Rules suggestions - Resolve hits

Galtarr

Gang Hero
Mar 1, 2017
945
1,605
118
That's better described universally for the whole game, then note each individual exception. I don't want to specify this each and every time rules instruct for a D6 to be rolled. Are there any exceptions to 1 is auto-fail and 6 is auto-success? Except for Improbable shot (ranged attack hitting on "7+"). Same would be translated to rolls of more than 1D6 of course.
1 is auto fail for hit rolls, it's fair to extend this to saves. I'm not sure 6 is an auto success? Not read that anywhere. It's not auto success for to hits die to aforementioned improbable shots, not needed as a statement for wounding, and no-one has ever suggested a 6 being auto success for saves? As that removes value from any 6+ armour.

Without looking through every example autosuccess on a 6 isn't a thing. And 1 being auto fail is just to hit? Where else would it be needed? Strength/toughness/ toxin rolls?

Ok speaking of toxin here a natural 6 is a success. But that specifies natural 6 so we don't need to invoke an autosuccess rule.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
Auto fail on natural 1 should probably be a rule, while auto success on natural 6 should stay an exception.

Btw, Toxin auto-success on 6 could be constructed as the opponent auto-failing their Toughness check (Toughness an Strength checks auto-fail on 6 instead of 1) so no exception is needed for this one.
 
Last edited:

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,224
1,588
128
Bristol, UK
I think it's worth stating in the case of toxin/gas. It's better to state a rule in more places than is necessary, than less. Especially since we're not really constrained by page/book space.

I also consider toxin/gas to be an attack against someone's toughness, as opposed to a toughness check on the behalf of the victim. I'm sure others are the same, so the 'auto fail on a 6' wouldn't be immediately obvious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al_Weeks

trollmeat

Hive Guilder
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Nov 5, 2014
3,058
4,947
138
Did I not already type that we need a blanket rule in the Characteristics section covering this?

For checks that require equal to or higher than a certain number on a D6, a result of a natural 1 is always a failure no matter what modifiers would be applied. Likewise if lower than a certain number is required on a D6, a natural 6 is always a fail.
For checks that require equal to or higher than a certain number on 2D6, a result of a natural 2 (two 1’s) is always a failure no matter what modifiers would be applied. Likewise if lower than a certain number is required on 2D6, a natural 12 (two 6’s) is always a fail.

Yep, the it is all written out. Surely someone could fix the grammar and drop that in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Auto fail on natural 1 should probably be a rule, while auto success on natural 6 should stay an exception.

Btw, Toxin auto-success on 6 could be constructed as the opponent auto-failing their Toughness check (Toughness an Strength checks auto-fail on 6 instead of 1) so no exception is needed for this one.
There are not so many exceptions to a "nat 6 is a success", so I'd rule it as 6 is always a success. Specify where it is not the case, we have tests for tougness, strength and 7+ armour saves. Not too many exceptions
...
I can agree that there should be some limit to amount of weapons. It can't be 100, but it's not a problem if it's 5 or 3 in my opinion.
I always had an idea of anything non-pistol, non-unwieldy melee taking up 2 slots instead of 1. Kinda silly how gangers can carry around a long rifle and still have it easy swinging in melee. Might be a bit too radical and ruin some people's conversions though.
You mean a fighter with BS 2+ could not Aim to shoot at a fighter in partial cover on a 2+? This may be a bit radical.
Actually I just got a crazy idea how to fix BS2+. From my experience the game is mostly fine when it revolves around BS3+, heavy cover works that is. What if all positive modifiers such as short range would apply first, improving the roll up to 2+, then negative modifiers would apply, and bonus from aim would apply last? This way not that much changes for BS3+ or worse fighters, but BS2+ will hit heavy cover on 3+ at the very least.
We need to think of something for BS2+, because from my experience the chance to hit difference between BS3+ and BS2+ is immence. If you gut Van Saars starting stats people will be extra mad. And after some time in campaign, any gang's fighters will start getting to BS2+ through advancements, so we are just postponing the problem. We have to start thinking of solution at this stage.
Edit: Alternative solution would be to make it impossible to hit the target in a heavy cover on a better roll than 3+. Achieves pretty much the same, but less confusing for players overall.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
Aim is one thing, but what about all those weapons that give an accuracy bonus at short/long range? And sights? Do we want Van Saar champions (or any champion with a +BS advancement) to completely ignore those?
 
Last edited:

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Aim is what thing, but what about all those weapons that give an accuracy bonus at short/long range? And sights? Do we want Van Saar champions (or any champion with a +BS advancement) to completely ignore those?
I don't have a good answer for this, but from my experience if a fighter has a way to hit someone behind heavy cover on 2+, then it makes the game extremely uninteractive, since positioning and cover becomes essentially useless. Honestly I'd rather cut a lot of scopes and attachments if they lead to that kind of situation.
 

