N18 Question About Weapons and Equipment Sets

FatherTurin

New Member
Nov 16, 2021
7
0
1
Hey everyone, I hope this is the right place for this, and if my search fu failed me I apologize.

I had a question regarding equipment sets, starting equipment, and weapon limits (in the context of enforcers).

Enforcers start with a stub gun. As a campaign moves on (or in a skirmish game), can you remove this weapon? For example, is it possible to have a subjugator with an assault ram and a shield by leaving the stub gun in the precinct?

Second bonus question: is there any rule against using the assault ram and the shield? On the one hand, it seems obvious that you shouldn’t be able to. On the other hand, I haven’t been able to locate the specific rule, and a 2+ in melee is ludicrously delicious.

If I can’t do this, oh well, I already built a mini with this loadout and he’s pretty sweet, kind of gives me Ajax from CoD Blops 4 vibes.
 

mateyboy3000

Ganger
May 29, 2017
117
86
28
First off, no you may not 'put down' and stash a weapon once you have it.

All enforcers may take multiple equipment sets. I.e. have more than 3 weapons but have multiple fighter cards each with 3 weapons. This is the tools of the trade rule from the house of ... books.

the best way to so this is to have one card with the stub gun and ram and the other with the ram and shield. in custom selection games you will always get the shield if you want it, however in random selection games it is randomised which loadout he shows up with.

Second question: there are no restrictions on what combination of weapons may be equipped, as long as you dont break the 3 weapon limit, unless specifically called out by something. eg servo harness may not be combined with a servo claw or another servo harness (to prevent stacking a full and partial on the same fighter).
 

FatherTurin

New Member
Nov 16, 2021
7
0
1
First off, no you may not 'put down' and stash a weapon once you have it.

All enforcers may take multiple equipment sets. I.e. have more than 3 weapons but have multiple fighter cards each with 3 weapons. This is the tools of the trade rule from the house of ... books.

the best way to so this is to have one card with the stub gun and ram and the other with the ram and shield. in custom selection games you will always get the shield if you want it, however in random selection games it is randomised which loadout he shows up with.

Second question: there are no restrictions on what combination of weapons may be equipped, as long as you dont break the 3 weapon limit, unless specifically called out by something. eg servo harness may not be combined with a servo claw or another servo harness (to prevent stacking a full and partial on the same fighter).
Ok, so it is totally legit to, for example, have my subjugator sergeant start with stub gun, shield, and grenade launcher, then buy a ram later on in the campaign (ideally after a WS increase) and have the ram & shield as a second loadout?
 

Banjulhu

Juve
Oct 7, 2019
26
16
3
The tools of the trade rules are one of those areas that is poorly designed and explained in the rules.

In scenarios that use random crew selection the loadout your model with multiple cards plays with is also random, so even if your sergeant has been upgraded to have a shield and ram and has no reason to ever return to their original loadout normally there is a chance they will actually turn up on the table with their stub gun, shield and grenade launcher loadout.

Generally speaking most groups house rule this nonsense away and let the fighter choose their preferred loadout in random selection fights but be aware that by RAW dumb things can happen.
 

Scabs

Gang Champion
Feb 4, 2014
364
442
73
San Diego. CA, USA
We don't house rule that away. Why would we? And, a cop is going to give up his sidearm? C'mon. Besides, why would I want a fighter armed with weapons he can't use each game? Why pay for weapons he can't always use?
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
5,379
5,368
193
Norway
We don't house rule that away. Why would we? And, a cop is going to give up his sidearm? C'mon. Besides, why would I want a fighter armed with weapons he can't use each game? Why pay for weapons he can't always use?
I've been swapping weapons in Necromunda for more than 20 years, this is a crucial feature of gang management. Are there any reason to stop now (other than "GW said it")?
 

Petitioner's City

Gang Hero
Nov 15, 2017
1,220
2,040
153
Edinburgh, UK
I guess the one reason is - if you've taken down and put into recovery that pesky plasmagunner or heavy bolter-wielder or whatever else - you damn well want to make sure that weapon stays in recovery alongside its wielder, rather than just be shuffled onto another person. If you allow the weapon swaps, you maybe need another house rule - no weapon swaps if a fighter is in recovery - that relies on player trust and (your least favourite concept TK) an active arbitrator.

Perhaps no weapon swaps at all was just the simplest formation of a rule Hewitt went for when writing newmunda in 2016/17 to ensure that injury could be meaningful, and which was something a more gamey player couldn't argue their way out of?

Of course, I do do the house rules above (weapon swaps, except when in recovery), but I understand there are so many reasons 'put away the clippers' was a solution chosen for newmunda.
 

NoOneII.

