YCE suggestions- general principles

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
I'm not so sold on Willpower for target priority checks, its described as the ability to remain cool under fire and not panic and just shoot the closest target. Cool seems right for it.
...
I'd argue intelligence and willpower need one or two more niche uses each.
#1 thing for willpower is to throw out the window the stereotype that Willpower is for psyker stuff only. I'd argue that one can be brave enough to be able to keep fighting under fire, but lack the willpower to resist pulling the trigger at the closest enemy instead of carefully selecting targets (imagine a Goliath having a good scrap, will he really bother picking targets for his bolter?). Also Willpower seems perfect to be able to deal with long term trauma. For that I've redone Injury table and "grievous injury" makes your fighter start with a flesh wound, unless he passes a Willpower check.

As for intelligence, make 1 or 2 "core" scenarios that use intelligence for objectives and intelligence becomes more interesting. Another idea to revive intelligence that I've tried (and which is working!) is to let people draw 1 tactical card whenever they open a loot casket. This way, smart and mobile gangers can get tactics for their team (strong gangers can do that too, but have a higher risk of exploding in the process).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scavvierising

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,577
10,487
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
You could use a poll for 1) and 2). Provided there are enough voters (at least 50?) and we can get a clear consensus (say >60%) that would be settled.

To clarify my position about 1): I would be happy with TLoS as a base provided we add a rule that miniatures with non-standard poses (crouched, laying on the floor, cart-wheeling, etc.) should be substituted with a more neutral equivalent miniature (or at least treated as one) when checking for LoS/cover. In other words, how you choose to model your miniatures should not change how they play on the tabletop.

I'm not sure we need an answer for 3) right now. It has more to do with how we want the Combat Chems Stash and Jump Booster to work than general principles (both could be reworked to use a D6 and a table instead of a D3)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al_Weeks

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
To clarify my position about 1): I would be happy with TLoS as a base provided we add a rule that miniatures with non-standard poses (crouched, laying on the floor, cart-wheeling, etc.) should be substituted with a more neutral equivalent miniature (or at least treated as one) when checking for LoS/cover. In other words, how you choose to model your miniatures should not change how they play on the tabletop.
I like the bit about substitution a lot. It is kinda like Infinity silhouettes/templates, but more relaxed
I also think that general recommendations regarding friendly play sprinkled throughout the rules would go a long way. Such as be tolerant for take-backs, when in doubt pick full cover instead of partial for enemy fighters, warn opponent when their fighter is about to end movement out of cover regarding LoS for one of your shooters etc. Speeds up games and allows both players to enjoy battles more in the long run.

1) Line of Sight (abstract vs true)
2) Pre measuring (keep as banned or allow), and if pre measuring is not allowed how to explicitly to resolve the conflicts such as determining the closes fighter etc.
3) Natural Rolls on 'd3's '

#1 I think should be TLoS. Most people seem to think the same, Necromunda is not really a competetive skirmish, and for that you'd need a lot of clarification.
#2 are there that many conflicts to begin with? The only one I can think are closest fighters, movement and pitch black. To avoid premeasuring for target priority use TopsyKrett's advice and turn the ruler so its facing up with side clean of scale.
For #3 I'd say that a natural roll should take into account what kind of dice we were substituting with. Otherwise by RAW you could theoretically take a D100 to roll instead of D6 (rerolling 97+ results) and claim that you get a "natural one" 1/96 throws.

I'm inclined to agree. It think the issue with the TLoS lies with the extreme cases.
...
The issues (aka the bits that feel gamey) are when say everything but a head or arm is obsured and heavy cover doesn't seem like a enough of a to hit penalty.
How about simply treating a fighter with less than 10% of their "targetable" body exposed as being out of LOS? General guidelines: if you only see 1 bodypart, and less than half of it, then target is probably exposed less than 10%. If still in doubt because of fighter's pose, use @Thorgor's advice and use subsitution facing the same direction.

