INQUISIMUNDA v2.0 - Races & Species

[ewanwalker2001]

Probably a bit late but I feel the fluff should always be considered and should, in certain cases, over-rule the overzealousness of players.

What I mean by that is that although the vast majority of the group seem to want Ogryns to be "normal" sized targets, they are in fact by fluff and by 40k's own rules, large creatures. They are around 3 metres tall and can take hits that would kill an ordinary guardsman several times over. In current edition Ogryns are "Very Bulky".

Just because, for whatever reason, players WANT Ogryns to be normal-sized, doesn't mean it's right, or it should be that way; personally I would always question the motives behind their reasoning.

Imagine the scenarios in game; "That counts as partial cover for my Ganger so it should also be partial for my Ogryn since he isn't a 'large target'..."

If players feel that the +1 to hit for Ogryns being a Large Target is excessive then there are two ways to deal with it.

1:- Remove it, completely ignoring fluff, the spirit of the game and Rules as Intended.

Or

2:- Adjust something else with Ogryns to balance the Large Target rule.

The second option is more hard work but it IS the right thing to do.

I can also imagine the can of worms this could open in future as more Race options are added.

"My Tyranid Warrior is not that much bigger than an Ogryn, why should it suffer from the Large Target rule and Ogryns don't?" "My Juggernaut of Khorne..." "My Obliterator..." "Chaos Spawn..." etc etc

Whatever decision made now has got to consider anything added in the future so as to minimise the disruptive changes that could occur if a new sweeping change is introduced because we made the wrong one decision now... (Say that three times fast )

 

[Mymearan]

The Very Bulky doesn't make them easier to hit though. Anyway, looking at the AdMech warband, Scyllax and Thallax are Bulky, and they're actually smaller than Ogryn. So from that perspective, it makes sense that Ogryn would be Bulky as well. On the other hand, I don't know if I like the Bulky rule at all, since it isn't in NCE, nor in 40K or anything else. It's not even in 2nd ed as far as I know? An Ogryn might be 3m tall, but he's not a huge, towering monstrosity. Neither are Thallax and Scyllax. I doubt they would be that much easier to hit, especially from long range.

Anyway, it's too late to remove the Bulky rule for 2.0. And that being the case, I see no other option than to also make Ogryns Bulky, like other large creatures. We can revise it if needed in 2.1.

 

[Wakoun]

Well, if you're in a back alley, an Ogryn is certainly much easier to hit than a skinny juve [emoji28]

 

[Aenarel]

. On the other hand, I don't know if I like the Bulky rule at all, since it isn't in NCE, nor in 40K or anything else

There actually is a Bulky (and Very Bulky) rule in 40k, Ogryns count as 3 models when they want to get in a transport. And Battle/Mordheim already have the +1 to hit large targets.

Personnaly I'm not really shocked by an ogryn being easier to hit than regular humans, I'm not experimented in Necro/Inquisimunda though.

 

[ewanwalker2001]

Ah, so the issue might actually stem from the large target rule and its definition and whether Ogryns would qualify mechanically as opposed to fluffy.

The wording I have in my NCE is that a Large target is 2 inches tall OR wide. I don't possess an Ogryn model but my Tyranid Warrior would just about qualify. Just. They're about an inch and 5/6 tall.

It seems that the intention behind the Large Target rule is that it is to be used for things other gang models. (I'd question whether there's much point in actually having a Large Target rule in that case but that's a whole other topic..)

Still if I had Bautista running at me or my kid brother I know which one I'd have a better chance of hitting... Hehe.

A discussion for 2.1 then. And I'd guess I'd agree with other players about Ogryns but only if similar creatures that are added in future share that same agreement.

I still think there's a place for the Bulky creature rule so it shouldn't be curtailed altogether but a consensus needs to be reached as to how a creature qualifies for it.

 

[oGRE3]

remember, guys: it's true, an ogryn is easier to hit than a average ganger but in this game we use d6, so a ¹/6 bonus to hit is a huge benefit for the shooter and a big issue for the ogryn.
it's also true that an advanced ogryn, maybe with the juggernaut skill, is a real pain in the ass if you haven't a meltagun or similar can-opener at hand.
so, IMHO, I think the +1 to hit and a point correction are ok.

Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

 

[Matelloco]

Perhaps in between, we could remove the +1 to hit & add the juggernault skill for Ogryns & Slyth. Thus point increase incoming

 

[Mymearan]

If we do that we have to do the same for other Bulky stuff like AdMech Constructs though. That's why I think it's easier to save the debate until 2.1. Maybe that's what you meant

 

[Aenarel]

Imo the real question is : are ogryns bad with the current rules and aren't worth the points you put into it? And if it is the case ,is the +1 to hit the main offender with making them too easy to take down frome a safe distance or is there another problem with the Ogryn (not enough impact in close combat, too slow, I dunno....)?

I think debuff rule like that are interesting on such models since it gives them some form of weakness and give more relief to something that is just a big pack of stats/points otherwise.

 

[jonbo]

Forgive me for coming late to the conversation here. I've just been trying to scan through the current drafts of the Inquisimunda project (I'm assuming compendium 2.2?). I notice there are some rather obvious omissions for the xenos species from Rogue Trader era- namely zoats and slann, and also to a lesser extent, piscean warriors. Is it anticipated that these will be included? Zoats and Slann in particular have a lot of resonance for players such as myself who are using Inquisimunda with their old model collections

 

[Matelloco]

Currently no, they are not included and will not be in 2.0, as we felt that people that own such models are very very few.

On the other hand, if you really want them in, we could store your idea for 2.1.

 

[jonbo]

Currently no, they are not included and will not be in 2.0, as we felt that people that own such models are very very few.

On the other hand, if you really want them in, we could store your idea for 2.1.

That's a shame, as there's a strong interest in Inquisimunda with the Oldhammer crowd, looking for streamlined alternatives to Rogue Trader. I am currently in an Inqisimunda campaign with a dozen gamers who collect old Citadel...all of which I suspect have zoats, slann, or both. I ran a game at the Oldhammer Bring Out Your Lead weekend recently and sent away 8 guys keen to start campaigns with their gaming groups.

Given that they are both relatively accessible on ebay if you're happy to spend £15-20, or pretty straightforward to convert (dragon ogre > zoat, fantasy football frogmen or Ral Partha Phroggs > slann) and they fit nicely with the ethos of the game, I'd love to see them included. After all, there's no Hrud, Loxatl or Tarrellian models...but they're in

I'll draft some points / rules for consideration

 

[baldrick]

Hi folks, I asked about this on the main thread but never got an answer - why the stat change for beastmen? 1.3 had the same stats for beastmen as in 2nd ed 40k and as in necromunda. I imagine the new points are fair, but using the system used for other races, couldn't we have given them a fair cost with the original stats?

It seemed extremely arbitrary and I can't find any discussion about it anywhere.

 

[andrewgpaul]

I don't think Ogryns should count as Large Targets in Inquisimunda. Yes, they're larger than humans, but this is already accounted for in the rules; by the very size of the miniature, it will be harder for an Ogryn to benefit from cover modifiers than for human-sized models.

Imagine the scenarios in game; "That counts as partial cover for my Ganger so it should also be partial for my Ogryn since he isn't a 'large target'..."

That scenario is simply solved by pointing out it's wrong. cover is calculated on a model-by-model basis. It's already the case that items of terrain could provide cover to an Escher juve miniature but only partial cover to a Goliath ganger, and no-one would claim that the latter is a large target (or the former is a small target).

The 2nd edition 40k rules (which is always my first port of call when introducing things from the wider 40k setting into Necromunda) specify that the Large Target modfieiers apply to "a large vehicle like a Land Raider (but not bikes, dreadnoughts, land speeders, etc)...", and an Ogryn is smaller than a dreadnought or a land speeder. Even the 1st edition models, which is what those rules had in mind when they were written.

That's a shame, as there's a strong interest in Inquisimunda with the Oldhammer crowd, looking for streamlined alternatives to Rogue Trader. I am currently in an Inqisimunda campaign with a dozen gamers who collect old Citadel...all of which I suspect have zoats, slann, or both. I ran a game at the Oldhammer Bring Out Your Lead weekend recently and sent away 8 guys keen to start campaigns with their gaming groups.

Given that they are both relatively accessible on ebay if you're happy to spend £15-20, or pretty straightforward to convert (dragon ogre > zoat, fantasy football frogmen or Ral Partha Phroggs > slann) and they fit nicely with the ethos of the game, I'd love to see them included. After all, there's no Hrud, Loxatl or Tarrellian models...but they're in

I'll draft some points / rules for consideration

Maybe it's time for a "Roguemunda" supplement, alongside Inquisimunda? It could include Zoats (and grabber-slashers), Slann warbands, Squats and all the other things that didn't make it past 1993.

