Turns out the latest Errata has some updates other than the 2 latest House books (Escher & Goliath), but the new content text is not coloured like normal with blue or magenta.
For example Enforcers now have full access to Trading Post & Black Market like any other gang.
Well I'm a bit confused that Goonhammer is saying that Bounty Hunters and Scummers get equipment for free, whereas the FAQ seems to be saying exactly the opposite of that - and that you have to pay more for a better equipped hunter.
Graphite wrote: Well I'm a bit confused that Goonhammer is saying that Bounty Hunters and Scummers get equipment for free, whereas the FAQ seems to be saying exactly the opposite of that - and that you have to pay more for a better equipped hunter.
There are many ways to hire. Some are hired for free, others are not. Some doesn't specify whether they are free or not. I think the article uses the case when hired for free, that the weapons are also free. The weapons are part of the 'hiring fee', and if the hiring fee is free, then so are the weapons/equipment.
I can (just) see the case for hiring a bounty hunter with actual creds, since if you don't kill or capture someone they stick around. I can't see why someone would ever, ever hire Scum.
Graphite wrote: Well I'm a bit confused that Goonhammer is saying that Bounty Hunters and Scummers get equipment for free, whereas the FAQ seems to be saying exactly the opposite of that - and that you have to pay more for a better equipped hunter.
IMO Its another useless ruling on Bounty Hunters - wtf can they not just state what happens in a simple clear sentence.
Fast forward a year and Inquistor is re-released in 28mm
Shut your mouth. 28mm Inquisitor is an abomination. The 56mm figures were some the best miniatures GW has ever made. If they're going to restart the game, it has to be in 56mm. I'll also ask for them in pewter, but that's because I hate plastic as a medium.
Being different scale than 40K is what killed Inquisitor super quick. Basically everyone who still plays it uses 28mm. And of course the current quality of GW's 28mm models is so high that they can compete with the original 54mm sculpts (and easily surpass the later 54mm sculpts.)
I would, and will, argue that what killed Inquisitor wasn’t the scale, but the models being metal, and in poses which didn’t easily allow conversion.
And the rules being neither Arthur nor Martha due to total lack of a point system, and the wider community not being quite ready for and RPG take on a TTGWG.
Metal =][= models weren't a problem. Lots of people back then (me included) weren't fully onboard with plastics. This was 20 years ago. Metal miniatures weren't seen as strange or bothersome for the most part, and they weren't more difficult to convert than 28mm minis. There were less options, but most people don't convert their stuff anyway, even back then, and anyone that was interested in this aspect of the hobby generally had the wherewithal to find stuff from the GW range to suit their needs. Anything monster-sized was fine, and that's a lot of stuff.
People just didn't particularly like the scale and weren't onboard with the RP style game, imo.
I don’t even know that it’s that people didn’t like the scale-the models looked cool. I think it was more practical. Who wants to invest the time, energy, and money to build a bunch of terrain for a scale that is useless for any other game available at the time.
Either/Or wrote: I don’t even know that it’s that people didn’t like the scale-the models looked cool. I think it was more practical. Who wants to invest the time, energy, and money to build a bunch of terrain for a scale that is useless for any other game available at the time.
All 562 cards are now freely available from the community.
Some of the Hive War cards are broken. The Objective "Escape the Dome" is automatically won by the attacker if combined with 5 (of 12) deployments (42%): Backstab, Backstab (Reinforcements), Free For All, Ambush and Home Turf.
On the other hand, if the attacker has 5 or less fighters available for the battle, combined with a deployment using reinforcements (forcing 3 fighters to arrive later), the defender automatically wins. This applies to 5 of 12 deployments.
Inquisitor was written to make the excuse to make 52mm minis. Like all GW rules they were half baked and neither fish nor foul neither skirmish nor RPG. In another decade all 40K minis will be 52mm due to scale creep. ~_-
Chairman Aeon wrote: Inquisitor was written to make the excuse to make 52mm minis. Like all GW rules they were half baked and neither fish nor foul neither skirmish nor RPG. In another decade all 40K minis will be 52mm due to scale creep. ~_-
Is it me, or is the Jotun augmetic fists weapon profile missing from the House of Chains book? I can find their other weapons, but not the one they are equipped with by default..
Is it me, or is the Jotun augmetic fists weapon profile missing from the House of Chains book? I can find their other weapons, but not the one they are equipped with by default..
Does anyone have a definitive list of all tactics cards and which sets they are from? I'm a bit confused at this point as to which sets I have.. and perhaps more importantly, which ones I am missing.
Watched the second one- which should be called 'shooting with marshmallows.' Nothing like basic necromunda gangers soaking hits from a plasma gun and lascannon and still feeling fine.
Watched the second one- which should be called 'shooting with marshmallows.' Nothing like basic necromunda gangers soaking hits from a plasma gun and lascannon and still feeling fine.
;(
as much as I like Necromunda, it makes for a terrible game when translated to a video game.
