But you're saying it is easier for you to throw a rock through a small gap in a fence 20 feet away?
Because according to this change, doing that is easier than hitting the wide open piece of floor without any cover, lol
N18 N23 grenades discussion (have they destroyed grenades?)
- Thread starter Scorpyon
- Start date
But you're saying it is easier for you to throw a rock through a small gap in a fence 20 feet away?
Because according to this change, doing that is easier than hitting the wide open piece of floor without any cover, lol
I’m definitely a fan of this. Hitting a piece of ground the size of a 50p piece from half a board away rather than targeting the person in order to avoid a negative hit modifier was cheesy as fook imo. Perhaps it’s because I played OCE/NCE where that negative modifier was always present (can’t remember if it was in OCE, but I think you had to target a person rather than a spot on the ground so it was even more restrictive), but I much prefer it’s inclusion. Grenades were always a bit of a wild card, let ‘em bounce!
But in a broader sense, these are the kind of rules I don’t mind filling up my cognitive load. New munda has so much stuff going on I’m generally in favour of paring the rules back, but the more of these old munda flavours they add the happier I am
But in a broader sense, these are the kind of rules I don’t mind filling up my cognitive load. New munda has so much stuff going on I’m generally in favour of paring the rules back, but the more of these old munda flavours they add the happier I am
While I was reading through this I had a flash of memory from like 3ed 40k... in that you rolled the scatter die and 2d6 a hit was a hit no scatter (fixed 33.33333% for everyone)! If there was a miss you looked to the 2d6 and it minus the models bs resulted in the scattering distance. I'll admit this miss part fails the Necromunda system as bs Stat is totally different.
Continuing my thoughts I realized we in Necromunda need to roll an ammo die every time. Just combine the bullets with the firing models bs and scatter it that many inches, jam and hit combo could scatter from the firing model for extra Necromunda fun!
It seems pretty elegant no super big scatters but no tiny scatters either. Speeds up rolling as it becomes very similar to regular shooting (switch a d6 for the scatter die). Bigger template more likely to still hit than small template, and everyone has the same chance to "perfectly" place for multi hits.
Continuing my thoughts I realized we in Necromunda need to roll an ammo die every time. Just combine the bullets with the firing models bs and scatter it that many inches, jam and hit combo could scatter from the firing model for extra Necromunda fun!
It seems pretty elegant no super big scatters but no tiny scatters either. Speeds up rolling as it becomes very similar to regular shooting (switch a d6 for the scatter die). Bigger template more likely to still hit than small template, and everyone has the same chance to "perfectly" place for multi hits.
I’m definitely a fan of this. Hitting a piece of ground the size of a 50p piece from half a board away rather than targeting the person in order to avoid a negative hit modifier was cheesy as fook imo. Perhaps it’s because I played OCE/NCE where that negative modifier was always present (can’t remember if it was in OCE, but I think you had to target a person rather than a spot on the ground so it was even more restrictive), but I much prefer it’s inclusion. Grenades were always a bit of a wild card, let ‘em bounce!
But in a broader sense, these are the kind of rules I don’t mind filling up my cognitive load. New munda has so much stuff going on I’m generally in favour of paring the rules back, but the more of these old munda flavours they add the happier I am
Except you're not hitting something the size of a 50p any more than you're attempting to hit a target the size of a small button on the shirt of a moving target that is running around and ducking behind cover repeatedly. This change is definitely more cheesy than any problem that existed previously, because it is completely senseless. Nobody in real life tries to actually hit a person with a grenade rather than the floor. It's gamey as hell to make it easier to do so in this way.
In your analogy it still makes WAAAAAY less sense for this change to be a thing since it is NEVER going to be easier to hit an actual person behind cover with a grenade than a stationary piece of ground out in the open.
It is literally impossible to make a logical argument for this change on the grounds of narrative since narratively the opposite will always be the case. It should be EASIER to hit the ground than a specific moving target, always.
If anything, hitting an open piece of ground with a grenade SHOULD have had a bonus to hit rather than a negative.
The more I think over this change, the more it seems apparent that this was all just demanded by gamey players who didnt like the fact that grenades were one of the only usable tactics to beat cheesy Corpse Grinder and Van Saar gangs so rather than accepting that they had a single exploitable weakness, decided apparently to make these S-Tier gangs even stronger because #reasons.
Last edited:
spafe
Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
@Scorpyon , honestly, it isnt that odd a concept. Get two things (tyres, boxes, whatevers) and put them 3 meters apart. Now try and throw a beanbag from 15* meters away, to land exactly 1.5m from each. Bravo if you can with anything like regularity.
Now try and throw that bean bag at one of those targets and get it within 0.5m of that target. I bet you will more often. I'd even go so far as to say you are likely to manage that two thirds more often.
That is the difference between targeting a very very specific point on the ground, and targeting a person. Note you do not need to hit the button on the person, you need to land it within 0.5m of that person (the base size), for them to be hit. Now if you put that item (somewhere) behind a barricade, so you could only see a little bit of it, and then had to 'lob' that grenade over the barricade and get it within 0.5m of the item, I'd hazard a guess you will do it with 'roughly' the same accuracy as you could the initial spot on the ground that is exactly 1.5m between the two targets.
