NCE Necromunda Community Edition

I like the suggestion on not being able to shoot after going in to hiding, but one query. Is there still a skill (Dive?) that lets you Hide and set Overwatch at the same time?

I assume, to keep that viable, the restriction is that if you go in to hiding you cannot fire in the same player turn, but are allowed to shoot in your opponent's movement phase. Right?
 
You have a good point @Ben_S. So the proposed new wording is:

If going into hiding, a model cannot shoot during that player's turn. This includes models that re-hide because they got spotted during their movement. If remaining hidden from a previous turn, the model can act normally.
 
I'd argue you could give the Ambush skill the ability to hide and shoot, in that case.

Suggested wording:
Ambush:
This fighter may shoot or go into overwatch on the same turn they went into hiding, provided they are otherwise allowed to do so (i.e. hasn't moved for overwatch).
 
  • Like
Reactions: undertaker and Tiny
I'd argue you could give the Ambush skill the ability to hide and shoot, in that case.

IMO a little pointless as they would be revealed as soon as they shoot anyway.

I would rather any changes we make didn't have too many knock-on effects if we can help it. The whole point of the Ambush skill is around the overwatch so I don't think adding shooting in his own turn does much. I picture it as the guy just being better than most at concealing himself when readying himself to overwatch.
 
Well, the point was to allow the hide-as-backup-shooter discussed previously, since it would fall in line with the argument that they're very good at concealing themselves.

I can understand not changing too many things at once, these are just my two cents on the matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiny
@SirFrog It seems you are proposing to make the Ambush skill better. Allowing the fighter to hide first, then decide if they want to go on overwatch or shoot in the shooting phase. Not sure if this change in balance is needed.

As it currently is, the Fighter cannot hide and shoot in the same player turn using Ambush. It is only if they go on overwatch, they may also hide:

1: Ambush
If the model goes on overwatch then he can also hide. Normally a fighter must expend his entire turn to go on overwatch, but a fighter with this skill can do both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiny
Thanks all.

Any objections on amending Flamer weapons to hit partials on a 5+ / 4+ / 3+ as opposed to auto miss / 4+ / auto hit? If nobody has reasonable objection in the next week, I will mark that off as done and we can concentrate on the next item.

Also there seems to be some consensus on models which go into hiding not being able to shoot in the same turn but allowed to shoot in subsequent turns. Any objections on that one?

I am against this change. Making heavie flamers worse and making hand flamers better are not good changes in terms of balance and flavour/diversity.

Are there other cases where partial hits do not use the 4+ rule? or are we about to change a fundamental rule?

I am also not convinced that a change is necessary. Am I correctly assuming that this is only a matter of players not being able to position their hand flamer minis with the correct distance to the target?
 
  • Like
Reactions: spafe
Are there other cases where partial hits do not use the 4+ rule? or are we about to change a fundamental rule?

Yes, Hand Flamers and Heavy Flamers currently do not use the 4+ rule. Hand Flamers currently automatically miss partials and Heavy Flamer automatically hits. Only flamers follow the 4+ rule. As far as I am aware there aren't any other template weapons in the game currently.
 
Yes, Hand Flamers and Heavy Flamers currently do not use the 4+ rule. Only flamers follow the 4+ rule. As far as I am aware there aren't any other template weapons in the game currently.

Yes there are cases where you do not use partial hit rules at all, but are there cases where you use other modifiers than 4+?
 
You still use the partial hit rules for those weapons. The likelihood of hitting is simply modified. All of the other rules about partial hits stand.

Modifying the partial hit to a 5+ is in fact less of a departure from the original rules than making them miss automatically. In LRB when template weapons were all made to use the same template, Hand Flamers were simply a single shot flamer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stoof
I don't think the flamer types need changing... becuase heavy flamers need the boost (hence why they got auto hit in the first place), and hand flamers change was to reduce their spam. I do however like the solution of 'if both long edges are touching the base of the target then they count as being full under the template' change.

Just my 2 creds
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben_S and Tiny
You still use the partial hit rules for those weapons. The likelihood of hitting is simply modified. All of the other rules about partial hits stand.

Modifying the partial hit to a 5+ is in fact less of a departure from the original rules than making them miss automatically. In LRB when template weapons were all made to use the same template, Hand Flamers were simply a single shot flamer.

I think that knowing that partial hits that needs a tiebreaker are always resolved by rolling 4+ is a good design element. And changing this would be bad. That is the point I am trying to make.
 
I think the auto-hit/4+/auto-miss rule is excellent as it is. Good escalation of effectiveness, groks good. What if we allowed flame weapons to pull the template back (ie. place it so the teardrop end is, say, 5" away instead of 8"?)? They get to place the fat end of the template where it needs to go as long as it's touching them, and portions of the template outside their fire arc are ineffective.
 
New I think the auto-hit/4+/auto-miss rule is excellent as it is. Good escalation of effectiveness, groks good. What if we allowed flame weapons to pull the template back (ie. place it so the teardrop end is, say, 5" away instead of 8"?)? They get to place the fat end of the template where it needs to go as long as it's touching them, and portions of the template outside their fire arc are ineffective.

That would involve a copious amount of re-writing of the template rules. A whole lot more than simply adding "if both long edges are touching the base of the target then they count as being fully under the template" although as with most changes, this will likely end up with people misinterpreting it and requiring more clarification and maybe a diagram. Adding extraneous wordage is something which I am trying to avoid.

The reasoning behind the proposed 3+/4+/5+ change is to make it more intuitive (it is the same as the ammo roll for the weapon) while not adding to the word count and avoiding changes to the core rules. It also avoids problems arising regarding models on larger bases if there is at least some likelihood to hit on a partial. I can accept if folk think this would make the Hand Flamer too powerful and the Heavy Flamer too weak though.

It is my personal opinion that now that the Hand Flamer is down to S3 and 5+ ammo roll as opposed to just being a single shot flamer, it is more than weak enough without auto-missing partials. I like the fact that partial hits are random as it adds a level of unpredictability. Sometimes they are great, sometimes they are crap. Making them predictably bad was not the way to go in order to stop players spamming them.

Edit: Poll now up.
 
Last edited:
I think that knowing that partial hits that needs a tiebreaker are always resolved by rolling 4+ is a good design element. And changing this would be bad. That is the point I am trying to make.

So by that logic, all partials should be on a 4+ whether using a hand flamer, flamer or a heavy flamer. Something I am willing to consider as it is how these weapons were originally conceived and means that the section on partial hits on p20 doesn't only pertain to a single weapon (the regular flamer).
 
So by that logic, all partials should be on a 4+ whether using a hand flamer, flamer or a heavy flamer. Something I am willing to consider as it is how these weapons were originally conceived and means that the section on partial hits on p20 doesn't only pertain to a single weapon (the regular flamer).

The logic is:

I think that knowing that partial hits that needs a tiebreaker are always resolved by rolling 4+ is a good design element. And changing this would be bad. That is the point I am trying to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben_S
That's a neat idea @ntw3001. I expect it will need a new diagram to explain, so it probably goes a beyond what NCE is for in terms of rules modification. I would consider introducing it as a houserule though.