I bought the game on ps4 and just played through the first mission. I think it's a fun game, it's a step up from that mordheim turn based game as well. It's got some issues with bugs and the AI could be better. But it's pretty decent otherwise, i'd give it a 7 out of 10. With some issues fixed and the other 3 house gangs added it could become an 8-8.5 or so.
In regards to it taking a lot of shots to kill people, well the game is an abstraction. It's not a 1:1 copy of the tabletop or a simulator in that sense. You gotta remember it's a turn based strategy game. And being able to just 1 shot players and wipe people out that fast would make for poor gameplay. At that point it would be all about initiative and who gets to shoot first.
Racerguy180 wrote: as much as I like Necromunda, it makes for a terrible game when translated to a video game.
It shouldn't though. Turn-based, squad-based games have been around for decades. You could take X-Com and make it Necromunda and it would be damned entertaining.
Why they feel they have to reinvent the wheel with these sorts of games is beyond me.
Racerguy180 wrote: as much as I like Necromunda, it makes for a terrible game when translated to a video game.
It shouldn't though. Turn-based, squad-based games have been around for decades. You could take X-Com and make it Necromunda and it would be damned entertaining.
Why they feel they have to reinvent the wheel with these sorts of games is beyond me.
I think it would've translated much better as a FPS. but then at that point other than the setting its not really necromunda.
They really could've hit it out of the park, but alas.....
Racerguy180 wrote: as much as I like Necromunda, it makes for a terrible game when translated to a video game.
It shouldn't though. Turn-based, squad-based games have been around for decades. You could take X-Com and make it Necromunda and it would be damned entertaining.
Why they feel they have to reinvent the wheel with these sorts of games is beyond me.
Seconding this. There is no reason to make this much of a mess of the mechanics. If you shoot a ganger with a lascannon a deal about a third of his health, you've done something really wrong with the translation of the game and the feel of the setting.
The squad based tactical genre is really well established and fairly popular, even the age of streaming speed runs. It can be formulaic at times, but its real easy to hit 'good enough to play for 20-30 hours,' even with nearly 20 year old games like Silent Storm, a WW2 squad game with random mech suits. It had great urban and ruined maps to battle through, and WW2 squad shooters aren't even rare (whether Weird War or not).
Easy point of comparison: Bloodbowl. Its successful enough that its gettings its fourth computer iteration, the third by the same company in recent years. Cyanide didn't feel the need to mangle the central conceits of the game mechanics or setting to achieve that.
Instead they've filled it with marginal numbers that don't mean anything, made nerf-guns of the most dangerous weapons in the setting, cut the max gang size to half of the normal standard, and left out half the basic gangs.
Like Mordheim, the UI is a clunky mess, and the graphics are frankly mediocre (though sadly a step up from Mordheim)
Watching some of the game-play, it's a weird hybrid of a turn-based game and a third-person shooter.
You take turns in some unnecessarily obfuscated initiative system, move around in third person as you're controlling the character directly (rather than clicking where they would go, which would make far more sense in a game like this - see X-Com, or BattleTech, or that recent Gears of War game).
Then combat is very Fallout 3/4-ish, with what is basically a VATS system for aiming.
I mean they've overcomplicated everything. It's bizarre design choice, given that Necromunda isn't exactly the most crunch-heavy game. I mean this is far more complex than BattleTech FFS.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Watching some of the game-play, it's a weird hybrid of a turn-based game and a third-person shooter.
You take turns in some unnecessarily obfuscated initiative system, move around in third person as you're controlling the character directly (rather than clicking where they would go, which would make far more sense in a game like this - see X-Com, or BattleTech, or that recent Gears of War game).
Then combat is very Fallout 3/4-ish, with what is basically a VATS system for aiming.
I mean they've overcomplicated everything. It's bizarre design choice, given that Necromunda isn't exactly the most crunch-heavy game. I mean this is far more complex than BattleTech FFS.
Thargrim wrote:In regards to it taking a lot of shots to kill people, well the game is an abstraction. It's not a 1:1 copy of the tabletop or a simulator in that sense. You gotta remember it's a turn based strategy game. And being able to just 1 shot players and wipe people out that fast would make for poor gameplay. At that point it would be all about initiative and who gets to shoot first.
A single shot being able to kill or severely injure a ganger wouldn't be a problem if they hadn't decided to limit the game to just 5 people per gang. If very powerful weapons are rare and it's difficult to get direct hits, the game would work perfectly fine. I feel this issue is far worse here than in Mordheim (which I've played and enjoyed.. for a few hours), as being hit by a bolter is just a tad different from being hit by some measly throwing stars chucked in your direction by some sneaky ratman. The game feels even more limited as it only has the three gangs, while I only started playing Mordheim after they added some beyond the starting ones.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:I feel like the video game should have its own thread. Thoughts?
Yes - not sure why they weren't separate from the start to be honest, seeing how they are very different things. Then again, I'm not sure if the game will generate much discussion after the initial release, aside from when they finally add the other gangs in.
