Resource icon

Necromunda Necromunda Enforcers - NCE Development Version 0.2

No permission to download

Tiny

Hive Lord
Yak Comp 1st Place
Tribe Council
Jul 12, 2011
5,055
13,209
183
South Wales, UK
www.tinyworlds.co.uk
Initial thoughts:

Possible typo on the enforcer statline (M3, maybe M4?).

The "additional resources" ruleset is good, but maybe needs some negative modifiers to reflect higher ups not wanting to reward poor performance, or maybe snake eyes on the 2D6 hauling the leader into central to explain his precinct's poor performance, so they miss the next game/D3 games?

There's a lot of "special" model types (heavy, specialist, handler and maybe sniper?) - it might be worth paring them down, i.e. have up to two models from a choice of those options?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiny
Initial thoughts:

Possible typo on the enforcer statline (M3, maybe M4?).

The "additional resources" ruleset is good, but maybe needs some negative modifiers to reflect higher ups not wanting to reward poor performance, or maybe snake eyes on the 2D6 hauling the leader into central to explain his precinct's poor performance, so they miss the next game/D3 games?

There's a lot of "special" model types (heavy, specialist, handler and maybe sniper?) - it might be worth paring them down, i.e. have up to two models from a choice of those options?

Definitely a typo yes.

A negative result on the chart would be cool. I purposely didn't put any negative modifiers as the good results start pretty high and you need to have got at least one positive to get the best one. Not difficult to move about though.

Wasn't sure whether to just give the Specialist a sniper rifle option. Conscious that you can't take any guys that participated last game unless they're choosing the scenario. Also a hunting rifle ain't all that so until he gets himself a needle rifle he's not really any better than a normal Enforcer.
 
I think you are missing a line saying deaths are replaced with new recruits from the academy. Maybe change the 'Injuries' to 'Injuries/deaths' and add a line in there saying that any Enforcers who are killed are replaced with a new recruit for free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiny
I think you are missing a line saying deaths are replaced with new recruits from the academy. Maybe change the 'Injuries' to 'Injuries/deaths' and add a line in there saying that any Enforcers who are killed are replaced with a new recruit for free.
Yep, that's definitely an omission.
 
@Tiny Noticed on the first page: They also make useD of cyber-mastiffs...

  1. What's the problem with enforcers using imperial guns of any kind? If shotguns are a fair game, why not autoguns or lasguns? To me, any weapon should be a fair game as long as it is not something like repurposed industrial tool turned into a makeshift weapon.
  2. Why are we sticking to 1000cr. equals patrol? To me it seems like an unjust oversimplification. A patrol consisting of rookies is not the same in terms of power/credit value as patrol with leader/heavies.
  3. Planned out operations essentially turn off enforcer's gimmick of having to swap fighters, is it really needed?
  4. Leadership gimmick of fighters leaving the squad is just weird. Sure, it has flavour, but by this logic, any ganger with too good of a leadership would want to leave and create his own gang? I don't think that it is needed.
  5. "In addition, if the squad is playing a scenario were the amount of fighters deployed at the start of the game is limited (eg a Raid), then they deploy half the usual amount (round fractions up)." Why not just straight out say that you can never deploy less than 3 enforcers, no matter what scenario says?
  6. "More than a Match" is the result of not having a proper individual fighter's cost, it becomes impossible to calculate an underdog bonus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiny
Prefacing this with "I've not read this over for a while"...
What's the problem with enforcers using imperial guns of any kind? If shotguns are a fair game, why not autoguns or lasguns? To me, any weapon should be a fair game as long as it is not something like repurposed industrial tool turned into a makeshift weapon.
The choice of weaponry for a given gang is meant to help with the overall theme of said gang; autoguns are automatic weapons, which aren't usually associated with keeping the peace, and lasguns are less "shock and awe" than a proper solid projectile.

