Necromunda The Sump: General hobby venting thread (Beware: old men shouting at clouds)

As far as the house rules debate is concerned, if you want to run any sort of balanced campaign right now, you’re gonna have to include some.

Someone earlier hit the nail on the head about having a tiny gang and intentionally throwing games for rep rewards. There’s a huge disconnect rules wise between reputation and gang rating right now, and unless it somehow will make sense in a yet to be released book, there isn’t any point IMO in having both of them.
 
I agree with a few of the rules being odd, I love the new activation sequence personally instead of sitting waiting a while for someone to deploy everything (one reason why i aint overly fond of 40K takes too long)

With a bit clarification on rules, few tweaks and guidance I think once everything out, inc GW3 & 4 if probable, it will balance out.......

Or do i hear calls for this site to do what it did so amazingly well with the NCE as a N17CE? :whistle: :sneaky:
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Worker
Mad Donna says right in her description that she doesn't have N17 rules.

"This is a metal miniature in 2 components, which makes ‘Mad’ Donna Ulanti. Supplied with a Citadel 25mm Round base. Please note – this is not supplied with rules for Necromunda: Underhive. "
That’s true there are no rules for “Mad Donna Ulanti” yet in N17.

You can however use her model as an Escher leader, bounty hunter etc. If you care about WYSIWYG then there is a chainsword present.

She is available to buy from GW direct.

Sure the old Cawdor is old but being pedantic that’s not what you asked. You asked if I could point you to a Necromunda model with a chainsword. I can. An older one and one available to buy right now that isn’t Gor.

Seriously I'm done with this "community". Either play the game they're releasing or make up your own rules.

Now, now. We’re allowed to have differing opinions on things. Stay and put forward your ideas and thoughts.

No-one wants to chase you away, any community is richer for having a range of voices present.

We are mostly playing (or were) and also have done. It’s the Community Edition available in the vault.

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.

Well yes, to put it quickly that is correct.

Oddly Games Workshop the ‘Miniatures company’ didnt produce Miniatures for their games so enterprising others did.

They were so annoyed by them cashing in that (after several legal cases) they decided that it’s was better to take the rules away rather than produce the missing models.

Because they’re a miniature company not a rules one. So obviously not making the models for the rules that already existed, even though there was clearly a market for them, was the best approach to prevent that.

As a Miniatures company. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile in the real world 3rd parties are still able to produce alternate models to replace Citadel’s own in GW games. Just by avoiding copyright infringement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or do i hear calls for this site to do what it did so amazingly well with the NCE as a N17CE? :whistle: :sneaky:
You can hear them but legally that would be dangerous water as it’s an active product.

The NCE exists though based on an abandoned ruleset (bar the SW:A tweak) and possibly, possibly you could use it as a base for a house patch adding alternate activation, using fighter cards and backporting weapons like the rivet gun. Just don’t publish it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeeKAbaddon
Seriously I'm done with this "community". Either play the game they're releasing or make up your own rules.
I don't think that's fair. Sure there's some vehement folks here that are rather vocal about their issues with the game, myself sometimes included. We're allowed to question the design of the game and many folks are already making their own house rules on how they'd prefer to play certain parts. But simply taking everything included as gospel and likely everything they're doing isn't something I expect people to do. I'm sorry if you decide not to partake in this community anymore, I don't like anyone getting to that point, but that's up to you. Feel free to use the tools and keep up with any threads you still find useful over time if you like, the site can still be a great resource and we have many many members who never interact on the forums.
 
Last edited:
Point me to a necromunda model besides Gor Half-Horn that has a chainsword. You can't. Should we have the rule for rending, yes probably. Does it really matter right now? No.
To be honest, Chainswords should be all over, it is an iconic weapon for Necromunda. At least to me it used to be (clearly not anymore, as it is as rare as a beastman in 40k). Chainsword was a cool 'status' weapon I used to give to Leaders and skilled gangers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(Deleted member 9968) No-one wants you to go. Sorry if my over enthusiasm annoyed you.

