Radical YCE: suggestions

[JawRippa]

It’s not just greater than 3”, it’s usually going to be greater than 4”.

At that stage I would be saying it’s just time to suck up that they can’t get into close combat with the other fighter and that they have outmanoeuvred you.

I do feel that a 3” consolidation is probably too far to allow though. I get why you have done it, but just don’t really agree. Maybe it would be better off being half of your Movement value instead of a flat 3” to reward fast moving fighters.

The reason I'd love to see that being changed is to make bunching up for a group activation be vulnerable for CC and not just blasts of melee attacks. Do you risk it or do you split up? Also it'd promote doing something other than always coup-de-grace after winning combat.

 

[almic85]

I get what you are trying to achieve (and agree with it in principle) but feel that extending a consolidation move even further than 3” is just too much.

Essentially you are giving people a pseudo 4-5” consolidation (depending on the size of the target fighters base) which is greater than some fighters base movement value, and that I think is a problem.

 

[JawRippa]

I get what you are trying to achieve (and agree with it in principle) but feel that extending a consolidation move even further than 3” is just too much.

Essentially you are giving people a pseudo 4-5” consolidation (depending on the size of the target fighters base) which is greater than some fighters base movement value, and that I think is a problem.

I'd playtest it at least to see if it is weird. A fair number of times it won't be needed because most people I've played against do not bother spacing their fighters exactly 3" apart. However I could definitely imagine a tryhard player doing exactly that.

 

[JawRippa]

I've been working on making images for my Rulebook. Hopefully they can be of use to YCE in general.

Spoiler: Basics

Correct_Movement_yes1.png

• JawRippa
• Sep 23, 2021

Correct_Movement_no1.png

• JawRippa
• Sep 23, 2021

Correct_Measurement.png

• JawRippa
• Sep 23, 2021

Correct_Charging_Around.png

• JawRippa
• Sep 23, 2021

 

[JawRippa]

Part 2, charges.

Spoiler: Charges

Correct_Charge_Zones_No.png

• JawRippa
• Sep 23, 2021

Correct_Charge_Zones_Yes.png

• JawRippa
• Sep 23, 2021

Correct_Charge_Zones_Yes(pinned).png

• JawRippa
• Sep 23, 2021

Correct_Charge_No_Spot11.png

• JawRippa
• Sep 23, 2021

Correct_Charge_No_Spot12.png

• JawRippa
• Sep 23, 2021

Correct_Charge_No_Spot13.png

• JawRippa
• Sep 23, 2021

Correct_MultiCharge1.png

• JawRippa
• Sep 23, 2021

Correct_MultiCharge2.png

• JawRippa
• Sep 23, 2021

 

[JawRippa]

I get what you are trying to achieve (and agree with it in principle) but feel that extending a consolidation move even further than 3” is just too much.

Essentially you are giving people a pseudo 4-5” consolidation (depending on the size of the target fighters base) which is greater than some fighters base movement value, and that I think is a problem.

Here is how it should work in my opinion:

 

[almic85]

Here is how it should work in my opinion:

View attachment 139684

View attachment 139685

I got it before the picture (good pictures by the way) but I still have an issue with that Escher consolidating 4 1/5 inches after combat.

If it was a Goliath attacking instead of an Escher it would be consolidating further than it could move normally, which I think is an issue.

But it’s an issue introduced solely because you want to have a longer convoluted rule for consolidation than simply move x” or move half your M value.

 

[JawRippa]

I got it before the picture (good pictures by the way)

Thanks; I'm trying to keep these pictures work as examples both for my reworked ruleset and original GW; the consolidation pic is an exclusion though.

But it’s an issue introduced solely because you want to have a longer convoluted rule for consolidation than simply move x” or move half your M value.

Is it really that convoluted? Check if there are enemy fighters within 3" of the injured/OOA'd target. If there are, you can engage them via Consolidation. Otherwise whether consolidation is good or not depends on sizes of fighters' bases which makes it awkward to use.

 

[zero0]

My psychology rules were quite similar.

Bottle Checks: When 25% of a gangs’ starting roster has been taken OOA or is seriously injured at the beginning of an end phase, before recovery rolls are made, the gangs’ leader must make a Ld test in order to prevent bottling. If the gangs’ leader isn’t present a champion must make the test instead, and if no champion is present another fighter must make the test. When 50% of a gangs’ starting roster has been taken OOA or is seriously injured the test must be made at a -2 penalty, which becomes -4 when 75% of a gangs’ starting roster has been taken OOA or is seriously injured. Fighters who are seriously injured can make this test.



Rally: Rally tests will be made with Wp checks.



Changing Weapons: During step 5, Update Rosters, of the post battle sequence a fighter may attempt a single Int test. If they succeed, they may move weapons from their inventory into the gang stash during this post battle sequence. This test only has to be made once per post battle sequence not once per weapon.