I suppose there's nothing stopping an enforcer from using a captured/confiscated weapon?
Why are we sticking to 1000cr. equals patrol? To me it seems like an unjust oversimplification. A patrol consisting of rookies is not the same in terms of power/credit value as patrol with leader/heavies.
I agree that it does feel like an oversimplification, and not really moving towards it being a player controlled gang, but it's having to pick from available models and rework out your gang rating every time which is being simplified - for every group of rookies worth "1000" there's a group of leader/heavy/specialist/handler/sniper worth only "1000".
Planned out operations essentially turn off enforcer's gimmick of having to swap fighters, is it really needed?
Are you talking about the turning off of the gimmick, or the gimmick itself? It helps ensure you're not just using the same guys every time, which with their good gear could make them a bit powerful, and they only get to plan/shake up the fighters used when on the offensive.
Leadership gimmick of fighters leaving the squad is just weird. Sure, it has flavour, but by this logic, any ganger with too good of a leadership would want to leave and create his own gang? I don't think that it is needed.
Other gangs can (and should, as they're fun and they're in the rules somewhere?) have different leadership challenges (knife fight, shootout, remain loyal to the current leader) when a ganger has a Ld higher than (/equal to?) the leader, with the loser leaving the gang. This rule simplifies that thematically (enforcers wouldn't fight each other, but they would get recognised as leader potential and be given their own command).
"In addition, if the squad is playing a scenario were the amount of fighters deployed at the start of the game is limited (eg a Raid), then they deploy half the usual amount (round fractions up)." Why not just straight out say that you can never deploy less than 3 enforcers, no matter what scenario says?
Maybe? Might we run into issues with working out numbers, or misinterpretation of deploying a minimum of 3?
"More than a Match" is the result of not having a proper individual fighter's cost, it becomes impossible to calculate an underdog bonus.
I don't understand that comment fully, but underdog bonus goes off gang ratings, with the opposing gang rating being calculated and the enforcers (currently) having flat gang ratings of 1000 or 2000 - it doesn't look impossible to calculate.

My personal thoughts on the gang is that, as it stands, the rules continue it as a cookie-cutter/arbitrator gang with little personality and little to allow for player "customisation"; you start with 10 models, no more, no less, and the composition of the gang only allows for one enforcer to maybe be a sniper (which you'd almost always take?). After the sniper choice, it seems almost always identical.

Having costs attributed to different model types who come with set equipment and possible weapon loadouts, and costs for standard loadouts to put over the top of them (you could buy a heavy but only fit them out with a power maul and shield - "riot gear" - at the outset, hoping to furnish them with a heavy weapon further down the line, or you could buy a handler who includes a cyber mastiff by default, but give them a sniper loadout) would give a sense of player agency to the gang creation.

That could allow for:

A "training academy" of a leader and standard enforcers, with juve equivalents;
A "manhunter" unit with two handlers and a sniper enforcer;
A "crowd control specialist" unit armed primarily with power mauls and shields, perhaps with a heavy armed with a grenade launcher;

