N17 N17 Inquisimunda - General thread (16/07/2018)

Discussion in 'Inquisimunda' started by alphonse, Feb 20, 2018.

  1. alphonse

    alphonse Ganger

    Last edited: 22/05/2018
    Welcome!

    This thread is about a new version of Inquisimunda based on N17 Necromunda.

    Hopefully, we don't start from nothing, a very well organized discussion and a methodology have been set in Inquisimunda V3.0 - Community Edition - Another trip into the Warp.
    We will also need to keep track of new official rules to build upon/readjust.

    Rulebook draft
    A draft of Inquisimunda N17 Edition is in progress (updated on 16/07/2018 in the vault here).
    The focus has been put on the core Inquisimunda addendum to N17. Further suggestions could be implemented as soon as a playable version is available.
    To report typos and suggest fluff or pics, please visit this thread here.

    What is ready
    • Fighters positions costs and characteristics modifiers
    • Species baselines, costs and special rules
    • ALL weapons stats, costs and keywords accessibility
    • Core rules for Bionics
    • Mutations
    • Core rules for Psychic Powers
    • A new cards-based system for Designing a Warband & Creating a Fighter

    What's to be done
    • Adapt Path to Heresy (from V3.0, work of Tiny) & "Outlaw" (from NCE)
    • Fine tune the Warbands cards
    • Psychic powers
    • Bionics costs & Implants list
    • Constructs/Beasts
    • Miscellaneous equipment

    Work in progress
    • Work has begun on base costs (thread here) with the great job of @Chamberlain , trying to figure out a starting point for war band stats lines and costs.
    • A character creation vs campaign progression discussion (thread here) has been initiated with the inspiring vision of @Lysimachus.
    • Rules addendum (special rules, including those for species) could be discussed here.
    • Weapons discussion (thread here). A list of equivalents could be convenient.
    • Wargear and miscellaneous equipment are in progress, thanks to @abhorash (thread here).
    • Species can be discussed here.
     
    #1 alphonse, Feb 20, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2018
    mitchmatic, brettfp, Basileus and 5 others like this.
  2. alphonse

    alphonse Ganger

    Hi everybody!

    We now have in the vault a first draft of N17 Inquisimunda. It is still in an early stage but noticeable progresses have been made for positions within a warband and species. About Equipement (Weapons & Wargear), we are working toward a system for cost setting. After diving deeper into the stats and costs, it seems that there is no clear logic behind the cost attribution of each weapon, at least not as obvious and reproducible as the cost system for fighters. This is in part due to the actual development stage of N17, but it could also be due to the way things are costed for this part of the game. We would introduce a consecutive amount of new weapons to the game and thus we need to choose a scale onto which we could situate each new entry in terms of power and cost.

    To be sure to be on good tracks, several questions to the community:
    1. Do we keep a rounded up cost for each piece of equipment to the nearest 5 points? (like 15TG, 20TG, 25TG) Or do we go with a more refined system to have a better marge of adjustments ? (potential drawback could be less "simple" math).
    2. In V2.0, the warbands include a "House list". It is not a convenient system to manage and balance but it make things simpler for a player to choose from this kind of mini codex. In V3.0, Warbands were simplified a lot by reorganizing and regrouping commun elements together. The last V3.0 draft included also a "House list" for each warband. Is it OK if we go further in this direction and set one list only for everyone? Each entry of this list (A new Trading post/Bizarre Bazaar) could be available according to Warband Keywords. These keywords could work in a way close to the 8th edition of 40k.
    Working on this last question has conducted me to the idea that we could completely rethink the way we choose and create a warband. For now, we choose one variant from a category (best example is Cults, you can choose among the Cult list several variants and even sub variants like specific chaos god dedicated cult). The problem with this approach is the limited number of different factions we could represent and play in Inquisimunda ("only" 27 war bands now). If we go deeper into the creation process, we could think of a particular warband as a conjonction of several parameters: Origins, Archetypes, Specificities (not the definitive terms).
    Origin could be something like < Imperium >, < Chaos >, < Xenos >, < Independent >.
    Archetype could be < Explorer >, < Military >, < Diplomacy >, < Cult >
    Specificity could be a broader list to pick from.

