Can only speak for myself personally, I bought every single product with "Necromunda" logo on it even including all FW characters. Up until a point last year, when I simply had enough. Game is broken in so many ways and continue down a spiralling path. We never get any fixes to the problem, just an endless stream of new content. We're not only having flaws, but an insane amount of bloat. It is difficult for me to understand how people could be content by this. Unless, of course, massively house ruling the entire game, which I had to to just to make it playable.
YCE Community Survey Results
- Thread starter Al_Weeks
- Start date
Look. I read Topsy's statement of purpose and it looked like a balanced, even-handed development path was being described.
The survey results come out, and there are people that have posted in this thread that have expressed not only an aversion to the survey data, but also the basic (although poorly edited, organized, and at times ...balanced) state of Necromunda.
I'm not here to apologize for how broadly and enthusiastically the general public has taken up this game. Defending the obvious and clear trends present in the survey is also not my job.
But since we're being candid, I tell you right here and right now that the above people expressing these positions are in the vast, VAST minority.
Sometimes we forget that forums like this turn into echo chambers fairly easily, and for a project being developed, that's dangerous.
What I seem to be hearing in here is that there will be a significant departure from the originally described development approach.
I'll say it one more time because I want your efforts, and ultimately the YCE to be widely accepted:
Please look at the current sales health of the game, and look at the survey.
And now, I will STFU.
The survey results come out, and there are people that have posted in this thread that have expressed not only an aversion to the survey data, but also the basic (although poorly edited, organized, and at times ...balanced) state of Necromunda.
I'm not here to apologize for how broadly and enthusiastically the general public has taken up this game. Defending the obvious and clear trends present in the survey is also not my job.
But since we're being candid, I tell you right here and right now that the above people expressing these positions are in the vast, VAST minority.
Sometimes we forget that forums like this turn into echo chambers fairly easily, and for a project being developed, that's dangerous.
What I seem to be hearing in here is that there will be a significant departure from the originally described development approach.
I'll say it one more time because I want your efforts, and ultimately the YCE to be widely accepted:
Please look at the current sales health of the game, and look at the survey.
And now, I will STFU.
Last edited:
Definitely for #1. If YCE will lift off, we need a healthy chunk of current playerbase. Players are a lot more likely to switch to YCE if it is considered a "widely accepted" ruleset. This is what we are after, and sadly this is the reason we can't add too many radical changes or we'll scare current players away and end up competing for playerbase who would prefer sticking to flawed GW ruleset "because everyone else is playing it".
TopsyKretts hit the nail on the head with the project goals - not to be a homebrew system, but a system remake widely accepted by community like the NCE is. If we have #1 players, #2 will join our playerbase themselves. If we don't have #1 players because ruleset became too alien to them, then it'll end up being a homebrew with only a few groups of players type #2 playing it even if the ruleset is very balanced and plays better. We need to find a good balance between bringing changes and keeping things familiar, so the wider community would be able to stomach YCE.
I agree with pretty much everything you've written except for this. N17+ is a bad system built on solid core (for the most part). It is not infinity, it is not balanced (and will never be balanced simply because it is a D6 system with single rolls for shooting attacks and every single positive or negative modifier skews the outcome a lot), but it is engaging enough. Some elements of core rules are an improvement over older versions of the game, mainly alternative activations. If the core rules were not good, the game would be super dead by now. That is, some core rules do stink (I have a lot of gripes with how charging and bottling works), and are in no doubts need changing to improve the game's health state.
I think that survey needs to be taken more like a general guidance direction, rather than a strict set of rules how to make YCE. If the game needed only clean-up and some polish then we'd see a lot less houserules amongst various groups. This is not the case, as even Goonhammer articles recommend some homebrewing. GW handwaves all of problems to be solved locally by an arbitrator. This is not an acceptable state of a game by any means. Every change no matter how radical will be looked at. I'm pretty sure that we'll have to redo the final version of the ruleset a few times. Ideally, we want to push as many changes as possible where they are necessary and acceptable , but keep overall gameplay the same.
Last edited:
147 I believe was the number when I processed the data.
I haven't looked at it for a week plus but last time I checked we might have had 2 or 3 more.