Ganger
Honored Tribesman
Oct 6, 2021
245
456
83
Germany, Hessia
The recovery thing is a very good point!
But I think a solution more elegant than RAW would be nice.
Everyone who's ever lent a lawnmower or drill to someone knows that tools should best be kept in it's owners hands. :p
Only when I decide that the mower is not mine anymore, because I now have one that I can sit on and be cool, then you can have the old one.
And me being in hospital doesn't change that a bit, I am not dead yet, Flanders!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Petitioner's City

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
230
360
63
Could go for something like 'can only remove a weapon if you replace the weapon with a more expensive weapon', so you couldn't just take that Champion's Plasma gun without giving them a Meltagun in return, but you could trade out a Stub Gun for a Boltgun. That should let characters upgrade over time without recovery-based shenanigans.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
5,379
5,368
193
Norway
Could go for something like 'can only remove a weapon if you replace the weapon with a more expensive weapon', so you couldn't just take that Champion's Plasma gun without giving them a Meltagun in return, but you could trade out a Stub Gun for a Boltgun. That should let characters upgrade over time without recovery-based shenanigans.
No, because some fighters develop into different roles.
 

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
230
360
63
How? With the exception of gangers you choose the advances of every fighter, so outside of injuries they're never going to change role unless you choose it. And with injuries there are options like Stinger Mould and Bionics.

It's not a hill I care to die on, though; whether you allow infinite or zero weapon swaps, it has no real impact on the gameplay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JayTee

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
5,379
5,368
193
Norway
As you say, Injuries, random advancements (RAW: Gangers, house ruled: everyone). Bionics are rare and expensive.

It's a hill I live and die on! Imagine removing weapon swaps from gang management games like Gears Tacitcs, XCOM or Jagged Alliance! Would take away all the fun.
 

Petitioner's City

Gang Hero
Nov 15, 2017
1,220
2,040
153
Edinburgh, UK
Yeah bionics are an issue because injuries don't reduce a fighter's value; bionics just inflate them, so it can be better to fire someone than face rating increase. Maybe that's actually rather narrative, though :D

I totally agree with TK on random advancement for everyone, and I think it massively improves a campaign experience - making things unpredictable is far more rewarding than not. But I also inflate XP (by D3 and D6s) and reduce credits (using the old income chart), making it a lot less about high-tech nobodies and a lot more about toughened gangers.

And of course I also recredited XP and advancements and starting stats - without doing that, the system is (as with the base game) very broken (if not unplayable, it is just that XP is broken).
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Lord
Honored Tribesman
Dec 29, 2017
5,379
5,368
193
Norway
I haven't played those games, but I would be very surprised if the source of fun was micromanagement of weapons as opposed to the actual game play! :LOL:
Both! In perfect harmony.
Yeah bionics are an issue because injuries don't reduce a fighter's value; bionics just inflate them, so it can be better to fire someone than face rating increase. Maybe that's actually rather narrative, though :D

I totally agree with TK on random advancement for everyone, and I think it massively improves a campaign experience - making things unpredictable is far more rewarding than not. But I also inflate XP (by D3 and D6s) and reduce credits (using the old income chart), making it a lot less about high-tech nobodies and a lot more about toughened gangers.

And of course I also recredited XP and advancements and starting stats - without doing that, the system is (as with the base game) very broken (if not unplayable, it is just that XP is broken).
Not fire! After an eye injury, let them trade their boltgun for another fighter's flamer. Or after suffering a hand injury, trade away their chainsword for another fighter's gun.

GANG. MANAGEMENT.
 

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
230
360
63
Yeah, I get you. I've always felt Bionics suffered from being designed to save high-level fighters that have too many advances to fire; because of the low XP and short campaigns those fighters don't exist for the most part. Also the fact that you can just rebuy any crippled stat invalidates them further
 
  • Like
Reactions: Petitioner's City

JayTee

Ganger
Jun 14, 2015
178
318
63
We've done exactly what was said earlier and houseruled it so you can always choose which weapons Gary has turned up to sentry duty with and stuck with no weapon swapping.

It's worked really well so far, you can effectively weapon-swap on the star members of your gang (and this gives a decent buff to Enforcers) but you have to still pay for all the gear Bob has stashed in his locker in your gang rating. The mooks of your gang are stuck with the house stuff, but since they can't get the tasty toys from the Trading Post this is relatively meaningless. It also gives injuries meaning and provides narrative hooks for side-missions to harvest Stinger Mould.
 

Scabs

Gang Champion
Feb 4, 2014
364
442
73
San Diego. CA, USA
Well, the designers say, "Put away the clippers." If y'all recall the bad old days, converting metal figs was not fun. Converting at the FLGS between games was dangerous. Admittedly, "no swaps" does encouraged buying more figs. Clever.

Back in the day, advancements were many and rapid. And switching weapons to keep up with Ballistic Skill increases was de rigueur. That was then, and this ain't then.

This version(s) of the game ain't an arms race. Fighters don't advance overmuch. And, don't really degrade all that much, either. And, this ain't 40K and all them other games y'all love, where what you bring is more important than how you play. Again, it's House Ruling to fix what ain't broke.

I think I'm the Necro Lorax.