    To give you two samples of what could be produced by this simple system:
    - Current AdMech Explorators could be created by choosing < Imperium > + < Explorer > + < Mechanicus >
    The Dark Mechanicus variant could be set by just changing one word: < Chaos > + < Explorer > + < Mechanics >
    What is interesting is that you could be interested by a more Cult oriented AdMech by just changing the Archetype. See? very easy. Note that this is not an available option currently.
    - Tau Diplomatic Cadre could be created by choosing < T'au Empire > + < Diplomacy >
    And by just changing one word, you could get your Tau Strike Force : < T'au Empire > + < Military >.
    What is interesting is the possibility to represent a more specific warband without having to refer to a written list. If you want to represent a Farsight Enclave small scientific team willing to field test a new battlesuit prototype, it could be as easy as choosing < Independent > + < Tau species > + < Explorator >. And if we set a small paragraph about Farsight Enclave with a special rule, You could include this Keyword to benefit from it.

    This Keyword system could have a deeper impact on Campaign and Scenarios. Explorators are actively seeking new things like archeotech or specimen studies. Objectives of this archetype could differ from the ones pursued by a secretive cult organisation, or a military defense force, etc...
    These keywords could grant access to equipment and special rules, all in a very modular fashion.

    Rules are important. But fun and limitless creativity is far more important.
    Trying to go back to the origin of the concept of Inquisimunda, I've fallen upon one of the oldest occurence of this term. It was almost day for day 10 years ago. It was on Dakka with Migsula (here for the ones interested in). The purpose was to play more freely with some friends, to play things differently from 40k or necromunda where you have a limited number of scenarios and factions. The path we have followed with V1.0, V2.0 and V3.0 is the same: We just play the same game (Necromunda) but enjoy different "gangs".
    What if we could design an infinity of warbands very easily?
    More importantly, what if we could play a more varied set of scenarios, plots or campaign story lines?

    In the current N17 Inquisimunda draft, we have reserved a place for additional and optional rules. What if we could find there some rules to set a crowd of citizens? An infiltration scenario with an assassination target during a speech or whatever event? The opposite player would have to defend the target and spare the civilians. What if one of the player have the possibility to really infiltrate the crowd? (Actually, it could be very easy to mark each mini with a number under the base and keep a secret paper with the number of each mini who is in fact one of your fighter. It quiet remains me of Genestealer blips in Spacehulk lol).

    Has someone read the rules of spaceships for Necromunda? (it's here by @Auzure). It is an absolute gem! And indeed, that made me realized that we still have a territory system in Inquisimunda whereas the action is not focused on territories but ressources. A cool way to represent this could be to adopt some of the spaceship rules. In a way, for those who had appreciate it, it could be as important, personal and fun as the keep in GorkaMorka. You don't choose a Warband, You design one with all its background and associated stuff.


    Sorry for the long post. It has been a week since my last update and I've thought about so much things that I couldn't resist to ask the community its feeling about all of this. To sum up: Keywords? Infinite number of Warbands? NPC and campaign plots? Spaceships?
     
  3. Blood Donor

    Blood Donor Executive Officer in Charge of the 2014 Bake Sale
    Staff Member Necromunda Custodian

    Five has a nice metricity to it, but if you are starting right from fresh with this ruleset, why not increase the costs and earnings of everything to give more room for price buffering in between? If a knife was 10 creds rather than 5, you would gain a lot of wiggle room to balance everything out.
     
    irlZombie, Space Truckin and alphonse like this.
  4. alphonse

    alphonse Ganger

    Hi everybody!

    In N17, if you look at the way skills sets are available to fighters of a gang:
    - Leadership skills are always Primary for Leader and Secondary for Champion;
    - If you look at all the skills but leadership, Leader, Champ and Ganger have access to 2 Primary and 2 Secondary skills (4 skills sets in total);
    - Juves have access to 1 Primary and 2 Secondary skills (1 less Primary skills set than others);
    - There is some exceptions but generally Access to Skills sets are the same for all fighters within a Gang.

