Proper reflection of Gang Rating

[KopMcGinty]

But that's not a gang rating issue, it's a base cost issue and special weapons aren't special issue. Better fixed by increasing its cost and restricting to Leader/Champ/Specialist or whatever your preferred fix is.

Taking the grenade launcher cost the same for everyone fixes nothing really. Some still have easier access to it and it's still broken compared to other stuff.

Also what if some tools are also more powerful in one gangs hands than another? Do you then give it a higher rating value than the other gang regardless of what it costs? Could get very messy for a benifit I simply don't see.

Necromunda isn't a game where fine balance is needed. Roughly even is good enough to me.

 

[TopsyKretts]

I agree this has nothing to do with Grenade Launcher, it's something completely separate.

I just don't see the problems of having separate costs for an item. Orlock fighter gets a lasgun? Doesn't matter what the lasgun's original cost was, stolen from escher or whatever. The new cost for the fighter will be increased by Orlock's HWL cost for lasgun. The HWL doesn't include lasgun? Then take the trading post price! How is this a problem? At no point does your gang have to know any other price than what's in your HWL or in Trading post. That's unless you steal some weapon which only exists in another HWL. Then you would actually need to use another gang's HWL.

 

[Thorgor]

Yes, this has nothing to do with the GL being OP and Blast needing some clarifications (those are completely separate and much more important issues)

Yes, the costs are balanced for the abilities of different units. Isn't that the exact same thing here?

No it's not the same thing. First, a gang is not a single unit, you have people with different BS in it, for starter. Second, if it were balanced this way, then it means Goliath are better at using a lasgun than Van Saar and Van Saar are better at using a Grenade launcher than Goliath: I'm not buying that. Third, rare weapons from the trading post have an additional virtual 1D6*10 cost that is not reflected in their rating, so why should the flat 10 credit discount be?

Why is that a problem?

It's a problem because it creates value out of thin air. Same problem with armour swapping: if you buy a Mesh armour for your juve and let the ganger keep her Flak armour, your gang rating is different than it would be if you give the Mesh to the ganger and recycle the Flak on the juve. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[TopsyKretts]

No it's not the same thing. First, a gang is not a single unit, you have people with different BS in it, for starter. Second, if it were balanced this way, then it means Goliath are better at using a lasgun than Van Saar and Van Saar are better at using a Grenade launcher than Goliath: I'm not buying that. Third, rare weapons from the trading post have an additional virtual 1D6*10 cost that is not reflected in their rating, so why should the flat 10 credit discount be?


It's a problem because it creates value out of thin air. Same problem with armour swapping: if you buy a Mesh armour for your juve and let the ganger keep her Flak armour, your gang rating is different than it would be if you give the Mesh to the ganger and recycle the Flak on the juve. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't mean to be hysterical here, but surely you can find different stats within a unit in 40k too. Maybe a veteran seargeant with better BS?

Your second point is valid, the costs could have been balanced based on gangs. But they don't seem to no.

Third point, some items may have a variable cost not represented in the gang rating. This was the case in previous editions too, where the random price was stated explicitly, no? The flat 10 credit discount could potentially have been for balancing issues, just like a plasma gun is more expensive on a space marine than on a bog standard (imperial) guardsman.

 

[TopsyKretts]

I was pointing out that it's not how it's worked ever. Of course, sometimes you bring everything to the table anyway, but as far as I'm aware every iteration of the rules has potentially included things not brought to the table in your GR. So there's nothing new about N17 doing this.

Ok you're right about the gang rating including all fighters. But how does this compare to Blood Bowl where you only calculate rating for the models actually on the table? You could have a big advanced team, but if half of them are injured, your rating going to be halved also. Whenever you play against someone, you will compare underdog bonuses based on this game, not what you had previous game or what you potentially can field next game.

 

[TopsyKretts]

It's a problem because it creates value out of thin air. Same problem with armour swapping: if you buy a Mesh armour for your juve and let the ganger keep her Flak armour, your gang rating is different than it would be if you give the Mesh to the ganger and recycle the Flak on the juve. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I look at those as two completely separate problems. The cost of armour is a bug as you describe it. I don't see that for swapping weapons between houses. If an Escher steals a lasgun from Orlock, their gang rating is going up 5 (should have been 10 IMO but that's a different topic). This represents how much a lasgun is weighted in an escher gang.

If an Olrock steals an Escher lasgun, the cost is going up 15. This is how much lasguns are weighted in Orlock gangs. Different gangs, different weights.

Tried Blood Bowl? You could get a cheap dodge skill on your elves. It will increase the elf's cost by 20k and since the elf's cost applies to the team value, the team also increases 20k. Try to do the same with an Orc? An Orc getting the dodge skill would increase the Orc's cost by 30k! And the team value would increase 30k.

It's the same skill and works exactly the same way for both. Elves even get more usage from the Dodge skill cause they got higher Agility.

 

[Thorgor]

Regarding fighters in recovery/captured, I think that we should have two different values: gang rating, that represents how well the gang is doing in the campaign (and may replace Reputation as a winner-designing value) and crew rating that represents how powerful a gang is in a given game. Gang rating would include fighters in recovery/captured, item in the stash, and whatnots while crew rating would only take into account things that can help you during the battle proper.

Third point, some items may have a variable cost not represented in the gang rating. This was the case in previous editions too, where the random price was stated explicitly, no?

Yes, that's my point. An item only had one rating, regardless of how expensive it was to purchase it. N17 does the same thing for rare items, but not for discounted items, hence the issue.

If an Escher steals a lasgun from Orlock, their gang rating is going up 5 (should have been 10 IMO but that's a different topic). This represents how much a lasgun is weighted in an escher gang.

Yeah, I understand how it works, I just don't agree with it. Since we have established that this 'weight' does not adequatly represent a difference in power-level, there is no good reason for this.
Btw, how much is a Harpoon gun weighted for Escher?

Tried Blood Bowl? You could get a cheap dodge skill on your elves. It will increase the elf's cost by 20k and since the elf's cost applies to the team value, the team also increases 20k. Try to do the same with an Orc? An Orc getting the dodge skill would increase the Orc's cost by 30k! And the team value would increase 30k.

Well, BloodBowl may also be doing it wrong then. Am I wrong in assuming Dodge is not a very popular skill among Orc players? N17 has a similar problem with skills rating btw (randomly rolled tertiary Clambing is more valuable than primary handpicked Spring up... seriously? I get it's more expensive, but more valuable?)

 

[KopMcGinty]

BloodBowl can't be doing it wrong if it's been largely unchanged for as long as it has though.. the players are happy with it and it works so why change it?

Dodge is actually very popular on Orc teams when they get the opportunity to take it btw, they just need a double on the skill roll (which is why it's more expensive) to get it and there are so many useful normal skills they can get.

My previous comments aside (I'm quite obviously anti this idea but that's fine) it's an interesting discussion for those wanting to implement something like this as a house rule.

Seems like the idea is each item would have a credit value is cost (varied by house/market for each gang) then a rating value used for calculating rating.

My question then.. is a Heavy Stubber a heavy Stubber is a heavy Stubber... Or... Is it more on your rating if wielded by a BS3+ than a BS4+ or are you leaving that discrepancy down to the increased value derived from taking the advance? In which case is better BS always worth the same?

A gang with a high BS guy toting a lasgun and a normal BS guy with H.Stubber would have the same Gang Rating as a different gang with the high BS guy having the H.Stubber and the normal guy a lasgun.. do you then have to start linking attributes to weapons?

 

[TopsyKretts]

Btw, how much is a Harpoon gun weighted for Escher?


Well, BloodBowl may also be doing it wrong then. Am I wrong in assuming Dodge is not a very popular skill among Orc players? N17 has a similar problem with skills rating btw (randomly rolled tertiary Clambing is more valuable than primary handpicked Spring up... seriously? I get it's more expensive, but more valuable?)

Dodge is one of the core skills of Blood Bowl (it affects one of the results of the block dice). Dodge is super popular for orcs and dwarves. That means, it is often a selected skill if you're able to select it. However, since Orcs and Dwarves are not particularly "dodgy", they very rarely are able to select it. It's pretty similar to Primary and Secondary skills in N17. So your Escher may select Agility skills for a cheap price (Primary). But a Goliath juve would pay a higher price for Agility skills (Secondary). This is similar to Blood Bowl. So Agility may have some great skills that characters who are not really agile (per the fluff) would want.

So we already pay different prices for the same skill based on fighter type and gang. For me, it's just natural to continue this with weapons. Just like in Blood Bowl, you could do a complete orc team with dodge. But it would be very difficult to achieve, and you'd be paying a much higher price for it than an actually agile and dodgy team like elves.

In Necromunda, you could do an entire Goliath gang with lasguns! But you'd be paying a much higher price for it than if you actually used a gang where lasguns fits with the fluff (Escher).

 

[TopsyKretts]

Btw, how much is a Harpoon gun weighted for Escher?

What is the price in Escher's HWL? Doesn't exist? Try Trading post.
What is the price in Trading Post? Doesn't exist? Go to the price in the original HWL (Orlock).

 

[Ardavion]

Yes, the costs are balanced for the abilities of different units. Isn't that the exact same thing here?

It isn't the same, as the systems and the campaign structure - or what passes for it in 40k - differ.

I'm 40k, buying a bolt gun for a space marine (although it's included in the unit cost) differs from an Ork getting a bolt gun (or equivalent), but there's no chance the space marine being captured, there's no shared market for each army, and if different armies have different costs for the same weapon, it is to help balance a single fight rather than seeing how it might provide underdog bonuses or affect campaign leader boards.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Wouldn't balancing a single fight based on the cost of the army/gang be exactly the same as balancing a campaign fight based on the difference in cost of the armies/gangs?

 

[Thorgor]

Hmmm... if Dodge is a skill Orc players rarely have access to, then I'm assuming a 10k difference here and there is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. This may be why it's not perceived as a problem.

My question then.. is a Heavy Stubber a heavy Stubber is a heavy Stubber... Or... Is it more on your rating if wielded by a BS3+ than a BS4+ or are you leaving that discrepancy down to the increased value derived from taking the advance? In which case is better BS always worth the same?

Ideally, it's not. Realistically, it is. I suppose we could come up with a formula for calculating the exact power-level of every combination, but it's not realistic to expect the players to apply it when calculating their gang rating. It's no reason to settle for the arbitrary different values of the current system though. Same value for everyone is not the perfect solution, but it's a simple solution that is better than what we have.

So we already pay different prices for the same skill based on fighter type and gang. For me, it's just natural to continue this with weapons.

The prices you have to pay being different is one thing, but it's not the issue here. How it affects your gang rating is the issue. Price and value are already dissociated for skills (since price is XP and value credits) so there is really no good reason for the current system. Dodge is Dodge. Getting it as a tertiary skill doesn't make it better than as a primary skill.

Wouldn't balancing a single fight based on the cost of the army/gang be exactly the same as balancing a campaign fight based on the difference in cost of the armies/gangs?

Not exactly. In campaign games, costs include (or at least should include) things that are not directly relevant in each battles (potential long term growth, out-of-battle stuff, etc.) and that's why you may need rating to be dissociated from cost. Games with only individual battles don't have this.
N17 aknowledges this to an extent with the hanger-ons: they have a cost in campaign but are free (if random) in skirmish.

 

[Ben_S]

I could comment on Blood Bowl, but I'm not sure it's that relevant. It's a different system that works in a different way.

(Orcs pay more for Dodge, but Elves pay more for Guard - both pay a 'rarity premium' to get something out of their ordinary skills. But TV isn't a perfect reflection of how good your team is in various ways, since it ignores injuries and that some skills are more useful than others, etc. I don't see much point in going too far into this, if we're really concerned with Necromunda.)

I think it makes more sense for weapons to have a standard contribution to Gang Rating, regardless of purchase cost.

There may be ways that you can find a weapons stash, meaning you get some guns for nothing. But they still add to your GR, even though you didn't pay for them. Similarly if you exchanged a captive for them. And similarly if you are able to buy them at discount on your HWL - there's no obvious reason why that should also give you a discount on your GR.

It would be possible to give different weapons (or other wargear) different GR 'costs' too, depending on who uses them (following 40k). That needn't be on a House basis - it could be that weapons have a higher or lower rating when used by a Leader or a model with higher BS or whatever. But, while this would be possible, I don't see any evidence that this is the case here.

