N17 Inquisimunda - Species

[Lysimachus]

@Cenobite451: I agree with you completely re Ogryns and Astartes (although I don't completely disagree with limiting the number of Marines in some way - although as you said, properly adjusted points might be enough to stop them being overused).

Re S5 Squats and S/T6 Orks, I think it's more allowing for the possibilities rather than suggesting these stats are typical. Humans and other species max out at S5, so doesn't seem in any way impossible (or even unlikely) that you could get a Squat that is equally strong? Likewise, I agree with your reasoning on the Orks... but someone might wish to play a scenario where a warband attempts to assassinate a Warboss to destabilise a growing Waagh, making the extra point of S/T entirely appropriate?

 

[Cenobite451]

@Lysimachus: Humans max out at S4 as currently written (which seems reasonable to me), so my rationale was that squats should probably be the same.

That's a good point about the one-off Warboss fight (sounds like great fun!), but it seems beyond the scope of the normal advancement rules; for something like that the Warboss should probably be statted up as a sort of NPC "boss" much like you might do with a Helbrute or a Lictor.

... And on that note, how about creating a sort of "bestiary" for things that don't generally belong in a warband but might be fun to use in a sort of player-versus-GM scenario? Would anyone else have a use for that sort of thing?

 

[Lysimachus]

Hmm, either I misread that or the max stats have changed, probably my fault! In that case, yep I agree Squats should max out at S4 (but T5 still seems fitting).

I can also see your point re Orks, although in that case I don't see why Beastmen would (potentially) get S/T6 if Orks can't. Perhaps an alternative to the Ogryn problem would be to leave them at max S/T6 and lower everyone else to max S/T5?

I love the idea of being able to break the rules for specific scenarios, in fact that's pretty much the goal of the I-Munda Unleashed rules that will (eventually) use these rules as a base, providing the freedom to create characters more in line with the way 54mm Inquisitor works.

 

[archont]

first time noob poster, obviously i posted in the wrong thread;
shame on me; also sorry for my bad english

Species Costs should possibly be changed as outlined here:

Hey Yaktribe Inquisimunda - Community!

I'd like to propose a Pointcost-Review for the Species; for several reasons;
as a preamble I'd like to state that you did a good job with calculating pointsvalues as is - I had reached exactly the same Points and Conclusions and found your methodology rather thorough and smart.
I had reached these same results independently because I was an idiot when my group got into inquisimunda - I simply didnt stumble over this here, because the N17 Inquisimunda was behind a loginwall here in the board.
So I did the work myself, integrated matrices for all the profiles and extrapolated exponential functions closely approximating the results in Underhive, Gangwars and Venator Gangs...

Well; it has to be appended I believe:

1) the higher Pointslimit for Inquisimunda Gangs allows for more dudesmen on the table
2) the broader span of pointsvalues from cheap species to expensive species sharply distorts the relative sizes of Gangs to each other, when compared to the N17 Base.
3) the broader scope and variability of statlines compared to N17 breaks the resultspace for which the N17 points have been designed
4) it is always a huge advantage to simply have more dudes, and also a huge disadvantage to have less dudes on the table

now, most of these arguments are irrelevant in N17 as published by GW; the statlines are ( when compared to the scope and breadth of InquisimundaN17 ) in a relatively narrow band of distribution, pointscost are all relatively closely related and grouped, and relative gangsizes are smaller and of a more controlled variability in sizes.

Pointscosts in the extremes are therefore, sadly, basically nonsense in Inquisimunda as it is;
Sslyth and Ogryns are absurdly expensive, so much so that they are retardedly bad;
Eldar are so expensive that, compared to Tau and Humans, they become essentially unplayable;
Halflings and Grots are so dirt cheap that they absolutely break the system.

Pointscosts should not be distributed not exponentially from a startingpoint, or even geometrically from some zero point, but asymptotically upwards and downwards when leaving a median range of pointsvalues; the further you go into extremely high or low pointsvalues, the smaller the incremental change should be;

there's another thing I'd like to add before posting the list of adjusted pointcosts I propose;
this is that Blanks are severely underpriced as is; their species drawback is not in reality a drawback at all, while their Hollow ability and statincreases come for basically nothing. They should just have a human statline but cost half as much more than a human, as the lvl 2 psyker upgrade costs; so the pointscosts should be 55 TG, which will pay for itself almost if you cancel out only a level 1 Psyker, but is already a cheap counter to level 2 psykers and a really effective counter against level 3 psykers.

I propose the Pointscosts to be adjusted to the following values;
for the more-expensive-than-median range essentially with (median / pts * (pts - median) +median),
and an inverse thereof for the lower than median pointsranges; rounded to increments of 5:

Humans ( +5 ) -> 35 TG
Afriel Strain ( +5 ) -> 40 TG
Beastman (+-0) -> 55 TG
Blanks (+15) -> 55 TG
Ogryns (-20) -> 80 TG
Ratlings (+5) -> 20 TG
Squats (+-0) -> 40 TG
Eldar (-5) -> 65 TG
Orks (+-0) -> 60 TG
Tau (+5) -> 25 TG
Grots (+5) -> 15 TG
Hrud (+-0) -> 45 TG
Jokaero (-10) -> 70 TG
Kroot (+-0) -> 45 TG
Loxatl (+-0) -> 60 TG
Sslyth (-50) -> 90 TG
Stryxis (+-0) -> 40TG
Tarellians (+-0) -> 55TG
Vespid (+-0) -> 60 TG

View attachment 63424 ehm, so that deeplink to the image don't seem to work;
and i seem unable to edit my post?
well; the left is what you and or I did, but what we want is the graph on the right

Greetings

 

[Lysimachus]

I think you've made some valid points there @archont, and I agree that there have been issues with older versions of Imunda over elite vs horde warbands.

None of the suggested changes you propose seem particularly unreasonable, although I think this kind of fine tuning probably needs to happen further down the line at a playtesting stage? I agree that we don't want OP Grot/Ratling hordes... but we also don't want OP elite squads of Eldar and Ogryns because we've undercosted them?

It also has to be remembered that Imunda, like Inq (54 or 28) is (imho) less intended as highly competitive gaming and more as a collaborative story telling experience, so these may not prove to be major issues anyway...

 

[archont]

You are of course, quite right - I am however unaware of any scheduled playtesting? My gaming group and me, we play a hodgepodge of N17 / iMunda(n17 and older editions) and get in quite a surprising lot of games per evening - it's really refreshing compared to 40k

Your Fears are of course justified, and the specifics of the formula to flatten the pointscost-distribution-curve can be up for grabs, but a simple truth is;
taking Pinned Fighters into account, simply having having fewer dudes is plain bad; infact the dudes are practically just a tax on the weaponssystems they carry, therefore gamistically it is extremely detrimental to be playing more expensive dudes.

The proposed Adjustments are, relatively, minor I believe already


LG!

 

[TabulaRasa]

Hi everyone! Me and a friend have started to look into Inquisimunda and it looks really promising! I've seen this suggestion before so disregard it if i'ts been mentioned before but a thought on the inclusion of Ogryns and Space Marines (saw the earlier post) could be to follow the rules for 'brutes' in Necromunda 17. This would make them limited on the war band's rep and as such very much an elite slot. Especially in regards to space marines I think this would fit the fluff.