[NCE] Poll: Territory Income Rolls

[undertaker]

Do you decide all the territories you will be collecting from before rolling any variable income? Or do you roll for some of them and then decide if you need to send more gangers to work other territories in order to push you into the next income bracket?

I had thought it was the former, and played it as such in all my games, but the rules don't actually make it clear:

Each ganger can generate income from one territory. The player chooses the territories he wishes to collect income from and adds up the total amount generated. Most territories generate a variable income: D6x10 or 2D6x10 credits, in which case the player makes the appropriate dice rolls to determine the total. It's not possible to send more than one ganger to work the same territory. Each territory can only be worked once after each battle.

I would be interested to know how other people have played this, and also added a poll for you to express your opinion of what it should be.

 

[Blood Donor]

https://yaktribe.games/community/threads/alternative-starting-territories-table.4153/#post-68782

Something that sounds somewhat on topic to the above post. Similar issue of getting turded on with poor territory roles for an entire campaign, there are some great posts and threads on the forum as well if you search Custom Territory.

 

[Blood Donor]

Shit never mind, not really on topic at all.

I would say you commit to your selection before rolling.

 

[spafe]

I... am not sure. I think I tend to be rushing at that point, and being the weirdo that I am have already calculated the average roll as to whether I would need the extra income or not before I've even turned up to game. So I guess thinking it through... I sub consiously declare before hand.

 

[p0dde]

NCE p. 93: "The player chooses the territories he wishes to collect income from and adds up the total amount generated". To me this sounds more like choosing all the territories before rolling, than going one by one, but I can see that there is some wiggle room.

But if you play with the, working-one-at-the-time way I guess it makes the low-and-fixed income territories better, because you would choose to work them last, and see if they push over the next income tier. And otherwise you just go for rare trades. And I think making the low-and-fixed income territories better, would improve the game.

 

[undertaker]

Well, it seems pretty conclusive that most people prefer to decide all territories to be worked before rolling for them. For a while I vacillated on the issue myself. Making those low-income territories a bit more useful was tempting. In the end though, that option seemed too meta. After all, there is no characterful reason for the income brackets to be where they are. Why should earning 119 credits leave you with 40 to spend, while earning 120 leaves 55?

It makes more sense thematically that you would first dedicate your workforce, and only afterwards know how much each brings home. Also, difficult decisions, and weighing up the risks and rewards make the game interesting. Choosing to fire 2D3 sustained fire shots risks you running out of ammo, but you might miss if you only fire one. Giving the post-battle sequence a bit of that risk/reward adrenaline is worth it in my books.

@Anthony , I notice you inserted the following proposed update for the next NCE version:

- Territory: Clarify you don't have to declare all territories to work before determining their income.

Was that your interpretation of the rules as written?

 

[Anthony]

Yeah.. I'm not sure really.

All the high rolls are variable income territories, so are you not being penalised for rolling high? With static income territories you can game the income brackets with certainty, but variable income opens you up to rolling low. And if you do roll low or rack up a huge gambling debt there's then no opportunity to react to that if you have to declare them all. How do Archeotech Hoards work in regard to when do you declare how many dice to roll? Why would you need to declare territories but not foraging (or expanded post game actions in general)?

Thematically I think a reactive system makes just as much sense. The post game sequence doesn't seem to represent a specified time period and I can't imagine the gang workings are on the clock 9-5 affairs. If a gang leader sees the local mine has been having trouble with a buckled cart, why couldn't he order Gunjaw Ironhands to stop faffing around in the drinking dens looking for traders and get his arse into the Chem Pit to make up the shortfall?

Gameplay-wise I don't see having to declare all territories as being any more interesting. It's a single decision compared to something that's more interactive which helps break up the post game sequence rollathon. Is there a particular reason you couldn't extend it to income in general (i.e. rolling for loot counters before territories)?

 

[Ben_S]

Why would you need to declare territories but not foraging (or expanded post game actions in general)?

Been a while since I was in a proper campaign, and even longer since it was with a regular gang (played Spyrers last time), but I'm pretty sure we've always declared everything before resolving anything.

Are you suggesting that you could, e.g., send your Leader to the rare trade, wait and see what you roll up, and then decide to send another Ganger with him?

 

[Fold]

... why couldn't he order Gunjaw Ironhands to stop faffing around in the drinking dens looking for traders and get his arse into the Chem Pit to make up the shortfall?

What, other than the fact that the Chem Pit is almost guaranteed to provide even less creds than the Drinking Hole?

 

[Ben_S]

@Fold

I think "faffing around in the drinking dens looking for traders" is a colourful way of saying 'going to help rare trade' rather than working a Drinking Hole.

 

[Anthony]

Been a while since I was in a proper campaign, and even longer since it was with a regular gang (played Spyrers last time), but I'm pretty sure we've always declared everything before resolving anything.

Are you suggesting that you could, e.g., send your Leader to the rare trade, wait and see what you roll up, and then decide to send another Ganger with him?

I wouldn't see an issue with it. Though you still have to follow the post game sequence, so there's not much point to it unless you're using some of the expanded post game action house rules that allow Gangers to do other things, like visit fighting pits. But for example in the case of foraging, by not declaring everything first you could choose to send an extra Ganger to look for rare trade if you happen to roll high when foraging, or the opposite if you rolled low.

I can't find anything in the foraging rules that would suggest you have to declare everything first. Generally the rule conventions are that sequences (e.g. turns) are split into phases but the actions within those phases can be done in any order you like. For example, if you're charging you don't declare all the chargers first, you do it one by one allowing you to react to whether the previous charge was a success or not. Same with shooting, etc. So if post game actions contravene the normal conventions you would expect the rules to at least attempt to specify that, which the territory rules don't appear to do so.

I'm not sure it's particularly a good thing. Having to declare everything first would be adding extra randomness and reducing the benefit of the higher variable income territories could be useful balance-wise, but I get the feeling it's not the intention of the official rules.

 

[Ben_S]

One thing I was thinking of is what happens if you roll a Mung Vase. I believe it used to be the case that, if you send a Ganger to look for rare trade and roll a Mung Vase, you have to buy it. I can't find any reference to that any more, so I guess it got removed in NCE. (Unfortunately, while added text is clearly identified, it's harder to see things that have been removed.)

 

[Orngog]

I think it's quite clear, declare territories to work

 

[Ben_S]

I think it's quite clear, declare territories to work

No one questions that. But do you declare all territories, then calculate income, or declare one, calculate, declare another, etc?

 

[Orngog]

Could "declare territories" be more clear?

 

[spafe]

declare all territories?

 

[Ben_S]

Could "declare territories" be more clear?

Yes, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

All of us here are familiar with Necromunda and yet it seems we have different views. Given this, it seems unlikely that - whichever view one favours - one view is clearly right and the other clearly wrong.

 

[Orngog]

Each ganger can generate income from one territory. The player chooses the territories he wishes to collect income from and adds up the total amount generated.

As far as I can see, only wishful thinking could allow one to interpret this as "choose territory, gain income, choose next territory".

I understand people may *want* the rule to be different, but the wording is clear IMO,

 

[spafe]

Having jsut gone through and read the exact wording I do agree it is fairly clear. However if people are reading it and not seeing it being that clear... then it could be worth seeing if it can be made clearer.

 

[Ben_S]

As I said above, I've always played that you make all of your choices and then calculate the earnings. But if someone else were to go one by one, I don't see what part of the rules specify that he's wrong. He's still choosing his territories and adding up the resulting income, which is pretty much all the rules say.