yeah that's a different beast, and yes, allowing players to buy up star players at the start also can throw off a league, theres a reason they give "tiers" for the teams..
But it brings a good point.

Bloodbowl, when it happens, has a clear mission objective that everyone purpose builds for..

Necro and mordheim, do not.
A brute in a breakthrough or looting mission might have no impact,
But cripple the unprepared gang in something like king of the hill..
Just how knowing what kind of battle fields will be common can affect gang builds...

So as many have pointed out, this is really a "discuss with the arbiter" thing.

 

[JezzaC]

why not just have the money set aside, then buy the brute after game 1?
if you're doing a one-off skirmish, there are different rules, so getting the brute isn't a problem,
if it's a campaign, you take one rough game, use your underdog status to pick a scenario with a low model count, and buy the big dog after...

Most gamers I know have limited gaming time, maybe being able to play once a week or once every couple of weeks. The idea that you'd waste not just your limited gaming time but also your opponent's, just to meet the technicality of a rules interpretation seems really wrong headed to me.

I honestly don't mind whether gangs are allowed to start with brutes or not. But any solution that ends with me turning up for a game, setting up, shaking hands, moving my fighters for one turn only for my opponent to declare he's bottling is a bad solution.

 

[Smigs]

Most gamers I know have limited gaming time, maybe being able to play once a week or once every couple of weeks. The idea that you'd waste not just your limited gaming time but also your opponent's, just to meet the technicality of a rules interpretation seems really wrong headed to me.

I honestly don't mind whether gangs are allowed to start with brutes or not. But any solution that ends with me turning up for a game, setting up, shaking hands, moving my fighters for one turn only for my opponent to declare he's bottling is a bad solution.

Why does everyone assume "bottle" ...
Have y'all never fought as the underdog?
Or picked a scenario that wasn't "run all yer doodz"

Your points dont have to be evenly matched to put on a good showing...

 

[Jacob Dryearth]

Would anyone actually do that though? You’d have to be pretty cynical

I get trying to remove restrictions which attempt to ineffectually railroad players one way or another. But I reckon you’d have way more non-cynical players starting out with brutes this way - maybe not a bad thing, but brutes are definitely unbalanced, so probably not a good thing either.

Edit: FWIW, brutes should contribute about double what they currently do to gang rating. That’s the bigger travesty!

I just remove restrictions on Common Pistols, CCWs, and Basic weapons at gang founding so people can us classic models. Easy fix, very common house rule, no reason to worry about balance or get mad at anyone, everyone gets what they want.

 

[almic85]

I find the non-access to the trading post at gang start such an odd argument.

If you want the gangs to all be brand spanking new gangs setting out then follow the house list.

If you want the gangs to have some sort of established “lived in” lore then start the gang as if it has already played a game, so it has access to everything that would be freely available after the first game.