We all love Necromunda whether it be the background, models, old game, community edition or the new one. Passions often run high.

There’s no right or wrong here only personal preference and as this is global your friends/group/store may have a different attitude and views to others. That’s cool. It’s expected.

With regards to old metal models from 20 years ago, there’s no reason why they can’t be supported. They’re only humans holding weapons, we just need the rules for the weapons and points cost and we can equip them up! I guess in GW3 we’ll finally get them. It’s just frustrating to have to wait.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are giving them too much credit (Deleted member 9968). They just forgot to add the rules for the trait in the book, and to correct Gor's profile. That's all there is to it. Not the first mistake they make and fail to catch with those books, and probably not the last.
Chainswords are part of both the Escher and Goliath weapon upgrade kits, so this mistake should hopefully be corrected in time for their release.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was wondering why I was getting notifications for some topic I was not involved in! :) My original topic was spun off into this! I would like to say I didn't want to start another griping thread, but I was very disillusioned when I started the other topic Hired Gun cost topic.

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.

I get what you're saying, and while the chess analogy threw me off at first due to the history of the game, you did a good job explaining that in your later post. I do honestly think that this piecemeal release is a result of deadlines and "business" meddling in the design studio's well-meaning intentions.

And now I think I'm responding to comments made in the other thread so this could get confusing... So about me contradicting myself on house rules: I believe I said I was trying not to make too many house rules, not that I was fully successful! The weapon swap thing is actually a designer's note anyways, and the group I am arbitrating was extremely against the idea, so I had to make that house rule. And as you eluded to: now that I'm seeing how injuries, cycles and hired guns work, I'm starting to think the game would play better if you can't change weapons. I'm seeing the turnover of gangers being potentially very high, as the rating cost to level them up to overcome injuries would be better utilized to hire a new guy, and it is incentivized even more because you can equip the new guy differently!

edit: @MusingWarboss I definitely misread your post the first time but I'm leaving this because I think my point still stands. I agree that one should be careful with house rules.

Yes, I agree one should be careful with house rules, see my response above.

As far as the house rules debate is concerned, if you want to run any sort of balanced campaign right now, you’re gonna have to include some.

Someone earlier hit the nail on the head about having a tiny gang and intentionally throwing games for rep rewards. There’s a huge disconnect rules wise between reputation and gang rating right now, and unless it somehow will make sense in a yet to be released book, there isn’t any point IMO in having both of them.

I would actually categorize most of my campaign rules as patches for missing rules, or interpretations of vague rules. The only house rules In my campaign are the weapon swap thing, and preventing an entire gang of Goliath's with grenade launchers. I define house rules as an alteration to a rule to make the game more enjoyable for a given group, simply supplying the missing parts like I am is an amateur errata in my mind!

I agree with a few of the rules being odd, I love the new activation sequence personally instead of sitting waiting a while for someone to deploy everything (one reason why i aint overly fond of 40K takes too long)

With a bit clarification on rules, few tweaks and guidance I think once everything out, inc GW3 & 4 if probable, it will balance out.......

Or do i hear calls for this site to do what it did so amazingly well with the NCE as a N17CE? :whistle: :sneaky:

This is the type of positivity I find refreshing, even if i occasionally come off as a grump! ;) I agree the core rules are great, but the campaign system was either rushed, or split up so that it will be awkward until fully released... or both. I do believe that it is way too early to try to make a community edition, which is why we have the Arbitrator's handbook: a list of house rules collected in one place.

You are giving them too much credit (Deleted member 9968). They just forgot to add the rules for the trait in the book, and to correct Gor's profile. That's all there is to it. Not the first mistake they make and fail to catch with those books, and probably not the last.
Chainswords are part of both the Escher and Goliath weapon upgrade kits, so this mistake should hopefully be corrected in time for their release.

I did some napkin math on Gor. 235 credits.

