So should we start taking about a Grenade Launcher nerf?

[FerociousBeast]

Special and heavy weapons across the board need a closer look, not just the grenade launcher. Allowing gangers to take special weapons is a huge misstep, and one that is first on the chopping block, it seems, for most campaigns that modify the rules. Good work, says I.

I'm reasonably happy with what I've heard is coming to the Blast rule in the next FAQ, so I kind of view that as a resolved issue with the GL, but it is still too cheap, the other issue. My favorite fix is to say the GL comes only with frag grenades and kraks have to be bought separately like smoke grenades et al.

 

[ten_kage]

I'm reasonably happy with what I've heard is coming to the Blast rule in the next FAQ, so I kind of view that as a resolved issue with the GL, but it is still too cheap, the other issue. My favorite fix is to say the GL comes only with frag grenades and kraks have to be bought separately like smoke grenades et al.

Would you please share this Inelligence you've got on the next faq?

Just to add my 2 cents to the isse, even in my group of "fairplayers" it became clear to all that the blast template is very good, maybe more than it sould be. I am running a Goliat Gang and I started with 2 GL over 8 guys. At the beginning it has been a walk in the park but now that the other players made some cash and understood my way of playing I found myself more attracted to other weapons and I do not plan buying a third.

On the other hand, 2/3 of the Escher players have bought frags for some gangers, preferring to have more, short range blast than one long ranged.

Personally I think that a slight adjustment in the cost can be the solution, let's say 75 for Goliath, 85 or 90 for the rest, with the 2 starting ammo.
It will still be good, but not as good as now

 

[EarthDragon]

I’m also starting to think that the HWLs should have two values for some weapons: what it costs you to procure, and how much it adds to your gang rating.

While this seems minor, this can have a broad impact in how people make their gangs. In the least though, it will more accurately show the value the gang carries, not just the cost that was paid, and with GLs, this is a step in the right direction.

 

[KA7777]

I have two thoughts on this.
First if you must edit the rules then I would suggest that each subsequent special weapon of the same type costs more. An extra 20 credits for every time it turns up for instance?

I'd like to see something like this, or even a flat "no more than 2 copies of any special or heavy weapon per gang" rule.

I don't have a problem with spamming basics or pistols. Melee weapons are little tricky, because I can imagine an OP weapon emerging, but the success-ceiling for melee is so much higher than it is for shooting.

 

[Vegeta365]

Would you please share this Inelligence you've got on the next faq?

Just to add my 2 cents to the isse, even in my group of "fairplayers" it became clear to all that the blast template is very good, maybe more than it sould be. I am running a Goliat Gang and I started with 2 GL over 8 guys. At the beginning it has been a walk in the park but now that the other players made some cash and understood my way of playing I found myself more attracted to other weapons and I do not plan buying a third.

On the other hand, 2/3 of the Escher players have bought frags for some gangers, preferring to have more, short range blast than one long ranged.

Personally I think that a slight adjustment in the cost can be the solution, let's say 75 for Goliath, 85 or 90 for the rest, with the 2 starting ammo.
It will still be good, but not as good as now

This came from me. I know some of the FW team reasonably well (though not as much as I used to) and I spoke with the writers. I
Just checked my messages and in a previous thread I wrote.

• blast weapons - they recognise they are abusable (more than they realised) so as part of an updated FAQ that they are working on now they are looking to make some changes. Now I must stress, as should be obvious by now, they are happy with the grenade launchers cost, and they did fully intend for you to be able to put the template anywhere on the board that you can see so that is all legit (you can plop a template in between 2 fighters etc) what they missed and didn’t intend was for the blast weapons to ignore target priority so the FAQ will bring this back in line with other weapons, and they also never considered models being hit when they are behind say a barricade. They are playtesting but they believe the faq will give a model behind cover a 2+ to their cover save to represent the additional cover. Blast will still hit using normal ballistic skill.

This does tone them down though they are sill too cheap I think we would all agree (clearly not the designers though lol).

As people have posted before, the other issue is minimising the spam. If your campaign states only leaders, champions and specialists can take special weapons it severely minimises this. It’s a good rule and one you can put into any campaign. It is unlikely you are doing campaigns with people you don’t know and if it is a store run campaign speak to the organiser as it is a sensible suggestion. It’s clear why this rule doesn’t exist but no reason you can’t put it into your campaigns. This combined with the FAQ I think will be enough.

