• YakTribe will be migrated to a new server on Monday night, April 12th after 2am GMT and should be available on Tuesday morning.

N18 Merging excess melee weapons

KA7777

Gang Champion
Jan 19, 2018
276
335
68
Canada
Is it? When the CGC kit was released, some players asked what part they should use to represent the Chain Cleaver and the Heavy Chain Cleaver because they didn't want to 'get it wrong' (like the official book did, incidently). Some players just need everything to be strictly WYSIWYG and it's easier in a game like Frostgrave where an 'man-at-arms' is carrying a 'hand weapon' than in Necromunda where what looks like a Chain axe can actually be one of three different weapons.

I'll admit that some of my points may ultimately come down to personal preference. 'Sprawling' really does nothing for me.
^ This is a much more nuanced explanation than the previous one. But WYSIWYG is a cultural/local consideration. And any adherence to WYSIWYG begins to "limit modelling opportunities."

But at the end of the day, if Game A contains only a chain axe, and Game B contains a chain axe and a chain cleaver, Conversions X, Y, and Z (used to represent a chain axe in Game A) can still represent a chain axe in Game B. They may also be suitable to represent a chain cleaver in Game B, at the player's discretion. But there's no additional modelling imitation in Game B whatsoever.
 

KA7777

Gang Champion
Jan 19, 2018
276
335
68
Canada
Also, fwiw my own tolerance for "sprawl" is very selective.

Huge armouries? Love it
The fact that there's 3 (?) versions of campaign to play? Not a fan
 

MrAndersson

Gang Hero
Sep 18, 2018
585
398
68
Halmstad, Sweden
I can give you a few reasons why bloat such sucks from a design stand point
To me, your first point is a non issue. I have never seen a wide range of options as a bad thing. I guess there are people who get blinded by too many choices, but that's not me. Of course, if power level differs to the point of creating "traps", then that could be a bad thing. But in my opinion, that is an argument for better balance, not fewer choices.

The second and third points are legitimate issues. But I think there are fairly easy solutions to them. Just copy the weapon stat lines to the fighter cards, or print out a summary of all weapons in your gang, and you won't have to memorize anything.

The fourth point obviously varies depending on group. If your arbitrator is the soup nazi, then I can understand the problem.


I would love to get my hands on a transmembranic eviscerator, by the way.
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,197
1,571
128
Bristol, UK
I totally agree with Thorgor here.

Bloat is bad. I come to play a game, every time I have to pause the game to look up a statline that's a grinding of the gears that lowers overall enjoyment.
Is it a minor issue? Mostly, yes. But what's the benefit of this? I don't see any value in too many options.
Indeed, many studies have shown people are happiest with their choice when only presented with a few options.
 

KA7777

Gang Champion
Jan 19, 2018
276
335
68
Canada
I come to play a game, every time I have to pause the game to look up a statline that's a grinding of the gears that lowers overall enjoyment.
Is it a minor issue? Mostly, yes.
Again, I think this is a very idealized complaint, completely divorced from the reality of playing a game of Necromunda (and therefore less "mostly a minor issue" than it is "so minor issue that it's not worth addressing").

1) There will usually be 10-15 fighters in your opponent's gang, and the majority of those fighters will probably be wielding weapons you're familiar with. Even an opponent who loves to dip into obscure weapons probably won't be fielding more than a handful, due to cost and availability.

2) Since most people play campaigns, and most campaigns involve a small-ish number of players, you will only come up against a "new" statline the first time you play somebody. If you are as thorough about memorization as you project yourself being, you will memorize the statline in that game.

3) Describing glancing at a fighter card/roster sheet as "pausing the game" is an enormous exaggeration
 
  • Like
Reactions: BearsWillEatYou

JayTee

Ganger
Jun 14, 2015
139
258
63
~8 pages of A4 will print out the entire armoury

Your opponent should have all relevant stats on his fighter card anyway. Since I often need to check fighter cards to see which dude is carrying Blasting charges, or which mook has the -1T injury, briefly confirming that his Autopistol has Manstopper rounds which means it's S4 not S3 is hardly laborious.
 