Conditions (RB pg51)
This entire page is fluff, really. What is Intoxicated doing here? Blind isn't a weapon trait, silly book! I agree that actually consolidating the descriptions of the conditions here would be excellent. We're not constrained by printing considerations, so we've got plenty of room.
I think that overloading it with a bunch of conditions could be unwise... At least we need to separate common conditions (Broken, Out of ammo - if we still treat it as condition of a fighter) from rare ones like Intoxicated or insane.

Timing is another one. If I've got three effects that all say 'at the start of the activation', how do you decide order of resolution? What if one is from one of my rules and one is from one of my opponent's rules? Who resolves first? Again, sorting out a clear framework now will make everyone's lives easier further down the line.
I think that player gets to decide the order of effects which affect their activating fighters. If two players may want to resolve things at the same time, but both are waiting for each other to respond, force player with priority to act first. If they choose not to, they skip a chance to use their tactic or whatever.
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,219
1,584
128
Bristol, UK
My only problem with substituting a model for a more neutral pose is when to do it, and which pose to use.
If I have a fighter aiming a pistol, which results in their hand poking out, is it fair to switch for a model without?
What if I have a model leaning to the left for the same result, could I switch for a model leaning right, or not leaning at all, and therefore out of sight?
I like the concept, I just worry that it's too ill-defined.

With simultaneous resolutions, the priority player makes sense, however some things occur at the start of a round before priority is determined (such as the tactics card to auto-seize), who plays first?
 

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
#1 thing for willpower is to throw out the window the stereotype that Willpower is for psyker stuff only. I'd argue that one can be brave enough to be able to keep fighting under fire, but lack the willpower to resist pulling the trigger at the closest enemy instead of carefully selecting targets (imagine a Goliath having a good scrap, will he really bother picking targets for his bolter?). Also Willpower seems perfect to be able to deal with long term trauma. For that I've redone Injury table and "grievous injury" makes your fighter start with a flesh wound, unless he passes a Willpower check.

As for intelligence, make 1 or 2 "core" scenarios that use intelligence for objectives and intelligence becomes more interesting. Another idea to revive intelligence that I've tried (and which is working!) is to let people draw 1 tactical card whenever they open a loot casket. This way, smart and mobile gangers can get tactics for their team (strong gangers can do that too, but have a higher risk of exploding in the process).

Actually now you've explained, I am more convinced that Willpower could be used for target priority checks instead if cool.

Also I love the idea that willpower lets you tough out the old style 'old battle wound' results on the injury table and show up for the battle despite your gammy knee playing up.

More scenarios that use intelligence is a great idea, and rewards for performing those actions (tactics cards, re rolls for priority in the next round all have mileage).

That would give the following uses (possibly not exhaustive).

Cool: Nerve checks
Willpower: Resisting Fear like effects (CGC mask, fearsome skill etc) and target priority checks. Psychic powers if your that way inclined
Leadership: Bottle Test, expand use of leadership tests to some skills (overseer, which is odd that it doesnt require a check because 4 of the 6 leadership skills do).
Intelligence: Locks, caskets, scenario based interactions, hot swapping equipment from the stash before a fight.
 

Spenetrator

Gang Champion
Honored Tribesman
Apr 2, 2018
423
1,113
163
York, UK
One thing I will say about TLOS is that it is exactly that. If we proxy something in it needs to be a infinity style token or what @Kiro The Avenger suggests is a risk. At that point is it really TLOS?

So do we say you need to be able to see the model to target it, but use the template to dictate cover%? Or replace a model with a template for all targeting purposes? Which seems a bit of a bind.

I'm not that wedded to TLOS because of this, but I understand if the general consensus is to keep it, then we at least need to make it simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orngog

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
With simultaneous resolutions, the priority player makes sense, however some things occur at the start of a round before priority is determined (such as the tactics card to auto-seize), who plays first?
Hopefully such effects should say "if multiple players use this effect, they roll for priority as normal" like "Take the initiative" tactic card. "Seize the initiative" is a perfect example of what NOT to allow doing before the priority roll, as it simply takes the priority without rolling.