 

[Thorgor]

I like the proposed change, but I would still add a price bump the the mix.
If I may quote myself from the YAQ thread, here is how I would like to see Blast 'clarified' in the next FAQ update:

• Before the game begins, you have to agree on what constitutes a wall (they stop scatter)
• You can only target the floor (not the air, not the wall, not the ceiling, not the barricades, not the fighters). You can target the edge of an upper floor
• if the center of the template scatters off a platform in mid-air, nothing happens (the template disappears)
• the template becomes a Sphere in 3D. It doesn't go through solid objects (fighter are only hit if the center of the sphere has a LoS to them).
• you must clearly see the targeted point (no grenade-sniping through a peeping hole)
• Except for profiles that also have the Smoke trait, target priority applies. The Blast sphere must touch the nearest visible target unless you pass a Cool check (this is also true for Template weapons).
• Fighters hit by the Blast that would be in cover from the center of the sphere's point of view get a corresponding (+1 or +2) Armour bonus. Fighters that would be in hiding (pinned and in cover) are not hit at all.

 

[SirMattius]

I like the proposed change, but I would still add a price bump the the mix.
If I may quote myself from the YAQ thread, here is how I would like to see Blast 'clarified' in the next FAQ update:

This will be what I'll be suggesting with my group no doubt. Neat and fair.

 

[Draco]

On blast weapons, our group has never considered blast weapons to bypass targeting priority. Gangers generally speaking shoot directly at a target shooting at them. It takes a cool check to target something indirectly while being shot at!

We also play template weapons as hitting all points within blast sphere radius in 3d. Blasts are stopped by terrain or solid barricades.

 

[Redemption_Crusader]

In the Goliath weapons list for the Underhive rulebook (p.84) grenade launchers are 140 credits. Perhaps using that price will help mitigate the spam that everyone is seeing. My group also requires the specialist skill for anyone who wants a special weapon other than gang leaders and champions.

 

[Vegeta365]

Clearly in our own groups we can do whatever we want. With that said, whilst I am all for having an arbitrator who makes campaign changes (and I would call ‘only specialists, champions, leaders being able to take special weapons’ as something fine for a campaign) I am not a fan of goat out changing rules/pts costs. If a community edition was made and lots of people change to using it that’s one thing (and I’m not sure if that will become a thing whilst GW continue to support N17) everyone making their own changes results in everyone playing their own game and cuses lots of discussion issues.

The rules writers have clearly intended for the grenade launcher to be the cost it is. Lots of us don’t think the cost is high enough but the guys that make the rules are clearly happy with it at the moment. We know they are updating the FAQ to help balance somewhat but even if it doesn’t do enough in our opinion it is still the rules of the game that GW are supporting. Once you change things like that where do you stop and when is the game no longer Necromunda? All future decisions GW make in play testing are based off of their playtesting which means gamers where hey have used grenade launchers at the intended cost. I also think bolter are very low cost and should be rate. Needle rifles are too cheap. Plasma guns, melta guns, all heavy weapons are too cheap. But they create their own balance and makes the game play the way GW want it too. It just may not be our vision of Necromunda. Where you draw the line is a personal choice and changing points costs is not a line I think should be made (not whilst GW support the game).

 

[SirMattius]

Clearly in our own groups we can do whatever we want. With that said, whilst I am all for having an arbitrator who makes campaign changes (and I would call ‘only specialists, champions, leaders being able to take special weapons’ as something fine for a campaign) I am not a fan of goat out changing rules/pts costs. If a community edition was made and lots of people change to using it that’s one thing (and I’m not sure if that will become a thing whilst GW continue to support N17) everyone making their own changes results in everyone playing their own game and cuses lots of discussion issues.

The rules writers have clearly intended for the grenade launcher to be the cost it is. Lots of us don’t think the cost is high enough but the guys that make the rules are clearly happy with it at the moment. We know they are updating the FAQ to help balance somewhat but even if it doesn’t do enough in our opinion it is still the rules of the game that GW are supporting. Once you change things like that where do you stop and when is the game no longer Necromunda? All future decisions GW make in play testing are based off of their playtesting which means gamers where hey have used grenade launchers at the intended cost. I also think bolter are very low cost and should be rate. Needle rifles are too cheap. Plasma guns, melta guns, all heavy weapons are too cheap. But they create their own balance and makes the game play the way GW want it too. It just may not be our vision of Necromunda. Where you draw the line is a personal choice and changing points costs is not a line I think should be made (not whilst GW support the game).