The list could go on, allowing for players to mix and match better what they might want in their unit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stoof and Tiny
What's the problem with enforcers using imperial guns of any kind? If shotguns are a fair game, why not autoguns or lasguns? To me, any weapon should be a fair game as long as it is not something like repurposed industrial tool turned into a makeshift weapon.
IRL cops don't use the AK-47s they took off the drug dealers or AR-15s they bought at Walmart. They use the equipment their regulations / traditions allow them to use. The same way Cadian guardsmen don't use autoguns or storm bolters. Limiting the weapons available makes them unique.
Why are we sticking to 1000cr. equals patrol? To me it seems like an unjust oversimplification. A patrol consisting of rookies is not the same in terms of power/credit value as patrol with leader/heavies.
The ability to change an individual's weapons loadout completely between games and only using half of the team in any one game makes working out gang ratings a nightmare. This works the same way Spyrers do. 5 men. 1000 + Exp rating. Simple and easy.
Planned out operations essentially turn off enforcer's gimmick of having to swap fighters, is it really needed?
Maybe. Maybe not. Not playtested them to find out yet. I don't see any issue with binning it or keeping it. I'm guessing its there just because it makes no sense to raid the local drug den on the same day your grenade launcher guy is having a day off. The normal patrol rules making more sense if its just a random patrol being ambushed by the local drug dealer and his gang or happening upon some illegal activity.
Leadership gimmick of fighters leaving the squad is just weird. Sure, it has flavour, but by this logic, any ganger with too good of a leadership would want to leave and create his own gang? I don't think that it is needed.
Its purely to stop them becoming a gang of super men as they are more easily able to deal with serious injuries than a normal house gang. It will make more sense once I add Leadership Challenges back to OCE in the next update. :sneaky:
"In addition, if the squad is playing a scenario were the amount of fighters deployed at the start of the game is limited (eg a Raid), then they deploy half the usual amount (round fractions up)." Why not just straight out say that you can never deploy less than 3 enforcers, no matter what scenario says?
If you have a scenario where you roll 4 guys, you would halve it to 2.
"More than a Match" is the result of not having a proper individual fighter's cost, it becomes impossible to calculate an underdog bonus.
Yes.
My personal thoughts on the gang is that, as it stands, the rules continue it as a cookie-cutter/arbitrator gang with little personality and little to allow for player "customisation"; you start with 10 models, no more, no less, and the composition of the gang only allows for one enforcer to maybe be a sniper (which you'd almost always take?). After the sniper choice, it seems almost always identical.
You can replace any of your fighter's weapons between games. You can take a heavy flamer and a flamer in one game and then (after an appropriate game off if required) a heavy bolter and a plasma gun in the next. Your normal guys can take shock mauls one game and then swap them for a special boltgun the next. You can take an entire team of close combat beasts or a team of all gunners. They are super customisable, particularly once you start accruing some of the special issue weapons like webbers and needle rifles. I am tempted to re-do the special issue stuff to just use the normal rare trade chart, which would allow them to get things like bio-boosters and grav chutes, although there would have to be a lot of caveats (enforcers' superiors wouldn't be likely to supply them with a mung vase and some blade venom).

They shouldn't use credits. They are closer to an Imperial Guard squad than a gang. They don't spend money to get gear or fighters. They get what they're given by their superiors. They have 10-man units because that is what their doctrine says they have. They use quite specific equipment because that is what their doctrine says they use. They need to be sufficiently different from a house gang. We don't need any more house gangs, particularly ones full of super men in carapace armour. They should IMO be somewhere in between a normal house gang and Spyrers, with their own special rules and quirks.
 
Just out of curiosity, are these N17 enforcers in NCE, or adapted rules for Arbites from ORB?
 
Hello! I've had a chance to give these a try in a few ~1300-1500 rating games now, and was wondering if there have been any updates, or if further playtesting has been done, or if there are even just some suggestions for how to play them.

One of the things I've noticed is that it feels like I have no way to deal with more mobile gangs, or gangers who can set up for various outflanks. "Deploy second, go first, and successfully snipe them out of cover with heavy + hunting" isn't always an option :p

The cyber mastiff in practice is not an answer to this problem that I have been able to make work, due to both its inability to gain skills, wounds, etc. and its massive secondary vulnerability (the handler dying removes it from the game also, even if it's in combat, or near enemies, or if another enforcer could conceivably take over).

Against normal gangers, the universal 3" mv grants players with a sense of board control an incredible advantage. Getting a charge off with them is difficult. It's also very easy to pin them in spots where they can't run, and they can't charge -- neutering most of the normal options available to exerting threat range at mv4.

Their propensity to lose 2 models, succeed on bottle, lose two more models, bottle out -- combined with no underdog -- means they have difficulty gaining experience. Since they're forced into rotation and they're being removed from action very regularly, they accrue levels very slowly.

