Rules Suggestions- Close Combat

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
724
659
113
Wiltshire
All suggestions for close combat here please... And many thanks to everybody who has contributed so far.
 

trollmeat

Hive Guilder
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Nov 5, 2014
3,058
4,947
138
Would this include the issue that has brought up in other threads of pinning causing a model’s next turn to be completely wasted and charge distances?

I have been enjoying the random charge distances, but believe that it could be tweaked a bit to more accurately reflect a model’s overall movement (unless I am reading incorrectly, which is entirely possible due to skimming).

With being pinned, it feels as though the model should be able to stand up and move into combat D3 (or whatever the random distance is if modified to more accurately represent how speedy the model is^), if not a D3 charge then a D3 Move into combat with either no bonus for charging or no combat resolved just locking enemy fighter in.
 

Galtarr

Gang Hero
Mar 1, 2017
945
1,605
118
Close combat is deadly. Pinning to prevent CC is a key part of gameplay. So whilst looking at options I think we should tread lightly. I would be happy with a basic grapple or engage action. D3 or M or D3+1, whatever the charge movement bonus is that enables an engage but key point is it doesn't grant a bonus fight action or +1A.

So if pinned you can stand up and engage, lock someone down. Or if left close by a CC it enables an assist. The downside is if CC target is readied you are unlikely to get first attack. This seems a fair balance to me.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
Close combat is deadly. Pinning to prevent CC is a key part of gameplay. So whilst looking at options I think we should tread lightly. I would be happy with a basic grapple or engage action. D3 or M or D3+1, whatever the charge movement bonus is that enables an engage but key point is it doesn't grant a bonus fight action or +1A.

So if pinned you can stand up and engage, lock someone down. Or if left close by a CC it enables an assist. The downside is if CC target is readied you are unlikely to get first attack. This seems a fair balance to me.
It seems perfectly balanced to me. It can be countered in so many ways. Move to engage breaks nothing in this game (IMO). However, this topic is related to the 1" rule and belongs in "general principles" discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Himar and Al_Weeks

Icedman

Juve
Jun 28, 2012
24
19
3
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Clarification (is it needed?) on Versatile weapons and Charging - if I have enough distance to get to BtB, can I choose to stop within Versatile range?

Is this actually explicitly spelled out anywhere and I just skimmed over it?

Actually thinking a bit more on this, Versatile weapons might be a reason for an Engage (Basic) Action maybe? A "declaration of intent" to use the weapon(s)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,224
1,588
128
Bristol, UK
One idea is to make close combat a comparative to-hit.

So essentially when the two fighers have equal weapon skill you hit on a 4+, with a +/- for every point you beat/lose to the target's weapon skill.

Personally I dislike this idea, as it means that melee specialists are pretty much immune to everyone but other melee specialists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Petitioner's City

Petitioner's City

Gang Hero
Nov 15, 2017
914
1,517
133
Edinburgh, UK
One thing I tried in a recent campaign was to have a relative WS chart, as well as having modifiers for being higher up, heavy weapons and obstacles:

WS-chart.jpg


It was perhaps too much of a change, but I really hate how cc in modern munda is basically 'who charges wins'. I'd rather two excellent combatants - or two bad ones - were a challenge for one another.

Edit: I see @Kiro The Avenger mentions this idea. I do agree it makes it harder for less good WS fighters to hit, but then it's using resources to better effect, or picking better CC weapons for your fighters :)
 

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
I can't say I'm a fan of that sort of change, I think melee works fine as is right now (its deadly, decisive and a risk if it goes badly). The issue with melee is the relative difficulty of getting into it, hence why it think the real overhaul needs to be in the charging and engaging rules.


I'll admit the recent introduction of a few more WS2+ fighter is a little alarming, but its not as bad as the high BS fighters.

I feel a few more modifers for the melee to hit roll aren't a bad idea thought.

The defended obstacle rules should come back. And I like some of the other modifiers on your list @Petitioner's City , I'm just not a fan of the opposed table, again I feel it's just too radical a change that doesnt really address the issues with melee (it's a bit too hard to get into without overseer, additional action tactics cards, or the right skills (nerves of steel, spring up etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: trollmeat

Galtarr

Gang Hero
Mar 1, 2017
945
1,605
118
One idea is to make close combat a comparative to-hit.

So essentially when the two fighers have equal weapon skill you hit on a 4+, with a +/- for every point you beat/lose to the target's weapon skill.

Personally I dislike this idea, as it means that melee specialists are pretty much immune to everyone but other melee specialists.
What is the benefit /penalty of being charged here?
How do multiple attacks work? (Answered in Petitioner's city's example)

I get the idea behind it. And current system might be weighted too far towards the charger but the attacker should gain some benefit, and probably more than I can see in the example above.
Attacking from behind gets no benefit in that list either.
 

Petitioner's City

Gang Hero
Nov 15, 2017
914
1,517
133
Edinburgh, UK
But it can certainly be added!

I guess I just find it more unrealistic - people don't swing all four or five attacks at a person first, cqc is two interacting combatants; I find it maddening that a tooled up Escher leader can eliminate a tooled up cgc leader before the latter reacts, or that a Goliath stimmer can do it to them, or a xyz, etc. And if somehow both survive that round, then it really depends on priority.

If you take away entry to cc coming only from charge, as we did, I think it compounds the 'who goes first, wins' paradigm.

I also toyed with 'i go/you go' attacks, but it just made things longer.

But overall, cc is too much like chess in necro, especially once the powrr weapons, boning swords, etc, happen. Worse it pushes everyone down the rabbit hole of heavy armour, ablative overlays, underarmour, etc, just to survive that initial charge. Or it punishes those economically poorer fighters.

Just one of those many problems in necro :D

I know there isn't *a* solution, though, just thinking out loud :)
 

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Do you think it is possible to return to old necromunda comparative combat at this point? I absolutely can't stand that currently whoever charges first wins. Charging should give an advantage, but not result in juves with toxic knives being an extremely effective counter to melee champions. This topic has some interesting thoughts.

What if we returned to oldmunda comparative rolls? But whoever rolls lowest gets to strike the opponent.
 

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
Do you think it is possible to return to old necromunda comparative combat at this point? I absolutely can't stand that currently whoever charges first wins. Charging should give an advantage, but not result in juves with toxic knives being an extremely effective counter to melee champions. This topic has some interesting thoughts.

What if we returned to oldmunda comparative rolls? But whoever rolls lowest gets to strike the opponent.
I think it would be difficult at this stage to get such a radical change widely accepted.

I think the simplest way to allow high WS fighters a bit of defence against lower WS fighters attacking them is along the lines of adding to hit modifers (as @Petitioner's City showed earlier for things like defended obstacles etc), or something else.

Examples ideas could be as follows (or a combination of).

If defenders weapon skill is higher than the attackers the defender gain a parry.

If defenders weapon skill is X higher than the attackers the attacker suffers -1 to hit.

Overhaul some of the combat skills to help defensively (step aside and parry are pretty good mind)

I still generally quite like the combat system in N17, but I can see the flaw that a high WS only benefits you offensively. I still like that its dangerous to all and getting the charge in is a big deal.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
<Warning! radical suggestion ahead>

Ok, I don't like how close combat works, like, at all. A tooled up close combat specialist has about 95% to take their target out of action if they manage to Charge, and that's not good at all. My guess is that reaction attacks rarely happen.

Getting to close combat should be made easier for all fighters, charge-enabling shenanigan (like the Overseer + Stimms combo) should be removed, and actually winning a fight (especially against another CC specialist) should become harder.

So, here is my suggestion for the latter part: let's have the attacker and the defender trade blows.
Instead of the defender having to survive all of the attacker attack dice before they can do anything (which results in something like that: AAADD), let's alternate attacks from the attacker and the defender (ADADA). Other CC rules wouldn't change (fighters would still have to select the weapons they which to use, and would have to cycle between them, with Sidearm being used for only 1 attack as per the current rules). Of course, the sequence would be interrupted as soon as one of the fighters becomes Seriously injured or goes Out of Action.
 

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
<Warning! radical suggestion ahead>

Ok, I don't like how close combat works, like, at all. A tooled up close combat specialist has about 95% to take their target out of action if they manage to Charge, and that's not good at all. My guess is that reaction attacks rarely happen.

Getting to close combat should be made easier for all fighters, charge-enabling shenanigan (like the Overseer + Stimms combo) should be removed, and actually winning a fight (especially against another CC specialist) should become harder.

So, here is my suggestion for the latter part: let's have the attacker and the defender trade blows.
Instead of the defender having to survive all of the attacker attack dice before they can do anything (which results in something like that: AAADD), let's alternate attacks from the attacker and the defender (ADADA). Other CC rules wouldn't change (fighters would still have to select the weapons they which to use, and would have to cycle between them, with Sidearm being used for only 1 attack as per the current rules). Of course, the sequence would be interrupted as soon as one of the fighters becomes Seriously injured or goes Out of Action.

Certainly is radical, but because it doesnt alter the 'how you hit' rules (aka still roll equal to or above your WS after modifiers) it could have some mileage.

I'll admit I prefer the idea of more defensive modifers as a starting point, but that's simply because its cleaner (and mimics how shooting modifiers work).

Your example ADADA instead of AAADD is a good baseline to start from, but I wonder if for example the bonus attack gained from charging might be always allowed to be rolled with the first attack the charging fighter makes (keeps charging as being a big deal). E.g. AADAD.

Alternatively if you want to make charging matter less with regards to order of attacks. Perhaps you could use initiative tests to determine striking order.

E.g. Attacker always gets the first attack (ala he or she who initiated the fight action) then the may make an initiative test to make one more attack after this (if they have remaining attacks), then it passes to the defender to make a attack and they then too may make an Initiative test to.make an additional attack if they have remaining attacks and so on.

I'll admit the second example gets quite complicated and messy, so I'm more of a fan of the charger always gets 2 attacks first idea.

Basically I don't hate your suggested change, it has a certain appeal @Thorgor, I think it could work potentially, but I agree its radical, and maybe it would be worth assessing if other changes might have enough of an impact first?