I was gonna leave it and maybe add in the new data in a week or two as it's a trickle of responses now.
This was always my intent. A source of information outside our group.
Something used to guide us, not to constrain us.
If radical changes make sense and improve the overall game I will support them, I on the other hand will generally oppose change for change sakes. But I do believe, when dealing with a complex system (which is what necromunda is), that you should do the minimum amount of change you think nessesary to achieve the end goal before you test the systems response (playtesting).
That's my opinion/approach and I'm just one of the team.
One should always cast a critical eye on why the responses are the way they are and to a extent the fact that these players are invested in the game already is one of them, but clearly in responding to the survey they have some desire for change and a breakaway from.there own house rules to a more 'global's set.
To sum it up this way, I want YCE to get wide acceptance. Even if it doesn't however I'm sure I'll gain a wealth of house rules that I can use with my group should they accept aspects of YCE (but this is far from my preferred outcome).
I'm.invested either way.
1). Did you account the answers from a translated survey?
2). Were there decent houserule suggestions amongst freeform at the end? I think it might be a good idea to dump all of these in a thread, so we could pluck some ideas for YCE.
2). Were there decent houserule suggestions amongst freeform at the end? I think it might be a good idea to dump all of these in a thread, so we could pluck some ideas for YCE.
Hello JawRippa,
To me, it is a failed system, but of course it depends on what is each one's definition of a failure.
I don't mean it is not (more or less) playable, which would be inaccurate. I don't mean you can't enjoy it, which would be inaccurate.
Everybody is referring to the activation change to underline one of the reason N17+ is not so bad. This is a great example IMO. Group activation was an industry standard back in the 80's and 90's. From Blood Bowl to Necromunda through WFB and W40K. Now the times they are a-changin' and the industry standard is more oriented toward single alternative activation. N17+ designers didn't come with a great innovation, they just sticked to the new industry standard because it would have been seen as a step backward and old-fashioned not to do so...
So where are the innovations ?
IMO, the designers were unable to think outside of the box. Skirmish tabletop game is a great opportunity to do so and the underhive environment offer a specific multilevel game system that calls for very specific rules. But what did they do ? A game that cannot make a firm choice between 2D and 3D and when I look at some tabletops I only feel a bit of pain and frustration for those maze-wannabee terrain sets which are more like a new Space Hulk than a new Necromunda...
Those hundred of pages of rules are non-sensical. If you cannot deliver a skirmish games with a rules set under 50 pages, it is a failure. Skirmish games are for players who want to paint few miniatures and play quick. If you need to train an Arbitrator that has read and ingested 18 books to rule your games, it is a failure (whatever the game mechanics). if you cannot play a quick game with a teenager whom you explained the core rules for 15 minutes, it is a failure.
The designers have taken the path the wrong way : more weapons, more weapon-specific rules, more gangs, more gang-specific rules, more terrain, more terrain-specific rules. It should all have gone the other way : more weapons, more standardized and weapon generic rules, etc. Simplify and standardize, rule any non expectable situation through simple defined mechanics (in soccer, which is one of the simplest sport, you have the drop ball rule for when imprevisible situation not covered by the rules still arise).
It is a failure IMO from a creative point-of-view, not from a gaming point-of-view. But N17+ is not a specific case, it is a clear tendancy among GW products for at least a decade. Traditional conflict between corporate spirit and creative spirit).
That's why I can understand a position which advocates the lesser change, but I cannot support it. You would never be able to compete with the official rules - whatever their flaws - and have your version widely accepted - whatever its superiority. You are basing your thinking on a wrong statement : if my rules are better, people will use it. No, the choice of a rule set is not a rational process but a gregarian one. You play what your group plays, and your group plays what the community plays, and the community plays what the community influencers tells to. And at this game, GW is a great community inluencer.
Anyone can sit behind a desk and add fluff or new rules to an already set of layers and layers of half working rules. It doesn't require high creativity or innovation.
But to design in 50 pages a totally new game system, that was the challenge with the new Necromunda. And they totally failed.
(But they still sell their books at premium prices, and fully knowing that they are not part of a coherent ensemble and that they are flawed with many contradictions. If an indie gaming company would have put out such a product, every reviewer would say : nice effort but correct it, amend it, shorten it, make it playable and then maybe gamers will use it).