My only problem with substituting a model for a more neutral pose is when to do it, and which pose to use.
If I have a fighter aiming a pistol, which results in their hand poking out, is it fair to switch for a model without?
What if I have a model leaning to the left for the same result, could I switch for a model leaning right, or not leaning at all, and therefore out of sight?
I like the concept, I just worry that it's too ill-defined.
Sadly I have no idea how to answer these valid questions. Sadly unless we get rid of TLoS, we can't really solve the leaning fighters one. Regarding extended arms, maybe anything that sticks outside of fighter's base should be ignored for purposes of drawing LoS?
 

spafe

Executive Officer in charge of Hats
Staff member
Necromunda Custodian
Yak Comp 2nd Place
Tribe Council
Feb 8, 2013
10,278
14,193
283
Tilehurst, U.k.
At the risk of getting involved in this, other games I've played have gone with hte idea that a model is a 2" high cyclinder the size of their base. It allows for easier calls on TloS and means you can model however you want.
 

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
I like the bit about substitution a lot. It is kinda like Infinity silhouettes/templates, but more relaxed
I also think that general recommendations regarding friendly play sprinkled throughout the rules would go a long way. Such as be tolerant for take-backs, when in doubt pick full cover instead of partial for enemy fighters, warn opponent when their fighter is about to end movement out of cover regarding LoS for one of your shooters etc. Speeds up games and allows both players to enjoy battles more in the long run.

Honestly the silhouette templates aren't a bad idea (I dont think its beyond us to define (based on base size in general but with a few exceptions for pets and other small things) a template size for each

E.g.
25mm base, 1.5 inches by 1 inch,
32mm base 2 by 1.5

Whatever makes sense, and linking them to 3rd party sizes isnt a bad idea if it seems about right.

I think a note should be added for these to be used if two players cannot agree (lots of situations are obvious to determine in my experience).




#2 are there that many conflicts to begin with? The only one I can think are closest fighters, movement and pitch black. To avoid premeasuring for target priority use TopsyKrett's advice and turn the ruler so its facing up with side clean of scale.

Yeah unmarked side of a ruler etc works for me.

How about simply treating a fighter with less than 10% of their "targetable" body exposed as being out of LOS? General guidelines: if you only see 1 bodypart, and less than half of it, then target is probably exposed less than 10%. If still in doubt because of fighter's pose, use @Thorgor's advice and use subsitution facing the same direction.

This is almost like the example given in the rule book, except that says if only a weapon or base is in LoS, clarifying this to a general fraction (less than 10% or whatever is easiest), stops someone being in LoS because suddenly you can see the hand gripping the weapon or whatever).

I like this as an approach.

With simultaneous resolutions, the priority player makes sense, however some things occur at the start of a round before priority is determined (such as the tactics card to auto-seize), who plays first?

Priority player decides is a good idea. And for before the priority role, use whoever had it last round. (E.g. you remain the priority player until the roll takes place).

As for round one (lowest crew rating?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spenetrator

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
723
657
113
Wiltshire
I would ask that we all make use of the like function on these threads, as it will give us a rough idea going forward of how popular an idea is. Of course it won't be definitive, and no decisions will be made on the back of this, but please- if you see something you like, like it!
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,219
1,584
128
Bristol, UK
Thr standard cylinder is a nice idea (represented on the table by holding a rectangle in front of the mini), but it is abstracting LoS.
It will also be difficult to define for a lot of pets and brutes, to the point where each entry will almost need their own special ruling.
Plus, it would discourage certain models. A lot of different models have been used for the Khimerix, some tall and some short. Creating a ruling for the Khimerix will necessarily involve some people having a poorly representative model.
Arguably that's the point, no one is punished or advantaged for a choice of model. But I think it's different when you're talking about the same model kneeling, as it is different models being fundementally different sizes.

Personally, I like the idea that anything outside the footprint of the base is ignored for LoS purposes.
It's still almost entirely TLoS, doesn't involve any templates or substitutions, and is quite simple and objective.
It doesn't solve the kneeling model problem, but that can only be solved with templates or substitutions.