Picked up the Necromunda video game and played it for five hours. After some of the story and a few of the custom gang missions... it is, uhm. Alright.
The movement system isn't bad, got used to something similar playing Natural Doctrine on the PS Vita, so didn't bug me too much. Actually kind of like the thought behind the initiative system, however it feels like you should just dump stats into making most of your gang faster so that you win the "face off" between your and the other player/AI's unit.
Tested that out and being faster allowed me to just kill the opponents before they could act with their chosen units. A few skills like the triple fire leader skill and acting first has been removing half health or more from an enemy. Followed up with yet another super fast Deadeye unit when the enemy panics and tries to save their half dead unit... And yup, pretty much goes downhill from there.
The lack of a decent explanation on what the stats do when making a custom gang is also kind of frustrating. I will continue playing it, to get my $32 worth out of it, and it isn't a terrible game. Just a lot to take in, with some quirky movement up and down the map. Easy to jump down, but the Deadeye skill that allows you to go back up stuff is pretty limited/difficult to use to go up just a single floor in a shack/small building.
lord_blackfang wrote: Considering XCOM designers cited Necromunda as inspiration for the mechanics... a straight up reskinned XCOM would work perfectly.
I take it you mean the more recent X-Com games, as the original X-Com came out a year before Oldcromunda, IIRC.
lord_blackfang wrote: Considering XCOM designers cited Necromunda as inspiration for the mechanics... a straight up reskinned XCOM would work perfectly.
I take it you mean the more recent X-Com games, as the original X-Com came out a year before Oldcromunda, IIRC.
Yep, the current XCOM cited Necromunda as inspiration. Which would be Oldcromunda, obviously. Then N17 came out and was even closer to XCOM than Oldcromunda was.
For some additional feels, the lead developer of modern XCOM went to study programming specifically to make an X-com remake. When he mentioned this to his boss, Sid Meier, Sid said "Say no more fam immah buy you the license". Now you know why XCOM is the only remake that doesn't suck.
I REALLY hate the close up camera perspective they have gone with for the video game. Its like playing Necromunda with your face planted on the table. Xcom style top down perspective would have had me interested...but that close up view is just a huge nope for me.
Mine's buggy as hell, I can't even play through the first story mission. Also, for some reason, autocannons have better AP and damage than lascannons????
How long does it usually take GW to restock a kit like the deathmaidens/wyld runners? I put in an order earlier last week and it hasn't shipped yet. I noticed the day after I placed the order they went out of stock. Makes me think they once again sold me something that was not even in stock. And the worst part is whenever that happens they never notify me about it. They'll be content to take my money and say nothing.
BaronIveagh wrote: Mine's buggy as hell, I can't even play through the first story mission. Also, for some reason, autocannons have better AP and damage than lascannons????
Had no issues so far and on fourth story mission. Very impressed with it - alot to take in at the moment.
Thargrim wrote: How long does it usually take GW to restock a kit like the deathmaidens/wyld runners? I put in an order earlier last week and it hasn't shipped yet. I noticed the day after I placed the order they went out of stock. Makes me think they once again sold me something that was not even in stock. And the worst part is whenever that happens they never notify me about it. They'll be content to take my money and say nothing.
How long is a bit of string during a global pandemic?
GW will restock it when they restock it; all bets are off on how long that takes when pretty much every level of production and distribution is under some kind of abnormal stresses.
Thargrim wrote: How long does it usually take GW to restock a kit like the deathmaidens/wyld runners? I put in an order earlier last week and it hasn't shipped yet. I noticed the day after I placed the order they went out of stock. Makes me think they once again sold me something that was not even in stock. And the worst part is whenever that happens they never notify me about it. They'll be content to take my money and say nothing.
How long is a bit of string during a global pandemic?
GW will restock it when they restock it; all bets are off on how long that takes when pretty much every level of production and distribution is under some kind of abnormal stresses.
I just wish they would let me know when this happens, so I could either have refunded it or had them send me the regular escher kit (which is the same exact cost) in it's place. If the other sold out necromunda kits are any indication it'll be a month or two minimum before they come back. Which is an assumption based on the cawdor kit having been out of stock for a while now.
That particular kit must have been massively underprinted. I think it went out of stock on Wayland before release day. Heaven knows when Specialist Games will get any machine time allocated to them for reprints.
anab0lic wrote: I REALLY hate the close up camera perspective they have gone with for the video game. Its like playing Necromunda with your face planted on the table. Xcom style top down perspective would have had me interested...but that close up view is just a huge nope for me.
I can definitely see whey they did it, Necromunda is a face right up against the table theme rather than the more top down strategic/tactical view of Epic/40K. A more claustrophobic vibe with danger around every corner to individual gangers, rather than squads moving to support each other over more open terrain.