As a player, I would never make the effort to learn a "new" game system that is, in fact, only 20% different form an already existing game system (not talking about new versions of the same game of course). And if the already game system is the widely accepted one, who will play the alternative one, but a handful of hardcore rules specialists ? I am afraid that is what all your great efforts will lead you to.
To me, it is a failed system, but of course it depends on what is each one's definition of a failure.
I don't mean it is not (more or less) playable, which would be inaccurate. I don't mean you can't enjoy it, which would be inaccurate.
Everybody is referring to the activation change to underline one of the reason N17+ is not so bad. This is a great example IMO. Group activation was an industry standard back in the 80's and 90's. From Blood Bowl to Necromunda through WFB and W40K. Now the times they are a-changin' and the industry standard is more oriented toward single alternative activation. N17+ designers didn't come with a great innovation, they just sticked to the new industry standard because it would have been seen as a step backward and old-fashioned not to do so...
So where are the innovations ?
IMO, the designers were unable to think outside of the box. Skirmish tabletop game is a great opportunity to do so and the underhive environment offer a specific multilevel game system that calls for very specific rules. But what did they do ? A game that cannot make a firm choice between 2D and 3D and when I look at some tabletops I only feel a bit of pain and frustration for those maze-wannabee terrain sets which are more like a new Space Hulk than a new Necromunda...
Those hundred of pages of rules are non-sensical. If you cannot deliver a skirmish games with a rules set under 50 pages, it is a failure. Skirmish games are for players who want to paint few miniatures and play quick. If you need to train an Arbitrator that has read and ingested 18 books to rule your games, it is a failure (whatever the game mechanics). if you cannot play a quick game with a teenager whom you explained the core rules for 15 minutes, it is a failure.
The designers have taken the path the wrong way : more weapons, more weapon-specific rules, more gangs, more gang-specific rules, more terrain, more terrain-specific rules. It should all have gone the other way : more weapons, more standardized and weapon generic rules, etc. Simplify and standardize, rule any non expectable situation through simple defined mechanics (in soccer, which is one of the simplest sport, you have the drop ball rule for when imprevisible situation not covered by the rules still arise).
It is a failure IMO from a creative point-of-view, not from a gaming point-of-view. But N17+ is not a specific case, it is a clear tendancy among GW products for at least a decade. Traditional conflict between corporate spirit and creative spirit).
That's why I can understand a position which advocates the lesser change, but I cannot support it. You would never be able to compete with the official rules - whatever their flaws - and have your version widely accepted - whatever its superiority. You are basing your thinking on a wrong statement : if my rules are better, people will use it. No, the choice of a rule set is not a rational process but a gregarian one. You play what your group plays, and your group plays what the community plays, and the community plays what the community influencers tells to. And at this game, GW is a great community inluencer.
Anyone can sit behind a desk and add fluff or new rules to an already set of layers and layers of half working rules. It doesn't require high creativity or innovation.
But to design in 50 pages a totally new game system, that was the challenge with the new Necromunda. And they totally failed.
(But they still sell their books at premium prices, and fully knowing that they are not part of a coherent ensemble and that they are flawed with many contradictions. If an indie gaming company would have put out such a product, every reviewer would say : nice effort but correct it, amend it, shorten it, make it playable and then maybe gamers will use it).
As a player, I would never make the effort to learn a "new" game system that is, in fact, only 20% different form an already existing game system (not talking about new versions of the same game of course). And if the already game system is the widely accepted one, who will play the alternative one, but a handful of hardcore rules specialists ? I am afraid that is what all your great efforts will lead you to.
1) yes but that wasnt the 147 number I added your 18? responses to them, and they are included in the data in the word.document.
2) I need to read these. Sorry it's been a hell of a week with work, and taking my son out of nursery and looking after him around our jobs thanks to rising COVID rates.
I will do this.
I think this is exactly the opposite for general public. Personally, as a first change I'd prefer to tear down everything and give the system a different dice base, because rolling an outcome of a meltagun attack with a single D6 is ridiculously swingy. But this would not bring that many players because players are hesistant to learn completely new things.
