[NCE] Ash Waste Nomads LRB Conversion

[Commissariat]

Hello,

This is an update of the LRB rules to NCE rules that I produced for my discord community and campaign. They are not perfect, but it is updated to NCE language. The only concern I have, at the moment, is a good revision for Double-Bladed Knife.

Thanks,
Commi


(@Narwhal King here you go)

 

[Blood Donor]

These were great, really like the Changelog at the end. I'm gonna have to check out your Chaos Cultist and GS Cult rules as well

 

[Commissariat]

Aw, thank you! <3

 

[slev01]

Perhalps teh double-bladed knike could re-roll all "1's, rather than ignoring funbles. This is slightly less powerful and more open-ended.

 

[Commissariat]

Thank you for your input!

Re-rolling 1s was something that I thought of early on. In practice, the re-rolls of 1s was actually more effective than just not granting a +1 to the enemy's rolls (Like a weird Feint). With the re-roll you still effectively ignore fumbles and you get to turn that 1 into a bigger number 5/6 of the time. On top of that, the re-roll cannot be re-rolled by effects like Parry or Deflect. So in the end, re-rolling 1s in melee was like having baby hatred-feint.

However, not granting fumbles means that if you buy your nomads a Chain you can have no drawback to not being able to be parried and so for a total of 20 rating you can be pretty slick half of the time you fumble with the chain. Yet it still sits below the re-rolling 1s because the re-roll has vastly more potential with and without chains.

Shrug. This has been a tricky little guy, the double-bladed knife. Any other thoughts or counter points you might have?

 

[slev01]

Special could be a single re-roll in combat. Thus not as powerful as "no parry", or "no fulbels" but still useful. Effectively an extra half an attack.

 

[Orngog]

How about making it harder to disarm? Or affecting disarm for other weapons?

 

[Ben_S]

The double knife always used to be functionally equivalent to a sword. While I suppose that's a little boring, I don't see any compelling rationale for change if you don't actually have a good idea for what it should do instead.

I find the section on income and profit rather confusing, though this is probably inherited from the original source, rather than the result of your revisions. Though I'm not convinced this is the intention, it sort of sounds like they have three different kinds of income:
i) 'regular' income (i.e. foraging?) - never washed, no matter how much.
ii) the first 75 creds of 'extra' income - doesn't need to be washed.
iii) extra income in excess of 75 creds - gets washed.

But this section is confusing and the example doesn't obviously illustrate what's said in the text above it - without the example, I'd have interpreted it differently from how it is in the example.