YCE suggestions- general principles

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
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.
Happy to have a look.

And your right, shows I've been playing adeptus titanicus recently :) nothing like consistency in GW rules sets. :p
 

Scavvierising

Undisputed Doom Spooner
Yak Comp 3rd Place
Honored Tribesman
Aug 3, 2016
763
1,688
153
London
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)
Actually the size of a spawn base depends on what year you bought it. They were 40mm but at some point changed to 50mm. Just to throw some confusion into the mix.
 

Scavvierising

Undisputed Doom Spooner
Yak Comp 3rd Place
Honored Tribesman
Aug 3, 2016
763
1,688
153
London
In regards to pre measuring and shooting. I've always understood it that you declared that you were making a shooting action. That's it, not who you are shooting at. Once you have declared the action you then determine who the closest target is, if they're in range etc.
 

Scavvierising

Undisputed Doom Spooner
Yak Comp 3rd Place
Honored Tribesman
Aug 3, 2016
763
1,688
153
London
True LoS has the advantage that for 90% of situations you can just look at the board and know what's visible, what kind of cover etc. Not played infinity or anything else using these template things you speak of. But I am concerned about slowing the game down.

When you do need to get both players eyes to look at something. I find the problem is that you can't get quite behind the shooter due to terrain. Or that you never quite get your head at the exact same spot etc. And is not the cover on the victim bring the problem but simply getting an agreed true point of view.

I do agree though that you could add limbs sticking over base edge are not valid target if that is all that's visible. Also shooter can't use such things to gain Los.

I've come across kneeling mini's who have a hard time drawing LoS because they can't see over any scatter terrai/barricades etc. So it's not all in their favour.
But I wouldn't mind a rule regarding kneeling mini's specifically saying treat them as standard hight when shooting and being shot at.
 

Icedman

Juve
Jun 28, 2012
24
19
3
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
One idea I've had is that at the start of a battle a fighter can take an intelligence test to rearrange their equipment from the stash.

Normally, you can only distribute equipment in the post battle step, so switching to a hazard suit to fight Cawdor is impossible, as you couldn't know whether you're fighting Cawdor or Goliaths until the start of the next battle.

But allowing a fighter to rearrange their equipment upon a successful test would allow that - intelligence to correctly estimate what they're going to be fighting next.

This has other uses such as bringing the right concoction of chems for the battle (particularly Escher), or breaking out the respirators, or whatever.
I like the idea. It may lengthen the pre-battle sequence a bit but it's worth play-testing at the very least. How useful it is depends a lot on whether we keep things like multiple loadouts, sticky-hands rule and random selection in the game though.

I like the idea of Int tests for equipment checks; agree with @Thorgor that it would depend on the sticky-fingers rule.

That said, I wonder if the sticky-fingers rule can stay if this shakes out well in play-test?

And further along this thought, could a "Tools of-the-Trade" Gang Fighter make a check of some kind (Willpower?) to let go of a weapon(s) to the Stash? A thought for later...
 

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
724
659
113
Wiltshire
@gleeptoid7 that's a very kind offer! To be honest the first pass document could probably do with a touch up, we've got a few people adding notes to it already. Would you mind having a chat with our head scribe @TopsyKretts about this?

And for the sake of transparency and team-building, I'd suggest introducing yourself over in the Project Management and Writing Team threads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fold

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Fighter Statuses (RB pg 50)
This bit can be massively improved just by making all the statuses concrete game terms. STANDING is a primary status that includes ACTIVE and ENGAGED (and possible 'engaging' depending on how the versatile discussion pans out). Prone is a primary status that includes Pinned and Seriously Injured. So the wording on Chem-Synth, as an example, goes from "a Standing and Active or Standing and Engaged fighter" to "a Standing fighter". It's a simple, efficient change.
I'd remove Standing and Prone alltogether. Active, Engaged, Pinned, Seriously injured are all different enough to avoid confusion. So a Chem-synth would become "Active or Engaged fighter."

Also perhaps we could have a "battle ready" status? Basically a non-seriously injured, non-broken fighter. This way you save some space when you put limitations on actions. For example nerve tests get a +1 modifier for every battle ready fighter nearby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Icedman and Fold

JayTee

Ganger
Jun 14, 2015
142
267
63
I'd say this thread highlights how badly I feel the rules around Visibility need clarity, also the rules are absolutely riddled with instances of Line of Sight when actually they mean Visible e.g. pg 60 on Broken fighters reads so much better if it is 'So that they are not visible to enemy fighters', and pg 65 on Blast Markers clearly should be '...central hole is visible to the fighter making the attack'.

