1. Why are leaders/elites being denied the options of W, A, I or Ld advancements? +1 W and S or A makes a pretty satisfying ork nob, for exampleThe increase in choice range here would add a lot and cost only a little, I suspect. This, one time, might even be a nice way to offer a +1 M option.
2. I'd like to suggest that elites only start with 40+d6 xp, since they don't get access to special or heavy weapons. Otherwise, in the long game, they will be a little weaker than characters with the same rating (since xp + cost).
3. Why are rogue traders forbidden from having xenos, but not abhuman, elites? Nobles can, as can pirates and t'au, so it just feels strange.
4. Although it's (seemingly?) small, cult leaders gaining the preacher ability "in addition" means that, strictly speaking, cult leaders are stronger than any other type of leader. I don't suspect you intended every cult leader to feel like better commanders than inquisitors, grizzled guard sergeants, etc.
5. I'm not sure I (personally) like the idea of rolling for a mutation, although I really like the way it's presented (as a 2 or 12 advance and an option therefor). Offering it as a free choice of mutation might be required for many players though, since otherwise it requires a commitment to remodeling the actual miniature in a way you might not want.
7. Does the noble house' "swagger" ability really need to cost that 10 gelt for each declared noble? The rule right before it is trying to establish that such warbands are better equipped by providing 10% extra starting money, while this provides the opposite effect. Also, since the buggers demand a double cut of the income, they've already got a perfect (fluff-wise), if a bit brutal, counter-balance already in place. Actually, it really is perfect, as in the long run it slows down the income growth of such gangs such that they don't change gear as much as others. Might be better to increase their starting income all the way to +20%, but require at least half the warband be "nobles".
8. T'au diplomatic cadres are actually much more likely to be led by a water caste than an ethereal, according to my "research". There aren't many ethereals and water castes are specifically given the duty of diplomacy. Also, love the cult style conversion rule! Probably going to be my first I'munda warband.
9. Heresy table: I see six (-1)s, five of which are for hiring choices (within your control) and one of which, "fought a puritan warband" is not a choice, in most gaming groups (or story scenarios). Wouldn't be relevant, except for that "(+1) for never having suffered one of the penalties above" thing. I think this creates an effect you did not intend, is that correct?
10. The more I look through it, the more I see the need to separate skill tables from warbands, at least if they're going to remain clumped together for efficiency as they are now. There are many cases of things like, "why do squat leaders and elites get agility but not ferocity", "why do all lists that allow T'au warbands grant universal access to the close combat skill group", and "eldar guardians get the muscle skill table?". I have a suggestion for an alternate skill table assignment system that I'll propose soon, where appropriate, but only once it's a little more settled (it's looking really good, but I've only seen it from one of my own perspectives so far).
11. Also, as a general design idea, I wouldn't mind seeing more use of a consistently themed rule for "slave" style initiates. They should cost a flat rate per game and not get a cut of income, for example (maybe cost more than just food, since they have to be watched and contained, say five or maybe take ten or more, but out of income, instead of stash, etc), but they could also benefit from a chance to run off the board and escape to freedom sometimes.
12. All in all, this has been the result of a fairly thorough and critical analysis of your work so far, which has been excellent, by the way. I hope that some of my observations prove valuable. Oh, one last question, what program did you make it in, it looks really pro?
Just to keep everyone up to date, this is being worked on, albeit slowly. I am on the final stretch with the "Underworld Factions" list. HWL will follow that along with ensuring skills lists are all correct.
Any thoughts on types of sub-lists you would like to see aside from "Hive Gang" or "Mutant Uprising"?
Anyone got a better name for the list than "Underworld Factions" or "Underworld Elements"?
mmm... my opinion about new NECROMUNDA is pretty simple: like SW:A, the new boxed game shall include brand new amazing miniatures, lot of fluff and so on but poor rules.
let's be honest: our necromundaCE is far better than SW:A and gw doesn't want a deep, complex game.
gw wants a simple game for beginners, ensnare them, then move them to wh40k.
there's no point for gw to invest a lot, then the players buy two, maybe three gang and the business is over.
i won my bet with SW:A and I'm pretty sure I'll win the next one too.
so, don't be too afraid: new necromunda will surely give us new good ideas [for example the 2dice-ammo test] but we'll include in next editions, then the CE edition will be the best again.
I am sure we can at least collate what we have for 3.0 into a semi-coherent document that can be used with NCE.
If it turns out that Neomunda is crap, I will move forward with 3.1, if it is good, it will be 4.0 instead.