While I do agree with all of this, you shouldn't stop groups playing their own version of necromunda, where they make up their own rules..

Where do you draw the line? You don't.

Edit. I'm not saying you a stopping anything BTW.
These forums are a great place to discuss changes, and for groups to find balanced rules for THIER necromunda. Which could be totally different to Geedub.

 

[KopMcGinty]

Interesting point.

When changing things.. where do you draw the line?

I disagree that the nade launcher is where that line should be drawn but heyho.. the ''here do you draw the line?" question is why I've been doing changes one at a time. Target priority first. Not coming with Krak second changing the base cost would be next if we still aren't happy.

Doesn't matter one tiny bit to if the Devs are happy with it as is. If as arbitrator I dislike it and I get a happy consensus from the group, it's getting changed.

 

[Thorgor]

It's an interesting point.

Fact is, efficient communication does require a common language. If every group is using its own version of the game (as is no doubt the case), then it makes discussions more difficult. It's hard, for instance, for a juve to get useful recommandations on how to equip their Goliath gang if nobody agrees on how Blast works exactly, how much GLs should cost or even how many of them they should be allowed to take without becoming 'this guy'.

It would be nice if the official rules could be used as this common ground, but in their current state they can't. The YAQ will try and provide common ground for rules issues, but won't tackle balancing issues, and it's still too early for N17CE (post GW5, maybe). If the designers refuse to fix the GL cost issue, we indeed have a problem. At least, the upcoming 'clarifications' should nerf it a bit.

 

[MusingWarboss]

The rules writers have clearly intended for the grenade launcher to be the cost it is.

Yes they have. Apparently they’ve said exactly that on Twitch or Facebook or somewhere else that isn’t an official FAQ.

Once you change things like that where do you stop and when is the game no longer Necromunda? All future decisions GW make in play testing are based off of their playtesting

Ultimately N17 isn’t Necromunda. Whaaaat??? Well, think about it. Necromunda was a game released in 1995. This one is technically Necromunda: Underhive. It shares no relation to the previous game bar the setting.

The decisions GW make are actually the decisions of fans of the 1995 game who played it, heavily modified it and than customised it, house ruled and eventually got to work for GW.

Why is their view of Necromunda better than anyone’s on here?? It isn’t. It’s just they’re in a position to influence it from within the company that owns the IP.

Is N17 Necromunda? It’s rules are nothing like the 1995 game, though clearly influenced by it. It’s not even like they’re calling it 3rd Edition! It’s a completely new game.

It just may not be our vision of Necromunda. Where you draw the line is a personal choice

Indeed. It’s James Hewitt’s, Andy Hoare’s and Jonathan Talyor-Yorke‘ vision. (Currently).

We’re free to disagree with them based our experience. In fact, they say as much in the rulebook. Ultimately though it’s that rulebook which should be the common ground for all, the place everyone can fall back to.

Except at the moment the rulebook(s) seem so up in the air, they may as well be advisory documents.

 

[Vegeta365]

While I do agree with all of this, you shouldn't stop groups playing their own version of necromunda, where they make up their own rules..

Where do you draw the line? You don't.

Edit. I'm not saying you a stopping anything BTW.
These forums are a great place to discuss changes, and for groups to find balanced rules for THIER necromunda. Which could be totally different to Geedub.

I did start my entire post with ‘clearly in our own groups we can do whatever we want’. It’s my opinion and people are always free to do as they please. I personally do not think it is right to simply change the rules of a game to suit my opinions. I didn’t make the game and I am always mindful that at a store or a tournament if I changed the rules I would not be used to the actual rules. Plus like I mentioned the games balance (perceived by the designer) is made based on the actual rules. Every little decision is made with those rules in mind. If I changed a rule to allow all fighters to shoot twice by changing shoot action as a simple action then this would make a drastic change to the game and would make shooting even more powerful than combat. If People want to do that that’s fine, but I just don’t feel it is right. I generally don’t see people change the rules to chess or other board games, though clearly some people will do this. Like I say, it’s fine for people to do as they wish, i just don’t think it works with a live and supported game because it throws the intended balance off even if I don’t agree with some of the decisions made. I completely get why others intend to do this.

 

[Vegeta365]

Yes they have. Apparently they’ve said exactly that on Twitch or Facebook or somewhere else that isn’t an official FAQ.