Ledward

Ganger
Jun 6, 2017
80
82
33
Belgium
Might be a stupid idea, but in LOTR sbg you need to roll to see if you pass certain pieces of cover. This could make the hit easier but you still need to bypass cover. Expl: hard cover 5+, soft cover 6+.
He'll hit on 2+'s but the cover remains unmodified
 

Petitioner's City

Gang Hero
Nov 15, 2017
914
1,517
133
Edinburgh, UK
I wouldn't mind those rules, but I think they are overly complicated and doesn't solve any big issue in the official rules.

We would then have to list all shields to apply to the armour limitation:
  • Shield (assault/energy)
  • Ceramite
  • Scrap
The Armour would then be divideded into 4 categories:
  • Armour:
    • Carapace:
      • Light
      • Heavy
    • Flak:
      • Flak
      • Hardened
      • Layered
      • Hardened layered
    • Furnace plates
    • Gutterforged cloak
    • Hazard suit
    • Mantle malifica
    • Mesh
    • Plate mail
    • Reflec shroud
  • Combined armour:
    • Ablative overlay
    • Bodyglove
    • Undersuit
  • Shields:
    • Shield (assault/energy)
    • Ceramite
    • Scrap
  • Fields:
    • Conversion
    • Displacer
    • Refractor
Not sure if Corpse Grinder Cult masks belong here, probably not (keep them entirely separate).

Ooops, separate topic... sorry.

This is what we do, except I call them armour, layers, shields, and field armour (which also includes holochromatic fields and falsehoods, as although not saves, I wanted to group them as "fields").

A fighter may only have one of each.I In addition, I limit field armour to only one per battle, with extras being discounted for that battle.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
Actually I just got a crazy idea how to fix BS2+. From my experience the game is mostly fine when it revolves around BS3+, heavy cover works that is. What if all positive modifiers such as short range would apply first, improving the roll up to 2+, then negative modifiers would apply, and bonus from aim would apply last?
That's what I was aiming for here:
We could also add a rule that armour save can never be better than 2+ before negative modifiers such as AP are applied.
How about making that rule universal for all modifiers?
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
Aim is one thing, but what about all those weapons that give an accuracy bonus at short/long range? And sights? Do we want Van Saar champions (or any champion with a +BS advancement) to completely ignore those?
Yeah I think we could easily apply negative modifiers before positive as a global rule. It would affect both saves and hitting. Many fighters will still want accuracy bonuses.
 

Petitioner's City

Gang Hero
Nov 15, 2017
914
1,517
133
Edinburgh, UK
What do you mean field armour is limited to only one per battle?

This :)

Rarity: Due to their sophisticated nature, a gang can use one field armour at a time – if two or more fighters are fielded in the crew with field armour, then randomly determine which fighter will use their field armour that game. The other fighter(s) counts as not being equipped with it, and the value of the item is subtracted from their rating for this battle.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
Wow, that's an entirely new type of restriction (similar to how we interpreted pet limitation before the FAQ). Are field armours overpowered to warrant this restriction?
 

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
167
275
63
Speaking as someone who loves Field Armours, you rarely see them because they're currently rubbish.

Necromunda lets anyone get a 2+ (or better) save without too much effort, and the best Field Save is 4+. So it's only better in situations where you're up against AP -3 weapons or more, which is basically meltas and some heavy lasers.

They specifically can be used against Power Weapons that roll a 6 to hit, but since I am also free to use Dodge, Step Aside, Omen of Fortune, and potentially Parry on them (Just to make it really unlikely to still be a "6 to hit" in the case of Parry) their one advantage is really quite the edge case. I think, RAW, all the other 'ignore saves' effects still ignore Field Saves.

I'm the only person I know who takes them, and that's because I find it funny to turn Eschers into Flash Grenades rather than any actual tactical reason.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
If Field armours are rubbish and rarely used, I'm not in favour of adding any additional limitations to them.
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,224
1,588
128
Bristol, UK
I think we need to be careful with just implementing a blanket "6 is always a success".
Because most rules don't have this. Shooting doesn't, it has improbable shots. Melee hasn't got it either, but it should probably have improbable shots.
Armour saves are another obvious one, but there's also stuff like forcing a door open. Should a lucky fighter be able to force open a door that's far too strong for them to ever lift? etc.

I think field armours could be improved by just making the save in addition to the normal save, like Dodge. It makes sense, and they're all very expensive, often with mediocre saves, and significant drawbacks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al_Weeks