Rules Suggestions- Close Combat

Galtarr

Gang Hero
Mar 1, 2017
945
1,605
118
Yes you roll ammo dice in melee if it has an ammo value. I think it got mentioned in an early faq, but sure it could be clearer, as unfortunately the firepower dice section technically only mentions ranged weapons including sidearms, though the intent seems clear.
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,219
1,584
128
Bristol, UK
The rules should definitely specify that you roll a firepower dice if there is any rule present that uses it (an Ammo value, unstable, etc).

However, it also needs to clarify how the dice is rolled. Do I roll one per attack dice, or just one to cover everything?
 

JayTee

Ganger
Jun 14, 2015
142
267
63
Steps 2 and 3 in Close Combat needs some clarity to take into account Versatile weapons. Pure RAW currently allows you to pick weapons that you can't hit your opponent with, resulting in an offhand knife giving you an extra attack when using a 1H versatile weapon.

Assuming we're keeping the restriction that Sidearms can't be used within the Versatile range of a Versatile weapon, this is easy to clarify and closes some poor RAW wording.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,624
4,554
193
Norway
do Melee weapons in close combat need to roll the rapid fire dice for ammo checks?

I do not see any note of it in the rule book. maybe I'm missing it.

and if not. does that mean digi lazers and las cutters can not fail ammo unless some tactics card or power forces a check?
It could easily be ignored since it only apply to a couple of weapons, this type of micro-details aren't valuable. Or, if we want to keep Ammo stat for Melee weapons, all weapons with Ammo stat must always roll Firepower dice when used.
 

ntw3001

Gang Hero
Feb 17, 2011
1,162
1,951
118
34
Essex, UK
I realise I'm reading this thread a little late, but the idea of retaining the WS stat as-is while moving to an opposed stats system seems bizarre. How do you explain to a new player that this stat is framed as a target value, but nothing in the game actually requires rolling against that value, and it's instead fed into a formula that yields results identical to another pair of differently-formatted stats? It makes as much sense as reformatting S and T as target values.

Why not reformat WS as a raw number and include a part in the 'introducing the statline' segment about how these values directly translate to the N17 stat block? I don't think there's an issue with doing that.

Players will realise melee works differently, and it's more sensible to let them use the stat comparison system they're familiar with than to provide a second, different-table-but-actually-the-same-system system. Leaving the stat as a fake target value isn't going to trick anyone into thinking the system hasn't been changed, it's just going to make the change seem half-baked. It's very easy juat to say 'the melee system has been changed, this is how the stat translates, it uses the opposed stat system that's already established'. The last thing the game needs is for the basic stat block to be less intuitive.
 

Petitioner's City

Gang Hero
Nov 15, 2017
910
1,507
133
Edinburgh, UK
I realise I'm reading this thread a little late, but the idea of retaining the WS stat as-is while moving to an opposed stats system seems bizarre. How do you explain to a new player that this stat is framed as a target value, but nothing in the game actually requires rolling against that value, and it's instead fed into a formula that yields results identical to another pair of differently-formatted stats? It makes as much sense as reformatting S and T as target values.

Why not reformat WS as a raw number and include a part in the 'introducing the statline' segment about how these values directly translate to the N17 stat block? I don't think there's an issue with doing that.

Players will realise melee works differently, and it's more sensible to let them use the stat comparison system they're familiar with than to provide a second, different-table-but-actually-the-same-system system. Leaving the stat as a fake target value isn't going to trick anyone into thinking the system hasn't been changed, it's just going to make the change seem half-baked. It's very easy juat to say 'the melee system has been changed, this is how the stat translates, it uses the opposed stat system that's already established'. The last thing the game needs is for the basic stat block to be less intuitive.

This was one of the key issues I had when I introduced comparative ws in my uprising campaign in January; it wasn't intuitive and annoyed my players, even with a table in the book showing how to do it - it just was another mental jump. I would love to invert bs and ws to be old stats, rather than target stats, if yce goes comparative, except it still is a mental leap for players and thus an annoyance issue.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,624
4,554
193
Norway
I don't mind the change, but it would be a long painful road to update literally hundreds of fighter profiles in the existing rules...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kendoka

kendoka

Ganger
Nov 20, 2015
126
766
178
Skellefteå, Sweden
My vote is for Ws & Bs tables - and keeping all stats as is (despite it feeling ”bizarre”).

The first because I think we cannot solve the ”BS 2+ hits everything always” and ”WS 2+ kills everything on a charge”-problem without having a non-linear system.

The second is that many (all?) players would probably want to try this new rules system without having to change official GW stats. IMHO: As soon as we demand changeson rosters and cards this system will be doomed.
 

ntw3001

Gang Hero
Feb 17, 2011
1,162
1,951
118
34
Essex, UK
It'd always be possible to include both, an 'official' raw value and a conversion table. I'm not sure, but I don't think the stat is referenced very often in the rules as an actual value. But I do think it's best to establish 'this is the system, it translates directly', rather than 'this is the system, it's kind of bloaty and doesn't make sense but we figure N17 players would feel more at home this way'.

It's an easy sidebar addition, I think. Establish both how the system works and how it translates when introducing the statline, and include both the 'official' system and the 'optional' translated system in the melee section. I think it's important that it be made clear the 'target value' formatting is a red herring that doesn't reflect how the system works, but it's fine to open up either stat when people play.

All that said, I would expect at least some degree of buy-in from players. If they can swallow an overhauled melee system, I don't expect a minor stat translation to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I also don't expect this edition to pick up a whole lot of steam in the wider community while the game is currently-supported. GW will continue to produce bloat until the game collapses under its own weight, and *then* players will look for something same-but-different. Hopefully by that point YCE will be well-established and tested.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Thorgor

Spenetrator

Gang Champion
Honored Tribesman
Apr 2, 2018
423
1,113
163
York, UK
One thing I think we need to be wary of until we are certain of what we are doing - especially with things like overhauling the combat system. We are risking trying to fix one issue from too many angles.

We are looking at making a change which will be a solution to a problem caused by, or at least exacerbated by power creep/maxxed starting stats/ OTT weapon and skill combos.

If we fix those other things, do we have to make such drastic changes to fix combat? Are we making a rylean category mistake and fixing the wrong thing?

In my humble opinion the stimmer/CGC attack avelanche needs changing. and so do starting maxxed out stats. I actually think addressing some of these outlying issues will mean the combat system may only need a subtle nudge.

I will say I really like @Al_Weeks suggestion that a base stat of 2+ WS imposes a -1 to hit on melee hit rolls made against them, and a defender with a better WS than an attacker grants a Parry - it gives melee monsters a bit of protection without being too revolutionary.
 

almic85

Cranky Git
Oct 30, 2014
1,852
3,149
163
Palmerston, ACT, Australia
@Spenetrator i think everyone agrees that any changes made should be from a holistic set of rules over just tweaking an individual system just for the sake of it.

Personally my issues with combat have more to do with how to get into it rather than how to make it more likely to survive the first round of combat.

I’m still yet to see a gang reliably get into combat without extensive use of tactic cards (other than corpse grinders). Even the skills that help you get into combat (nerves of steel, spring up, and overseer) only get a single fighter into combat each round.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orngog

almic85

Cranky Git
Oct 30, 2014
1,852
3,149
163
Palmerston, ACT, Australia
I must just be having a lucky streak then...

Not sure if this is directed at my comment but if it is then it could mean you are a better player than your group, or conversely I could be a worse player than the rest of my group.

The bit I would look for though is if all the Players and their gangs in your group are reliably getting into combat when they want to or if it is only one or two people and/or gangs that are able to make it happen.

If it’s one persons gangs that are doing it then it’s likely the player, if it’s the same gang across multiple players then it’s likely the player, if it’s multiple different gangs across multiple players then it’s not really an issue.

It may also depend on how good (and determined) your opponents are on tactically shutting down combat as well.

I mean it’s not that hard to simply keep your models 9” away from standing enemy fighters and pin the ones that are closer than 9” if that’s your battle plan and you go into the game to do it, so the question is if you are getting into combat are your opponents actively trying to stop it from happening or are they actually letting it happen for a more fun game?
 

Spenetrator

Gang Champion
Honored Tribesman
Apr 2, 2018
423
1,113
163
York, UK
@Spenetrator i think everyone agrees that any changes made should be from a holistic set of rules over just tweaking an individual system just for the sake of it.

Personally my issues with combat have more to do with how to get into it rather than how to make it more likely to survive the first round of combat.

Yup, Didn't mean that to sound as school-teachery as it did. :)

Another limiting tweak (if one were considered neccessary) is to drop the extra attack for charging. in the current system the benefit of charging is to hit first - the extra attack is essentially an artifact of the older system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

Galtarr

Gang Hero
Mar 1, 2017
945
1,605
118
Keeping WS stat as is ( i.e. to hit value) is important to keeping people on board for me. But then the people I am wanting to keep on board are N18 players not (bar a couple) old NCE players, so your mileage may vary. I think the solution that adds a few more -ve modifiers to limit 2+ rolls works better for me than a table.

Had we considered -1 to hit if charging from the front? Or charging possibly charging a readied fighter. I get people want melee champs to survive better but surprise attacks from the stilleto Juve should still be possible but possibly not when charging a superior, readied fighter head on.

Another limiting tweak (if one were considered neccessary) is to drop the extra attack for charging. in the current system the benefit of charging is to hit first - the extra attack is essentially an artifact of the older system.
I can definitely see the logic of this.