Where gangs have different costs for different weapons, it's not that those weapons are somehow less useful for them. Escher lasguns are as useful as Orlock lasguns, so I think the presumption should be that they contribute the same to GR.

I guess there's some value in saying that GR is only a rough measure and we can sacrifice some accuracy for simplicity. But I'm not sure what's simpler. Having Eschers pay 5 creds but increase their GR by 15 is less simple, but so is a system where an Escher lasgun captured by some Orlocks either retains a special GR value or changes its GR value.

 

[EarthDragon]

Why is that a problem? If you capture a lasgun and give it to one of your fighters, are you going to adjust the value of that fighter with something different than the weapon's HWL cost?

I used to spend most of my miniature gaming years playing 40k. So this notion of the same weapon has different cost for different models just falls natural to me. It is how it is. I don't see why it can't be like that here as well.

No progression system and no possible “underdog” determination.

It changes due to the fact that the sides may not be equal, and the system tries to estimate “how” uneven the fight is.

Right now, if a GL spamming Goliath gang with 6 launchers was listed as being a 110 point underdog........

 

[TopsyKretts]

Yeah, they would be the underdog. Why would they in your opinion not be?

 

[EarthDragon]

Yeah, they would be the underdog. Why would they in your opinion not be?

Because they’re weapons are worth more then what is being accounted for. They aren’t as much of an underdog as being claim, and shouldn’t be getting “100 or more” bonus.

That much I know for sure

Great discussion here though

 

[TopsyKretts]

Hmm I guess I'm open for a different interpretation because the worth can be accounted for differently.

Example: Two identical gangs start out (as similar as possible), Cawdor and Escher. During progression, both take the same Agility skills. Cawdor got Agility as Secondary, so pay more XP and increase Gang Rating more than Escher. Same with lasguns. They buy the same amount of lasguns. Suddenly, you have two teams, same weapons, same additional skills. Escher has a lower Gang Rating. Cawdor got a higher Gang Rating because they're deliberately taking the stuff that "belongs" to Escher. Similarly, if it went the opposite way, Escher taking a lot of flamers/hand flamers or other Cawdor stuff, they would get a higher Gang Rating. This is not necessarily a problem in my view.

 

[Thorgor]

Since my goal is to use crew/gang rating to determine which one of the two gangs has the lowest chance of winning a given game/the campaign and give them some kind of bonus to compensate, it's obviously a problem that two virtually identical gangs have different ratings.
Since it's not a problem for you, I'm assuming you intend to use gang rating for a different purpose. What would it be?

 

[TopsyKretts]

Same, but if you go outside fluff, you are weighted heavier. This is just my impression of how it's done in so many other games. I feel your argument is everything must be weighted equal for all gangs. This would be similar to playing 40k where you could combine any units and any vehicles from any army. You could make an army list of a Space Marine Land Raider, Tyranid Warriors, Eldar Falcons... and each individual piece would have a competetive "cost".

My alternative is, Eldar would get cheap/undercosted skimmers (Falcons, Wave Serpents, Jetbikes). But they don't have access to Land Raiders. So they don't have the diversity. Space Marines would have access to cheap power armour (3+ save). But they don't have access to cannon fodder like Gretchins.

An Escher gang getting additional Agility skills have less weight on gang rating than if Cawdor got additional Agility skills. It's a price Cawdor pays for going outside their "path" or "fluff". Cawdor have other skills they get cheaper than Escsher. Same goes for weapons. Lasguns are weighted lighter for Escher. Other gangs have similar discounts for weapons that match their fluff.

It's the same with gangs really. Escher have high speed, low toughness, high initiative. It's their speciality, they could get those stats at a discount by losing diversity. Venator Bounty hunters on the other hand have extreme diversity. You can choose high toughness low speed on one fighter and high speed low toughness on another. I would expect them to be weighted heavier for the option to be versatile.

If you were able to pick and choose any fighter from any gang to make up your own gang, would you pick the Venator ganger (M 5", WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, ...) for 55 credits or the chaos cult ganger for 35 credits? They got almost the same stats. However, Chaos have less diversity, hence their lower cost. Do you think these two gangers should have the same cost?

This is just what I'm used to when playing miniature games, whether it is Warmachine & Hordes, Warhammer 40k, Blood Bowl, Mordheim..