Siygess wrote: Does anyone have a definitive list of all tactics cards and which sets they are from? I'm a bit confused at this point as to which sets I have.. and perhaps more importantly, which ones I am missing.
Thargrim wrote: How long does it usually take GW to restock a kit like the deathmaidens/wyld runners? I put in an order earlier last week and it hasn't shipped yet. I noticed the day after I placed the order they went out of stock. Makes me think they once again sold me something that was not even in stock. And the worst part is whenever that happens they never notify me about it. They'll be content to take my money and say nothing.
How long is a bit of string during a global pandemic?
GW will restock it when they restock it; all bets are off on how long that takes when pretty much every level of production and distribution is under some kind of abnormal stresses.
^ THIS was the answer my local shop had for me as well. GW threw their production schedule out the window when they started with Retribution and how they crapped that bed.
If you are buying stuff now on preorder- It's not cast yet, so yes- YOU ARE buying out of stock material.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You think that the Elves that went on pre-order last Saturday haven't been cast yet?
While with GW nothing would actually surprise me, this would come close.
So, time travel then? Because that’s what it would take considering the USA allotment is either pulling into port right now or already at the warehouse for distribution.
Siygess wrote: Does anyone have a definitive list of all tactics cards and which sets they are from? I'm a bit confused at this point as to which sets I have.. and perhaps more importantly, which ones I am missing.
I track all cards yes.
Thanks, I stumbled across the PDF you mentioned earlier in the thread and once I noticed the set symbols, I was able to determine what card is from what set and thus.. which sets I have
Baxx wrote: I don't understand why the game needed a 5th hammer. How many hammers are sufficient for Necromunda?
I don't understand why it's so hard for SG team to think of new weapons. They're literally wasting money to make another batch of combat shotgun, knife, and stub gun.
And the hammer look like another boring addition that add nothing special to the game.
I don't understand why it's so hard for SG team to think of new weapons. They're literally wasting money to make another batch of combat shotgun, knife, and stub gun.
And the hammer look like another boring addition that add nothing special to the game.
It is somewhat unique in that it has versatile, but only 1". However we already have more than enough weapons including 87 unique close combat (not counting several duplicate weapon profiles). So yes, you are right, a new weapon profile doesn't add anything to the game at this point. It is mostly bloat to fill pages and give the impression that they offer something "new" (which they may well do, but not in the shape of weapons).
Edit: Got stats for Versatile mixed up, never mind.
I don't understand why it's so hard for SG team to think of new weapons. They're literally wasting money to make another batch of combat shotgun, knife, and stub gun.
And the hammer look like another boring addition that add nothing special to the game.
It is somewhat unique in that it has versatile, but only 1". However we already have more than enough weapons including 87 unique close combat (not counting several duplicate weapon profiles). So yes, you are right, a new weapon profile doesn't add anything to the game at this point. It is mostly bloat to fill pages and give the impression that they offer something "new" (which they may well do, but not in the shape of weapons).
Also note that the ranges are swapped for the Arc hammer profile. Long range is supposed to be E and short range optionally has a weapon's Versatile range. Never understood why they went with that in the first place. This new "mistake" makes more sense than the "correct" layout. Listing Versatile and Melee as traits is also redundant, as ALL weapons with range E are Melee, and ALL weapons with range E + x" are Versatile.
This the kind of criticism where you lose me. The simple is answer is "because someone might want to field it." As long as it's a new statline I'm down for any weapon; it adds richness to the game.
I do agree with Chopstick about the repeat bits, though. More knife and stub guns arms is a waste of time (although I'll still use the unique arm-sections of each bit as bases for conversions of other weapons).
I don't understand why it's so hard for SG team to think of new weapons. They're literally wasting money to make another batch of combat shotgun, knife, and stub gun.
And the hammer look like another boring addition that add nothing special to the game.
It is somewhat unique in that it has versatile, but only 1". However we already have more than enough weapons including 87 unique close combat (not counting several duplicate weapon profiles). So yes, you are right, a new weapon profile doesn't add anything to the game at this point. It is mostly bloat to fill pages and give the impression that they offer something "new" (which they may well do, but not in the shape of weapons).
Also note that the ranges are swapped for the Arc hammer profile. Long range is supposed to be E and short range optionally has a weapon's Versatile range. Never understood why they went with that in the first place. This new "mistake" makes more sense than the "correct" layout. Listing Versatile and Melee as traits is also redundant, as ALL weapons with range E are Melee, and ALL weapons with range E + x" are Versatile.
This the kind of criticism where you lose me. The simple is answer is "because someone might want to field it." As long as it's a new statline I'm down for any weapon; it adds richness to the game.
Up until what point though? Are 200 ever so slightly different weapons better than 100? 1000 better than 200?