    Back to Inquisimunda, in an attempt to simplify the game (taking into account that we already make it a little bit more complicated to build a warband), won't it be easier if we go without a skills table for each list? It implies that we state:
    - Leadership skills set are accessible solely by Leader and Champ (we could write this once directly at the warband composition chapter).
    - With the exception of Leadership, all fighters have access to the same Skills sets within a warband (Leader, Champ, Warrior, Heavy AND Initiate).
    - Set 2 Primary and 2 Secondary skills sets.

    Is there really a good reason for Initiates not having the same skills sets as everybody? If yes, we could just mention the forbidden sets for them.

    If we go this way (no table), it opens the possibility to specify the skills sets access in a central part of the document, alleviating the "warband list", in a similar way to weapons and wargear availability, by keywords.

    This way will let us go with a full overhaul of warbands in N17 Inquisimunda, where we could follow a core process to design our warband and its fighters, and have the possibility to pick some "flavor" rules to better represent its game style, among a well organized "pool" of fluff/special rules. It will make things easier to customize, and in the same time, keep a more balanced approach.

    What do you think? (I hope I'm crystal clear enough about what I'm proposing here)
     
  5. Cenobite451

    Tribe Council

    A handful of thoughts:

    -Although I know it's a carryover from the older iteration of Inquisimunda, "throne gelt" seems an odd choice to represent points to me, mainly because it's always been explicitly a Calixis Sector thing, but also because it's entirely inapplicable to any non-human forces. I'd personally much prefer the more generic "credits" to be the catch-all unit of value, and I'm curious whether anyone else feels the same way.

    -The focus on adapting Necromunda rules without ever really glancing elsewhere feels like a wasted opportunity. With a little rejiggering, the Mordheim campaign system could be a much better fit for the feel that Inquisimunda attempts to evoke (as opposed to the very street gang-based idea of "turf"), and it seems as though the upcoming Kill Team might have a few things to offer as well in that respect.

    -How about letting psykers taken at warband creation to choose their powers? This would allow warbands to be created by players independently of the group without relying on the "honour system", and perhaps more importantly, facilitate representation of very specific character concepts, which was one of the best bits of Inq54. (It's also more in line with modern GW design philosophy, for those inclined to care about such things.)

    -Separating Heavies and Champions isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it does disallow certain concepts, which is less than ideal for a system as deliberately free-form as this one. How about allowing Heavy Champions? Functionally, this would be a Champion who also takes up one of the warband's Heavy allotments, but is permitted to take Heavy-only options (like big guns and heavy mutations).

    -Not real big on N17's version of Flesh Wounds; being wounded generally impairs your ability to fight, but doesn't really make you any squishier. On the other hand, it does solve the problem of skilled fighters being harder to kill than their less-skilled but theoretically tougher counterparts. For the best of both worlds, I'd suggest something like:

    Flesh Wounds: Each Flesh Wound suffered by a fighter imposes a cumulative -1 penalty to Hit rolls and Initiative checks. If a fighter ever accumulates a number of Flesh Wounds equal to or exceeding their Toughness characteristic, they immediately go Out Of Action.
     
  6. Cenobite451

    Tribe Council

    Thinking about it further, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to take skill set selection out of warband creation altogether and instead assign primary and secondary skill sets on a fighter-by-fighter basis. Species rules could then be re-written to mandate certain primary skill sets rather than adding extra ones, which would get rid of weirdness like dumb Ogryns potentially having an easier time learning a broad variety of skills than humans and Freeboota warbands having a bizarre incentive to not put Brawn and Ferocity on their warband skill list (since Orks get them as primary regardless).

    Pros:
    -Better reflects the "eclectic team of specialists" feel seen in Inquisition-focused Black Library stuff
    -Allows greater adaptability and freedom of choice
    -Species rules adjustments would make more sense and improve balance

    Cons:
    -Potentially open to minmaxing in situations where it wouldn't make sense
    -Slightly increases complexity of warband creation and recruitment

    That's all that occurs to me really, so on balance it seems like it would be for the best (particularly since the "minmaxing" con already applies under the current system, just in a different form). Any thoughts?
     
