NCE Necromunda Community Edition

[ntw3001]

I just checked the NCE I have downloaded and there's a lot of additions that obfuscate it further.

HIRE FEE
The gang must pay the hire fee for the Hired Gun
when he is recruited and subsequently after each
battle including the first. This cost comes from the
gang’s stash in the same way as the cost of buying
new weapons or recruiting new gang fighters. Note
Hired Guns must still usually be paid even if they
didn't participate in the fight. If the gang dispenses
with a Hired Gun then he must still be paid for his
services that game.

If the Hired Gun is killed or was forced to miss the game (as described in the Missing Games section on page 83) then understandably he does not have to be paid for his services that game. If the Hired Gun was captured that game then he cannot be paid. If he is subsequently ransomed or rescued then the naturally grateful Hired Gun will not demand any payment for either the game he was captured in nor the Rescue attempt. Note Hired Guns must be ransomed together with all of their weapons and equipment. If there is insufficient credit in the gang's stash to pay a Hired Gun, then he leaves the gang and the gang may not recruit further Hired Guns until it has fought another battle.

No idea why it was like this in N95 or why it was kept and edited for NCE (I guess the ethos was generally 'add clarifications but avoid editing mechanics', but I think this would have been a sensible place to break the rules) but yes this is very convoluted for no benefit that I can see. Just pay up front guys, we don't need to do it backwards and upside down

 

[ClockworkOrange]

hmmmm I do love a good schism

“The gang must pay the hire fee for the Hired Gun when he is recruited and subsequently after each battle including the first”

Would suggest:

Plays for 1 game - 2 hire fees
Plays for 2 games - 3 hire fees
etc

“A gang can dispense with the services of a Hired Gun after any game”

Which doesn’t contradict the first paragraph.

“If there is insufficient credit in the gang's stash to pay a Hired Gun, then he leaves the gang and the gang may not recruit further Hired Guns until it has fought another battle”

Which doesn’t contradict the first paragraph. But does mean that if you don’t pay them, they wouldn’t be counted on the rosta. It also suggests it’s not an optional payment you must pay it, if you don’t they leave and the penalty is you can’t hire anyone else.

I think the majority have treated not paying them as optional. which I must admit sounds more thematic. I’m sure there’s a FAQ somewhere that discusses this.

 

[ClockworkOrange]

Found it - I think these FAQ's were produced by the people behind Necromunda Magazine, Fanatic and Gang War. It’s all lost in the mists of time now though.

The Tribemeet Committee via @Tiny "own" editing the NCE these days and this is how we play it if that helps? Pay the initial hire fee and then pay a fee in the post battle sequence if you want to keep them for the next game.

Extract from the Hired Gun Section:

 

[Ben_S]

I agree that the rules are a bit convoluted here.

“If there is insufficient credit in the gang's stash to pay a Hired Gun, then he leaves the gang and the gang may not recruit further Hired Guns until it has fought another battle”

If payment is optional, then this is rather strange. It means you suffer a penalty (not being able to recruit further hired guns) if you're unable to pay, but not if you simply choose not to pay despite being able to do so. Surely the latter is worse.

I suspect payment was intended to be mandatory, if you can afford it. Then this sentence clarifies that you don't have to sell equipment in order to make the payment (you simply suffer the penalty instead).

This does, however, make the timing of the payment crucial. If it was done before collecting income, for example, then it would be easier to claim poverty and avoid paying.

Given the apparent mess, I agree that clarification in the next revision would be useful. I have no objection if the consensus is to change this, so payment is only required if you want to keep them. (Check whether we need to clarify the Ratskin Scout though - I assume he'd need to be paid before sending him to search for territory, even though you might lose him.)

 

[Tiny]

“If there is insufficient credit in the gang's stash to pay a Hired Gun, or the player chooses not to pay him, then he leaves the gang and the gang may not recruit further Hired Guns until it has fought another battle”

Easy fix.

Also, pay hired guns at the same time you would spend any other credits on fighters.

Ratskin is fine IMO. You already paid the dude for the last game, you won the scenario and he didn't go OOA. He can look for territory as part of his previous pay during the "territory" part of the post game, and then you can fire him if you like.

 

[MedMos]

FWIW I'm in favor of payment being optional, with the mentioned penalty for not paying. A hired gun is just that, my gang will not feel obligated to keep them employed for the rest og their lives.
Agreed with @Tiny in the above, he was posting while I typed.

 

[Ben_S]

Ratskin is fine IMO. You already paid the dude for the last game...

Ok, could go that way if you prefer. But either way I think clarification would be useful.

 

[ntw3001]

I think it would benefit from a full rewrite, just to make the language clearer. You pay them during the shopping phase and they join your roster. If you have a hired gun on your roster, after any game they participate in, you pay them during the shopping phase or erase them from your roster. Exceptions made if they participate in a rescue mission as a hostage. We can probably remove the part about conditions under which they have to paid for not showing up, that's silly.

