V3.0 Warband Creation Update

[0604854]

Also should'nt genestealer cults get access to "transfixing stare"

 

[spafe]

@Tiny , Are you working on anyhting/had a chance to look over the comments given in the last page or so yet?

Trying to work out what stage the doc is up to and if it's worth using the one in the first post dated the 12/06/17 or if theres something more recent/about to be something more recent.

 

[Tiny]

As discussed I will be working on it this week. Will get something up asap.

Did the weapon lists get finished? So I can add the HWL to each warband?

 

[Tiny]

OK chaps, since this will likely be the last update before the new version of Necromunda drops, I'm not going to go into too many changes to the current document. As weapon profiles are not yet finalized I will need to remove house weapon lists also.

I will answer a couple of points before I do the final update.

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.

I will add them as options although W will take up 2 advances. M is tied to species so won't offer that. Can choose an agility skill if you want a fast guy.

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).

I had originally done this but since they actually can have access to Special weapons (with the specialist skill) along with other benefits decided to amend it. If there is a wider problem we will revisit this.

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.

No idea. Will change.

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.

It is not so much that the leader is particularly good but they are very influential over their indoctrinated followers. If we ever get round to making a list of leader / elite skills instead of having them in the warbands, this will be fixed. As it is, its not too bad a problem.

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.

Agreed, although random stuff is always fun and stops models with multiple mutations from becoming broken. If choosing 2nd / 3rd mutations it would be too easy to make very broken combos (imagine 10 guys with extra arms and wings). If player doesn't want to convert minis, don't choose to gain a mutation or agree with your arbitrator that players can choose but cannot take duplicates.

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".

Without the +10TG per noble, the starting gang is too powerful for its own good. We'll try it as it is and if its a problem we will look to change it later. I have tried making a warband and met no problems but have not played it in a campaign.

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.

Fluff schmuff. If I didn't include one, someone would want one. Don't want and Ethereal, take a Water Caste.

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?

Nope, once a warband, no matter how loyal they are to the Imperium, decides to fight against a puritan Inquisitor they will get a black mark. It is up to the player if they want to risk being branded a heretic.

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).

Species already have their own skills adjustments.

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.

Its a lot of work for not a lot of gain. Slaves can gain income same as anyone else. Its easy to get a slave to work a mine. If they are down at the end of the game and roll a 11-16 on injury chart, just say they ran away to freedom if you like.

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?

Thanks. It was all done in the super-pro Microsoft Word 2007.

 

[Tiny]

Also should'nt genestealer cults get access to "transfixing stare"

Is that an NCE mutation?

Also, remember chaps. At the minute we just need to get V3.0 to a playable state. Then we can look at V3.1 or V4, whichever is preferred.

 

[spafe]

@Tiny , glad to see you addressing some of those questions. I basically agree with all the responses. The weapons link I have is

https://yaktribe.games/community/threads/v3-0-inquisimunda-weapons-overhaul.3847/page-15#post-100563

So I was going to (or if someone else is about with better PDF-ing skills than I) take that spreadsheet, put it in a table and that is our weapon list.

 

[Tiny]

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"?

 

[spafe]

Taking a stripe from the Ravenor trilogy... Moody Hammers? Or just gutter scum? Hive scum? Underhive denizens?

 

[scavvyjay]

ASBOS?

 

[Tiny]

Underhive denizens?

I prefer that to Underworld Factions. Maybe Underworld Denizens as not all campaigns will be set on a hive world.

 

[Azzabat]

I like the Denizens part so any combo of that pleases me. Denizens of the Hive perhaps?

 

[oGRE3]

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"?

Underworld cartel?

 

[Genghis]

I think "Underworld" is more inclusive vice "Underhive". To that end, maybe change "Hive Gang" to "Street Gang" As for additional sub-list ideas, I'd like some sort of organised crime element; I'm not sure how to distinguish it from a Hive/Street Gang, although something to suggest better organisation, a bit more class and corrupt society/security connections would work (if people smarter than me can turn that into suitable rules). I don't know if smugglers are different enough to warrant a sub-list; I guess a measure of access to xenos/exotic gear, but would that be achievable with one of the pirates lists? How about some sort of quasi-legitimate vigilante group that's been deputised (or otherwise given some form of semi-official sanction) and has access to limited police/security/military support?

 

[Tiny]

Fanfare please.

21/9/17
Fixed loads of stuff. Added Underworld ... something.

Updated the OP with up to date document. Go read it, play test it, leave comments. If you can't find weapon profiles for stuff, look in the other threads and if still not there, say so and I will try to find them.

I am not going to go much further with this for the time being. With the new version of Necromunda due in little over a month, I don't see a whole lot of point. I will begin work on V4.0.... sometime... maybe... once my brain stops hurting.

 

[oGRE3]

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.

 

[Tiny]

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.

A pretty pessimistic outlook. I for one hope the new Necromunda is as good as the old one, if not better. We will see what it is like before we go any further anyway. As you say, SW:A gave us a load of cool stuff and thankfully used the same core rules so porting details was easy. Porting bits of the new system may be a lot more difficult.

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.

 

[oGRE3]

I think I'll continue to expect almost nothing from NEOmunda but I like your approach.

 

[spafe]

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.

This! This is basically my entire view on where the imunda project is and a rough direction for the future.

I would like to thank you for your hard work @Tiny , a truly outstanding achievement and one you should be properly proud of!

Likely next week I'll go through and compile links/documents for it into a single post (in the main v3.0 thread), and then try to scan through summoning all those who expressed an interest in playtesting back to see what we can get. I'll also see if we can find someone who is good with computers and document building to combine them into something that can go in the vault, although that might take a bit longer (esp if it comes to my having to cobble it together).

 

[Belgrim]

@Tiny thank you for your work

 

[Tiny]

Just for clarity, the weapon lists contain stuff from NCE, SW:A and stuff that may or may not actually exist... I really didn't cross reference any other weapon lists.
Please let me know if you come across something that doesn't exist and I'll either remove it or make some rules for it.
In future updates I will look at compiling the whole lot to ensure it's all more coherent.