Necromunda The Sump: General hobby venting thread (Beware:grumpy grognards)

[spafe]

Our group has been playing new munda fairly successfully for a number of campaigns now, our main houserules seem to be no sticky fingers, and draw 3 keep 1 for each tactic card you can pick. Otherwise we dont really have many hard house rules or strict measurws to limit everyone. We all abide by the 'dont be a dick' rule, and generally its all been fairly good. Of course there have been a few games that were clearly recovery gsmes or over in 2 turns because unbalanced scenario meets slightly off average rolling, but nothing that has broken campaigns.

Turf war got silly, no denying that, but the moment we moved to any of the territory style systems, its been fine.

Oh, and for one or 2 campaigns we used guilds/allies and adopted goonhammer costs for them. But we tend to go through camapigns with different options, so currently doing a uprising campaign, sticking to the book, and a dominion one, core only (due to new player), but previously weve had law and misrule with allies and book of peril stuff, another dominion with allies, a doninion without anything else, and i think a law and misrule with the underdog stuff used more.

Weve not tried to game the system, or spam the 'uber-meta-optimised-sharklaser-turbo' shit that is talked about online, weve just made fun gangs and rolled with them. And the system hasnt failed.

Sure we make minor house rules as a group when we need to for where the rules fail, but tbh, we did that prior to nce, and even with nce for a couple of years while it was still closing every gap, so its not that big a deal

 

[TopsyKretts]

It's fine?

First battle:

• Player A: Wins --> gains more income, more territory, more XP, more bonuses, less casualties
• Player B: Loses --> gains less income, less territory, less XP, less bonuses, more casualties

So player A is now stronger than player B. Then they fight again, further increasing the difference. This didn't happen to you? How did a gang with more injuries, less money, less XP and less bonuses win against a gang with more of everything?

 

[spafe]

It's fine?

First battle:

• Player A: Wins --> gains more income, more territory, more XP, more bonuses, less casualties
• Player B: Loses --> gains less income, less territory, less XP, less bonuses, more casualties

So player A is now stronger than player B. Then they fight again, further increasing the difference. This didn't happen to you? How did a gang with more injuries, less money, less XP and less bonuses win against a gang with more of everything?

By playing a different scenario, playing gang raids, using underdog mechanics, playing a 3rd player.

Also, your arguement is a strawman, in that gang a didnt nessecairly come away stronger if they took 2 casualties but one was killed and the other was stat nerf and recovery, while the 'loser' got 4 ooa, but only one in recovery next game and rest out cold...gang A isnt going to be stronger next game, if they even play each other.

As i said, its generally not been a big issue

 

[Trafalgar Law]

Not really a strawman as all the campaigns I took part in had problems similar to what Topsy described, his scenario was an extreme version of what happened, as we had 4 gangs in each campaign which slowed the effect somewhat, but it still happened largely as described. In each campaign one gang just seemed to quickly run away with it.

What underdog mechanics did you use btw? We don't use the special play cards and the house favours seemed inadequate to the task of evening things up in the last campaign I tried.

 

[spafe]

What underdog mechanics did you use btw? We don't use the special play cards and the house favours seemed inadequate to the task of evening things up in the last campaign I tried.

We used the white dwarf ones for a couple of campaigns, they worked well as long as you followed the 'dont be a dick' rule and spammed ammo jacks. Got to use kal and scabbs one game, bounty hunter and a scum another etc,. Some players grabbed an underdog card or 2 against me (one game i still won but they got some crazy income and xp bonuses so felt more like the winner)

We're using the favours table atm on the dominion one, we have 5 players so usually bottom 2 or 3 roll on it, has netted hundred creds of kit, extra fighters, various other stuff (and hilariously saved someones leader from getting his head ripped off in a pit fight but having a juve turn up as the leader that week). Not perfect, but seems as useful as the underdog system in nce, just less reliably average and more big/small pay outs, which still average similar impact

 

[Jayward]

I like the idea of House Favours as a balancing mechanic, but the ones in some of the House Books have no downside apart from double 1, which I think is poor design.

My Escher were, at one point, second in an 8 player campaign. I could roll with no chance of a negative result. The Goliath I was playing against got +3 to the roll, but got the 'random fighter gains XP but takes an injury' and broke his Champion's spine.

The Generic one is better for this, as it's got more 'dud' rolls but nothing that actively penalises you.

I've also noticed that some books specify to only roll at the start of each cycle, and others say before any battle. Overall a nice idea, poorly executed... which could be Necromunda's motto tbh!

 

[TopsyKretts]

By playing a different scenario, playing gang raids, using underdog mechanics, playing a 3rd player.

Also, your arguement is a strawman, in that gang a didnt nessecairly come away stronger if they took 2 casualties but one was killed and the other was stat nerf and recovery, while the 'loser' got 4 ooa, but only one in recovery next game and rest out cold...gang A isnt going to be stronger next game, if they even play each other.

As i said, its generally not been a big issue

Of course, anything can happen. The winner could end up suffering heavy casualties, having almost all their fighters dead or captured.

I'm talking statistically here. In Necromunda, winning a battle correlates strongly with inflicting more damage than the enemy inflicts on you. If you remove more enemies than the enemy removes your fighters, you can move more freeely on the battlefield, taking objectives or getting into better positions to further damage thh enemy. That's all fine. But in addition, when you win, you get more resources (loser gets none), you get more money, more XP (because winning correlates with inflicting most damage).

I'm not saying this ALWAYS happens, I'm saying the game is tuned in such a way that it will happen more statistically than not. Let's say any random number, for example 5%. Then this stacks and affects next battle, so it's a winner with 105% and loser with 95%. Then you can continue adding interest's interest to see how it goes after a few games.

 

[NoOneII.]

I think with a campaign game it's inevitable that power curves drift apart. That's the whole point. I want my gang to get cooler when doing good. This is only meaningful, if my gang does not get the same amount of cool added when things go bad.
In a classic 1v1 game, "good for one" almost universally means "bad for the other".

How strong this effect is or should be certainly is for debate, but I think it should be there.
One can find different kinds of "underdog" bonuses to compensate, but again, I think they should not fully compensate.

I don't even think uneven matchups in themselves are the problem.
The problem is when an uneven matchup is not fun to play. Obviously, playing "shooting gallery" with three crippled Goliath vs. twelve fully equipped Plasman Saar is a futile and most certainly unfun exercise. Playing a drinking hole brawl with three crippled goliaths vs. four or five Vansaar who left their big guns at home might be more entertaining.

I don't care if I finish "Last" in a campaign, as long as the single games getting me there are fun and entertaining.

All that not withstanding: Many Aspects of 'Munda let the power curve fall apart pretty quickly, and far apart powerlevels are harder to consolidate into a fun game than a less extreme difference.

 

[TopsyKretts]

I am not speaking of uneven matchups, I play Goblins in Blood Bowl If I lose 5 games in a row and play against someone who won 5 games in a row, their team will be stronger. Still, I get money and XP after every match regardless of the outcome. When I play against the stronger team, I can buy cool star players or other inducements for free. A winning team can't stack up hoards of gold, because of spiralling expenses.

First battle: Player A wins and has 2 territories, player B loses and have 1. Let's say both A and B are identical, so it's random who wins.
Second battle: Player A wins and has 3 territories, player B loses and have 1. A is a little bit stronger so is a little bit more likely to win.
...
10th battle: Player A wins and has 11 territories, player B loses and have 1. A is much stronger so is much more likely to win.

Interest's interest. How does a gang with 1 territory ever compete against a gang with 11?!?

 

[NoOneII.]

I think some kind of "Upkeep" costs would befit 'Munda well, that much is true.
Also, one of the bests changes in modern BB in my eyes is the fact that both teams earn a decent amount after a game, no matter how it went, while still rewarding partial success (i.E. Touchdowns) with 10k, even if the other guy made *more* touchdowns and therefore won.

One concept I heard was to give each gang a flat "basic" income each gaming cycle, while reducing the income from Territories/rackets and Missions. This keeps the bunch a bit closer.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Exactly! Losers can continue to develop, and winner get marginally more. But if they went the necromunda route, it would be like your team earned a certain amount of money depending on how many matches they won. So in the 10th match, you're still getting money from all previous won matches.

 

[Jayward]

The imbalance should definitely exist in a campaign; winning should be positive.

But my impression in Dominion and L&M campaigns is that the changes in income from a single win can be enormous, and they can compound quickly. In Dominion you can have something like Cawdor winning a Bone Shrine in their first challenge, or someone getting the Mine Workings and a Captive, and they are already at triple the income of the person they beat who still just has a settlement.

With saving/replacing fighters being relatively expensive, and equipment being relatively cheap, it can rapidly spiral. It's also compounded by income being collected after every fight, so the winning gang might be in a good position to make another fight compare to the gang that lost, and then they might be getting three times as much twice over, plus some extra winnings.

Ideally the baseline income from the settlement should be higher, the rewards from territories should be lower, and saving fighters should be cheaper. That would tone down both the upsides and downsides.

I'm told the Uprising campaign has a system of only collecting resource income to once per cycle instead of once per battle; this would also help limit the snowball without penalizing you for winning. Could even move a lot of things like trade actions and recovery/docs to an end-of-cycle system, as you would then stop richer gangs immediately shooting ahead and give poorer gangs a chance to scrounge enough credits to save an important fighter.

None of this will happen, of course. We'll get another rehash of the 7-cycle system with some new twist and poorly copy-pasted rules. But a scummer can dream

 

[Punktaku]

Maybe bring back the old ORB mechanic where only healthy gangers could work territory for the bonus. So if you have 11 territories, but only 3 healthy gangers, you need to pick which 3 you use that round.

You could add something that allows extra healthy gangers to help out if you were the underdog. Say you have 3 territories and 4 healthy gangers. Two could tag-team one territory for a bonus (like an extra die to any roll, or an extra did but take the best results up to the normal allowed roll).

 

[Troubled Child]

It's been a while since I read the new (now outdated) rules, is there really no upkeep any more? If so that is a crime against game design.

 

[TopsyKretts]

It's been a while since I read the new (now outdated) rules, is there really no upkeep any more? If so that is a crime against game design.