I do like having a bunch of options for a game like this - at this stage, you can basically convert up anything and there will be suitable rules for it. But when playing a game, I prefer to spend at least a decent percentage of the time playing the game, not looking up the stats for each slight variant of sword and checking which combination of 100 special rules apply to it. Does it add anything to the game to have (very slightly) different rules for a butcher's cleaver and a brute cleaver; a shock baton and a shock stave, shock tendrils and a shock whip? Would the game not be equally rich in choice if those were simply the same, yet more enjoyable as you didn't have to look up or memorize the difference between them? Unless it's for a new particularly exotic weapon, I reckon there are sufficient options in the game as is, with many functionally already duplicates in all but name.
I don't understand why it's so hard for SG team to think of new weapons. They're literally wasting money to make another batch of combat shotgun, knife, and stub gun.
And the hammer look like another boring addition that add nothing special to the game.
It is somewhat unique in that it has versatile, but only 1". However we already have more than enough weapons including 87 unique close combat (not counting several duplicate weapon profiles). So yes, you are right, a new weapon profile doesn't add anything to the game at this point. It is mostly bloat to fill pages and give the impression that they offer something "new" (which they may well do, but not in the shape of weapons).
Also note that the ranges are swapped for the Arc hammer profile. Long range is supposed to be E and short range optionally has a weapon's Versatile range. Never understood why they went with that in the first place. This new "mistake" makes more sense than the "correct" layout. Listing Versatile and Melee as traits is also redundant, as ALL weapons with range E are Melee, and ALL weapons with range E + x" are Versatile.
This the kind of criticism where you lose me. The simple is answer is "because someone might want to field it." As long as it's a new statline I'm down for any weapon; it adds richness to the game.
I do agree with Chopstick about the repeat bits, though. More knife and stub guns arms is a waste of time (although I'll still use the unique arm-sections of each bit as bases for conversions of other weapons).
I can't really agree with either proposition. The system is abstracted to the point that hundreds of weapons don't add richness, they add pointless confusion, and memorization problems masquerading as depth. And thats on top of their writing/balancing/editing problems for necromunda.
I'd also rather have more knives and stubbers. It adds a lot to the verisimilitude of what the game is supposed to be- gangers struggling to get by in a scavenge-driven, urban-mockery hellscape. All these new fancy tech weapons actual degrade the setting, and move further and further away from the conceits of the 41st millennium and necromunda itself.
I don't understand why it's so hard for SG team to think of new weapons. They're literally wasting money to make another batch of combat shotgun, knife, and stub gun.
And the hammer look like another boring addition that add nothing special to the game.
It is somewhat unique in that it has versatile, but only 1". However we already have more than enough weapons including 87 unique close combat (not counting several duplicate weapon profiles). So yes, you are right, a new weapon profile doesn't add anything to the game at this point. It is mostly bloat to fill pages and give the impression that they offer something "new" (which they may well do, but not in the shape of weapons).
Also note that the ranges are swapped for the Arc hammer profile. Long range is supposed to be E and short range optionally has a weapon's Versatile range. Never understood why they went with that in the first place. This new "mistake" makes more sense than the "correct" layout. Listing Versatile and Melee as traits is also redundant, as ALL weapons with range E are Melee, and ALL weapons with range E + x" are Versatile.
This the kind of criticism where you lose me. The simple is answer is "because someone might want to field it." As long as it's a new statline I'm down for any weapon; it adds richness to the game.
Up until what point though? Are 200 ever so slightly different weapons better than 100? 1000 better than 200?
I do like having a bunch of options for a game like this - at this stage, you can basically convert up anything and there will be suitable rules for it. But when playing a game, I prefer to spend at least a decent percentage of the time playing the game, not looking up the stats for each slight variant of sword and checking which combination of 100 special rules apply to it. Does it add anything to the game to have (very slightly) different rules for a butcher's cleaver and a brute cleaver; a shock baton and a shock stave, shock tendrils and a shock whip? Would the game not be equally rich in choice if those were simply the same, yet more enjoyable as you didn't have to look up or memorize the difference between them? Unless it's for a new particularly exotic weapon, I reckon there are sufficient options in the game as is, with many functionally already duplicates in all but name.
Yes, 200 weapons would be better than 100, with the caveat that that's only true as long as some semblance of balance is maintained. If 195 of the weapons are dog**** compared to the other five then the richness is sapped by the drive towards competitive efficiency (and Necromunda struggles here, for sure).
I do agree with the sub-issue of weapon naming, though. It would be nice if they made the names more distinct.
I don't understand why it's so hard for SG team to think of new weapons. They're literally wasting money to make another batch of combat shotgun, knife, and stub gun.
And the hammer look like another boring addition that add nothing special to the game.
It is somewhat unique in that it has versatile, but only 1". However we already have more than enough weapons including 87 unique close combat (not counting several duplicate weapon profiles). So yes, you are right, a new weapon profile doesn't add anything to the game at this point. It is mostly bloat to fill pages and give the impression that they offer something "new" (which they may well do, but not in the shape of weapons).