JayTee

Ganger
Jun 14, 2015
139
258
63
And I enjoyed 40k 2nd Edition where the wargear book is 78 pages including multiple weapons that take 2 pages themselves 🤷‍♂️

EDIT: I should clarify, I like the diversity; I don't find it a problem having lots of different weapons, there's probably a point where I'd get annoyed by having too many but I've yet to reach that. Plus I have an arcane ability to remember stuff like the stats on weapons, I can probably quote verbatim the stats of the 40k 2nd Edition weapons. Can't remember half my degree mind you...
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,577
4,467
193
Norway
No. Maybe if we get to a really ridiculous number, like 10,000. But even then, if they had a digital list that was searchable by filters, I would have no problem with it.
That's where we differ. The number is already ridiculous aroun 300-400 and searchable by looking through 12 books and some pdfs.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,577
4,467
193
Norway
Your opponent should have all relevant stats on his fighter card anyway. Since I often need to check fighter cards to see which dude is carrying Blasting charges, or which mook has the -1T injury, briefly confirming that his Autopistol has Manstopper rounds which means it's S4 not S3 is hardly laborious.
Fighter cards? What's that?
 

MusingWarboss

Hive Guilder
Oct 31, 2013
2,043
4,788
183
That's where we differ. The number is already ridiculous aroun 300-400 and searchable by looking through 12 books and some pdfs.
Just dropping by again... umm, with the “House of” series surely all the weapons you can commonly take are in that one book?

Now sure you could dive off to the trading post or black markets but I’m guessing a lot of people won’t (particularly if they don’t have those books) and if they do it’ll be for a select few fighters who...

Fighter cards? What's that?
...have a fighter card you can write down the weapons details on so you don’t have to look them up!

I get a lot of people may have discarded the cards but I still like the principle and there’s nothing stopping you writing the weapon stats onto your traditional roster sheet (or even designing a new roster which includes spaces for such weapons).

Now if we get a TP PDF then that’s one less book to reference but they’d better include all the stat lines for the gear too otherwise it’s pointless.
 

almic85

Cranky Git
Tribe Council
Oct 30, 2014
1,805
3,068
163
Palmerston, ACT, Australia
Just to throw in another point of view here.

I find it odd that people are saying that you only have to remember the 10-20 weapons plus ammo types that are on your gang as it seems very odd.

As a player I need to know the weapon stats that my opponents all use as well to make sure that they aren’t making errors (accidentally or otherwise) in order to actually play against them. It often slows down the game as every time I go to move a fighter I need to look at my opponents cards to figure out what they have and then which one is which compared to my own fighters who I also have to remind myself of what they are armed with.

As an arbitrator it is even worse as I need to be able to do this across all 10 gangs taking part in my campaign, as well as answer questions on what all their traits do, as well as answer rules questions as they come up from the other 4 tables that I’m not playing on.

I find the cards and rosters that yaktribe produce to be a godsend for me as an arbitrator as I know that they come from a common pool, but there are a significant number of times where people use hand written cards that are incorrect or just don’t use cards and need to look them up from the appropriate book.

To me reducing the number of different weapons that can be taken would be a great move as it would greatly reduce the amount of admin I need to do every week and reduce the number of disagreements between the players in my campaigns.

It would be even better if weapons were actually categorised consistently so that there was a set of baseline stats that then had a common set of keyword adjustments added to them to make it easier to remember that all chain weapons do x and all power weapons do y.

Then of course after adjusting all of the you would also need to reprice the whole armoury so that it actually made all choices viable options, or as viable as they can be.
 

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,063
1,377
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
I don't see how the number of weapons, by itself, could be a problem. Just use the ones you like and disregard the rest.
  • What is the point of having the rest of weapons if their only purpose is to be disregarded? If you like how a particular weapon model looks, but its actual profile/cost is bad, then you have 2 options: play it as a rule of cool (while suppressing dissapointment from the actual weapon perfomance), or proxy it as something else. Both are lame.
  • If you don't mind digging through weapon profiles whenever you need to look for a specific weapon, fine, but a lot of players, me included, do mind. It makes using the rulebook awkward and adds nothing of value to the game.
What I want is for a player to be able to whip out some cool conversion with a two-handed weapon weapon and instead of going "Ah, shucks, the actual weapon profile is awful! I guess this is, uh, a chain glaive proxy?" he plays it as an appropriate unified profile for big, killy weapon. Intuitive, easy to remember and definitely beats digging through pages of weapons and constantly reminding forgetful opponents that you are proxying a chainglaive. Don't even get me started on CGC mess of weapon model and actual names.
In the current state of the game, balance between cc weapons is so incredibly poor that only a handful of weapons are viable. Assuming one is looking to play the game well, of course. Thus, you could make the argument that we only need five different cc weapons. But I don't think that that is what anyone is proposing.
This is exactly the proposition, check the title of the thread and suggestions posted earlier.
 