Funnily enough, it's easier to port Zoats into current 40k than it is into 2nd; just count them as Tyrant Guard.

 

[Matelloco]

Hi folks, I asked about this on the main thread but never got an answer - why the stat change for beastmen? 1.3 had the same stats for beastmen as in 2nd ed 40k and as in necromunda. I imagine the new points are fair, but using the system used for other races, couldn't we have given them a fair cost with the original stats?

It seemed extremely arbitrary and I can't find any discussion about it anywhere.

I had to readjust to make them more aligned for balance purposes. I do agree though they could use a little buff, but no ones plays chaos in my campaigns

 

[Matelloco]

I don't think Ogryns should count as Large Targets in Inquisimunda. Yes, they're larger than humans, but this is already accounted for in the rules; by the very size of the miniature, it will be harder for an Ogryn to benefit from cover modifiers than for human-sized models.



That scenario is simply solved by pointing out it's wrong. cover is calculated on a model-by-model basis. It's already the case that items of terrain could provide cover to an Escher juve miniature but only partial cover to a Goliath ganger, and no-one would claim that the latter is a large target (or the former is a small target).

The 2nd edition 40k rules (which is always my first port of call when introducing things from the wider 40k setting into Necromunda) specify that the Large Target modfieiers apply to "a large vehicle like a Land Raider (but not bikes, dreadnoughts, land speeders, etc)...", and an Ogryn is smaller than a dreadnought or a land speeder. Even the 1st edition models, which is what those rules had in mind when they were written.



Maybe it's time for a "Roguemunda" supplement, alongside Inquisimunda? It could include Zoats (and grabber-slashers), Slann warbands, Squats and all the other things that didn't make it past 1993.

Funnily enough, it's easier to port Zoats into current 40k than it is into 2nd; just count them as Tyrant Guard.

Drop the stats & special rules & I will cost them

 

[scavvyjay]

Perhaps in between, we could remove the +1 to hit & add the juggernault skill for Ogryns & Slyth. Thus point increase incoming

I think just adding the juggernaut skill will offset the +1 to hit. If you take away the +1 and then give them the Juggernaut skill it could make them very scary. By giving them the skill you don't have to worry about the large target debate and it is very much in keeping with the idea that an Ogryn takes a lot of punishment before being taken down.

Maybe it's time for a "Roguemunda" supplement, alongside Inquisimunda? It could include Zoats (and grabber-slashers), Slann warbands, Squats and all the other things that didn't make it past 1993.

I don't think there's a need for another supplement, just add these to the existing ruleset.

 

[andrewgpaul]

I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but to be serious, I suggested it because Inquisimunda isn't quite scratching the itch I hoped it would. I was hoping for a small-unit skirmish version of 40k 2nd edition, but in the interests of game balance, Inquisimunda has toned down the power level of individuals so as to avoid overloading the experience system.

Still, I'm too lazy to actually do the work on something like that at the moment, and it's off-topic for this discussion, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[scavvyjay]

Ah, I see. There are a lot of posts that seem serious but in truth aren't and my *tongue-in-cheek-odometer must need to be calibrated. I love Rogue Trader and I thought Inquisimunda was the closest thing to it. My ideal game would be Rogue Trader ethos, Necromunda close combat and a good vehicle ruleset.


*This is not a real thing.

 

[Vladvar]

Hello, I'm quite new to the forum (but have been playing Necromunda on and off since the game was released) and about to take part in my first Necromunda Campaign for some time. First phase was with your standard NEC rules set, I'm joining in at phase 2 that now includes the NEC Outlanders add on. I'm already looking ahead to the 3rd phase to, as it will be using Inquisimunda.

So I have a couple of questions.

I have rules v1.3 of Inquisimunda and just downloaded v2.01 and I noticed that the extra Allies/Hired Guns have been removed as has he Genestealer cult rules. Will these be added back in at any point in the future.

Second question is I see that Ad Mech Explorator have been updated a bit, including Sicarian Infiltrators, but the weapons list is missing the weapons in the 40k ad mech codecs such as the Galvanic Rifle, Radium Carbine/pistol, Arc Weapons, electro priest's weapons. Any plans to add these in the future also?