List of questions for a future FAQ update

[Stoof]

The first rule should always be "to enjoy the hobby"

Welcome to the tribe! And good job on the translation.

Enjoyment is key - we play the game because we enjoy it and, if your group can mutually agree how various rules are to be interpreted, then that's great. It's what the group I play with has done, and we're enjoying it.

However, that does not immediately exonerate Games Workshop. They have released a premium product with a poorly written ruleset, which has been crudely cut up and badly edited. Games Workshop has realised that they need to try and tidy this mess up or more people will give up. People already have.

They could easily have said - "these are the rules, live with it". Many of their cusomers would promptly stop bothering with it, and within a few weeks there'd be an N17 Community Edidtion with the majority of problems fixed for the rest to play... no more money for GW, no more support. So they've produced a FAQ and asked for questions, because it keeps people engaged. And by God we'll ask them, because we love the game and the hobby. We want it to be successful, because success = more players, more models, more opportunities to play.

 

[cogetama]

What about disproportionaly over/underpriced weapons and items? With the grenade launcher they seem to have put their foot down in GW and GSC-Rules. As such it doesn't need an faq or errata as the rules for it are perfectly understandable. It is still absurdely inconsistent with general pricing. I don't have enough experience to point out other glarring pricing inconsistencies, but I'm pretty sure it is some consesus about which ones we need to keep pestering them.

And wasn't there consensus that the ganger advancement table has WS/BS and WP/I mixed up?

 

[Thorgor]

@cogetama :
I've indeed written a question about the grenade launcher's price in the OP (in the "Pricing" section towards the end) as it is the most glaring balance issue right now (aside from Toxin weapons being quite OP now.)

And you are correct that there is a community consensus about the ganger advancement table. I'd like to have them issue an official confirmation though.

 

[cogetama]

@cogetama :
I've indeed written a question about the grenade launcher's price in the OP (in the "Pricing" section towards the end) as it is the most glaring balance issue right now (aside from Toxin weapons being quite OP now.)

And you are correct that there is a community consensus about the ganger advancement table. I'd like to have them issue an official confirmation though.

My bad, I completely overlooked the "Pricing" part in the OP. Sorry.

 

[Cpt. Boriel]

Hey @Thorgor, have you sent in the email yet?

 

[Thorgor]

Hey @Thorgor, have you sent in the email yet?

Oh no, not yet. I'm still not sure I've gathered everything. Give me a few more days.

I feel like there needs to be a split here between people who want to balance the game for competitive play and people that are happy to enjoy the game with the extra rule "don't be a dick". I'm in the latter the category personally.

Most of the questions have nothing to do with balance. They are about clarifying the rules, correcting errors and clearing inconsistencies. No amount of sportsmanship will help you determine what the short range of a lasgun is supposed to be.
I get that you are happy with the rules a they stand, but you make it sound like trying to make GW answer those questions is somehow detrimental to your category. I can't see any downside to a clearer, better balanced ruleset. It benefits everyone.
Plus, as @Stoof already mentionned, GW is, literally, asking for it.

 

[Cpt. Boriel]

I'm up for clarifications. I just see a lot of people asking for balance changes disguised as clarifications. You're not one of them.

A little more common sense and a little less rules lawyering would be prudent is all I'm saying.

We will work on balancing the game after IP issues are resolved. Until then just clairify the rules as written

 

[Sindre]

I'm very happy with this list of questions. While I can enjoy the game and play with friends and agree on differences, I also would like to discuss problems and want a much clearer, consistent and less confusing rules from the game designers. One does not exclude the other.

 

[spafe]

If you want to make a set of Tournament rules do that

erm, I don't want to do anything of the sort*, but since GW themselves are running a tournament (https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/necromunda-gang-war-free-event/)... I bring you back to the... 'there are tournaments, this ruleset as it stands is a minefield for anyone running said tournament as it stands' issues.

That along with the crazy computer brain logic** that @Thorgor is taking to trying to organise these and highlight 'just those unclear issues, not going for any advantages' means, while I can't contribute any extra points at the moment, I am very glad this is happening and really do hope GW listens/takes on board the stuff here.

*well, I would like one available but am nowhere near capable of making one myself

**In the best possible way!

 

[cogetama]

Is it intentional that Hybrid Acolytes have a worse Will characteristic (7+) than Neophyte Hybrids (6+)? It would be more in line with the house gangs if these values would be switched.

 

[Thorgor]

crazy computer brain logic

"I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested."
Thanks for the compliment

Is it intentional that Hybrid Acolytes have a worse Will characteristic (7+) than Neophyte Hybrids (6+)? It would be more in line with the house gangs if these values would be switched.