I don't doubt that you'd be willing to learn a completely different ruleset, but majority of people would prefer the opposite - path of a least resistance. It is easy to relearn the same game, but with a few key tweaks than daring to jump into an entirely different system.
Last edited:
Hello JawRippa,
I agree about what you call the path of least resistance.
But, as far as Necromunda 17+ is concerned for the average gamer, if you think it is :
- reading an alternative set of rules which is only 20% different from the official one, identifying what are the changes compared to what you already know (without confusing the two sets), remembering what is to be kept and what is new, finding other players who have read both the official set of rules and the alternative set of rules and identified/learned what is to be kept and what is to be changed, and then play a campaign.
On my side, I think it is :
- agreeing that the official rule is a bit crappy but playing with it since it's what you know and what everybody uses - without bothering your mind with some supposedly superior unofficial house rules that some fans made on the internet.
You are aiming for contradictory goals : design a superior alternative set of rules and having it being widely accepted.
I have no doubt that your efforts will give birth to a more balanced, more effective and more pleasant set of rules.
But you will never have it widely accepted. This specification is not gonna be met. That's why your own restriction to the fewer change as possible in the name of a supposedly better acceptance by a wider base looks regrettable to me.
Alternative set of rules are for alternative mindsetted people. Official rules are for gregarian people. You won't have gregarian people widely accept an alternative set of rules.
(Back in Necromunda Magazines, the GW editors had to sort out their own official rules from experimental rules from unofficial rules in their very magazine for people to use them...).
My tip was : if you invest in a lot of time and efforts for a better rule, go for it, do the best as you can, and don't limit yourself with people that will in reality never bother to even read your rules.
I agree about what you call the path of least resistance.
But, as far as Necromunda 17+ is concerned for the average gamer, if you think it is :
- reading an alternative set of rules which is only 20% different from the official one, identifying what are the changes compared to what you already know (without confusing the two sets), remembering what is to be kept and what is new, finding other players who have read both the official set of rules and the alternative set of rules and identified/learned what is to be kept and what is to be changed, and then play a campaign.
On my side, I think it is :
- agreeing that the official rule is a bit crappy but playing with it since it's what you know and what everybody uses - without bothering your mind with some supposedly superior unofficial house rules that some fans made on the internet.
You are aiming for contradictory goals : design a superior alternative set of rules and having it being widely accepted.
I have no doubt that your efforts will give birth to a more balanced, more effective and more pleasant set of rules.
But you will never have it widely accepted. This specification is not gonna be met. That's why your own restriction to the fewer change as possible in the name of a supposedly better acceptance by a wider base looks regrettable to me.
Alternative set of rules are for alternative mindsetted people. Official rules are for gregarian people. You won't have gregarian people widely accept an alternative set of rules.
(Back in Necromunda Magazines, the GW editors had to sort out their own official rules from experimental rules from unofficial rules in their very magazine for people to use them...).
My tip was : if you invest in a lot of time and efforts for a better rule, go for it, do the best as you can, and don't limit yourself with people that will in reality never bother to even read your rules.
You can witness new players crash and burn in their first campaign before the first battle begins. The rules simply doesn't work. And people are forced to come up with functional house rules on the fly. Which begs the question, are these better than what we come up with? If not, all players, particularly new ones, will benefit greatly from using an official community edition of this game. Otherwise, you're left to ask all the countless questions we see in the rules forum today.
Being gregorian with the official rules is a painful road of no reward. At the same time, GW bends and updates their own rules whenever they have a new mini to sell. GW does whatever they want to make room for their new products. Nothing should stop us (or anyone else) from doing the same.
That remains to be seen, doesn't it? My impresssion was NCE is widely accepted today. YCE can be widely accepted tomorrow.
You forget one trick I got up my sleeve. I've gathered a considerable following of people who use my rules compilation. This is currently mostly abiding by the official rules, which is probably the main reason for its popularity. Sometimes it also has new books included before GW's release date. When we have a complete YCE Edition, I may abandon the current official rules compilation and replace it with the YCE. And then they are forced to transition to YCE or use the only other alternative (as far as I know), the NCR. I'm not sure what the state of NCR is today or how often it is updated though.