Bounty Hunter profile B (the squat-ish one) = 80
+1 move = 10
+1 str. = 30
+1 init. = 10
+1 cool = 10
-1 will = -5
-1 int = -5

Plasma P. = 50
Shotgun = 30

Subtotal = 210

Which leaves 25 credits for the chainsword
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just as a heads up to (Deleted member 9968) due to his comment further up, but also to everybody who is reading this thread... If you get annoyed/woundup/whatever with the discontent over ANYTHING to do with the N17 (or other topics tbh), please don't feel you have to leave the community (I get that was a heat of the moment thing Crash, and we're not getting rid of you that easily ;)), just unwatch this thread, and don't read it! The very aim of the sump is to stop any negativity tainting the entire forum at large. So yes there will be a lot of it here, but there shouldn't be very much at all anywhere else :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know who the source for this is, so take it with salt, but it rings true...
View attachment 48747
In that case: please, let your hardcore supporters (eg us, among others) be of advice! Many of us would happily proofread/beta test things, compile FAQs+proposed answers, etc.
There obviously is passion and energy around N17, tap into that and make the most out of it!
 
Is that from Reddit or something?

It seems to be a bit of extrapolation with added jabs at GW. I mean, Hewitt does, in fact, consult with GW (according to him). But he also did lead the necromunda rules effort and did leave the company too.

As far as the house rules debate is concerned, if you want to run any sort of balanced campaign right now, you’re gonna have to include some.

Someone earlier hit the nail on the head about having a tiny gang and intentionally throwing games for rep rewards. There’s a huge disconnect rules wise between reputation and gang rating right now, and unless it somehow will make sense in a yet to be released book, there isn’t any point IMO in having both of them.

I can see the reason to have both, but I think it makes for unfun games. Beyond the whole throwing games, what happens if I spend my time getting creamed every game so my gang rating is in the absolute crapper while my opponents have doubles. Every time I play someone I'm worse and worse off on the table. I'm stuck with three broken and beaten gangers against a team of lean mean killers. And then at the end of a campaign, turns out I take second place. It's not fun for everyone doing well, and getting there is not fun for me since every game I just lose more stuff to PLAY with as opposed to an abstract win number.

The catch up mechanic being based on rep is bad, because you don't really catch up. Putting neat models on the table with flair and fancy guns is what's fun, not securing second in apotheosis (you don't actually win unless it's against another gang that got it's rep by being beaten up).

All this said, I would find it hilarious to go with a two man suicide gang and sell it in character and none of the other gangs wanting any piece of the crazy assholes who keep throwing themselves off buildings. They're too nuts even for the underhive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spafe
He also has a stub gun in his profile in the back of the book (and on his model) so I've been costing them at 20.

Did I miss the stubgun? Dang. I still think 25 creds is reasonable for a chainsword, depending on what Rending does.

My take on rending: if a 6 is rolled to hit (or maybe wound) the target takes a flesh wound in addition to any other results of the attack.

I feel giving it better armor piercing would just make it an inferior power weapon, so I took my inspiration from pulverize. I think chainsword give you an extra attack in 8th edition 40k, right? In 7th I think rending auto wounded on a hit of 6. This is all from memory though, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Chivers7
Beyond the whole throwing games, what happens if I spend my time getting creamed every game so my gang rating is in the absolute crapper while my opponents have doubles. Every time I play someone I'm worse and worse off on the table. I'm stuck with three broken and beaten gangers against a team of lean mean killers. And then at the end of a campaign, turns out I take second place. It's not fun for everyone doing well, and getting there is not fun for me since every game I just lose more stuff to PLAY with as opposed to an abstract win number.

The catch up mechanic being based on rep is bad, because you don't really catch up. Putting neat models on the table with flair and fancy guns is what's fun, not securing second in apotheosis (you don't actually win unless it's against another gang that got it's rep by being beaten up).

Exactly my experience, and even more so with the one who ended up fighting the turf war winner in the TTS campaign. I got destroyed in every game and ended up coming in 3rd due to rep rewards.

Maybe it'll all balance out after GW5 when we have the full Underhive campaign rules as I can only assume they were originally intended.