[OCE] Heist Too Good for Non-Outlaws

[undertaker]

It has come to the attention of our gaming group that the Outlanders Heist scenario is a bit too profitable for non-outlaws. The problem is that the stolen loot is directly cashed in as equipment, rather than being added to a gang's income. This may be OK for outlaws, who get almost nothing from their single territory, but it's a huge bonus influx of equipment for normal gangs. If a gang drives off the defenders they get 2D6 loot counters, each worth D6 x 5 credits. That's 7 x 3.5 x 5 = 122.5 credits worth of stuff on average, which is enough for a heavy stubber. And, if the gang is not outlaws, they get their normal territory income for the game on top of that.

For now we have house-ruled that each loot counter stolen gives a -1 modifier on the outlaw table. The attackers are also given the option to leave any of the loot counters behind to mitigate these penalties, prior to determining their value.

Each stolen loot counter gives a -1 modifier on the becoming an outlaw table. If the attacker wins, loot counters still on the board can be voluntarily left behind.

This change increases the chance of a gang being outlawed from this scenario. Currently, the rewards from Heist are similar to those from Caravan. A gang gets automatically outlawed in Caravan with double the guild price, but in Heist it's only the standard -3 modifier to the roll for playing an outlaw scenario, which equates to 27.8 % chance of being outlawed without any other modifiers. This change would bring the penalties from Heist closer to those in Caravan. Of course, if the attackers are already outlawed, this change doesn't affect them.

So-far no other gangs have dared try the Heist, so the rules seem to be working.

 

[Anthony]

Well 28% isn't an insignificant chance of being outlawed. If you keep choosing the scenario you are going to be outlawed sooner rather than later. Does strike me though there's an issue with a House gang choosing it against an outlaw gang since you can't be reported and even just selling all the crate items is going to be a fair bit more worthwhile than playing a Scavengers. I was thinking in that specific case you could just reduce the crate number to D6 but even that wouldn't be a bad pay day.

 

[undertaker]

That is a very good point. I had not considered that outlaws can't report anyone. At least in Caravan it specifically says that outlaws can't be defenders. Maybe the better way to tweak the scenario would be to add the income from Heist loot to a gang's territory income. For outlaws the loot would be worth the full amount, but for non-outlaws it would be heavily reduced by the income table.

 

[Matt Spencer]

My issue with adding the loot to the gang's income is that it I feel the scenario loses some of its flavour and also becomes too good for outlaws. Not only does it let outlaws spend the credits on rare items (or food), it also means that it they loot 115 credits worth of stuff, they can add 5 credits from their other income to buy a heavy stubber. As it stands the boxes either contain a heavy stubber or they don't.

Well 28% isn't an insignificant chance of being outlawed. If you keep choosing the scenario you are going to be outlawed sooner rather than later. Does strike me though there's an issue with a House gang choosing it against an outlaw gang since you can't be reported and even just selling all the crate items is going to be a fair bit more worthwhile than playing a Scavengers. I was thinking in that specific case you could just reduce the crate number to D6 but even that wouldn't be a bad pay day.

I hadn't thought about that, either. Maybe it would be best to say that outlaws cannot be the defenders in Heist, like with Caravan? I know the flavour text mentions that you could be hitting renegade gunrunners rather than just guilders, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that outlaws aren't going to be trusted with a warehouse full of valuable goods.

 

[undertaker]

My issue with adding the loot to the gang's income is that it I feel the scenario loses some of its flavour and also becomes too good for outlaws. Not only does it let outlaws spend the credits on rare items (or food), it also means that it they loot 115 credits worth of stuff, they can add 5 credits from their other income to buy a heavy stubber. As it stands the boxes either contain a heavy stubber or they don't.

On the other hand it's a bit odd that a heavy stubber would be disassembled and distributed amongst 2D6 crates in the first place. If it is though, isn't it possible to loot 95% of the components and buy the rest from your stash? You could also say that the loot is in such good condition that it can be sold for full price rather than the half price second-hand goods normally fetch. Having never played as an outlaw I don't really know whether this would be too good for them.

I hadn't thought about that, either. Maybe it would be best to say that outlaws cannot be the defenders in Heist, like with Caravan? I know the flavour text mentions that you could be hitting renegade gunrunners rather than just guilders, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that outlaws aren't going to be trusted with a warehouse full of valuable goods.

That could also work.

 

[Anthony]

Currently the idea with the scenario is that if you want weapons/gear then it's a good scenario but other than that shouldn't be financially as good as others (though it does appear to be a bit too good in that regard). If the crates were treated as regular income then you would have to re-purpose the scenario, probably as a more risky but rewarding version of Scavengers. So less crates and probably make them a bit more dangerous or harder to capture.

Otherwise I imagine you could add caveats rather than banning lawful vs outlaw. Something like, in the case of lawful vs outlaw any crate income would be halved (or just less crates), and whenever the defenders are outlaws the chance of setting off a crate could be 1-2 instead of 1 (or on a roll of 6 the crate is empty). Seems like there's plenty of hooks to modify the scenario and would be a bit of a shame to just ban it or turn it into an alt-Scavengers.

 

[trollmeat]

About outlaw scenarios in general, would it be too harsh to automatically have the attacking gang (the one that chooses the scenario) roll to see if they are outlawed, or some roll to see if they have been reported by others?

It's risky business deciding to behave so poorly, and just because there are no civilian rules doesn't mean that there aren't any witnesses hiding under crates and behind Hablock doors...