Territory worth


Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
Feb 8, 2013
Tilehurst, U.k.
Was reading through the paradise falls campaign setting, you can buy territory for 100 creds... and they add to your gang rating.

Ignoring all the rest of that campaign setting, in a reg NCE campaign. Do you guys think this could make life more interesting? Means you effectively start with 1500 creds but (a usual gang) would buy 5 rolls on the chart to get its starting territory. But then a gang could start with 6, limiting itself to only 900 creds to spend on gangers... Or start with only 4 but have a bigger starting line up.

Then later I nthe campaign you can always buy more if you want, and cast off any that you don't like (for no money back though), to reduce your gang rating again. Might make for bigger underdog bonus etc...

Anyone got any thoughts on stuff I might have missed? or on if it sounds interesting or a waste of time?
  • Like
Reactions: trollmeat
You could end up being punished/rewarded twice with this system. Say you only roll for 3 territories and you get 3 archeotech hoards. Now you've got a decent income AND 200 credits to use towards that autocannon you've always wanted. On the other hand, one might be unlucky and not net the same kind of income with five or six territories - and at the same time be at a great disadvantage on the battle field.

One might argue that this could even out over time, but one could end up with gangs that are extremely far apart power wise from the get go.
hmm, you raise a valid point... maybe something at the start saying you have your gang first and then roll up territories (IE commit to 'buying' a number before you roll any). Then they would have to wait a game before they commit to buy any more (stopping people just buying one at a time to see what they get as there would be a massive delay if it was a game between each purchasing set).

I thought the ability to drop worthless ones would help with that as you can live off the giant killer bonus if you manage to win (your gang starting with 2 territorys averages 300 less than the exact same gang which wanted to keep all 5 of theres). Same odds of winning the actual game but income becomes a little more unbalanced as one side would have to win to earn anything... hmm, I see what you mean about creating unbalances.
I think I'd take 4 territories and turn a ganger into a second heavy. I could get rubbish territories, but the odds aren't too much more risky, and if the end result is that I sometimes get 10c less after running through the wash table, I'd rather have the extra 100c to start.

Really though, I prefer to do without the territory table. Have every territory produce D6x10, and give special ones some extra property. I'm considering a system where the territories don't require a ganger to collect from them, and just give some other advantage if they choose to. That would help make small gangs more workable.
Territories is one thing that can be a major problem with the game, since some are clearly better than others and with each gang starting with only five that's not enough to ensure that they 'even out' over time.

I wonder whether it would help to put them into 'tiers', so you can pay more to roll on a table with all good ones? Maybe that would be even worse though...
  • Like
Reactions: trollmeat
One idea I have had on the trying to get a good spread of territories upon gang creation was that you would break the 5 territory generation rolls up:
  • Roll #1: Roll a D6, where 1-2 is Tunnels; 3-4 is Vents; 5-6 is Settlement
  • Roll #2: Roll a D6, where 1 is Holestead, 2 is Drinking Hole, 3 is Workshop, 4 is Guilder Contact, 5 is Mineral Outcrop, and 6 is Friendly Doc
  • Rolls #3-5 are on the standard D66 table
What this does is match the handy deployment territories with a satisfactory earner that has a 16.6% chance of a perk, and then places all the D6x10 earners together. So you are guaranteed to have 2 territories that are helpful, but not great, and chance on the whole table still dominates the five choices. As far as implementing something on the price chosen system, maybe because the first two offer something decent but not awesome, it would promote players to spend at least 300 credits on territories, hoping for a 2D6x10 option as that third tier.
My system is to have each territory generate D6x10 and then roll to see whether each one (on a 5+) has some special property, like a guilder contact who affects rare trade or an archeotech hoard that produces and extra D6x10. If it doesn't have anything, it's just a vanilla money generator and you can name it and theme it how you want. You can also buy upgrades to stick on them, like first aid bays and training areas, which gang members can use in the postgame to do stuff (the first aid bay was introduced so that Van Saars didn't have the game-breaking monopoly on Medic).

