N18 Just about done...

Scabs

Gang Champion
Feb 4, 2014
325
410
73
San Diego. CA, USA
The issue with all of that is that Van Saar can start adding Oculars, energy shields, and cheap Plasma and Melta weapons from the beginning, with very little need for money, using only House of Artifice, while the lesser gangs are still struggling to raise enough cash to improve their armour and maybe get to use some of the chem-alchemy that they're supposed to be good at.

I do blame the game because the match-ups are unfair, because the 'House of...' books were written to give each gang their own character, but with no thought put into how they would play against each other, because the rules for blasts make cover and line-of-sight irrelevant, and because so many rules make no sense and need to be worked out by the players. The models are lovely, but aside from that all that the game has going for it is the legacy of being called 'Necromunda'. If it didn't have the name and the GW logo to carry it, no self-respecting company would even publish it in such a state.

Also, you don't have to agree with me of course, but please do not belittle me and kindly do not 'c'mon man' me. It's patronising.
"C'mon, man," means have a little faith. In yourself. You got this!

I (we) know the game is fun. The setting is great. The components are greater. The game is not balanced, it's not meant to be. The House gangs are close enough. VS don't dominate in Zone Mortalis and Goliath don't own Sector Mech. There are always "better games" out there. Some even last a year or two. GW has a big advantage with market share and lot's of gamers. Those are value added for gamers. That said, not all gamers or groups are created equal.

Don't like the game? That's all good. It is! In my experience, more don't than do. But make sure you don't like it for the right reasons.

And, thanks for letting me know you didn't like something I wrote. I did not intend it that way. C'mon, man, I'm here for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willnox

Heart of Storm

Gang Hero
Mar 8, 2019
621
875
103
I agree, the game is a hot mess.

The House books sadly missed the opportunity to rebalance gangs by a country mile, basically doubling down on everything that made the good gangs good.
To be fair, that horse bolted when they chose to give Van Saar champions and leaders a 2+ BS in the first place.

Come the "House of" books, they were hardly going to sell a load of copies if all they offered was a flat nerf - a reduction in stats or increase in costs (which is what Van Saar needed).

As it stands I'd argue Van Saars "House of.." books is the one that offers the least useful extra rules to the gang, their extra skill set is garbage, their specialist champion and prospects are pretty niche, the only real game changer was their juves getting basic weapon access.

So in that regard I do think the "House of..." books have tried to achieve some level of rebalancing.. Orlock and Escher both got stronger with their books, and hopefully Cawdor and Delaque will similarly benefit.

Back to the OPs problem - this is just symptomatic of the campaign system, where the game isn't balanced for late campaign play, and there are some set ups (fast shot, suspensor, multimelta) which are just plain obnoxious to deal with.

Campaigns benefit from an arbitrator that can help introduce narrative elements that to combat things that unbalance the campaign, one gang snowballing, lucky dice rolls on mission rewards leading to getting end-game gear too quick, "that guy," etc

Failing that, open discussion amongst players about what is/isn't fun for them also works, assuming everyone's open to the conversation.
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,574
2,051
128
Bristol, UK
I agree that a lot of Van Saars special rules are very lame on HoA, but their gained a lot from mundane stuff.
Juves getting lasguns allows them to field what are essentially better versions of everyone else's gangers for a noticeable discount. Van Saar can now outnumber people in a gun line if they want.
Additionally, they now get almost half price access to infrasights, and using their ocular they can get infrasights on any gun. Van Saar now have even easier access to hard counter smoke and cover!

Goliaths are a similar story. T4 was very strong, what did they need? Cheap T5 and discount access to armour!

Taking the shortsighted approach to sell books now, rather than lookout for the health of the game is a big problem with what's causing thr issues with Necromunda. New content is lazily slapped on with no consideration of how it interacts with other rules or affects the overall game.
 

boatie

Ganger
Jun 15, 2019
59
49
28
We had a campaign that started on 2,000 credits per gang, but each week you had to both attack and defend, and had to split your gang between the two. It gave us a bit of a chance to experiment with lots of different builds, but then if your opponent had one very nasty dude that wasn't fun to play, at least they were only in half the fights. We had to do some extra rulings to make it work, but it's proven fun.