For determining closest model, I've always taken the view that you declare the shot first and determine that later.

For example there are fighters A and B.
B is closest (but you can't tell), and you want to shoot A.
You declare A as the target, check ranges. You find out you're forced to take a cool check otherwise you need to shoot B.
Since any targeting as a result of this is forced, it shouldn't matter whether you know before or after you declare who your ideal target is.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,577
10,487
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
Personally, I like the idea that anything outside the footprint of the base is ignored for LoS purposes.
Which brings me to another point: should we standardize base sizes?

For determining closest model, I've always taken the view that you declare the shot first and determine that later.
Yes, I believe it's one of the only ways to make it work (that or start with the Cool check to see if you are allowed to choose a target), but it does mean that a failed Cool check can save you from wasting a shot if your preferred target is out of range, which is a bit strange. The interaction with Terrifying will also need to be clarified (but everything about Terrifying needs to be clarified anyway).
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,219
1,584
128
Bristol, UK
Which brings me to another point: should we standardize base sizes?


Yes, I believe it's one of the only ways to make it work (that or start with the Cool check to see if you are allowed to choose a target), but it does mean that a failed Cool check can save you from wasting a shot if your preferred target is out of range, which is a bit strange. The interaction with Terrifying will also need to be clarified (but everything about Terrifying needs to be clarified anyway).
I think bases are already standardised enough, so it's not a huge issue.

I also don't think a failed cool check saving you from being out of range is necessarily that bad.
The fighter panics and shoots a closer target, they never even try to shoot the distant one. And I don't see anyway this could possibly be gamed in some way, since if you can't influence the roll after its declared.

I agree with terrifying, you just need to clarify whether it procs based on the initial or the final target. Both have merit. I'd be inclined to say the final target.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al_Weeks

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
Which brings me to another point: should we standardize base sizes?

Its probably best we do. I like Kiros idea of ignore protrusions outside the base as an alternative to defined shilouttes if that is deemed too much.

However for both ideas bases need to be standardised.

I think the old GW the minimum base size is the base that comes with the model, but you may have a larger base (to accommodate conversion). Is probably an OK approach as having a bigger than required base is usually considered a disadvantage.

The aim isn't a tournament ruleset, so we can allow for some level of divergence, because god knows Necromunda inspires some cool conversions.

For models without official models I dont think it's too hard in the interim to make a logical assumption as to their base size. E.g. Khimerix is probably goning to be on a 40mm base like all other brutes thus far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thorgor and Orngog

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,577
10,487
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
Yes.
I believe we need something a bit clearer than GW's official stance (which can be summed up as "whatever"), especially if we want to allow/encourage using conversions, third party models or models from the old Necromunda range.
Most of the time it's easy: we can just use whatever base the miniatures come with. There are a few outliers though, like Genestealer cultists (unless i'm mistaken, heavy weapon users have 32mm bases while the rest use 25mm — depends on the generation/number of arms?) and the Chaos Spawn (comes with a 50mm, which is maybe a bit too big for Necromunda as all brutes so far are on 40mm)
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,624
4,554
193
Norway
Most of the time we play Necromunda it's usually pretty easy (or involves a short discussion) to determine if a fighter has:

No Cover - e.g. less than 25% of the model obscured.

Light Cover -e.g. between 25% and 50% obsured.

Heavy Cover - e.g. more than 50% obscured.
That's not the official rules? No cover is 0% obscured.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,624
4,554
193
Norway
I'm having a hard time summarizing all these ideas. Keep in mind that we are making a list as result of the first pass. I could need some assistance as I've only managed to get most of the suggestions from page 1.

Anyone who made suggestions would have to double check they are listed in the google doc.
 

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
723
657
113
Wiltshire
No trouble @Topsy, I'll tackle page two tomorrow. In the mean time I've suggested some people for the writing team, hopefully some of those kind souls will lend a hand as well.

I intend to knock up the first Project Update, which will give us a clearer picture of who is involved and what they're willing to contribute.