Ultimately N17 isn’t Necromunda. Whaaaat??? Well, think about it. Necromunda was a game released in 1995. This one is technically Necromunda: Underhive. It shares no relation to the previous game bar the setting.

The decisions GW make are actually the decisions of fans of the 1995 game who played it, heavily modified it and than customised it, house ruled and eventually got to work for GW.

Why is their view of Necromunda better than anyone’s on here?? It isn’t. It’s just they’re in a position to influence it from within the company that owns the IP.

Is N17 Necromunda? It’s rules are nothing like the 1995 game, though clearly influenced by it. It’s not even like they’re calling it 3rd Edition! It’s a completely new game.


Indeed. It’s James Hewitt’s, Andy Hoare’s and Jonathan Talyor-Yorke‘ vision. (Currently).

We’re free to disagree with them based our experience. In fact, they say as much in the rulebook. Ultimately though it’s that rulebook which should be the common ground for all, the place everyone can fall back to.

Except at the moment the rulebook(s) seem so up in the air, they may as well be advisory documents.

They do not need to FAQ the price of the grenade launcher. The pts cost is clearly listed in every book they have made. The issue is some people (myself included btw) believe it is too cheap. They don’t need to FAQ that and I’m suprised people think they need too. Do they need to FAQ every word in every book ever written? Why does it need an FAQ? We know the cost in the first book was more expensive but that’s the case with a lot of guns. They have updated the cost since that book and every book since has kept the same cost. The latest books rules are the latest rules for all guns.

To your second point I’m sure you understood what I said but apologies if it wasn’t clear. If I take the rules of chess and changed them to the rules of drafts but carried on using the chess pieces (and yes I know that’s stupid) am I still playing chess? Wether we like it or not, the rules writers have the right to make the game how they see fit as it’s their job to do that. Do I agree with every rule no. Do I believe I could produce a better game than them. Definitely not. It’s much easier to criticise somebody else’s work than make a masterpiece yourself. We do it in everything. I know so many people that think they could do better than their NFL teams franchise in every way. Look at the recent draft, pick any team and look on their forums and we see it. Unfortunately I can’t afford to buy an NFL team to prove it lol. Similarly, I have no intention of working for GW, working my way up to rules writer for the specialist games team and changing the rules as i see fit. As mentioned, we can change rulesxasxwe see fit in our own groups and It doesn’t offend me that people do, I’m just not for it. If people get more enjoyment by doing so then great.

I really do hate that people think there is so much wrong with the game though. I really struggle when you say the rules are so up in the air. I just can not see how anyone can honestly think that. I play every week and we must be playing different games because I see so few things that need clarifying. But let’s hope the next FAQ fixes things for most people.

 

[MusingWarboss]

They do not need to FAQ the price of the grenade launcher.

Agreed. But a list of current location of correct things in a FAQ would be tremendously helpful. Imagine buying in now and getting the box and GW1. Ok the GL is the same but other things have shifted. See below.

No they don’t have to FAQ everything but he F is Frequently. And people question that price an awful lot it seems, to the point that they addressed it somewhere. So they may as well address it in an official document not on transient social media to end the questioning once and for all.

To your second point I’m sure you understood what I said but apologies if it wasn’t clear.

I understood.

I was expanding on the thought. This Necromunda plays nothing like old Necromunda to the point if it had Alternate 1990s Biker and Vigilante Gangs and was called “Dark Future: Frontier Town” you would assume it’s a completely different game.

As for chess... well... most people would argue if it looks like chess then you’re playing a varient of it, even if the rules are different. At a casual glance what would you assume was being played?? Chess right?

What about Shadow War: Armageddon? Or old/new Kill Team??

I’m going a bit too existential here for a post on grenade launchers though.

I really struggle when you say the rules are so up in the air. I just can not see how anyone can honestly think that.

I say up in the air because they keep changing things. If it was all expand expand expand then ok, expansions but we keep seeing changes to stats, missing bits and deliberate changes to stuff. So back to point one: that new player with only the box and GW1 is playing some stuff wrong technically. They don’t know that unless they get the new stuff or meet others who are. Then they realise it’s an older set of rules that’s already been superceded and is partially (or like the back of Underhive - completely) out of date.

Spoiler

Maybe you like paying for out of date rules? I don’t. I also don’t like the idea that 3-6 months after buying the new Gang War another is coming out which may contradict/replace the one I’ve just brought.

// End of Tired old Release Model Rant.

So Grenade Launchers cost what they say they cost for Goliaths/TP and come with what they say they do. Until they don’t.

Quite why they made these decisions who knows. Change ‘em, keep ‘em. By GW5 they might have changed them.

 

[SirMattius]

I get that. Where is your line?
I'm not interested in altering any core rules or anything that reaches other gangs.
I'm using rules for Genestealer Cults that I feel aren't working or wrong, which the Yaq somewhat fixes, which is just a well publisized house rule sheet. The rules writers who release to magazines with a lacking proof read. I'd not think about making house rules for systems that weren't full of so many holes.

Do I think the game is bad? No way. It's great. Full of potential. Creating custom scenarios and rp plots, I'm pretty sure, is exactly what these games writers want.
Changing chess is a long shot off this, though I think the knights should have jet pack rules.

 

[Wasteland]

Only leaders, champions and specialists may be equipped with special/heavy weapons in our group. I also think that the grenade launcher (GL) is really undercosted (55/65 credits; source: GW1 Goliath House list/GW1 Trading post) and way too powerful. Therefore we implemented the following house rules for the GL. Bear in mind that our campaign takes solely place in a 2D environment:

House rules for the GL:

1. Increased cost: GL base cost (55/65 credits) + Ammo (Frag grenades (30 credits) & Krak grenades (45 credits)).
   
   
2. Use of a Frag grenade:
   
   a) Place the burst template anywhere in LOS of the user.
   
   b) Don´t roll to hit. The burst template will always scatter. This also means that there is no chance for the shooter to hit himself:
   
   Scatter roll (Arrow): Move the burst template D6´´ in the designated direction.
   
   Scatter roll (Hit): Move the burst template D3´´ in the designated direction.
   
   c) If the scatter result would take the burst template through a closed door, wall, etc. count the frag grenade as a dud (no effect).
   
   
3. Ammo is tracked separately: The GL gains the Ammo (Different) trait. If a ganger fires either a frag or krak grenade or any other kind of applicable GL grenade and fails his/her ammo roll then only this kind of ammo needs to be reloaded (e.g.: Ganger fires a frag grenade and fails his/her ammo roll. This means he/she can still fire krak grenades but needs to reload frag grenades into the gun, if he/she would like to use blast templates in the future.
   

The GL (house rule: 130/140 credits) is in my opinion the best special weapon and this is represented in it´s increased cost. It has decent range which enables the shooter to stay safely back in cover. Krak grenades can deal with tough Goliath gangers and the burst template will pin multiple opponents. It can even use additional ammo types in the future. This gun is an amazing multi-purpose tool.

Let´s take a look at two other special weapons namely the flamer and the plasma gun and compare it to the GL. The flamer (100 credits; source: Necromunda Legacy pdf) has the potential to hit even more opponents than a small burst template. In addition, it can even light them up like a candle (Blaze trait). But there is a downside to the flamer. The shooter has to expose himself while firing and therefore begs to be riddled with bullets.
The plasma gun (100 credits; source: Necromunda Legacy pdf) has also a good range like the GL. On max. power it can deal three damage which is a lot. Compared to the GL, this gun has two disadvantages: It will only affect one opponent and it has the Scarce trait.
Imo the lower costs of these two special weapons are justified.

 

[Zae55]

In my opinion, special and heavy weapons should be restricted to Champions, Specialists and Leaders. I also believe the GL is too good for it's cost. Either bumping up the price or buying ammo separately would be good fixes with the suggested changes to target priority and cover.

I hope the playtesters that are working behind the scenes are a little more thorough and iron out all the confusion and ambiguity as it is good to see Necromunda being supported (even if it is in drip feed mode... come on give us Ratskins already! Or at least Delaque). Hopefully GW's release FAQ's more regularly to address issues as they arise. I think it's not unreasonable to expect a few more FAQ's considering we're up to gang war 3 and have had three white dwarf gang releases.

Further It would be great to watch the rules committee/playtesters actually play games too so we can see the way they interpret the rules to get clarification. I've watched the twitch matches and walked away more confused with some of their interpretations... I think this would really be a good way for the writers to showcase the rules and their intended vision of the game. It's evident from the threads on Yaktribe as well as comments on Faecesbooks that there are a lot of things which need clarification.

Great game and some really good improvements in the current system, but still no reason not to improve it.