SWA Community Edition

dabbk

Gang Hero
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
Nov 26, 2016
791
1,707
163
Berlin, Germany
Discussion ongoing somewhere else, about cultists in CSM. General consensus being: they are useless. Main issue is that they're easy to take down, and make you bottle test faster than if they dont exist. So, here's a proposal for an added CSM rule "Fodder- Chaos Cultists are completey beneath the notice of their Astartes counterparts. Chaos Cultists are not counted when calculating bottle tests, nor do they cause Chaos Space Marines to take break tests when they go down or out of action." Same as grots from the special operatives, they should not allow for tests for unpinning, except for other cultists.
 

Insurgent

Gang Champion
Mar 17, 2016
478
505
103
Springfield OR
Discussion ongoing somewhere else, about cultists in CSM. General consensus being: they are useless. Main issue is that they're easy to take down, and make you bottle test faster than if they dont exist. So, here's a proposal for an added CSM rule "Fodder- Chaos Cultists are completey beneath the notice of their Astartes counterparts. Chaos Cultists are not counted when calculating bottle tests, nor do they cause Chaos Space Marines to take break tests when they go down or out of action." Same as grots from the special operatives, they should not allow for tests for unpinning, except for other cultists.

I think you are right on this one. Astartes lead Kill Teams should follow the Grot rule for bottle tests. On that same note, you should be able to build an "all cultists" Kill Team with a few Beastmen auxiliaries for good measure. The fact that there is no opportunity for a Cult Leader really irks me. Space Marine centerd 40K is always a problem. I would like to see a special designation for a Chaos Space Marine called a "Coward". That would be a marine of questionable courage that participates in a cultist led Kill Team.

Finally I've always been a fan of straight Grot recruitment without Runt Herds. Small scale Ork warbands would be swarming with Grots that would be taking an active combat roll and constantly scavenging resources.
 

dabbk

Gang Hero
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
Nov 26, 2016
791
1,707
163
Berlin, Germany
I guess all it would take is someone willing to coordinate things. There are a few things in the vault for alternative rules for swa!
 

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
I think you are right on this one. Astartes lead Kill Teams should follow the Grot rule for bottle tests. On that same note, you should be able to build an "all cultists" Kill Team with a few Beastmen auxiliaries for good measure. The fact that there is no opportunity for a Cult Leader really irks me. Space Marine centerd 40K is always a problem. I would like to see a special designation for a Chaos Space Marine called a "Coward". That would be a marine of questionable courage that participates in a cultist led Kill Team.

Finally I've always been a fan of straight Grot recruitment without Runt Herds. Small scale Ork warbands would be swarming with Grots that would be taking an active combat roll and constantly scavenging resources.
Cultist and marine problem could be easily solved if say, a chaos space marine counted as 2 or even 3 models for maximum squad size, route test etc. This way if you might have a bunch of cultists with a single marine, lose that marine and cultists might run. Also cultists should not cause nerve tests to chaos marines - they don't really give a damn about them.

I do agree that cultist leader should an option - in that case you probably should be allowed to take more models than usual 10 as long as they are all cultists (so taking cultist leader makes your squad more swarmy)
 
  • Like
Reactions: primered6

primered6

Juve
Jun 28, 2017
12
27
13
Bangor, Gwynedd, North Wales
I maybe still relatively new around here but I think that some of the suggestions would be a really good start. I would personally love to see this project get some traction. Though personally speaking I like Shadow War in the respect that it pays homage to classic Necromunda, BUT I'd be weary of adding too much of Necromunda to the game.
Though I agree that the campaign system could do with an overhaul and there is more than one place that could do with a few tweaks in a fair few areas.
Balancing of course is another issue entirely.

Another issue that hasn't been brought up yet it the human factor. I.e. People dropped it like a lead balloon.
Tweaking rules is one thing but what with the advent of both 40k 8th and Necromunda '17 the competition is fierce. Of course that is not to say one shouldn't play them BUT the main opinion of those I talk to is now that we have both 8th and N17 why bother?

Overall I'd say that appeal of a potential Shadow War CE would be that it could would stand apart from the two, not to mention who doesn't like "spec-ops 40k" as one put it.
In a sense it already is in that middle area but there are things that both of the previous systems do that could be adopted into SWCE. Not to mention that it is VERY unlikely that this will be getting future support from GW in well.. Forever really. So I'd argue that we could get more experimentative.

TL;DR Up is Down, Black is White. Lets do something interesting #MakeShadowWarGreatAgain
 

dabbk

Gang Hero
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
Nov 26, 2016
791
1,707
163
Berlin, Germany
I wish people would have kept playing swa, too. It isnt completely dead yet, and in my opinion, a CE would still be useful.

Someone has to take the lead on it, and get started.

I have taken on a bit too much hobbywise lately, so I wont do it. But I would happily contribute if someone gets the ball rolling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaptainDangerous

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Right now I'm playing a full campaign. We have houserulled a lot of stuff, like red dots can't be bought more than once per game,bigger limit for IG team and 50% for bottle test(that one we did simply because we can't gather very often and we wanted for individual games to last longer). So far it seems like it has been working out.

We also tried adding Necromunda missions to SWA, but some of them were awkward(like shootout, imagine orks and scouts marching at each other, not shooting on sight). I've been planning to update some underloved/underequipped teams like IG(very hard to play because of little model count and overpriced equipment) and Orks, Tau(little to none equipment variety).

Few things I've been planning:
- Tweaks to IG and orks to make them a bit more interesting and comparable to scouts. Then base balancing off these 3 core factions
- Mission tweaks and addition of classic Necromunda missions (those that actually fit into it)
- Different Prometheum Hunt table. Corrosive slick just ruins game for melee oriented teams for example.
- More injuries variety, I wonder if old Necromunda injury would work. So far a lot of fighters in our campaign seem to have a head wound and/or hate someone which is really silly.
 
Last edited:

dabbk

Gang Hero
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
Nov 26, 2016
791
1,707
163
Berlin, Germany
Eh, my local IG played used to have three specialists with plasma guns, kitted to the teeth, and it was all but underpowered ;p
My orks pretty much kicked everyone's ass in our small campaign (yes, even harlies, twice in a row). So I guess there's something about meta for balance.

To me, SWA is a different game to necomunda, and we should not try too much to have them merge.

I like SWAs specificities, eg:
- simple and super quick campaign system
- the rock paper scisor feeling of various teams, that are each much more different to the others gamewise than gangs could ever be.
- the almost deck/combo building aspect I found in recruitment planning: it is much more about planning a trajectory toward an end goal than the rpg/random/story based XP system that existed in Necromunda. Both are cool, IMO, and should be clearly kept separated.


One idea would be to boardgame-ify SWA even more:
- make it quicker/easier to setup and play
- cards suck in necromunda IMO, theyd be great in SWA if properly ported
- smaller boards so that non-tabketop miniaturegamers can still be lured into it
- more zonemortalis, or even spacehulk/deathwatch overkill super defined scenarios
- absolutely keep the concept of 1 base box and you're set, one fun box later if you want SO. To me this is a key point: good excuse to paint a different thing, where it is a huge thing to commit to even a basic 40k force

All in all it could be a super fun entry game for 40k, like killteam seems to have been, or even just a great boardgame / tabletop hybrid. It could also provide a great complement to 8th rules and gameplay for campaigns.

This all would be a pretty big evolution for a CE, and probably just integrating faq and better editting should be considered. Who knows, maybe someone in the Studio is working on a 8th killteam revival?
 

primered6

Juve
Jun 28, 2017
12
27
13
Bangor, Gwynedd, North Wales
Eh, my local IG played used to have three specialists with plasma guns, kitted to the teeth, and it was all but underpowered ;p
My orks pretty much kicked everyone's ass in our small campaign (yes, even harlies, twice in a row). So I guess there's something about meta for balance.

To me, SWA is a different game to necomunda, and we should not try too much to have them merge.

I like SWAs specificities, eg:
- simple and super quick campaign system
- the rock paper scisor feeling of various teams, that are each much more different to the others gamewise than gangs could ever be.
- the almost deck/combo building aspect I found in recruitment planning: it is much more about planning a trajectory toward an end goal than the rpg/random/story based XP system that existed in Necromunda. Both are cool, IMO, and should be clearly kept separated.