That is your narrative 'justification'.
*I've picked 15m. If you are athletically minded with good hand-eye coordination and find that too easy on both, go for 30 meters and repeat.
Now try and throw that bean bag at one of those targets and get it within 0.5m of that target. I bet you will more often. I'd even go so far as to say you are likely to manage that two thirds more often.
That is the difference between targeting a very very specific point on the ground, and targeting a person. Note you do not need to hit the button on the person, you need to land it within 0.5m of that person (the base size), for them to be hit. Now if you put that item (somewhere) behind a barricade, so you could only see a little bit of it, and then had to 'lob' that grenade over the barricade and get it within 0.5m of the item, I'd hazard a guess you will do it with 'roughly' the same accuracy as you could the initial spot on the ground that is exactly 1.5m between the two targets.
That is your narrative 'justification'.
*I've picked 15m. If you are athletically minded with good hand-eye coordination and find that too easy on both, go for 30 meters and repeat.
Its not about "realism", its about gameplay usability. Personally I don't want to bother with handthrown grenades, because they cost a ton and their range is very short, making aiming hard to achieve. If anything the nerf hurts grenades a lot more than the usual blast offenders, because you can still Aim + Shoot with them, but you get no such luxury with hand-thrown grenades, since realistically you will be Moving + Shooting.
And missing does matter a lot, because scatter will miss the target fairly often, unless it is in the corner.
And missing does matter a lot, because scatter will miss the target fairly often, unless it is in the corner.
spafe
Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
I don't disagree @JawRippa that I am mainly concerned with gameplay, but I was addressing the complaint about narrative stuff.
From a gameplay PoV, you can still use smokes, and other stuff... throw at someone, the benefit of being closer is you can usually get round the cover to ignore it and get the target in the open or only light cover. but yes, they did take a hit
From a gameplay PoV, you can still use smokes, and other stuff... throw at someone, the benefit of being closer is you can usually get round the cover to ignore it and get the target in the open or only light cover. but yes, they did take a hit
Your example is both flawed and inaccurate.
Here is a better one.
Place a target on the floor. Then stand about 15m away and see how easily you can hit it with a bean bag (or similar item).
Then get someone to hold the same target and start running backwards and forwards 15m away behind crates, boxes, etc. Now try to hit it.
Which was easier? If you said the person holding the target and moving around, then respectfully, you are clearly being disingenuous at best. It's as simple as that, really. Not to mention the fact that this change makes literally no logical sense from a narrative perspective, regardless of how gamey and game-breaking the change actually is.
Last edited:
I would have even accepted a change such as a default 1" scatter when hitting the floor to account for the random nature of scattering when throwing a grenade - rolling 6" away has always been pretty daft considering that unless you are standing on a staircase or a steep hill, that's never going to happen in real life.
However, if you throw grenade specifically at somebody, unless it is a sticky grenade, it's not going to just stop on their body (unless they caught it maybe). This whole change has been completely ill-conceived and badly thought out.
Though I suppose, that does comply with basic Necromunda rules tbh... XD
However, if you throw grenade specifically at somebody, unless it is a sticky grenade, it's not going to just stop on their body (unless they caught it maybe). This whole change has been completely ill-conceived and badly thought out.
Though I suppose, that does comply with basic Necromunda rules tbh... XD
spafe
Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
You have just covered the options for a target in the open and a target in cover....
What you are having clear objections to is the idea of placing that grenade 1.5m (exactly!) between two targets, in order to maximise the efficiency of a blast, or for some other gamey reason. That is the hard part.
Otherwise you are right, just hitting 'a' point on the ground over there, very easy. Doing it with the prescision required for actually maximising that blast effect, difficult. And thats what the rules represent.
And to add weight to that, smokes which arnt needed to be pinpoint, but 'that point there, we want some cover', do not suffer from the modifier.
But hey, each to their own, I'm happy with the changes, I've tried to explain the rationale for why hitting 'a specific spot' may be harder, if you dont accept that... well thats a shame for your suspension of disbelief I guess.
if your all finished throwing bean bags , can cawdor have the beans please? , we are hungry
spafe
Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
I think there is an issue with how the game tries to represent the blast weapons causing people to view the blasts too literally. Namely the physical deviation (not counting how always using a D6 regardless of anything is dumb).
You gotta put a bit of abstractions in your rules, no one is just T-posing until they eat something. They are moving, ducking and what not. Their model only representing their approximate location. Next you can view the blast as just being an effective range of where it somewhat landed with schrapnels and whatnot flying around (these things can go pretty far).
Perhaps using bigger blast templates but rolling to hit every model under it and maybe role the scatter die to deviate 1" each time just for the historic significance of the scatter die would yield a better play feel and image in people's mind. You could add some modifiers for hitting fighters you can't see or are in cover from the shooter's perspective to represent how you are still trying to hit someone but he is harder to judge when you can't quite see him. Yes he is in the "blast radius" but it's just an abstraction of effective range and where the shot approximately landed.
