N18 The fundamental flaw of all campaigns

[mcfonz]

Yeah that's fine. But would it be better with linear growth, or is that impossible? It's possible in all previous editions of Necromunda, but for some reason I get the feeling that since it now is all about arbitrator, balance is both impossible and unnecessary. Because why balance when you can make random adjustments every game?

'Balance' in of itself is a very interesting topic in tabletop wargaming. Usually, games that aim for as close to balance as possible do so because there is intent to create a competitive tournament scene.

Linear doesn't make it balanced. N95 and the NCE are not 'balanced'. Any fighter in your gang can end up with any stat increase or any skill, all options are available.

The linear argument appears to be because of the experience ladder. Gangers still follow a similar idea in that every 6xp they roll on their own table, but it's limited unless you are lucky enough to roll specialist.

XP is harder to come by too. You only get it for directly causing a fighter to go out of action, rallying or completing tasks in a scenario. You can get those even when losing a game.

Scenarios, in any tabletop game, should give players different challenges. A simple take and hold mission, for example, could force a usually defensive player to consider how to assault and then hold an objective.

N17 does this superbly. You can try to win by forcing bottlechecks but that can be a dangerous gamble, and in many missions it'd mean missing out on xp rewards for certain actions whilst the loser could get away with more loot.

Ultimately, balance, in any version of Necromunda in terms of ratings of gangs, only becomes an issue if the arbitrator isn't doing their job.

N95 was around for 10+ years before the living rulebook which is essentially the NCE. It is known to be unbalanced, but still loved despite that.

 

[mcfonz]

That doesn't sound a lot like what I read over at the Gangs & Loadouts. That seems to me almost exclusively about balance.

Right, because we should rely 100% upon what one source of gamers say? I've not even heard of them to be honest.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Should I rely on balance doesn't matter because hey arbitrator fixes everything? Then plasmaguns can be 10 credits. Corpse Grinder Cults can have movement 8". Orlock can have 5 wounds. And if anyone complains, don't listen to them because that's one source of gamers. What source of gamers think exponential growth is better than linear for balance? I thought your argument was balance doesn't matter. If so, then it doesn't matter if it is linear or exponential. On the other hand, if balance does matter, then it also matter where it's linear or exponential.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Scenarios, in any tabletop game, should give players different challenges. A simple take and hold mission, for example, could force a usually defensive player to consider how to assault and then hold an objective.

Most scenarios I've played can be easiest won by the strongest gang wiping the weaker gang off the table. Without any regard to what the objective is. Some scenarios can even be won by fleeing the battlefield.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Ultimately, balance, in any version of Necromunda in terms of ratings of gangs, only becomes an issue if the arbitrator isn't doing their job.

That's not true for all previous editions of Necromunda. I never played with arbitrator and never had issues with balance.

 

[Stompzilla]

Most scenarios I've played can be easiest won by the strongest gang wiping the weaker gang off the table. Without any regard to what the objective is. Some scenarios can even be won by fleeing the battlefield.

It does depend on how you set the terrain up a lot of the time.

Lots of LOS blockers in the middle of the table and sheltered alleys that can be used by fighters creeping up on objectives do help a lot.

Badzone conditions can also be useful.

It also depends on how you treat unclaimed loot. I've basically instituted a " If you wipe the other gang without making an effort to get to it, you don't get it" rule that does discourage that style of play.

 

[TopsyKretts]

None of this has any effect on the topic. You can say arbitrator fix unbalance. You can say terrain affects scenarios. You can say whatever you want. The fact of the matter is that a) Necromunda has exponential growth b) it doesn't have to be exponential growth and c) linear growth is better than exponential.

The last point I take for granted, unless someone actually thinks exponential growth is better in a group of friends playing together? Like monopoly. How much did you earn last round? 10000000 credits. Oh, I earned 150. Fun?

 

[Stompzilla]

Most scenarios I've played can be easiest won by the strongest gang wiping the weaker gang off the table. Without any regard to what the objective is. Some scenarios can even be won by fleeing the battlefield.

Newcromunda very definitely need all players to be of a certain mindset and to understand that it is to be treated as more of an rpg.

I totally understand your POV and don't entirely disagree. You don't like new Necromunda and would prefer something a bit more structured and in need of less of a DM's direction.

Completely understand and fair enough.

There are quite a few of us though that do like the new edition, precisely for the reasons you dislike it though and it is perfectly do-able to have fun and entertaining campaigns - it just depends on the mindset of those involved and how the Arbiter runs things.

 

[Jayward]

To be honest, I've never been impressed with the narrative side of Necromunda. Take my previous Dominion campaign:

• 8 gangs, and there were a total of 7 Ambots compared to 3 of other brutes, and that's bearing in mind that I refused to buy an Ambot purely because it felt cheesy.
• Every gang had 3-4 champions except for one, and in most cases the gangs with fewer champions were ones that had had champions killed in the last round and so hadn't bothered replacing them.
• Every gang had at least two of the trinity of Bolter-Plasma Gun-Grenade Launcher with the exception of CGC and Van Saar. There were more of those than every other special and heavy weapon combined, and that's with a rule saying you weren't allowed more than one of each in the trinity. If it wasn't for the number of Long Rifles it would have been a 2-1 outnumbering.
• Out of 30+ Champions and leaders the only ones that weren't Mesh Armour + Save improver were the ones with Carapace + save improver, and the ones that switched to Hazard Suits to face the Cawdor.
• The most commonly taken upgrades were Toughness and Ballistic Skill, which accounted for almost 50% of all upgrades
• I think there was only one Juve with three upgrades, and only one Ganger as well.

Sure, there are differences in the exact compositions of the gangs but by and large it's just a game of buying more gear and upgrades for your champions. Plus an Ambot, apparently.

Perhaps I've just been unlucky for it to always pan out like that, but it doesn't feel like a gang progressing through hard-won experience to me so much as gang leaders ticking things off their shopping lists

 

[Stompzilla]

I disagree with your premise.

Exponential growth isn't a given. There are plenty of games I've seen where a gang has won territory but had half their roster put into recovery or a few key guys have died.

Not all turf is equal and it is entirely possible that underdog gangs can come out of games - even after a loss with more creds than the winner due to things like having completed the objectives and scored more loot, or through mechanics like underdog cards.

 

[Heart of Storm]

I think your overusing the term "exponential" here, Necromunda doesn't have exponential growth, it has a system where the person who wins earns better rewards then the one who doesn't, but so does every other game.

It doesn't have rules mechanics like, say, mordheim where warband size constrains earnings, instead thats what the Arbitrator is there for, thats how Necromunda deals with runaway success or someone just building a stronger, dirtiest then everyone else.

The Mordheim system (since I mentioned it) doesn't stop a sling-spamming skaven gang winning every battle, it stops their earnings going astronomical but they'll still routinely win a campaign since they'll kill more enemy models and still earn (net) more than anyone else. An arbitrator could stop that.

Your claim that N17 is unique in that it has exponential growth, and that it is worse than other games as a result just doesn't hold together. N17 doesn't have a system of exponential growth, and the view that a linear system is "better" is a matter of opinion and not fact.

 

[TopsyKretts]

I disagree with your premise.

Exponential growth isn't a given. There are plenty of games I've seen where a gang has won territory but had half their roster put into recovery or a few key guys have died.

Not all turf is equal and it is entirely possible that underdog gangs can come out of games - even after a loss with more creds than the winner due to things like having completed the objectives and scored more loot, or through mechanics like underdog cards.

I'm not arguing against what can happen. I'm arguing what is most likely to happen!

First off, a clarification on statistics. The examples shown here will be the most likely outcome. Not necessarily the actual or only outcome. It is possible for a winning successful gang to suddenly have all their fighters die. That is however unlikely. This discsussion is about what is most likely, so will not take into consideration unlikely events (just note that they are acknowledge and do exist).

In a game of dice anything can happen. A juve can kill 5 champions. However, the game isn't designed for that to happen. It is unlikely to happen. The likely outcome is exponential growth. That doesn't mean linear or other growth can't happen.

 

[TopsyKretts]

I think your overusing the term "exponential" here, Necromunda doesn't have exponential growth, it has a system where the person who wins earns better rewards then the one who doesn't, but so does every other game.

Every other game? I've already established the opposite, no other game has exponential growth! If you win 3 battles in a row, you get 2+3+4 resource rewards, that's a sum of 9! Or 3^3. If you win 3 games in blood bowl, you get 1+1+1 rewards, that's a sum of 3 rewards. Blood bowl has linear growth. If you win 10 times, you get 10 rewards. In necromunda, that's exponential growth and 10 wins results in 65. Losing 10 games gives 10 rewards.

No matter how big those rewards are or if they give credits or other benefits.

 

[Stompzilla]

To be honest, I've never been impressed with the narrative side of Necromunda. Take my previous Dominion campaign:

• 8 gangs, and there were a total of 7 Ambots compared to 3 of other brutes, and that's bearing in mind that I refused to buy an Ambot purely because it felt cheesy.
• Every gang had 3-4 champions except for one, and in most cases the gangs with fewer champions were ones that had had champions killed in the last round and so hadn't bothered replacing them.
• Every gang had at least two of the trinity of Bolter-Plasma Gun-Grenade Launcher with the exception of CGC and Van Saar. There were more of those than every other special and heavy weapon combined, and that's with a rule saying you weren't allowed more than one of each in the trinity. If it wasn't for the number of Long Rifles it would have been a 2-1 outnumbering.
• Out of 30+ Champions and leaders the only ones that weren't Mesh Armour + Save improver were the ones with Carapace + save improver, and the ones that switched to Hazard Suits to face the Cawdor.
• The most commonly taken upgrades were Toughness and Ballistic Skill, which accounted for almost 50% of all upgrades
• I think there was only one Juve with three upgrades, and only one Ganger as well.

Sure, there are differences in the exact compositions of the gangs but by and large it's just a game of buying more gear and upgrades for your champions. Plus an Ambot, apparently.

Perhaps I've just been unlucky for it to always pan out like that, but it doesn't feel like a gang progressing through hard-won experience to me so much as gang leaders ticking things off their shopping lists

Literally none of those things has anything to do with narrative. The gear you buy doesn't tell your story. Narrative is things like getting ambushed during a milk run and fighting free, or having one of your fighters thrown into a sludge pit by the opposing gang's leader earning them a bitter grudge that sometimes leads to your gang targeting him even when it might not be the most sensible option to win the game, etc, etc.

In my last campaign I had a Stimmer killed straight out by a Van-Saar leader, game 2. He was a close friend of my leader and they'd fought their way out of the pits together. Any single opportunity that would arise from that point onwards, my leader would try and get to that Van-Saar and Bury his Power Axe in his skull as retribution for Twitchy Obidiah. That's narrative. Not how many Bolters you have in your gang!

Don't confuse load outs with narrative. This is the fundamental misunderstanding that seems to be occurring.

Also, Ambots really aren't that good. 1 pin and they're as good as useless for the round.

 

[Stompzilla]

Honestly, at this point I think we're all just talking past each other and one of the most fundamental reasons is the mindset of those involved and the general approach to things is different between the two camps.

 

[Jayward]

Ah, I see what you're getting at! My bad; given that this thread started as 'here are the problems with progression in Necromunda campaigns' I thought you were saying that the progression system was narrative-based.

In fairness, though, the narrative aspect is completely separate from the credit and experience-based progression system we're grumbling about: if we overhauled the whole campaign system that narrative aspect would be untouched. A good campaign system and a good narrative could co-exist

 

[Heart of Storm]

Every other game? I've already established the opposite, no other game has exponential growth! If you win 3 battles in a row, you get 2+3+4 resource rewards, that's a sum of 9! Or 3^3. If you win 3 games in blood bowl, you get 1+1+1 rewards, that's a sum of 3 rewards. Blood bowl has linear growth. If you win 10 times, you get 10 rewards. In necromunda, that's exponential growth and 10 wins results in 65. Losing 10 games gives 10 rewards.

No matter how big those rewards are or if they give credits or other benefits.

You misread what I said, I said every other game rewards players more for winning than for losing.

Exponential, just FYI would be 3 points for the first win, 9 for the second, 81 for the third etc, so you're using the wrong word

 

[mcfonz]

Ah, I see what you're getting at! My bad; given that this thread started as 'here are the problems with progression in Necromunda campaigns' I thought you were saying that the progression system was narrative-based.

In fairness, though, the narrative aspect is completely separate from the credit and experience-based progression system we're grumbling about: if we overhauled the whole campaign system that narrative aspect would be untouched. A good campaign system and a good narrative could co-exist

The problem is, as is already mentioned, there are several campaign systems and they all offer something different. Folks are also getting things horrendously wrong.

Weapons:
NCE - absolutely no limit to how many weapons and how much gear can be carried on a single miniature. You can have a lascannon, heavy bolter, flamer, boltgun, plasma pistol, power sword with grenades etc all on one person. Not only this, you can co-ordinate attacks in your turn because you get to move your whole gang in one go.
N17 - EVERY fighter has three weapon slots. Unwieldy weapons like heavy weapons etc, take up two slots. Leaders and champs get multiple "load-outs" which means you can have more weapons, but you are still limited to three weapon slots at the start of the game, so you have to select the weapon load out you want.
On top of that, gangers can't change their weapons full stop unless a rule specifically says they can. This means that once they have filled their three weapon slots, they are done.