    Nitroxylin and HenrySwanson like this.
  7. TestPhase1

    TestPhase1 New Member

    So I have been following the Inquisimunda development since V1 and have had a lot of success and fun playing with the rules this fantastic community has provided. I was therefore a little saddened when the Inq v3 version was dropped in order to pursue a rule set using N17 as I had already started building a Deathwatch campaign for my local FLGS and was a bit apprehensive about having to redo all my house rules for using space marines as well as to see what you all would do with the new N17 rules.

    However, I would like to say that you have done such a FANTASTIC job so far! The fighter creation cards system is just pure gold, so well done to everyone that has had a hand in the creation of this new iteration of one of my favourite community projects to come out of Yaktribe.

    I really hope this project is pushed as far as it can go so that it can create a gaming document as great and lasting as the NCE and OCE rule books.

    I would like to add my two cents to this discussion and development where I can, starting with:

    1. I like the idea of allowing the assignment of primary and secondary skills based on a model-by-model basis, with maybe certain Species limiting rules when it comes to selection (eg: fighters with the Ogryn type can't select Cunning and Savant skill trees). I think this would allow even more variety and character to a warband, rather than everyone sharing the same skill sets in the team (I know at current you have the Archetype define the Primary Skills, and then the Secondary are free to choose, but maybe only having one set Primary Skill based on Archetype and the other choose-able could work too? Or even have the Secondary Skill trees determined by Archetype, to represent the underlying ideals of everyone in the same warband, but then have Primary Skills chosen on a model-by-model basis to add personality to each fighter. After all, a Tau in a Cult may be zealous and take Ferocity skills, but he would still at heart be a Tau, with proficiency in Shooting... something along those lines at least). Although, as you say, this could lead to minmaxing, I feel this is a game designed for fun and narrative, so players who choose to go the minmaxing route are losing out IMO. You can also always choose to not play with said people ;)
    2. I do agree with @Cenobite451 that using something like "credits" as the currency rather that Throne Geld sounds better and would make more sense when using xeno warbands.
    3. Now this is just a personal feeling, but I don't think the Farsight Enclaves should have the option to choose the Chaos True Nature. I have played Tau since they were first released in 40K and there is nothing to support them worshiping Chaos, and often references to the contrary, namely that their presence in the Warp is so limited as to be non existent. I therefore cannot imagine Tau worshiping Chaos, and to be able to take a mark of Chaos (Devotion) on them seems very out of place. Again, this is just my personal view point, and if you had something specific in mind when creating this option, I would love to hear it/get better clarity @alphonse

    Anyway, let me know what you think. I normally just lurk on Yaktribe stealing all the great ideas that spawn here, but this project looks so great I wanted to help out. Keep up the awesome work @alphonse !
     
    oGRE3 likes this.
  8. oGRE3

    oGRE3 Ganger

    I think the @alphonse idea about gang creation [Origins/Archetypes/Specificities] is great.
    it could have some vulnerabilities, right, but also is possible to "ban" keywords in same origin.
    for example, "eldar" and "t'au" origins could have the special ban "no chaos archetype allowed" and a lot of uneven combos [by background] could be avoided.
    same thing for unbalanced combos, maybe adding keywords to specific equipments.
     
  9. Angronius

    Angronius New Member

    Love how in-depth this seems to be. Has there been any updates since July? Thanks!
     
  10. Nusphigor

    Nusphigor Juve

    I am really looking forward to see more updates on this project. It's been really cool to read so far, specially as in my gaming group we are trying n17 and might give a go to the inquisimunda rules as some players are hardcore xeno fans.

    I would agree in the points above, credits instead of thrones and skills per warrior basis.

    Please keep up such a fantastic job!
     
  11. ineptmule

    ineptmule Gang Hero
    Yak Funder

    Just seen this. I am going to be running some heavy narrative led GM'd games with a few of the guys from my group and will be stealing some content from the InquisiMunda 17 draft. I'm calling this game NecroQuisiQuest because it's more about a cooperative party-based experience with highly detailed character information, working together against NPCs controlled by me.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice