Yah, that's how we're doing it. And for any extras we've just been judging it, but an extra two-pick-one per extra card seems alright. Draw 2n+1, pick n.
Necromunda The Sump: General hobby venting thread (Beware: old men shouting at clouds)
- Thread starter spafe
- Start date
Yah, that's how we're doing it. And for any extras we've just been judging it, but an extra two-pick-one per extra card seems alright. Draw 2n+1, pick n.
Ive stumbled upon a system that I think, all things being equal could work.. Bit too detailed for here, might post in rules discussion.
I admit my experience was probably slanted a bit as a non house player with friends who were more interested in the outlanders stuff. Also we were playing second edition 40k and there were things we wanted from that. Also mordhiem came out and we treated it like a rare trade update and house ruled a ron of stuff. Yeah it was a "full game" in less books but not quicker. Necromunda has always been a combined effort more rpg than table top game it now plays better table top and is more accessible to less dislocated gamers aka my wife so I'm a little biased 
Almost forgot gorka morka with vehicles and the ash wastes.
Almost forgot gorka morka with vehicles and the ash wastes.
You may be on to something.
It's true that many things are different in this version, the way income works (with no penalty for having more gangers in your gang), the way gear is glued to a given fighter until they die, the way gang rating and reputation work, the way campaigns work (with cycles, turf wars and stuff)...
Maybe hired gun are now meant as a end-of-turf-war thing and not as a come back mechanism.
The more I look at new rules the more I think that it'll all make more sense by December. Maybe Hired guns make more sense in the context of whatever comes out in GW3-5.
Clearly the game needs room to grow, and I'm really trying to avoid heavily house ruling it. So far the only house rules in the campaign I'm arbitrating (I have errata and clarifications as well) are allowing weapon removal, and limiting special weapons to leaders, champs, specialists, and one non-specialist ganger per gang (because half the group followed the GW1 rules).
Clearly the game needs room to grow, and I'm really trying to avoid heavily house ruling it. So far the only house rules in the campaign I'm arbitrating (I have errata and clarifications as well) are allowing weapon removal, and limiting special weapons to leaders, champs, specialists, and one non-specialist ganger per gang (because half the group followed the GW1 rules).
The ganger cards are also quite useful for keeping track of your activated gangers. You can easily lay them out and tap them ala CCGs or simply put each one into a separate pile as you activate them. And why worry about having to buy them when the YakTribe tools creates them for you to print out?
(er, ignore that part GW, the tools are good for the game)
spafe
Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
The_Worker
Gang Champion
Yeah, I do love the ganger cards. It's a great quick reference in-game and makes the game really easy* to teach to new players.
* so long as you are able to deal with any rules queries with common sense!
* so long as you are able to deal with any rules queries with common sense!
Naw. It's not us. Its GW. We are not the problem,they are. I, as well as many of us here, have years of experience playing games, and we have a pretty good handle for rules.
I use to play Advance Squad Leader, and its rule system that rivals a lawyer's shelf of tomes was way more consistent that GW's. And when there were errors in ASL, errata was swiftly forthcoming.
Avalon Hill and its successors respected their knowledgeable customer base, GW doesn't.
Reading these threads have frustrated me, and I, who eagerly awaited for NC17, have held back purchasing the latest Gang war supplements because they are full of errors and incomplete. My money and shelf space is tight enough, only to have them age-out when GW's "New and improved" versions come out several years from now.
There is absolutely no excuse for a game company with this much experience and resources to not learn from the past. Especially when they have a rich mine of an already and popular game to produce a consistent set of rules from. I think they are math challenged at GW. They just can't get the numbers right to balance things out. I think GW is lazy, didn't care to put too much resources in the development of NC17, and let Andy Hoare and his team run NC17 without any oversight. They treated him as infallible since he was old Guard. No one dares questioned him.
Or, as it has been suggested, it is intentionally sloppiness by GW to string customers along, by giving us almost, but not quite completed rule systems rife with errors. I know from experience they don't listen to their customer base. Thorgor would make a better rule system designer to Andy and his group of yes-men playtesters that instinctively get what he means--Or pretends too, even though it does not translate plainly to the rest of us gamers. I think Andy and GW make games for themselves, then sell them to customers who don't understand the hidden mystery of playing them like they do. They are the high priests of the big secret that is too ineffable for us commoners to understand, and so they hold us in their thrall, requiring we pay to get bits of clarification now and then. And just when we get close to having a complete picture, then the present rules are trashed for a new edition.
Sorry for the rant. I know they are common enough about GW. It's just I'm tired of being jerked around. I want to dig into this game and play it, and not stop and wrestle with a broken and incomplete rule system that makes me doubt my own intelligence and tears at my sanity.
Last edited:
the problem with this is that it becomes evidently clear that the best way to win a campaign is then to hire only a leader and a ganger, give them nothing, and then have the ganger hurl themselves from a tall building repeatedly.
If you actually want to PLAY the game, just getting rep isn't great
Last edited by a moderator:
You get more rep for winning if gang ratings are close to equal. Bit he is suggesting gaming the system to have a gang rating at least 700 point below everyone else and throwing games for rep rewards. Anyone who did that in my campaign would be politely asked to leave.
Ganger Cards I quite like. It’s like a mini RPG character sheet with a lot less info on... hmm, ok, I’m not selling that well now. Still, the rosters of old were pretty cool but needed tidying up now and again, well mine did after a while as they got tatty from erasing and updating all the time.
The cards are good for shuffles and you can scrap one without mucking up the rest if one ganger dies. I think there are merits and disadvantages to both systems. The cards are not being exploited to fullest effect though yet. The roster sheet was a throwback to Rogue Trader.
Now tactic cards I do think are... well... maybe they’re good? I don’t know because (and I haven’t played N17 since Christmas because no-one wants to) we kept forgetting them. Did all the dishing out of cards, then got engrossed in the game and playing hunt-the-rule in the books that we never used them more than a couple of times. I think those were the ones that need to be done at the beginning too.
I don’t want to dismiss them out of hand but they do seem disposable.
In fact a grumble I have about Games Workshop’s rules methodology in general is putting rules all over the place. Take Rending for example. You don’t know what it does yet. I bet the eventual explanation is a modifier for that weapon.
Just put them in the freaking profile! That’s what the stat line is for. I don’t want to keep looking up what all these extra tag-on rules do, I will inevitably overlook them or forget. Which then inbalances the game as a potential win turns to a loss because I forgot to page-flip to read the paragraph that can be summed up as “this weapon gives you +1 somewhere”. Put that info in the weapons stat line!!! It’s quicker!!!!!
And calm...
The cards are good for shuffles and you can scrap one without mucking up the rest if one ganger dies. I think there are merits and disadvantages to both systems. The cards are not being exploited to fullest effect though yet. The roster sheet was a throwback to Rogue Trader.
Now tactic cards I do think are... well... maybe they’re good? I don’t know because (and I haven’t played N17 since Christmas because no-one wants to) we kept forgetting them. Did all the dishing out of cards, then got engrossed in the game and playing hunt-the-rule in the books that we never used them more than a couple of times. I think those were the ones that need to be done at the beginning too.
I don’t want to dismiss them out of hand but they do seem disposable.
In fact a grumble I have about Games Workshop’s rules methodology in general is putting rules all over the place. Take Rending for example. You don’t know what it does yet. I bet the eventual explanation is a modifier for that weapon.
Just put them in the freaking profile! That’s what the stat line is for. I don’t want to keep looking up what all these extra tag-on rules do, I will inevitably overlook them or forget. Which then inbalances the game as a potential win turns to a loss because I forgot to page-flip to read the paragraph that can be summed up as “this weapon gives you +1 somewhere”. Put that info in the weapons stat line!!! It’s quicker!!!!!
And calm...
@Wanderer : I'm not trying to play the devil's advocate on this one. There are indeed many problems with the way the rules are written and released, and we have a whole thread dedicated to them.
All I'm saying is that, maybe, the hired guns are not meant to serve the same purpose in N17 as they did in ORB/NCE (or that hired swords served in Mordheim).
Since turf wars have a clear, determined in advance end (as opposed to the endless campaigns of old), there is now a point past which making a long term investment becomes meaningless and a short term power spike may be a better choice to try and win the final few battles.
This being said, I still think that paying full price for a hired gun's weapons that you don't get to keep after the battle is a non-sense. There should, at the very least, be some kind of discount.
All I'm saying is that, maybe, the hired guns are not meant to serve the same purpose in N17 as they did in ORB/NCE (or that hired swords served in Mordheim).
Since turf wars have a clear, determined in advance end (as opposed to the endless campaigns of old), there is now a point past which making a long term investment becomes meaningless and a short term power spike may be a better choice to try and win the final few battles.
This being said, I still think that paying full price for a hired gun's weapons that you don't get to keep after the battle is a non-sense. There should, at the very least, be some kind of discount.
I doubt it's something that simple. None of the weapon traits are that simple. They all have rules baggage that couldn't fit in the weapon's profile.
The only problem with rending is that we don't know what it does because they forgot to include its definition in the friggin' book. Maybe it gives you a chance to ignore armor, maybe it modifies the Injury roll, maybe it makes the weapon noisy... who knows?
I actually like what they did with weapon traits. Some may feel a little redundant with the weapon type (Pistol, Melee or Grenade) or unecessary (like Pulverize, since it's only used on one weapon) but as a whole they help tie similar weapons together and should make errors easier to fix (for instance, to fix Toxin you only have to fix Toxin, not a bunch of weapon with similar mechanisms)
I’m not sure it needs room to grow. It just needs to be published in a form that means you have access to the whole game in one go, otherwise it can’t be played as intended only as interpreted given the scarce information we have. It’s no surprise then that people turn to the previous edition to fill gaps.
Take another game, any other game. Like Chess. Now try playing with every piece acting like a pawn bar the bishops.
You know how it’s supposed to be played but new players only know the version presented above. What’s the point in Knights? Why not spam Bishops? Well, to you it’s obvious - all those extra pieces have rules and a purpose and set numbers of them allowed one the board. The new players don’t know that though because you’ve not said so.
They see, bishops get better unique moves, everything else is the same regardless of appearance and there are no restrictions on how many we have.
Then you sell them another bit of paper saying how rooks move. And that you can only have two of them and two bishops. All of a sudden the new players find they’ve been playing games wrong for months. Now they wonder what the other pieces rules might be, if they have any? Are they all restricted to two pieces per side?? Including pawns? They don’t know, you’ve not said. And so on.
Now the other thing I was going to say is that with regards to house rules, which you say you’re avoiding you contradict by allowing weapon swaps, which is one of the rules that we have which is actually very specific. You’re not supposed to. As above we don’t have the full picture of N17 yet, allowing swapping could potentially break the game as intended. That was a feature of N95 not N17.
Admittedly as we probably only have 3/8 of the game so far it may not matter now. In time it could. IF as alluded by @Thorgor and @Malo this system has a particular play style which is diametrically opposed to the old style.
So all I’m saying here is... don’t get too used to it otherwise you could be playing chess with ten bishops and two pawns.
Rules baggage does seem like an appropriate phrase.
I totally get why they do it but it still seems like here in 2018 we could possibly come up with a swifter system for what special rules do rather than rely on tagging a few cut&paste labels onto a 1980s style stat line.
Which as we’ve seen they sometimes forget to append. Makes you wonder if there are any other things they’ve forgotten to add...
I totally get why they do it but it still seems like here in 2018 we could possibly come up with a swifter system for what special rules do rather than rely on tagging a few cut&paste labels onto a 1980s style stat line.
Which as we’ve seen they sometimes forget to append.
Makes you wonder if there are any other things they’ve forgotten to add...
The thing is in those earlier versions of chess you weren't left wondering what the rooks were for. Someone might come along and think that adding a Chancellor to the game is a really good idea (moves like a rook and knight) or decide that the Ferz should be replaced by the Queen. Those are what expansions normally do. They expand or change the game in some way.
However, in this case we have rules deliberately left out such as no trading post for the new weapons. Why include the rules for all those weapons and no way to buy them? Other rules, such as rending (or fear in GW1), have been forgotten and left out. So no we don't have 100% of the game at the moment. It's playable if you can get past the sloppy rules writing, but that isn't the same thing as complete.
However, in this case we have rules deliberately left out such as no trading post for the new weapons. Why include the rules for all those weapons and no way to buy them? Other rules, such as rending (or fear in GW1), have been forgotten and left out. So no we don't have 100% of the game at the moment. It's playable if you can get past the sloppy rules writing, but that isn't the same thing as complete.
Well I’m glad you picked up on what I was getting at in the end.
For anyone else wondering it’s using Chess as an example of you knowing the full rules as the fictional game designer but your customers not knowing and you only releasing fragmented rules from the full set you possess. You’re not selling them the game.
Obviously I’m not discussing the organic genesis of chess or the evolution of any game over a long period of time - which is a different beast. Even 40k has 8 versions now. And 1 is very different from 8.
But as I’m here I’ll pick on a couple of things.
Expansions are a different beast. They’re also not essential hence the name. An expansion to chess allowing firearms would change the whole system but it’s not the base system and would be optional, very much unlike a new version which is a new version of the base and therefore mandatory.
Likewise I don’t believe we have 100% of this game. I can point to very good clues as to why I believe that.
Tell me how rending works. You can’t. It’s not in the books even though the rule clearly exists somewhere.
This game has been split up to maximise profit. It’s not complete yet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Available to buy from Games Workshop on made to order right now.
Not to mention:
Is he not a Necromunda model?
What? He doesn’t count because he’s old?? But... but... he exists.
Last edited by a moderator:
There was a theory mentioned in a couple of places that after the Chapterhouse litigation, Games Workshop will not allow any rules to be used that doesn't have a corresponding model available to buy. It somewhat explains the inability to buy armor (define the look of flak/mesh, you can't really), the screwed-up staggering of weapon rules vs. trading post entries, mentions from GW about PDFs becoming available once Forge World release new weapon options etc.
If this legal situation forces GW to operate this way going forward, it's a ridiculous way to produce games and do business and will ruin games like these that aren't encompassed as a whole in boxes with everything available.
If this legal situation forces GW to operate this way going forward, it's a ridiculous way to produce games and do business and will ruin games like these that aren't encompassed as a whole in boxes with everything available.
Similar threads