That reminds me, wasn't there a similar issue with Escher?
Edit: Ah, yes, the Champions are more intelligent than the Leader. Will add both questions to the OP soon (as well as a few other points I've noted while re-reading the FAQ sticky)

 

[totgeboren]

Even if it looks good on paper for a beginner to have stuff like WS and BS be "4+" instead of "3" like before, I think it was without a doubt a mistake.
I mean, intuitively, if you get "+1" to hit, and you hit on a "4+", should you not be at "5+" to hit? Nope, for shooting, 4+1=3 in Necromunda now.
Getting +1 to M/T/S/W/A is good, but a buff to WS/BS/I and the mental characteristics is a minus (except for shooting modifiers when you still want + modifiers, since in that case you use plus as minus).
Not even the designers can manage to keep the plus and minus and exceptions straight. I got the damage result "Humiliated" on a dude, and did as instructed, and "decreased" the models Ld and CL by 1. Then, during the next game, I had to take a test and realized that reducing a 7 to a 6 was actually an improvement, it should have been increased to 8.
I guess a FAQ is not needed, since decreasing 7+ means you end up at 8+ if you know how the rules work. But the profiles for some of the Escher and GSC fighters obviously have some situations where a + ended up as a - due to the convoluted system they used for characteristics.

A bit off topic, I understand the armchair reasoning behind it, but in practice it massively more complicated to deal with instead of just having + be good and - be bad.

 

[Trafalgar Law]

I agree with that comment. I prefer straight stats, it's not as if the maths and tables were ever complicated. It also means you can't have opposed rolls such as for WS. I think they tried to fix the confusing +/- issue by saying it's now added or subtracted to the dice roll, which clearly doesn't work for the humiliated result (I wonder if they originally started with the normal stats and then changed it at some point?).

 

[spafe]

Yeah... it's part of the muddled design process.

I think in 40k they have avoided these issues because it is spelt out that you modify the dice score... then compare againts the required number. But somewhere this has got more complex when doing a similar adaptation for necromunda

 

[Thorgor]

I think the easiest way to do it is to have the characteristic be a value that you must roll under to succeed. IIRC, this is how Leadership used to work in Oldhammer. The only problem with this is that GW players are used to a "higher is better" philosophy for dice rolls.

 

[Cpt. Boriel]

Yeah they changed the system to make it easier for New players to pick up and run with. But the change ruined the old system of ‘higher stats are better stats’. This makes advancements and injuries much more convoluted that ever.

 

[Jacob Dryearth]

Even if it looks good on paper for a beginner to have stuff like WS and BS be "4+" instead of "3" like before, I think it was without a doubt a mistake.
I mean, intuitively, if you get "+1" to hit, and you hit on a "4+", should you not be at "5+" to hit? Nope, for shooting, 4+1=3 in Necromunda now.
Getting +1 to M/T/S/W/A is good, but a buff to WS/BS/I and the mental characteristics is a minus (except for shooting modifiers when you still want + modifiers, since in that case you use plus as minus).
Not even the designers can manage to keep the plus and minus and exceptions straight. I got the damage result "Humiliated" on a dude, and did as instructed, and "decreased" the models Ld and CL by 1. Then, during the next game, I had to take a test and realized that reducing a 7 to a 6 was actually an improvement, it should have been increased to 8.
I guess a FAQ is not needed, since decreasing 7+ means you end up at 8+ if you know how the rules work. But the profiles for some of the Escher and GSC fighters obviously have some situations where a + ended up as a - due to the convoluted system they used for characteristics.

A bit off topic, I understand the armchair reasoning behind it, but in practice it massively more complicated to deal with instead of just having + be good and - be bad.

The book does specifically call out the differences between applying modifiers for numerical and target number characteristics. Also the advance table differentiates them by saying to "increase" numerical characteristics, and "improve" target characteristics. I know that's subtle, could be called out better, a paragraph in the advancement section would do the trick.

But... while looking that up I did notice that the paragraph on characteristic tests only makes mention of testing target values like WS and Intelligence, but the Rescue scenario requires a Strength test, which I can't find a rule of how to perform...

Now logically I know a Strength test as a success if you roll equal or under Strength on a d6, but only because I've played 1st edition Necromunda.

 

[Thorgor]

It's true that the rules from UH p37 are unambiguous as to how Characteristics are modified by bonuses. It may not be the most intuitive system, but it works as intended.

But... while looking that up I did notice that the paragraph on characteristic tests only makes mention of testing target values like WS and Intelligence, but the Rescue scenario requires a Strength test, which I can't find a rule of how to perform...

Good catch! I'm adding it to the list.

 

[Jacob Dryearth]

Just make sure I'm not missing it, that was just from my cursory research with the transcript, not my actual books.

 

[Thorgor]

Just make sure I'm not missing it, that was just from my cursory research with the transcript, not my actual books.

That I did. Underhive has a section on Characteristics checks (p43) but only mentions WS, BS, I, Ld, Cl, Wil and Int.


Okay! I think I'm finally done.
Would somebody be so nice and provide a bit of proofreading/spellchecking before I send the list to Geedubs? QA for the QA god!
Also, if you have any question I missed, there is still time to add it!