Would love to get more insight for how they should be handling in theory, and suggestions for taking on mobile gangs or gangs with deployment options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiny
I was playing Pandemic (PVE team boardgame) and then it hit me.
What if enforcers worked in a similar fashion to Pandemic's financing system? In pandemic, governments finance your team and the financing increases whenever you lose and decreases whenever you win. The logic is 'If you are doing very well with this funding, maybe we could make some cuts?'. So an enforcer squad rating would increase or decrease based on successive win/loss streaks. This would make them unique in terms of campaign mechanics and have a dash of flavor of imperium's bureaucracy.

Regarding territories, I think we could borrow from modern GW rules; enforcers cannot own territories, but can give it to a law-abiding gang to police (ideally the gang with the lowest rating to keep things fair). There has to be some sort of reward for this, be it XP or modificator to additional resource request.

IRL cops don't use the AK-47s they took off the drug dealers or AR-15s they bought at Walmart. They use the equipment their regulations / traditions allow them to use. The same way Cadian guardsmen don't use autoguns or storm bolters. Limiting the weapons available makes them unique.
The choice of weaponry for a given gang is meant to help with the overall theme of said gang; autoguns are automatic weapons, which aren't usually associated with keeping the peace, and lasguns are less "shock and awe" than a proper solid projectile.

Flamers, Boltguns and plasmaguns are not very 'police'-like weapons either. I think that you are making arbitrary restrictions based on what an image of arbites/enforcers used to look like.
In my opinion either base the entire enforcer's gameplay on non-lethal weapons to capture fighters alive or don't bother and treat them like a regular gang.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tiny
Hello! I've had a chance to give these a try in a few ~1300-1500 rating games now, and was wondering if there have been any updates, or if further playtesting has been done, or if there are even just some suggestions for how to play them.
I haven't had any chance to play them yet, or really look at them for a while. Thanks for giving them a try out.
universal 3" mv
Not sure why they'd have a universal 3" MV this is definitely not intended if they've somehow ended up with it.
In my opinion either base the entire enforcer's gameplay on non-lethal weapons to capture fighters alive or don't bother and treat them like a regular gang.
Neither. They get the weapons the precinct issues, lethal and non-lethal, but don't use captured weapons from scumbags they capture. Real life cops use lethal weapons from time to time, just not ones they took from drug dealers, which go to evidence. They also have a limited array of weapons because the precinct doesn't need to be able to give them 100 different options. I could see removing a few options as a way to go (would they really have access to a missile launcher?), although I at least want players to be able to use their classic Enforcers minis as they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MedMos and Ardavion
@Tiny I think the 3" Mv is due to the carapace armour? Not got the rules in front of me but they do reduce a stat - just can't remember if it's Mv or Ini (I do think it's meant to be Ini, though).

Unless it's Mv=3 in the statline, which would be a typo.
 
@Tiny I think the 3" Mv is due to the carapace armour? Not got the rules in front of me but they do reduce a stat - just can't remember if it's Mv or Ini (I do think it's meant to be Ini, though).

Unless it's Mv=3 in the statline, which would be a typo.
Should be -1 Initiative.

Just realised you pointed out the typo that says M3 in the stat line for regular enforcers a few posts back.. that is definitely a typo for anyone testing it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ardavion
In pandemic, governments finance your team and the financing increases whenever you lose and decreases whenever you win. The logic is 'If you are doing very well with this funding, maybe we could make some cuts?'. So an enforcer squad rating would increase or decrease based on successive win/loss streaks. This would make them unique in terms of campaign mechanics and have a dash of flavor of imperium's bureaucracy.
I really like this idea. Not sure how to implement it but will look into it. A bonus to the

Should be -1 Initiative.
Although there is a rule in there saying enforcers don't suffer it. For clarity's sake.

Also for sake of clarity I'm going to fix that M3 issue and re-upload the file.
 
Found this and given it a read, hoping to give it a play test when I get the minis together for them

I've had a read of the suppression shield though, it gives a 5+ armour save whilst their carapace armour gives them a 4+?(if I remember correctly)

Without having playtested it or combed through the rules at all just yet would it not be better to have it be a 6+ special save perhaps?
Just thinking anything that rips through carapace armour would also eat the suppression shield unless I'm missing something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiny