Radical YCE: suggestions

Commissariat

Ganger
Mar 9, 2017
238
220
63
Maine
These are pretty fair points. As it stands now, charging in Newcromunda is going all-in and hoping your dice don't betray you so you can pop the enemy fighter. If your dice fail, your sometimes weighted coin-flip has failed.

Alternating attacks present a series of smaller coin flips. The charging model is praying they neutralize the enemy on a fraction of their attacks or else get smacked in retaliation and then if they survive that they flip another coin (rinse and repeat)

Though coin-flip is pretty comparable to dice-roll now that I think of it.

I don't yet have a specific favorite between status quo and alternating attacks, both are very different than what I am used to in table gaming.

I know I miss Duel Rolls. MESBG still has them, why did Necromunda have to abandon them. MESBG does just fine with a Fight Value: X Shoot Value: Y+ system. I am sad that Duel Rolls are not on the table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JawRippa

Petitioner's City

Gang Hero
Nov 15, 2017
1,338
2,277
153
Edinburgh, UK
My players did argue me down from alternating attacks as it would encourage them even more to shoot rather than go cc :(

Which is exactly the problem to avoid - and my players were right on this. We can't make CC harder, or more punishing. In part I've made shooting a lot harder, and made ranged weapons a fair bit more expensive (33%) and CC weapons in general cheaper (about a third for mundane ones, a bit for chain, and not too much for power/shock). I did nerf paired which I just don't like though.
 
Last edited:

almic85

Cranky Git
Oct 30, 2014
2,421
4,400
163
Palmerston, ACT, Australia
The radical answer to close combat may actually be to remove retaliation attacks from the game completely.

If you think about it reaction attacks are the only component of the game where the enemy gets to operate in your activation and it is arbitrarily only done in close combat (they don’t get to shoot back when being shot).

There are two options here I can see.
1/ just remove retaliation attacks so the enemy fighter needs to take a fight action in their turn to hit back.
2/ introduce some sort of opposed roll between the attacker and defender. I’d probably go with the opponent getting to roll a dice for each attack on their profile and if they beat their WS roll then they “block” an incoming hit.

There are a few different variations on 2 that you could implement, such as only allowing as many block dice as the attackers hit dice, or using a different stat like Initiative, but that one seems the simplest.

It would certainly make high WS fighters more attractive and would encourage more people to move fighters into combat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Petitioner's City

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,486
2,125
138
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
I had a thought regarding blasts: in suggested changes I've listed removing armour modifier if the target is behind cover relative to center of
blast/template shooter. I believe that it is hard to determine exact cover because it is super subjective. What if we give +1 cover to targets affected by blasts if the blast stopped while scattering because of hitting a wall or structure? This would represent some of the blast’s potential being wasted on hit surface and unlike determining cover relative to blast center is not a subjective thing.
 
Last edited:

Jayward

Gang Champion
Aug 4, 2020
287
454
63
Honestly, I'm not sure that's a change that needs to be made. It seems like you're replacing one type of conditional modifier with a nearly-identical one that comes up less often