 

[almic85]

Is it really that convoluted?

Convoluted is probably the wrong word to use.

More complicated is probably a less harsh and better way to say it.

I don’t see the real need for increased consolidation ranges, so you are bouncing off a brick wall on it.

What I specifically don’t like about your proposal though is that you are measuring one fighters movement off another independent fighter, which isn’t something that happens anywhere else in the rules.

Would you also allow a fighter to shoot an enemy in combat by measuring to their friendly fighter that is closer?

Would you allow a fighter to charge an enemy fighter by getting into base to base with a friendly fighter who is already engaged?

Both of those examples use a similar idea of measuring to/from both engaged fighters, but neither feel very “right” because they involve measuring to the “wrong” fighter.

I do appreciate the issue you are trying to solve, I just think it is just as effective and simpler to just change the consolidation distance itself rather than the point of measurement.

 

[JawRippa]

Convoluted is probably the wrong word to use.

More complicated is probably a less harsh and better way to say it.

I don’t see the real need for increased consolidation ranges, so you are bouncing off a brick wall on it.

What I specifically don’t like about your proposal though is that you are measuring one fighters movement off another independent fighter, which isn’t something that happens anywhere else in the rules.

Would you also allow a fighter to shoot an enemy in combat by measuring to their friendly fighter that is closer?

Would you allow a fighter to charge an enemy fighter by getting into base to base with a friendly fighter who is already engaged?

Both of those examples use a similar idea of measuring to/from both engaged fighters, but neither feel very “right” because they involve measuring to the “wrong” fighter.

I do appreciate the issue you are trying to solve, I just think it is just as effective and simpler to just change the consolidation distance itself rather than the point of measurement.

Fighters are not necessarily standing in one spot when they fight; measuring consolidation from enemy essentially means that your fighter lunged, injured opponent and took his spot, then rushed to the closest enemy afterwards. Mechanically speaking it fits in line with 3" of rapid fire spreading or nerve checks, so should be easy to remember. Its a quality of life change and I'd like to at least give it a try. That is, not a hill I'd be willing to die on.

Speaking of quality of life changes, I had this houserule in mind for a while now: should the charger have no space to place their model, defender should move aside just enough to let them engage. This should fix problems like fighters becomming immune to charges if they are on top of ladders or next to a pit's edge.

Spoiler: No spot for a charging model

 

[almic85]

I like the push back change, though I think they should be pushed directly away from the other fighter rather than to the side.

Is should mean there is no need to rotate models once they jump/ climb into combat, which should be simpler and fit with the current close combat sequence better (in your sequence the defender needs to rotate as soon as engaged or he is being attacked in the side).

It also flows out that the attacker (if they survive) has a restricted line of retreating and can’t try to run past the defender, and vice versa the defender gets a wider choice of where they can run to if they so choose.

There is also some potential interaction with Knockback on either the attacker or defender depending on where each is placed. Moving the defender to the side will have some odd effects if there is a second or third edge on either side. Moving the defender directly away gives the defender the advantage to knock the attacker back down the hole. Defender chooses gives them the best of all worlds.

There is a lot to think about in a little innocuous thing like placement that can have some significant effects.

And at the end of writing all of that I may have moved position from the defender having to move directly away to the defender getting to choose where they move to.

 

[JawRippa]

I like the push back change, though I think they should be pushed directly away from the other fighter rather than to the side.

If it’s always directly back, you could have weird interractions; on example picture there is no space behind the Goliath to be pushed back. I’d just leave the direction up to defender - as long as they allow attacker with sufficient movement to engage all is cool.

 

[JawRippa]

After a lot of trimming down and thinking over, here is a link to simplified list of suggestions. Since the endgoal is to have a ruleset that most players would agree on using, I've removed complex suggestions or labeled them as 'non-mandatory'. I've implemented some changes suggested by @almic85 , @Jayward and @Jakkarra. Currently I'm planning to work alongside @Kiro The Avenger and @Commissariat to make a rough draft of a ruleset before the new year to have something to test.

Again, criticism and suggestions are welcome.

 

[Commissariat]

I'd say this could potentially be worth a new thread, with how much it has evolved!

Consolidation
For intuitive design, I'd suggest that consolidation is based off of the consolidating model's position rather than the model they removed from the table. Prone models or No model (in the event that they rolled an OOA result on the injury dice) makes it hard to do the kind of measuring in the document.

Making it based off of the charging model's position means you have a consistent point of reference.
Yes, an enemy model is safe if 3" behind their buddy, but with clever maneuvering (or removing the need to move in a direct line) there is some fun interaction there.