One idea would be to boardgame-ify SWA even more:
- make it quicker/easier to setup and play
- cards suck in necromunda IMO, theyd be great in SWA if properly ported
- smaller boards so that non-tabketop miniaturegamers can still be lured into it
- more zonemortalis, or even spacehulk/deathwatch overkill super defined scenarios
- absolutely keep the concept of 1 base box and you're set, one fun box later if you want SO. To me this is a key point: good excuse to paint a different thing, where it is a huge thing to commit to even a basic 40k force

All in all it could be a super fun entry game for 40k, like killteam seems to have been, or even just a great boardgame / tabletop hybrid. It could also provide a great complement to 8th rules and gameplay for campaigns.

This all would be a pretty big evolution for a CE, and probably just integrating faq and better editting should be considered. Who knows, maybe someone in the Studio is working on a 8th killteam revival?

This^^ Very much this^^

I too very much enjoy the aspect of SWA being its own thing. I think the temptation is to make SWA more like Necromunda, while I can't fault wanting to add some of the same rules that we see in Necromunda to the game I think that its important to make it its own thing.

From the majority of the posts here that the main points of contention are:
-The Campaigns/Missions
-The Injury Table
-Experience/Progression
-Wargear
-Team Balance

For the most part we have a working (somewhat) ruleset so we're not totally in a terrible position.

First point being the Campaigns are a thing, they can make games fun granted. But I too like the potential to add a pick up and go nature of SWA and while I didn't really have too many issues with the campaign initially its continued play is seeming a bit stale. BUT what about something akin to the Open War Cards? Like:

Thinking 2D6 tables of:
Deployment - different player deployments;
Objectives - different objectives for winning the game;
Twist - special rules that can be used to add a special factor to the game, such as acid rain, orbital debris and fighting in the dead of night;
Ruse - that can be used to glean an advantage, such as ambushing or digging in – used to counter a higher power rating;
Sudden Death - that provide different ways to win if you are significantly outnumbered – if your enemy has a power rating at least twice that of yours, you get a secret advantage to use as you wish!
(Above taken from GW site)

And of course there's always the old Killteam scenarios too!

@dabbk The solution used in my games at the moment are Overkill tiles :)
25550236_1774014065963450_8330804445241931961_n.jpg

25550513_1774014112630112_8299436681434162246_n.jpg
 

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
-Experience/Progression
-Wargear
We made it so normal fighters gets a free advancement every 3 games where they didn't go OOA. So newbies want to stay alive to turn into fighters and fighters want to stay alive to get free level ups.
Ruse - that can be used to glean an advantage, such as ambushing or digging in – used to counter a higher power rating;
Aren't Underdog bonuses enough? Like a free operative for every, say 300 point difference and extra advancements whether you lost or didn't. Speaking about operatives - they badly need balancing too, as some are no-brainers and clearly outshine others while all operatives cost 1 prometheum (Terminator for scouts, Painboy for orks, Ogryn for IG)

For the most part we have a working (somewhat) ruleset so we're not totally in a terrible position.
Core rules are mostly fine, but some things really tick me off. For example, in Necromunda you don't need Initiative to charge something out of line of sight. Or you can't easily kite, because once visible enemy is at charge distance you can't run, just make a regular move. (your fighter is afraid to turn his back on such close threat and backpedals instead). None of these are in SW:A for whatever reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dabbk

dabbk

Gang Hero
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
Nov 26, 2016
791
1,707
163
Berlin, Germany
I like the "get one evolution after three consecutive non OOA games" principle.

I agree that some sort of an underdog mechanism would work just fine.

I agree that for now, SO are "just for fun let's throw something in", and it may make sense to balance things out a bit. This would be a significant change and require a lot of thoughts, but it may be well worth it.

I also agree with your last comment @JawRippa : when I say let's not import too much of Necromunda into SWA, what I mean is more about gameplay, than fixing shortcommings on the core mechanisms, or tuning gameplay, like the examples you gave.

So, to me it is more an acknoledge to the fact that yes, there are gameplay differences between SWA and Necromunda, but yes, this may be intentional, and not something to correct to make both games very, very similar, if not the same - to say it differently: port killteam lists and equipment into Necromunda. That is a different project entirely ; potentially interesting, too, but not what I would look for in a SWA Community Edition.
Maybe we need to discuss overal project goals/orientations, and maybe it will end up being two parallel projects?


The more I think about it, the more I have the impression that boardgamification (what it exactly means remains to be defined... but see my previous post) would be really cool for SWACE. Not to the shadespire or spacehulk (or deathwatch overkill) point, but it is surely something worth considering.

