YCE suggestions- general principles

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,224
1,588
128
Bristol, UK
Perhaps the cool test to regroup from bottling should be at the end of their activation, rather than the end phase? Similar blaze or insanity.
That way if they panic after already having activated, they'll still lose their next activation.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
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.
Yes, this.

Mechanics are not inherently good or bad, it really depends what you want to achieve. They are but a means to an end. If we disagree on what the goals are, how can we agree on what mechanics to use?

Imo:
  • Eliminate ambiguity: ideally, we should be able to completely remove the "roll-off when you are not sure what to do" rule
  • Reduce complexity: complexity is good when it brings depth. Otherwise, it should be removed as much as possible
  • Increase player agency: and I mean real agency. That encompasses stuff like reworking the Sentry rules (that rob one player of their agency) and balancing weapons (more meaningful choices to make = more agency)
  • Increase player engagement: that's where false agency can help. We want both players to be invested in the game at most times and having them do stuff can help, even if it's just rolling dice to determine a random outcome. That's a distant fourth for me though
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
Well put there. We may have to cut all suggestions in half and sticking with 50%, at least for the first version. The brainstorming phase generated a lot more content than I imagined. We could keep the remaining suggestions for future versions. We really need to limit the scope of this project, at least for now.

This means that we must sacrifice a lot of good suggestions that are too costly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orngog

Galtarr

Gang Hero
Mar 1, 2017
945
1,605
118
You can have a restrictive gate for first pass, say limit it to reducing ambiguity as @Jayward suggested but keeping suggestions for 2nd or third passes. Where you open the gate to allow for example @Thorgors 2nd, 3rd... Items.. if you add many other items additional passes would be preferred to going from a restrictive review to anything goes in one pass.

Please let's keep suggestions on file rather than remove due to conservative review constraints in first instance.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
You can have a restrictive gate for first pass, say limit it to reducing ambiguity as @Jayward suggested but keeping suggestions for 2nd or third passes. Where you open the gate to allow for example @Thorgors 2nd, 3rd... Items.. if you add many other items additional passes would be preferred to going from a restrictive review to anything goes in one pass.

Please let's keep suggestions on file rather than remove due to conservative review constraints in first instance.
We will basically move the applied suggestions from the 1st pass document to the official YCE Edition (diff). This process of moving accepted suggestions will also involve clean rules writing and proof reading. At this point, we can do the ultimate playtesting of YCE, then iterate from there.

Any suggestions not moved can be stored for future versions.
 

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Perhaps the cool test to regroup from bottling should be at the end of their activation, rather than the end phase? Similar blaze or insanity.
That way if they panic after already having activated, they'll still lose their next activation.
You probably meant rallying from being broken?
That suggestion slowly grew on me. A very elegant thing that reduces bookkeeping and gives more agency to players. I'm tempted to try this with my group.
 

Fireborn

Ganger
Sep 9, 2019
92
39
38
Festus
Perhaps the cool test to regroup from bottling should be at the end of their activation, rather than the end phase? Similar blaze or insanity.
That way if they panic after already having activated, they'll still lose their next activation.
We been doing something like this. but this is way cleaner.

do you have broken fighters with ready markers. run 2d6 and lose the ready marker.?

1)Fighters with ready marker. when they brake lose there ready are broken for that round and the next round.
2)Fighters without ready markers. still run 2d6 and and lose next round.

I would suggest
Fighters don't run 2d6, or lose their ready marker when the brake. they only get a broken marker, much like blaze.

1) this prevents out of turn movements
2) players having less options when making decision with their activations.
 

Fireborn

Ganger
Sep 9, 2019
92
39
38
Festus
We been doing something like this. but this is way cleaner.

do you have broken fighters with ready markers. run 2d6 and lose the ready marker.?

1)Fighters with ready marker. when they brake lose there ready are broken for that round and the next round.
2)Fighters without ready markers. still run 2d6 and and lose next round.

I would suggest
Fighters don't run 2d6, or lose their ready marker when the brake. they only get a broken marker, much like blaze.

1) this prevents out of turn movements
2) players having less options when making decision with their activations.
This might even work for serious injuries recovery roll. players have made remarkers about fighters being shoot injured then before the figher even has an activation turning over standing up and shooting. Being kinda lame.
 

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
I don't think that "Insane" status has been mentioned. It is not a status that is often encountered, but still it'd be nice to make it clear what can and what can't be done by an opponent who controls your insane model. Can he shoot or charge/fight your other fighters with it? Or is he allowed to do anything but direct attacks?
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
The fighter can do anything the opponent wishes. Swapping friendly with enemy, it can charge, shoot, attack or whatever. Jump off tall buildings. It is an extreme condition.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
Yeah, I'm not sure what is ambiguous with insanity. The rules make it so that the affected fighter counts as a fighter from the opponent's gang for the duration of their activation, and that's actually an elegant way to implement this effect (that some tactics card unfortunately didn't follow). The opponent can do with this fighter anything they could do with one of theirs.
The only thing I dislike a bit is that it may cause the fighter to instantly change their status from Engaged to Active (or, more rarely, the opposite), but it's not really an issue.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
Funny, it may be the only way a spawn can stand up from pinned after being hit by seismic (RAW). Or that handicapped spawn special character they forgot to give spawn anti-pinned ability to.
 

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Yeah, I'm not sure what is ambiguous with insanity. The rules make it so that the affected fighter counts as a fighter from the opponent's gang for the duration of their activation, and that's actually an elegant way to implement this effect (that some tactics card unfortunately didn't follow). The opponent can do with this fighter anything they could do with one of theirs.
The only thing I dislike a bit is that it may cause the fighter to instantly change their status from Engaged to Active (or, more rarely, the opposite), but it's not really an issue.
I've re-read the Insane caveat, it still seems a bit unclear for me... I think it woulnd't hurt to add a single sentence that directly states that insane fighters are allowed to shoot and attack anyone. And yeah, a clarification how engaged into active transition works.

Funny, it may be the only way a spawn can stand up from pinned after being hit by seismic (RAW). Or that handicapped spawn special character they forgot to give spawn anti-pinned ability to.
Spawn rules are a burning pile of trash. For example RAW one could argue that spawn can't even attempt to break magnacles. Inquisition should probably get a hold of enforcers' magnacles to subdue possessed.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
I think it wouldn't hurt to add a single sentence that directly states that insane fighters are allowed to shoot and attack anyone
They are not. They can't attack fighters from their temporary controller's gang for the duration of the effect, as they consider them as friendly fighters.

Btw, is there any reason a fighter can't normally attack friendly fighters? Removing that would make effects like Reckless less awkward to word, and would allow strategic friendly fire in the few situations where it could be beneficial. Could it be abused?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
They are not. They can't attack fighters from their temporary controller's gang for the duration of the effect, as they consider them as friendly fighters.

Btw, is there any reason a fighter can't normally attack friendly fighters? Removing that would make effects like Reckless less awkward to word, and would allow strategic friendly fire in the few situations where it could be beneficial. Could it be abused?
I've played games where you can do this explicitly, like some previous edition of Warmachine & Hordes. And it was never abused, because this was how the game was intended to be played. For example you would often charge with the warlock/warcaster (commander), targeting some friendly fighter further ahead (outside successful charge range) to gain some additional inches of movement. You could try to hit/damage/kill some friendly fighters to trigger some abilities (if the ability isn't restricted to enemy attacks only). You can run some easy-to-hit friendly fighter into the middle of a group of enemies which are difficult/impossible to hit, and blast your friendly fighter to hit the surrounding enemy fighters.

It was all part of the game and something any (experienced) player would expect from their opponent.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
Yeah, I think a lot of players would rather not have that kind of interactions available in Necromunda. It's like how you currently can target your own dude with Fear gas grenade or play fetch with your pet to farm XP.You could also kill your own wounded dude to deny the opponent XP, etc.
It's probably better to make a few exceptions when it makes sense than have it as a general rule.
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
Historically GW has never explicitly allowed attacking friendly fighters in any game as far as I remember. Other games/companies do this. I'm fine either way. But it's a big design decision which can affect large parts of the game. Similar to pre-measure in a way. If you enable this kind of rule, it requires very strict quality control for rules and must always be considered when adding new rules. Similarly, if you enforce no pre-measure, it requires more quality control when writing rules.