MusingWarboss

Hive Guilder
Oct 31, 2013
2,043
4,788
183
I find the cards and rosters that yaktribe produce to be a godsend for me as an arbitrator as I know that they come from a common pool, but there are a significant number of times where people use hand written cards that are incorrect or just don’t use cards and need to look them up from the appropriate book.
Y’know as an arbitrator you can insist on a standardised approach to cards (or whatever) during a campaign. Especially if it’s for fairness and consistency.
Sure some might huff a bit about that and there may be some you have help out if you’re using YakTribe and they don’t/can’t.

If you can’t get them to standardise how they record data for the campaign (surely a requirement for fair play) then you’re going to have quite an upward battle getting them to use a fan compiled weapons list which disregards the ones in their expensive books.
 

KA7777

Gang Champion
Jan 19, 2018
276
335
68
Canada
  • What is the point of having the rest of weapons if their only purpose is to be disregarded? If you like how a particular weapon model looks, but its actual profile/cost is bad, then you have 2 options: play it as a rule of cool (while suppressing dissapointment from the actual weapon perfomance), or proxy it as something else. Both are lame.
The same reason there are 8 other gangs besides Goliath and Van Saar?


  • If you don't mind digging through weapon profiles whenever you need to look for a specific weapon, fine, but a lot of players, me included, do mind. It makes using the rulebook awkward and adds nothing of value to the game.
Always drives me crazy when people say stuff like this with zero self-awareness.

Do you understand that your preference inherently harms/restricts other players, whereas the opposing preference does not inherently harm/restrict you?

If you cannot trust your opponents to get their rules right (whether that's down to their laziness or your paranoia), or you're fixated on maintaining encyclopedic knowledge of the game and memorizing every weapon you might see, those are your personal issues to sort out. They are not requirements for playing or enjoying the game, and many people play and enjoy the game without struggling over those issues. This is especially relevant in a "genie already out of the bottle" situation like this.

I guarantee you that a massive contraction of the armoury would piss off more players who have already constructed real, actually-exists-in-our-timeline conversions than it would suddenly free these mythical hypothetical players who are paralyzed by the visual minutiae of chain glaives that you guys keep constructing for your fake ass arguments. :LOL:
 

ntw3001

Gang Hero
Feb 17, 2011
1,162
1,948
118
34
Essex, UK
Do you understand that your preference inherently harms/restricts other players, whereas the opposing preference does not inherently harm/restrict you?

Take it up with GW. They've taken a literally infinite number of possible stat permutations which *could* exist as weapons, and limited us to a few hundred. Not even a percent of a percent of the freedom of choice we could have been given. The correct choice would be to offer a few pages of abstract mechanics and leave players to insert whatever numbers and additional rules they please.

Or maybe that's absurd! Perhaps, possibly, people can have a level of choice they consider optimal, as a preference. Perhaps that preference could even differ between different people, I don't know. In some possible world, I imagine people might even discuss house rules, seeking input from others who share similar preferences.

And then, for some reason, maybe others who prefer a different level of restriction would suddenly decide that they care a lot about it and interject with their own opinion, berating others for daring to disagree with their preference. In a particularly awful scenario, they might even elect to use a patronising and inflammatory tone to do it. It would probably be best to ignore that element entirely, but such a decision could only occur in an especially nightmarish reality, so who knows what would happen.

tldr: do not feed. The question about the ultimate goal of the idea was reasonable to discuss. It's clearly not productive any more, so it's probably best to return to the initial topic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DamianK and almic85

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,063
1,377
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
We got into an endless loop of arguing. I don't see a reason to continue because both sides have presented same arguments multiple times and clearly those did not work in both directions. Especially if said arguing starts slowly escalating into sump flinging for whatever reason.

I strongly believe that model agnostic rules are best and healthy for the game; if you think otherwise, that's okay. The thread is a theorycrafing about trying to implement model agnostic solution, but it'd be interesting to see someone going for the other approach to try and keep a wild variety of weapons while rebalancing those.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: almic85