One more point about it: I envision a system where the campaign is mostly:
- progression like @JawRippa said earlier
- you can buy one time card bonus or equipment (ala N17), for credits/promethium, or when specific events happen (eg victory on a scenario gives you a boost for a later game in the campaign, or allows you to unlock an awesome SO for a following game).
- more scenarized games, eg more advanced scenarios.
- ...
I will need to write down a draft of this sometime soon I guess :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaptainDangerous

primered6

Juve
Jun 28, 2017
12
27
13
Bangor, Gwynedd, North Wales
We made it so normal fighters gets a free advancement every 3 games where they didn't go OOA. So newbies want to stay alive to turn into fighters and fighters want to stay alive to get free level ups.
I love that idea! Makes the game more multifaceted and means less powerful team members can become more than just bolt-fodder.

Aren't Underdog bonuses enough? Like a free operative for every, say 300 point difference and extra advancements whether you lost or didn't. Speaking about operatives - they badly need balancing too, as some are no-brainers and clearly outshine others while all operatives cost 1 prometheum (Terminator for scouts, Painboy for orks, Ogryn for IG)
Yeah you're right, but it was largely just an example. Overall I think that a randomised mission system would mean that we could have more dynamic and unique campaigns without having to include a huge mass of missions and scenarios. But instead providing a framework for people to add their own narrative.

As for special operative buying why not give them all a points value? That way you would be able to include them only when you have the available points to spend on them. making say higher "pointed" Special Operatives much more rare and requiring investment with of course large tactical down sides to the investments. So say a Terminator being 500pts would be a significant investment for a specific tactical or objective based purpose, where as the opponent has had that same amount to add to their own force with additional team members, equipment and/or a Special Operative of their own. Proving more of an overall balance.

The more I think about it, the more I have the impression that boardgamification (what it exactly means remains to be defined... but see my previous post) would be really cool for SWACE. Not to the shadespire or spacehulk (or deathwatch overkill) point, but it is surely something worth considering.

I completely agree with most of this, I think that like the new Necromunda the "boardgamification" could make SWACE a very unique sort of game.

One more point about it: I envision a system where the campaign is mostly:
- progression like @JawRippa said earlier
- you can buy one time card bonus or equipment (ala N17), for credits/promethium, or when specific events happen (eg victory on a scenario gives you a boost for a later game in the campaign, or allows you to unlock an awesome SO for a following game).
- more scenarized games, eg more advanced scenarios.
- ...
I will need to write down a draft of this sometime soon I guess :p

- I agree about the progression system it seems fun.
- Not sure about the bonus equipment but I'd be willing to give it a go.. Maybe make it an optional advance rule?
- Totally agree again, not sure how it'd be accomplished though. (Aside from my mad ravings :LOL:)

I know I'm still pretty green around here but I'd love to help out as much as time allows. :)

In a similar vein of the board game idea I've got some better pictures of my last game, using the Deathwatch: Overkill tiles with the scenario being a clash between teams deep into the depths of Armageddon.
bvU8pj.jpg


Yh3QQA.jpg

It maybe a bit boring but it's fantastic for travel.
Not sure what you folks think tho. Its a possibility at least.
Along with Overkill there are plenty of other 2D iiles to boardgamificate SWA.
 

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Personally I'd say nay to cards and skills like from NC17. That is just too much work in my opinion for not so much benefit; and old necromunda system already fits pretty nicely on SW:A. No need to add more things, instead develop what we have.

That is, maybe touching upon core system would not be a bad idea... Like alternative activation from NC17 or rout that gradually makes your fighters retreat rather than instalose a battle once you roll poorly a single LD test.

Unlike old Necromunda and NCE we are not really tied up by old rules, so we could cherrypick good things from NC17 into SWACE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: primered6

primered6

Juve
Jun 28, 2017
12
27
13
Bangor, Gwynedd, North Wales
@JawRippa Yeah I don't like the new gang cards thing either. I don't want to keep track of a dozen or so cards when a handy roster sheet will do nicely.

I like the alternate activation and the simplified Strength/Toughness chart but I think its really in the eye of the beholder. I will say that while we can and should in some areas touch up the core system with some N17 updates there comes a point where adding too much will basically give us another N17. The Routing is cool too but its easy to get carried away I think.