20251021_205408.jpg

• ntw3001
• Oct 21, 2025

This is how Mordheim does it. Never been a problem as far as I'm aware – except that the double-priced initial fee encouraged players to use them more like permanent members that drained huge amounts of cash, which I would say didn't really work well. So this rule could be even more simple.

 

[Tiny]

We can probably remove the part about conditions under which they have to paid for not showing up, that's silly.

The issue with this is that you pay them before you know which scenario you're playing.

Sometimes they're part of the gang as a reinforcement but never make it to the table, sometimes they're just not part of the fight at all, so it's just easier for book-keeping purposes that you pay them regardless of whether they're in the fight or not, rather than give an exhaustive list of the conditions which mean they get paid.

It also provides an incentive to choose them if you have a limited number of fighters in a scenario, which does have an impact on gang progression. All part of the joy of using hired guns.

 

[ntw3001]

Is '1: If they appear on the table' not a long enough list of conditions? I don't feel like we need any of this. It's a whole lot of 'A, unless B, unless C' to write and read, and the gameplay payoff is that... sometimes you pay hired guns for nothing. To my mind, that's not an extremely compelling gameplay feature, but if anyone disagrees, how many layers of verbiage is it worth solely to make that outcome possible?

I don't see any bookkeeping issue either. The only question is 'did this fighter participate in the game'. It's the same condition that we measure for every fighter during the experience phase. If yes, they'll be erased from the roster unless paid in the shopping phase.

 

[SirFrog]

Remind me, are there any skills or special rules that hired guns could have that has a out-of-table effect? If so, would you pay the retainer fee if you made use of those features?

There's an argument to be made for that the retainer fee should be applied after every battle no matter if they appeared on the table or not. I dread to use "realism" when believability is more appropriate - a contractor is paid to be around, if you don't wanna give them work orders that's up to you, they still cost the same!

 

[MedMos]

There's an argument to be made for that the retainer fee should be applied after every battle no matter if they appeared on the table or not. I dread to use "realism" when believability is more appropriate - a contractor is paid to be around, if you don't wanna give them work orders that's up to you, they still cost the same!

This is how I've always seen it. You pay for a service, if you don't use it they still want to get paid what you owe them.

 

[Tiny]

The only question is 'did this fighter participate in the game'.

You hire a brand new Scummer for the next game and pay the 15 credits. You play The Hit scenario as a defender, and he is put into a reinforcement group with a ganger (minimum of 2 fighters per group) which subsequently never makes it onto the table. Do you pay him after the game or not? If he hadn't been present, that reinforcement group would have been against the rules of the scenario.

 

[ntw3001]

I'm working part-time at the moment and I get paid for the hours i work. I don't get paid for the hours I _could_ have spent at work, I get paid for the hours I actually spend at work. I don't think that's a very creative contract; it certainly doesn't stretch the bounds of believability.

 

[ntw3001]

You hire a brand new Scummer for the next game and pay the 15 credits. You play The Hit scenario as a defender, and he is put into a reinforcement group with a ganger (minimum of 2 fighters per group) which subsequently never makes it onto the table. Do you pay him after the game or not? If he hadn't been present, that reinforcement group would have been against the rules of the scenario.

He didn't enter the table, so you don't pay him. What are we gaining from making it more convuted?

 

[Troubled Child]

I'd say from a game mechanic perspective it's bad to have to pay a fee for a unit you don't use but from a RP perspective he worked for your gang that week regardless of if he made it on to a table.

 

[ntw3001]

I'd say from a game mechanic perspective it's bad to have to pay a fee for a unit you don't use but from a RP perspective he worked for your gang that week regardless of if he made it on to a table.

I mean... did he? Are our hired killers also assumed to be pitching in with light clerical work behind the scenes?

Okay I've posted many, sorry chaps I'm stepping away from the phone

 

[Troubled Child]

I mean... did he? Are our hired killers also assumed to be pitching in with light clerical work behind the scenes?

Yeah, he was with your other gangers who failed to get their lazy backsides into position and now the Trolls/Clones have made off with the valuable [insert whatever your gang of degenerates considers valuable here]. Now if he is the reason those gangers never made it to the table, then that's a different matter.

 

[MedMos]

He didn't enter the table, so you don't pay him. What are we gaining from making it more convuted?

I'd say it's less convoluted, that if he's on the roster he gets paid. If he doesn't get paid, he's off the roster.

 

[Tiny]

I'm working part-time at the moment and I get paid for the hours i work. I don't get paid for the hours I _could_ have spent at work, I get paid for the hours I actually spend at work.

He was working, just not on the table where he was supposed to be. He was operating as a reinforcement, accompanying a ganger who couldn't have been there without the Scummer.

In the case of a scenario like Shoot Out where you simply get a few random fighters, it's a little more of a contentious point. You paid the guy and he wasn't there, so I understand the issue, but see it more from an RP perspective: You paid the guy for a week's work and he just happened to be back guarding the base, and not slacking off in the bar and getting into a scuffle that day.

Anyway, I think we have a majority agreement on that one so let's put it to bed and stick with the way most people already play it. If your group wants to play it differently, that's cool.