Hand grenades could maybe work on a different system where you deviate more but don't roll to hit every models under the template.
Try to physically represent everything and you will just end up hanging yourself and have a worst game.
You gotta put a bit of abstractions in your rules, no one is just T-posing until they eat something. They are moving, ducking and what not. Their model only representing their approximate location. Next you can view the blast as just being an effective range of where it somewhat landed with schrapnels and whatnot flying around (these things can go pretty far).
Perhaps using bigger blast templates but rolling to hit every model under it and maybe role the scatter die to deviate 1" each time just for the historic significance of the scatter die would yield a better play feel and image in people's mind. You could add some modifiers for hitting fighters you can't see or are in cover from the shooter's perspective to represent how you are still trying to hit someone but he is harder to judge when you can't quite see him. Yes he is in the "blast radius" but it's just an abstraction of effective range and where the shot approximately landed.
Hand grenades could maybe work on a different system where you deviate more but don't roll to hit every models under the template.
Try to physically represent everything and you will just end up hanging yourself and have a worst game.
But scattering is exactly the effect being replicated by targeting a large area. You aim for a general area, and you either smack it bang in the middle or you get it somewhere within the intended area. But if you miss too badly it’ll go widely astray.
But the only hypothetical argument I need to consider is; does circumventing my fighters -2 cover by hitting a point of ground next to him that eliminates the cover bonus make me feel good or bad? Fortunately I have empirical evidence of this as both shooter and target, and in both instances it felt extremely gamey.
Now the caveat to this is that I have for the majority of my Necromunda playing life played with these more restrictive rules, in fact more so as you couldn’t even target a piece of ground, and had absolutely no issues with the gaming concept. Grenades have been given the only boost they could possibly need for me in that they can target a piece of ground, which has the potential to circumvent my cover, but is appropriately penalised to make it not the automatic option.
It’s still powerful in that you can still circumvent my cover and therefore my save modifier. So now you have two choices when hitting someone in a worst-case shot scenario, them being in full cover;
a) aim at the fighter, with a -2 to hit but granting a +2 to the enemy armour save,
or,
b) aim at a patch of ground next to my fighter, with a -2 to hit, but eliminating the enemy save modifier.
Arguing that both eliminating the negative hit modifier, and subsequently the save modifier, is fairer than what the new ruleset grant is a reach in my opinion. It was an irk of the new ruleset that this situation was present at all, and I for one welcome my negative modifier overlord.
And if it bothers you that much, just use one of the many older rulebooks that allow this Gorgonzola, the whole ruleset is basically just an a la carte of pick what you want now anyway, there are issues equally or more egregious that remain so have at it
But the only hypothetical argument I need to consider is; does circumventing my fighters -2 cover by hitting a point of ground next to him that eliminates the cover bonus make me feel good or bad? Fortunately I have empirical evidence of this as both shooter and target, and in both instances it felt extremely gamey.
Now the caveat to this is that I have for the majority of my Necromunda playing life played with these more restrictive rules, in fact more so as you couldn’t even target a piece of ground, and had absolutely no issues with the gaming concept. Grenades have been given the only boost they could possibly need for me in that they can target a piece of ground, which has the potential to circumvent my cover, but is appropriately penalised to make it not the automatic option.
It’s still powerful in that you can still circumvent my cover and therefore my save modifier. So now you have two choices when hitting someone in a worst-case shot scenario, them being in full cover;
a) aim at the fighter, with a -2 to hit but granting a +2 to the enemy armour save,
or,
b) aim at a patch of ground next to my fighter, with a -2 to hit, but eliminating the enemy save modifier.
Arguing that both eliminating the negative hit modifier, and subsequently the save modifier, is fairer than what the new ruleset grant is a reach in my opinion. It was an irk of the new ruleset that this situation was present at all, and I for one welcome my negative modifier overlord.
And if it bothers you that much, just use one of the many older rulebooks that allow this Gorgonzola, the whole ruleset is basically just an a la carte of pick what you want now anyway, there are issues equally or more egregious that remain so have at it
I can just imagine a soldier being carried off the battlefield with wounds because a grenade landed beside him when he was hiding behind a wall. As he's carried away on a stretcher, missing a leg, he raises a fist to the enemy and shouts: "MaN, ThAt Is So GamEy! I HaD tOtAl CoVeR!" XD
Hehehe!
Trying to claim that the new rules are somehow "fairer" is so cheesy it's comical.
The worst part of it is that it's like people don't even seem to understand how a grenade and physics even work. Lol
Hehehe!
Trying to claim that the new rules are somehow "fairer" is so cheesy it's comical.
The worst part of it is that it's like people don't even seem to understand how a grenade and physics even work. Lol
Well on that note I’m not sure there’s much more to add.Trying to claim that the new rules are somehow "fairer" is so cheesy it's comical.
ok, perhaps that was a little condescending for which I apologise - though It was mostly in response to the slightly dismissive / patronising prior comment.
I usually respond a little moe constructively than that. Sorry. I still believe my point is nonetheless completely valid and stats on its arguments and points.