My question is while there are things that we want to add, what is there that we'd all like to remove?

Basically in my mind if we can get a list of:
- Things to add
- Things to change
- Things to remove
We'll have a good idea of the required amount of work as well as having a better overall picture of what SWACE should look like. Rather than each one of us having our own interpretation and thus overlaps and possible duplications of effort..
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaptainDangerous

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
TL;DR: I want a SWACE to be close to it’s roots of old Necromunda , yet I want to cherry pick good things from N17, especially activation system rather than turn based gameplay.

Route test can be a somewhat of a big issue depending on how you are playing the campaign. You come to a club for a single game, set up the terrain and read into mission that you've rolled and after all that time you roll poorly on turn 2 rout. It is a very anti-climatic thing if you ask me. That's why we houseruled it so rout test happens at 50% only (but you can rout out yourself at 25% casualities if things are going very bad). Solution works, but I feel that it is very crude. I took part in developing Heralds of the Ruin near end of 7th edition, handling rout there was also kind of a pain.

To add:
- So far everyone likes 3 completed missions result in advancement(similar to how fresh recruits turn into fighters). It makes teams a bit more diverse.
- Import injury table from Necromunda. Current injury table is horrible.
- Try out alternative activation system. I should try N17 first, but I’ve heard positive things about it so I’m confident that it is a good one. Modern skirmish games have that and we should move with the time. I don’t know how overwatch should work though.
- More equipment for the sake of variety. Special armor for leaders that does not cut initiative(so carapace or ‘eavy armor are no longer a horrible idea)
- underdog bonuses, so new people can join each other’s campaigns and hop right in
- seasonal campaign system similar to turf war, so promethium hoarding is not the only way to win.
- more missions
- 2 missing core rules from Necromunda: models can’t run if there is an enemy within charging distance; initiative is no longer required to charge stuff that is out of LoS

To change:
- changes to promethium sprawl table, specifically to corrosive slick. Maybe import NCE table of underhive dangers.
- operatives rebalance. It is a bad game design that they all cost the same, from lowly runtherd to freaking terminator
- faction balancing issues, preferably backed up by test games. Starting with 3 core factions - SM , IG and orks.
- skill table fixing
- rout changes

To remove:
- mass red dots, photovisors, toxic ammo. They sorta break the game for how effective they are. Red dot for example has practically no downsides as basic weapons usually leave at least a 6+ armor save.
- 100% no to simplified STR vs T table from 8th edition or N17.
- Remove ability to capture enemy soldiers whatsoever and replace it with some grave injury that makes a fighter to miss d3 games. It is one of the most awkward ported things from necromunda. Why the hell would Harlequins capture a Tyranid warrior? Meanwhile why nids are holding an ork hostage? Comming up with fluff explanation every time is just awkward.
 
Last edited:

pauman

Ganger
Sep 5, 2016
54
48
18
here are some house rules we are going to use in the next campaign:


muster actions:
- recruit and rearm phase unified (no need to go without weapons, no need to carry 5 bolters)
- remaing credits go to treasury (so you can save money for expensive buys)
- you cannot trade promethium cache for extra credits (expensive factions are currently getting overpowered too fast compared to cheap factions)

corrosive slick:
- you do not get down, you only lose 1 wound, so multiwound models go pinned
- you fall at the start of you movement, not at the end (no more charging to the death)

spread upgrades:
it is funny to see leaders with 5 developments/upgrades while the rest of the band do not have any, so this is how we will do it:
- choose who you want to upgrade, and roll a dice, if roll is equal or less than the ugrades this model already have, choose another one, and roll again, and so on...

team rating and inducements:
- team rating = band cost + 20 for each development (do not count troopers missing next mission)
- inducements: depending on the difference between gangs, the worse gang has a dice roll to hire a special operative for free
(50-99 6+, 100-149 5+, 150-199 4+, 200-249 3+, 250+ 2+)


I wiuld love to hear opinions, thanks.
 

pauman

Ganger
Sep 5, 2016
54
48
18
After reading previous posts, I would do these changes to balance factions a little:

- double the points cost of: camo gear, photovisor, red dot laser sight and telescopic sight
- add camo gear to tau
- why are shoota the same as storm bolters and cost 25 instead of 55? they are op. I would remove the sustained fire and the +1 to hit modifier at close range