I'm very much of the opinion that LoS can be measured in 360 degrees, and that clarity to change a lot of instances of LoS to Visible, makes the rules both more concise and eliminates ambiguity.

  • Visible is a combination of a) In Vision Arc & b) Not obstructed by terrain/models/effects i.e. in Line of Sight
    • Vision Arc is the 90-degrees arc on your model, potentially affected by certain effects
    • LoS is measured in any direction from any point on your model and is broadly used to modify fighter placement during scenarios and a handful of weird items/effects like Lho Sticks that would be unnecessarily useless if restricted to Visible.
This does mean a fair bit of errata to change various currently LoS restrictions to Visible restrictions, but I've done it up to HoChains for my group so the bulk of the work is done :)
 

Galtarr

Gang Hero
Mar 1, 2017
945
1,605
118
Close combat is deadly. Pinning to prevent CC is a key part of gameplay. So whilst looking at options I think we should tread lightly. I would be happy with a basic grapple or engage action. D3 or M or D3+1, whatever the charge movement bonus is that enables an engage but key point is it doesn't grant a bonus fight action or +1A.

So if pinned you can stand up and engage, lock someone down. Or if left close by a CC it enables an assist. The downside is if CC target is readied you are unlikely to get first attack. This seems a fair balance to me.
It seems perfectly balanced to me. It can be countered in so many ways. Move to engage breaks nothing in this game (IMO). However, this topic is related to the 1" rule and belongs in "general principles" discussion.
Reposting here as I am still getting up to speed with thread structure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Uhhh... I might have missed how it works. Can we keep suggesting after placemark? Or is placemark merely to separate dates for document's clarity?

In case if we still can put suggestions, I think we need to rework how broken status, or any status that affects fighter during their next activation work. Broken is very wonky in a sense that you can break a fighter who has already spent his ready tokens, regroup in the end of turn and end up fine. I think broken should be harsher than that, so a fighter should not be able to regroup if they haven't activated while being broken during this turn.
Basically we need to stick to a rule that if a debuff was put on a fighter, than it should affect him at least once during next activation, similar to how flash works.
 
Last edited:

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
167
275
63
I think it's supposed to call time on the first round of suggestions. Broken has been mentioned a few times as a discussion point already, so it's not getting missed out!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

Galtarr

Gang Hero
Mar 1, 2017
945
1,605
118
Really want to raise bottling it's great for most crews in 6-10 fighter range but gets wacky at sub 6 or greater than 10. Someone prior to this project suggested it got linked to a percentage.

Secondly, slightly concerned looking at suggestions about lack of focus on what we're trying to achieve. Don't want to undermine suggestions and work done so far but when it comes to reviewing suggestions it would be helpful to have some goal statements to review stuff against.

E.g. aim to reduce ambiguity
Gate: does this suggestion reduce ambiguity in ruleset?

for example I would suggest: does this maintain a smooth/quick play experience. So example whilst the discussed rolling to hit for every rapid fire might adjust the math better, (though I don't think it does) the extra dice rolls seeming to slow things down outweigh any benefit. As judged gainst this criteria.

Is more dice rolling for no benefit = bad. As per @Thorgor s point on roll offs for priority? (To whit a tie in first round should go to player with lowest GR)
If that was agreed tenent. We would reduce dice rolls accordingly. Alternatively giving players agency/participation (although often only a perceived agency as no actual choice is involved) could be a core tenent. This would favour roll offs, even though statistically no real agency is afforded, I've seen people argue over who should roll the injury dice..

Without setting out core tenents to review things against we're in danger of each mod being a subjective preference vote. Which may not make sense when viewed as a whole.

Some suggestions:
Reduce ambiguity
Improve balance by limiting power of any singular element e.g. blast weapons
Restore balance between ranged and CC elements
Reduce availability to high power weapons
Reduce GR bloat between established and freshly created gangs.

Beyond reduce ambiguity it's not clear what the goal is and how to judge merit of suggestions many aren't about ambiguity?

Anyway I propose sorting out some aims and core tenents to produce some gates or criteria to review suggestions against before leaping into said review.
 

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
167
275
63
For what it's worth, I think the only tenet should be reduce ambiguity to begin with.

I think if all we do is reword things to reduce ambiguity then we have the broadest possible base and thus the highest chance of general use.

It would also give us a stable core with which to work on other parts of the rules. (For example, rebalancing tactics cards would be infinitely easier if we know exactly which terms to use to generate the desired effect and already know how it will interact with core rules)

But rebalancing and other such changes have to come later. If the restatting/costing of weapons or buffing/nerfing of skills is integral to the initial document then we're just another competing standard. And if you try to do them without stable core rules you'll just be going back and forth and changing everything.