I'm considering just having territories work themselves and giving a separate benefit for a ganger working one. I don't really like how the territory system drives gang creation; it can really hurt small gangs. I'd like small gangs to be more of a viable option.
I think unbalance coming from different territory possesion should be harnessed by making easier to steal/destroy territories through escenarios like "the hit". This way war between gangs would make more sense and campaigns would be focused in controlling the best spots, as un reality would happen. I suppose.
  • Like
Reactions: trollmeat
Okay, a bit more of a wild idea, if every scenario, the winner gets a randomly selected territory, you can buy a roll on the random chart for 100 creds and sell a territory for 50 creds, and they add 100 to the gr each...

This would mean that you could bulk out your portfolio with any old stuff to lessen the chance of good money makers being snatch, but the high turnover/swapping of territories means that unless a gang starts to dominate (in which case their GR will go through the roof), it will all be fairly fluid. The only thing I could see being one gang pulls further and further ahead, but introducing the abilty to get free hired guns using the GR difference (at double rating worth or similar) to bulk out seriously underclassed gangs...

Thoughts? this is all random brainstorming now, mainly to try and find a more interesting way of using territory without redesigning the entire chart, just adding more fluidity to the system
I tried a system where the winner of a gang fight rolls a D6 for each territory and steals it on a 6, and a successful raid automatically steals a chosen territory. I didn't get to play it enough to check whether it works at all, but the idea is that territories should move around a lot more than they currently do. The current rules don't really simulate much of a turf war, as territories hardly ever change hands.
  • Like
Reactions: trollmeat and Ben_S
If you wanted a fairer distribution of your starting territories, you could use this method. It's more complicated, but you only need to do it once per campaign, so it's not too bad.

Instead of rolling 5D66 for your five territories, roll 4D66. Take the average of the tens dice, rounded down, and subtract it from 7. Take the average of the ones dice, rounded down, and subtract it from 7. Then use that to find your fifth territory.

Basically, if you get four really bad territories, you'll get a really good territory to compensate, and if you get four really good territories, you'll get one really bad territory to compensate.

For example, you roll:
44 - Vents
11 - Chem Pit
53 - Workshop
41 - Tunnels

(4+1+5+4)/4 = 3.5 -> ~3
(4+1+3+1)/4 = 2.25 -> ~2

7-3 = 4
7-2 = 5

45 - Holestead
  • Like
Reactions: trollmeat and Ben_S
In the campaign I am running, territory is dealt with as folliwing.

Everyone's first territory is a settlement. This roots everyone in the campaign slightly.Some scenarios have been modified to give people an increased chance of getting a juve.

Everyone then rolls four territories. Any duplicates must be re-rolled. Once that is done, two territories must be re-rolled. The re-roll must be kept even if it is worse. Still no duplicates.

It has resulted in reasonable balance for all of the eight gangs so far.
We started our campaign with a Settlement each also, which also doubled as our gangs HQ and so could never be captured.

We run a map based campaign with 118 territories, some are pre made and cant be changed while the majority are random and are rolled for when they are first occupied. All of our missions have the gang fight territory capture rule added to them except shoot out and rescue missions.

Territories gain income with ir without gang presence, though if a ganger works the territory you may reroll the dice. Also special territories (friendly doc, settlement, etc ) require gang presence in order for the ability to be used. Juves can be used in this manner but do not allow a reroll on the income.

Territories can also be raided damaging facilities and redering income and special abilities void until repaired.

Also territories need to be garrisoned, if a gang attacks a territory that is unprotected and has no neighboring garrisoned territories then it automatically falls to the attacker. Juves may be used to garrison territories.

All of this adds a completely new and complex layer to our games.

Cheers Cuthbo.
Do you have a campaign log/blog at all @Cuthbo ? So we can see how you campaign has actually played out rather than just the campaign rules (great as they are, I'm really after lunch time reading atm lol)
I was thinking something like throwing 6 times and discard the worst result. Also, once the gangs are created the number of territories in the campaign is fixed, so if destroying terrains is made easier, a system to add new ones might be necessary.