Also note that the ranges are swapped for the Arc hammer profile. Long range is supposed to be E and short range optionally has a weapon's Versatile range. Never understood why they went with that in the first place. This new "mistake" makes more sense than the "correct" layout. Listing Versatile and Melee as traits is also redundant, as ALL weapons with range E are Melee, and ALL weapons with range E + x" are Versatile.
This the kind of criticism where you lose me. The simple is answer is "because someone might want to field it." As long as it's a new statline I'm down for any weapon; it adds richness to the game.
I do agree with Chopstick about the repeat bits, though. More knife and stub guns arms is a waste of time (although I'll still use the unique arm-sections of each bit as bases for conversions of other weapons).
I can't really agree with either proposition. The system is abstracted to the point that hundreds of weapons don't add richness, they add pointless confusion, and memorization problems masquerading as depth. And thats on top of their writing/balancing/editing problems for necromunda.
I'd also rather have more knives and stubbers. It adds a lot to the verisimilitude of what the game is supposed to be- gangers struggling to get by in a scavenge-driven, urban-mockery hellscape. All these new fancy tech weapons actual degrade the setting, and move further and further away from the conceits of the 41st millennium and necromunda itself.
Confusion and memorization are personal issues. Especially the latter; in a campaign setting I actively enjoy setting up and seeing a weapon I've never faced and don't know anything about.
RE: the second part of your post, you're getting most of your wish now that the "Books of..." are standardizing the rule that only specialists can take special weapons. But what we're talking about is bad kit design. The Orlocks don't need more stub gun/knife bits when they could have produced, say, laspistol and flail bits (both of which are low-tech items that fit your stated thematic desires, but which aren't available anywhere as Orlock-specific plastic parts).
lord_blackfang wrote: You're not going to convince me anyone at GW plays Necromunda when there are whole concepts in it that just don't work mechanically.
When the old 13th Company rules came out way back when in late 3rd or early 4th edition, someone published a skit on GW forums that went something like this:
Gav and Jervis are lounging about in the office drinking beer
As a random intern passes by, Gav sticks a £20 bill in their pocket and says "Here, kid, go make a werewolf codex".
This is about the level of effort that goes into Necromunda, and, in fact, most GW rules product.
Sadly, i know for a fact that other game companies beeides GW do exactly that. If younsee my location, it should give you some hint as to which very large players innthe gming industry engage in throwing the responsibility of game design upon someone who just happens to be standing nearby when they need to make a buck.
The sad truth is that old parody is closer to the truth than it is parody.
Depends on how many nails need to be applied into the Necromunda coffin.
Talk about nail in the coffin: The new "arc hammer" has Versatile 1". What does that mean exactly? There is special mechanic called "the 1 inch rule". When will versatile 1" have effect?!?
Nope. Not even vaguely. They're game design issues, that directly affect how well and how quickly games are adopted by players.
There are ZERO personal issues involved.
Especially the latter; in a campaign setting I actively enjoy setting up and seeing a weapon I've never faced and don't know anything about.
Well, except this. This is 100% subjective personal preference.
We have more than 200 weapons, which is fine when spread across the weapon categories (pistol/basic/special/heavy/close combat/grenades). Having 2 different hammers is better than having only one. I'm not sure that having 40'000 uniquely different hammers is any better than having just a handful.
In most cases, if a champ or leader gets to attack with some big expensive close combat weapon, stuff die, so it doesn't matter if it is a thunder hammer, power hammer or arc hammer.
Compare this to kill team, genestealer cult only has 30 weapon profiles there. I'm not saying that is enough, but adding new weapons to every new kit isn't really increasing value, it's increasing bloat.
Honestly, to me having more than 200 different profiles of about two dozen actually different weapons, for a "down on their luck" poor gangers game is absolutely ridiculous.
Want to have "signature" special weapons for the houses? alright, just have a set of special "house" rules that apply to any weapon manufactured by them and leave it at that.
It's like that in just about any gw game though. In one game you have an ax, and then you have a 'chaos ax'. Why is is different? What about the ax makes it so special that is it now a 'chaos ax'?
Thematically, it is senseless. And from a game design perspective, it is an utterly lazy attempt at adding granularity obfuscated by a name change for the exact same weapon.
What purpose does it serve, other to than to give a player that warm special fuzzy feeling that their particular ax is more specialererest than the other guys clearly more boring counterpart by comparison through a label.
Does it add anything to the game? Or does it fool you into beleiving it does, because your model is so much specialerer than those goofy models your opponent foolishly chose to oppose you?
Gw is playing a game, but its with the perception of its consumer base, and not in game design.
Hellfury wrote: It's like that in just about any gw game though. In one game you have an ax, and then you have a 'chaos ax'. Why is is different? What about the ax makes it so special that is it now a 'chaos ax'?
Thematically, it is senseless. And from a game design perspective, it is an utterly lazy attempt at adding granularity obfuscated by a name change for the exact same weapon.
What purpose does it serve, other to than to give a player that warm special fuzzy feeling that their particular ax is more specialererest than the other guys clearly more boring counterpart by comparison through a label.