Leader/Champion limit: an important aside to this is that in N17 you are limited to the number of champions you can have, no more champs/leader than any other fighters. Now, how does this impact NCE you ask? Well, NCE you can have gangers progress to champions without any limitation, there are no hoops to jump through, just xp, and as soon as they are they can start tooling up with heavy and special weapons.

Which then gets onto the concept of some gangs being limited to what they can buy and rare trade being more difficult too.
So the entire argument about doing nothing but winning money and tooling up your gang... it's just rubbish I'm afraid. If you roll a 7 or 8 on the seek rare item roll. You are going to be stuck for getting much high end stuff, most of it at that level is common anyway, and some of it will be available to you through your gang availability without the roll.

As already mentioned, the progression system is actually far more limiting than the NCE progression system. XP is harder to gain too. There's just so little basis to these arguments apart from preference.

Preference alone is absolutely fine. When it isn't fine is when you profess to have statistical information which transpires to be wildly inaccurate.

I earlier presented the territories and how much they can earn you, with half of them not actually giving financial boons. Of the others, over 1/4 were risk Vs reward so gave bigger rewards. Of the others, the average MAX boon payout was around 30creds. 30creds won't even buy you a boltgun. It just about gets you a juve. This is the dominion campaign.

 

[mcfonz]

Every other game? I've already established the opposite, no other game has exponential growth! If you win 3 battles in a row, you get 2+3+4 resource rewards, that's a sum of 9! Or 3^3. If you win 3 games in blood bowl, you get 1+1+1 rewards, that's a sum of 3 rewards. Blood bowl has linear growth. If you win 10 times, you get 10 rewards. In necromunda, that's exponential growth and 10 wins results in 65. Losing 10 games gives 10 rewards.

No matter how big those rewards are or if they give credits or other benefits.

You argue that NCE is different though, it isn't. You still keep the territories and work them.

So game 1 you win and get a territory. You start with a settlement so you get:
Settlement credits + new territory credits.

Game 2, you win and get a territory. Now you have:
Settlement + territory + new territory.

And it goes on until the end of the campaign.

And as I have said before, everyone knew that system was unbalanced too. It's renowned for being unbalanced. Not only that, but it has gangs that the developers admit "brake the system" (Spyrers).

It's just a false comparison.

 

[mcfonz]

None of this has any effect on the topic. You can say arbitrator fix unbalance. You can say terrain affects scenarios. You can say whatever you want. The fact of the matter is that a) Necromunda has exponential growth b) it doesn't have to be exponential growth and c) linear growth is better than exponential.

The last point I take for granted, unless someone actually thinks exponential growth is better in a group of friends playing together? Like monopoly. How much did you earn last round? 10000000 credits. Oh, I earned 150. Fun?

Should I rely on balance doesn't matter because hey arbitrator fixes everything? Then plasmaguns can be 10 credits. Corpse Grinder Cults can have movement 8". Orlock can have 5 wounds. And if anyone complains, don't listen to them because that's one source of gamers. What source of gamers think exponential growth is better than linear for balance? I thought your argument was balance doesn't matter. If so, then it doesn't matter if it is linear or exponential. On the other hand, if balance does matter, then it also matter where it's linear or exponential.

Most scenarios I've played can be easiest won by the strongest gang wiping the weaker gang off the table. Without any regard to what the objective is. Some scenarios can even be won by fleeing the battlefield.

That's not true for all previous editions of Necromunda. I never played with arbitrator and never had issues with balance.

There is so much wrong with this, it's hard to fathom where to start, and do so without causing you offense, which it would seem would be the outcome.

All I can really say is you are wrong.

You are right to have a preference, but much of your argument appears to be personal experiences, which have been "poor".
I can say with confidence, and a fairly decent base of knowledge that this is a minority view. And by that I mean, I have over seen or be a part in over 7-8 campaigns now. Some shorter than others. All involving a mixture of regular players and new players. I am on the committee of a club that has 50-60 members, not all of whom have a background with games workshop games.

At no stage have we had run-away gangs of the nature that you talk about. The missions aren't all "easiest won by the strongest gang wiping the weaker gang off the table". There are several where one gang starts with fewer models - bottle tests are based on starting crews. If you start with five models (2+d3) for some scenarios, that is your starting crew. It means one casualty or serious injury and you are already bottling. Add sentries into this which means the attacker is likely to get the first shot in.

You put yourself in a position of "knowledge" but there isn't any knowledge really shared here.

All I can really see is that you are trying to convince people that N17 is a rubbish game and that NCE is a better game. And as I have said before, this is entirely fine if we are talking about your personal preference. Otherwise this is pretty much best defined as falsification and the type of subtle toxicity we get in our hobby, which is really sad.