Vaulting Barricades (Initiative Test)
It may prove best, to save on constant rolls, to have there be one initiative test to ignore barricades rather than one for each. So if your model is trying to hurdle an obstacle, they make the test. If successful, they ignore it and any others for the duration of the turn.

Wording
Some tightening of wording, such as for "Knock(Basic)" would be good. "Knock(Basic)" implies you can choose to either remove Scarce or add Plentiful, which is not clearly an act of upgrading the ammo "rarity" of a weapon.

 

[JawRippa]

Consolidation
For intuitive design, I'd suggest that consolidation is based off of the consolidating model's position rather than the model they removed from the table. Prone models or No model (in the event that they rolled an OOA result on the injury dice) makes it hard to do the kind of measuring in the document.

Making it based off of the charging model's position means you have a consistent point of reference.
Yes, an enemy model is safe if 3" behind their buddy, but with clever maneuvering (or removing the need to move in a direct line) there is some fun interaction there.

Yeah, probably best to keep it simple. It does annoy me that engaging a nearby enemy with consolidation will be impossible at times, but probably does not affect the game too much, so it is a non-mandatory suggestion (aka won't be used)

Vaulting Barricades (Initiative Test)
It may prove best, to save on constant rolls, to have there be one initiative test to ignore barricades rather than one for each. So if your model is trying to hurdle an obstacle, they make the test. If successful, they ignore it and any others for the duration of the turn.

I thought about this one, probably this one should not cause too much rolling. A model probably will vault over barricade once, maybe twice per activation. If a model vaults more than 3 times, chances are you battlefield is too cluttered or you could have selected a better route to go around. I'd leave it at multiple rolls, but if it proves to be to result in too much rollling, gut it to a single roll for all barricades during activation.

Wording
Some tightening of wording, such as for "Knock(Basic)" would be good. "Knock(Basic)" implies you can choose to either remove Scarce or add Plentiful, which is not clearly an act of upgrading the ammo "rarity" of a weapon.

Additional actions for reloading and such would only be needed if we increase the chance for ammo check trigger, but since that runs along bringing something that generally confuses players (a natural 6 to hit resulting in a partially bad thing), then we better not have it. Again, a non-mandatory suggestion.

 

[Jakkarra]

After a lot of trimming down and thinking over, here is a link to simplified list of suggestions. Since the endgoal is to have a ruleset that most players would agree on using, I've removed complex suggestions or labeled them as 'non-mandatory'. I've implemented some changes suggested by @almic85 , @Jayward and @Jakkarra. Currently I'm planning to work alongside @Kiro The Avenger and @Commissariat to make a rough draft of a ruleset before the new year to have something to test.

Again, criticism and suggestions are welcome.

Despite how it might "Alienate players", I honestly do think that biting the bullet and making Necromunda a D12 (or D20) system would open up an awful lot of room for fine-tuning gangs/gangers. Van Saar, for example, could easily have BS7+ (on a D12) as standard while a "regular" gang might have BS8+, preserving their identity/gimmick while not being as massive a boon as the current system, where the difference between BS3+ v BS4+ is rather absurd.

Even just making all stats/rolls 2D6 rather than 1D6 (So they all act like the "soft" stats) would really open things up. I realise this is a massive change though, and I understand why it is hoping to be avoided... but this IS a skirmish game, you're working with rather fewer models than you might be in something like 40K. I think the added complexity really wouldn't be as problematic as thought.

 

[Jayward]

If you wanted to go down the d12 route, I think that's the point where you make a spin-off game that uses necromunda models. You'd have to change more or less every core aspect of the game and every fighter and weapon profile, so you might as well make a clean break.

2D6 is actually very interesting because of the probability curve, but again, you're essentially making a new game.

 

[JawRippa]

Non-d6 system would require so much work that the project would halt right away. I'd rather have something that at least somewhat compatible witth GoTU and House of X books.

 

[Jakkarra]

Would it? You could immediately translate most of it by simply replacing all mentions of "D6" with "D12" and converting all rolls through doubling the required roll(-1). I.e; BS2+(D6) becomes BS3+(D12). You would also double and bonuses/maluses that are applied to rolls (i.e light cover becomes a -2, heavy cover a -4) This is functionally identical to the previous system, but then leaves you room to make more granular changes to statistics and other effects.

Autopasses/autofailures (Which you would simply change to "1 or 2 unmodified is a failure" or "11 or 12 unmodified is a success"), and parts of the book such as the D66 tables/X numbers of "hit" rolls, which you would resolve by simply treating the D12s as D6, in the same way the game currently makes use of D3 (until such a time you could be bothered to "actually" change those rules".

The benefit of a D12 conversion is that it translates seamlessly from a D6 system with no "real" work required.


EDIT: I realise this is still probably beyond the scope of your changes, so feel free to disregard this.