Does it add anything to the game? Or does it fool you into beleiving it does, because your model is so much specialerer than those goofy models your opponent foolishly chose to oppose you?
Gw is playing a game, but its with the perception of its consumer base, and not in game design.
Well, to be more specific, its something built into more modern GW games. The main games (and rpgs- which I find interesting, because the deep dive into absurd detail is a better fit there than a casual skirmish game) were quite happy with things like 'hand weapon' and 'close combat weapon' for many, many years, regardless of shape or function. Autoguns were all autoguns within a range, same with stubbers. The step up to heavy stubber and autocannon was a very big one.
The sheer profusion of Adjectivenoun weapons is an AoS/8th edition/new specialist game thing that wasn't there before; outside a few outliers like Wolfy McCanine Wolfers and Blood missiles, and those tended to generate mockery more than anything else.
Albertorius wrote: Honestly, to me having more than 200 different profiles of about two dozen actually different weapons, for a "down on their luck" poor gangers game is absolutely ridiculous.
That is not this game though. N17 House gangs are effectively militias with access to the armoury of what amounts to a nation-state that makes China and India combined look sparsely populated.
I mean, I get what you’re saying, but the initial premise is false. Throughout the rules and the supplements, the gangs are referred to as being superior in the house command structure to the vast majority of its population, never as down-at-heel outcasts. If that’s the game you want, you need to either play something else (2nd ed Necromunda, perhaps) or house rule the current game. A lot.
I love weapon options - the more the better, especially ones that are tied to particular gangs and supports their playstyle.
Just been listening/watching the new videogame soundtrack preview posted on Youtube, and the artwork is shockingly good - here's hoping for an artbook of the pieces at some point!
Albertorius wrote: Honestly, to me having more than 200 different profiles of about two dozen actually different weapons, for a "down on their luck" poor gangers game is absolutely ridiculous.
That is not this game though. N17 House gangs are effectively militias with access to the armoury of what amounts to a nation-state that makes China and India combined look sparsely populated.
I mean, I get what you’re saying, but the initial premise is false. Throughout the rules and the supplements, the gangs are referred to as being superior in the house command structure to the vast majority of its population, never as down-at-heel outcasts. If that’s the game you want, you need to either play something else (2nd ed Necromunda, perhaps) or house rule the current game. A lot.
It was the game named Necromunda, back when we all were slumming it in the Underhive. Maybe it's not the case now with N17, but... well, more to my point, then, they're selling me a game that it's not what I wanted, which was a remake of the older one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellfury wrote: It's like that in just about any gw game though. In one game you have an ax, and then you have a 'chaos ax'. Why is is different? What about the ax makes it so special that is it now a 'chaos ax'?
Thematically, it is senseless. And from a game design perspective, it is an utterly lazy attempt at adding granularity obfuscated by a name change for the exact same weapon.
What purpose does it serve, other to than to give a player that warm special fuzzy feeling that their particular ax is more specialererest than the other guys clearly more boring counterpart by comparison through a label.
Does it add anything to the game? Or does it fool you into beleiving it does, because your model is so much specialerer than those goofy models your opponent foolishly chose to oppose you?
Gw is playing a game, but its with the perception of its consumer base, and not in game design.
As Voss said, that might be the case for the last years' GW, but it was not, and it was clearly not something really needed. It's a way to sell more stuff, I guess, but one that irks me a lot.
Just been listening/watching the new videogame soundtrack preview posted on Youtube, and the artwork is shockingly good - here's hoping for an artbook of the pieces at some point!
I've not picked it up yet, but there is a 200 page digital art book on Steam for about £5. Given that the in-game environments are making me want to start making terrain *rught now* I hope it contains lots of nice visuals
Baxx wrote: We have more than 200 weapons, which is fine when spread across the weapon categories (pistol/basic/special/heavy/close combat/grenades). Having 2 different hammers is better than having only one. I'm not sure that having 40'000 uniquely different hammers is any better than having just a handful.
Well, this is a game set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe, so it would be appropriate in that regard...
Just been listening/watching the new videogame soundtrack preview posted on Youtube, and the artwork is shockingly good - here's hoping for an artbook of the pieces at some point!
I've not picked it up yet, but there is a 200 page digital art book on Steam for about £5. Given that the in-game environments are making me want to start making terrain *rught now* I hope it contains lots of nice visuals
The game is really beautiful and captures the themes so well.
Albertorius wrote: Honestly, to me having more than 200 different profiles of about two dozen actually different weapons, for a "down on their luck" poor gangers game is absolutely ridiculous.
That is not this game though. N17 House gangs are effectively militias with access to the armoury of what amounts to a nation-state that makes China and India combined look sparsely populated.
I mean, I get what you’re saying, but the initial premise is false. Throughout the rules and the supplements, the gangs are referred to as being superior in the house command structure to the vast majority of its population, never as down-at-heel outcasts. If that’s the game you want, you need to either play something else (2nd ed Necromunda, perhaps) or house rule the current game. A lot.