Thank you!

 

[Tiny]

One thing that really helps an Oldmunda campaign from getting too swingy without actively punishing gangs for doing well is that the lower gang rating more often gets to choose the scenario, so will more likely be the attacker. Getting to pick a raid, caravan or shootout when you're down on your luck can be a great boost.

 

[Daeron]

From what little I remember - wasn't there a "tax" in Oldmunda (maybe after Outlanders expansion)? It had something to do with paying for food for gangers between battles, so something similar to the campaigns in BoR.

I've always thought that something along this lines is very logical (gangers have to eat after all, or pay for equipment maintenance), and has potential to rein in gangs with more numbers or equipment. That said, it could cripple for example Cawdor or Helot Cults, but at least its flavorful...

 

[Tiny]

From what little I remember - wasn't there a "tax" in Oldmunda (maybe after Outlanders expansion)? It had something to do with paying for food for gangers between battles, so something similar to the campaigns in BoR.

There was indeed. The income was "washed" on a chart which meant the more fighters you have, the less income you make after each game, but you always make something. The higher your gang rating, the more bonus income your opponent makes after each game.

Outlaw gangs worked differently. They just paid money out for each fighter. You could make a negative and end up with starving fighters.

 

[Ardavion]

Maybe bring back the old ORB mechanic where only healthy gangers could work territory for the bonus. So if you have 11 territories, but only 3 healthy gangers, you need to pick which 3 you use that round.

You could add something that allows extra healthy gangers to help out if you were the underdog. Say you have 3 territories and 4 healthy gangers. Two could tag-team one territory for a bonus (like an extra die to any roll, or an extra did but take the best results up to the normal allowed roll).

Having healthy gangers usually means you did well in your last game (winning ~= more damage dealt than received); I'm not sure how this would affect strong, high-win-chance-because-they've-always-won gangs.

I think the issue is potentially the seeming coupling of winning games to acquiring territories - Oldmunda had territories changing hands when you did 3x more casualties than you received, which wasn't usually very often in my experience, and it wasn't generating new territories - N17+ has multiple snowball mechanics such as with territories.

Oldmunda campaigns also had new territories being generated and rewarded to the player who had the biggest gain in gang rating in a given number of games, which I think would also help - sure, the winners would be likely to get the new territory, but it would only be one territory for a given number of games, and with underdog bonuses helping less successful gangs to +# XP per ganger, your lower-performance gang might actually win that new territory because they played against harder gangs for a bigger underdog bonus.

From what little I remember - wasn't there a "tax" in Oldmunda (maybe after Outlanders expansion)? It had something to do with paying for food for gangers between battles, so something similar to the campaigns in BoR.

I've always thought that something along this lines is very logical (gangers have to eat after all, or pay for equipment maintenance), and has potential to rein in gangs with more numbers or equipment. That said, it could cripple for example Cawdor or Helot Cults, but at least its flavorful...

(Tiny has covered the lawful gangs' income rinsing); Outlaws/Outlanders (except Spyrers, who have no need for money) had to pay 2/3 credits per gang member (I forget how much exactly), after foraging and working their one territory. This meant that winning big in a scenario was potentially a big payday for Outlaws, and winning a territory off another player was even better (either taking a much better territory than those on the Outlaw territory table, or looting it for a lump sum cash prize - double the maximum amount the territory could be worked for).

Scavvies (in LRB, if I recall) had a leadership mechanic to rein in their large gang size potential, but could mitigate the cost of upkeep by putting someone (gang member/captive) in the cooking pot. Pit Slaves also had a mitigating factor (depending on the rulset, it was either bionics reducing their upkeep per model by 1 or their specialised pit slave tools increasing their foraging roll by 1), and Redemptionists had access to a different set of (typically better) territories to earn income from (I forget if Ratskins had anything special for upkeep).

As an aside, am I the only one who feels like the Book of The Outcast is potentially GW going "we can't be bothered to expand on this game anymore, make it up yourself"? I like the general concept of BotO providing more sandbox-y (read "TTRPG") rules, but usually I'd have seen a game "opening itself up to the modding community" as a last step in at least a major development cycle with not much new going to be added for some time, if not when the game is considered "done" with development by the publishers.

I didn't consider Venator gangs to really do this, since those rules were released while there were still House gangs that needed rules publishing, but now we've had three years and 3+ core rules changes, long-time games developers saying "and here's how you can make it up on your own..." has often also felt "...because we're not going to do anything more with this".

 

[Daganisoraan]

In ORB/NCE, only ganger gets to collect ressources from territories (up to a max of 10 gangers), then compare ressource collected with table. And if you fought a tougher gang (more points than you), you get an income bonus.

And the same thing applies to xp. The tougher the opposing team is, the bigger xp bonus EACH of your gang member is going to gain. And those xp bonus really shows regardless if you win or lose.

If I've read correctly, the better income/more xp gain has been replaced by drawing more tactic cards per 100 cred difference.


Now, is the new system better or worse. I can't say since I haven't played the new version. The old version guaranteed a better income and more xp. While the new system will allow random bonus on the oncoming fight, but no safety net to expect at the end of the match.