Within the first downtime one gang stripped ahead, and was almost up to 3,000 credits straight away. So we let the other gangs hit a soft reset if they wanted - bin the old gang and create a new one with a 3,000 credit value. Very group dependent, ours was much more in the fun-having rather than WAAC mentality, so the one who was ahead didn't mind giving up the advantage.

It might be worth chatting to your arbitrator about something similar. If you took all that you know at this stage and recreated a fresh gang with 3,425 value, would it be more competitive? Would it be fun to make one that worked more in the way that you want? If you were allowed to do that at each downtime would it make losses bite less, and the whole experience more enjoyable?
 

MusingWarboss

Hive Guilder
Oct 31, 2013
2,399
5,649
193
bin the old gang and create a new one with a 3,000 credit value.
While that’s an interesting approach to the issue in campaigns, it does sound rather like you’re playing a series of skirmishes, rather than a true campaign if everyone who isn’t the top scorer gets to reset their gang to the same value as the top scorer of the last game.

There’s literally no advancement opportunities there at all.

You may as well have:
Game one: 500 creds
Game two: 1000 creds
Game three: 1500 creds
Etc.
 

boatie

Ganger
Jun 15, 2019
59
49
28
While that’s an interesting approach to the issue in campaigns, it does sound rather like you’re playing a series of skirmishes, rather than a true campaign if everyone who isn’t the top scorer gets to reset their gang to the same value as the top scorer of the last game.

There’s literally no advancement opportunities there at all.

You may as well have:
Game one: 500 creds
Game two: 1000 creds
Game three: 1500 creds
Etc.
I see your point - it's perhaps not as widespread as it sounded. We offered it to players who had fallen so far behind that they were despondent, and it reinvigorated their enthusiasm for the game. The 'winner' got to keep their existing advancements, which rewarded them for prior success, and the 'loser' ended up with a fresh gang - no advancements, but still more able to face off against the previous winner than they were in reality.

As always, YMMV as to how appealing it is. In retrospect we perhaps should have given the 'loser' a slightly smaller budget than the top dog, since they were able to craft a perfect counter to the dominant meta. That was fun for us as it shook things up, but the previous 'winner' did lose their position at the top quite quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MusingWarboss

Scabs

Gang Champion
Feb 4, 2014
325
410
73
San Diego. CA, USA
Some scenarios have windfall profits. We avoid those. For all the reasons y'all expressed.

We've let the Outlaw Trading Post run amok. Once.

We discourage gaming the game. It is not designed to prohibit exploiting every rule. It would be a lot less fun if it was. And much more sterile. As it is, it is impossible to police everything. Folks gotta get onboard with that. Or, it just don't work so good.

If you never lose, you are playing the game wrong. You aren't playing the campaign the way everyone else is. We had a guy we all liked who got great joy out of exploiting and maximizing and bending every rule. Like, you always knew how he would place tiles to his advantage. Always. We never stopped him. Our bad.

He never got invited to play no more. If he started his own WAAC campaign, I'd play. I love this game! But, no one else would.
 

MusingWarboss

Hive Guilder
Oct 31, 2013
2,399
5,649
193
If he started his own WAAC campaign, I'd play. I love this game!
I hate it when people start WAAC-ing away when everyone else is trying to have a friendly game.

If he despatealy needs a WAAC he can do it in his own time. 😉
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,574
2,051
128
Bristol, UK
It's a fine line to tread.

It's a wargame so taking good gear is always going to be a part of it. Some people naturally just have different levels of where normal/sensible optimisation of choices becomes excessive WAAC.

Take placing Zone Mortalis tiles for example, I always try and lay tiles to encourage ranges of engagement that suit me. Where I draw the line is placing death fungus on top of the objective my opponent needs to reach.
I know other people view placing said death fungus was just part of the game and functionally/ethically no different to what I was doing.

So I definitely don't think people are bad for having their bar as more competitive, and I DEFINITELY don't think they should be cut out, at least not before having a discussion with them.
IMO that's actually quite cruel.