Last edited:
Plenty of conversation in here about what would be best for the YCE in terms of minor balancing vs rewriting parts of the rules.
There is a healthy cross section of people behind the scenes working on the rules so it’s unlikely that the rules will significantly differ from the current rules without those significant changes being discussed with the wider community.
At the same time people need to be aware that the YCE is not just going to be minor balancing changes. There are sections of the rules that need to be reworked to get the game working.
Also remember that the target for the YCE is for people that are either slightly or largely dissatisfied with the current rules as they are the people that are likely to make the switch to a modified ruleset. It’s true that we don’t want to alienate people that are happy with the current rules, but change tends to happen from the noisy ones rather than the happy ones.
There is a healthy cross section of people behind the scenes working on the rules so it’s unlikely that the rules will significantly differ from the current rules without those significant changes being discussed with the wider community.
At the same time people need to be aware that the YCE is not just going to be minor balancing changes. There are sections of the rules that need to be reworked to get the game working.
Also remember that the target for the YCE is for people that are either slightly or largely dissatisfied with the current rules as they are the people that are likely to make the switch to a modified ruleset. It’s true that we don’t want to alienate people that are happy with the current rules, but change tends to happen from the noisy ones rather than the happy ones.
Hello Topsykretts,
Just a precision : when discussing about what seems to be the path of least resistance, I was not referring to myself and I do agree with you that the current system is not working (which again points us toward the fact that people as a group are adopting a gregarian behavior instead of a rational one).
I am sorry but this a culturally centered statement. Here in France, NCE is unknown to an outstanding majority of Necromunda players, for the good reason that it has never been translated. If you go to the french Warhammer forum on the dedicated Necromunda sub-threads, they hardly know what it is...
What about german gamers ? Italian gamers ? Spanish gamers, etc ?
If you would count all the Necromunda players in the world (before 2017), which percentage of them was using NCE and which percentage of them was using LRB or ORB ?
So I guess you could say NCE has been used by "a lot of" english speaking players, and especially by people members or familiar with these boards, but saying it is "widely accepted" doesn't fit my definition of this phrase, which to me would mean a solid percentage of the worldwide Necromunda gaming community.
Now I need to stop annoying people and finish my secret gift for the Christmas Yaktribe exchange ! 🎅
Just a precision : when discussing about what seems to be the path of least resistance, I was not referring to myself and I do agree with you that the current system is not working (which again points us toward the fact that people as a group are adopting a gregarian behavior instead of a rational one).
I am sorry but this a culturally centered statement. Here in France, NCE is unknown to an outstanding majority of Necromunda players, for the good reason that it has never been translated. If you go to the french Warhammer forum on the dedicated Necromunda sub-threads, they hardly know what it is...
What about german gamers ? Italian gamers ? Spanish gamers, etc ?
If you would count all the Necromunda players in the world (before 2017), which percentage of them was using NCE and which percentage of them was using LRB or ORB ?
So I guess you could say NCE has been used by "a lot of" english speaking players, and especially by people members or familiar with these boards, but saying it is "widely accepted" doesn't fit my definition of this phrase, which to me would mean a solid percentage of the worldwide Necromunda gaming community.
Now I need to stop annoying people and finish my secret gift for the Christmas Yaktribe exchange ! 🎅
Where did they get ORB or LRB from? Old players may have bought them when they were new, but new players?
Yeah, noticed that too, sadly.
Neomunda is a bit different though, as they stopped translating it mid-way through, so no french-speaker can currently play N18 as there are no 'House of ____' books for them.
The YCE, on the other hand, may eventually get a complete french translation by yours truly (and whoever may be willing to help of course). If it's the only way to get my fellow froggies to play the game, I'll have to bite the bullet and just do it.
The same way as you get NCE rules : by downloading them on the Net if you're on your own, or making copies of copies of a ruleset "lent" to you by the gamer who introduces you to the game if you're part of a gaming community.
Well, a few years ago (before N17), searching the interwebs for necromunda rules led me to Yaktribe and NCE. And when I understood what "NCE" meant (community edition), it became the obvious choice when picking up the game again. Free and available, easy to distribute to friends.
Similar threads