It wasn't 2nd ed Necromunda either, 1st ed is pretty much up to speed there as a bunch of people scrounging around.
Though I personally prefer like having a variety of different things to deal with in wargear.. So long as it's properly given a decent enough credit cost in the trading hub anyways.
Albertorius wrote: Honestly, to me having more than 200 different profiles of about two dozen actually different weapons, for a "down on their luck" poor gangers game is absolutely ridiculous.
That is not this game though. N17 House gangs are effectively militias with access to the armoury of what amounts to a nation-state that makes China and India combined look sparsely populated.
I mean, I get what you’re saying, but the initial premise is false. Throughout the rules and the supplements, the gangs are referred to as being superior in the house command structure to the vast majority of its population, never as down-at-heel outcasts. If that’s the game you want, you need to either play something else (2nd ed Necromunda, perhaps) or house rule the current game. A lot.
It wasn't 2nd ed Necromunda either, 1st ed is pretty much up to speed there as a bunch of people scrounging around.
Though I personally prefer like having a variety of different things to deal with in wargear.. So long as it's properly given a decent enough credit cost in the trading hub anyways.
Yeah, 2nd edition was basically the same as 1st, in mostly every regard.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I like a wide variety of weapons myself. Means we see greater variety of gangs and that.
I’m especially fond of House restricted toys.
Up to a point, maybe. The umpteenth autopistol or hammer variant kind of lacks its luster. Particularly when, if you want house variant ones you can just define a set of chracteristics and simply have "Autopistol: Echer", "Hammer: generic", "Hammer:Goliath" and the like, and you'l only need to remember a limited set of modifications instead of two hundred profiles.
This kind of piecemeal approach is... easier for the one doing the writing, I'm sure, but lazy as all hell. Also, kinda prone to breaking.
Just been listening/watching the new videogame soundtrack preview posted on Youtube, and the artwork is shockingly good - here's hoping for an artbook of the pieces at some point!
I've not picked it up yet, but there is a 200 page digital art book on Steam for about £5. Given that the in-game environments are making me want to start making terrain *rught now* I hope it contains lots of nice visuals
Ahhhhh, cheers for the heads up! As an XBox-only gamer, I had no idea. Shall look into this!
We had a few previews of the new Orlock stuff, the new hammer with versatile 1" which is hard to understand how works, but also the jump booster which can malfunction on a natural roll of 1 on a D3. So here is another question for you, what is the probability of rolling a natural 1 on a D3? Same applies to Stimmer's Combat Chems Stash.
Clockpunk wrote: Ahhhhh, cheers for the heads up! As an XBox-only gamer, I had no idea. Shall look into this!
Turns out you can only buy it if you've also bought the game through Steam, which is annoying as I'm on a PS4. I've just had to shelve it until the first patch comes out as the camera glitches and crashing out to the desktop are currently too prevalent to want to invest time in it at the moment.
Baxx wrote: We had a few previews of the new Orlock stuff, the new hammer with versatile 1" which is hard to understand how works, but also the jump booster which can malfunction on a natural roll of 1 on a D3. So here is another question for you, what is the probability of rolling a natural 1 on a D3? Same applies to Stimmer's Combat Chems Stash.
I'd say it's 1/3. There seems to be no ambiguity here, I appreciate all of your error alerts but in this case it's not even a semantic issue. Maybe you're joking, idk.
The confusion comes from the rules for D3 says use a D6, then halve the result (rounding up). You are however most likely right, but as mentioned, others would look at it differently.
The people looking at it differently would be engaging in a pretty blatant equivocation. If someone tried that, it'd make me concede the game on the spot - life is too short and miserable to play a game against someone that bent out of shape about winning at any cost.
Baxx wrote: The confusion comes from the rules for D3 says use a D6, then halve the result (rounding up). You are however most likely right, but as mentioned, others would look at it differently.
There’s no result until the sum is complete.
Otherwise, strictly speaking you’ve not rolled a 1, unless you’ve rolled a 2.
Hence my equivalence to claiming by the same logic that a 2D6 roll can’t reach 7 or higher, but you’ve really only rolled say, a 6 and a 1 and so on.
The thing is a "natural 1" would be before modifiers such as the halving. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I know others have the opposite opinion. I can see both ways though.
If it is 1/3 chance of failure, then I'm never using Stimmer's ability and think twice or 3 times before using Wrecker's jump boost. Getting Pinned when making a Charge can be a death sentence.
Baxx wrote: The thing is a "natural 1" would be before modifiers such as the halving. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I know others have the opposite opinion. I can see both ways though.
If it is 1/3 chance of failure, then I'm never using Stimmer's ability and think twice or 3 times before using Wrecker's jump boost. Getting Pinned when making a Charge can be a death sentence.
Yeah. I can see both interpretations being made and not because someone is being WAAC.
Just makes pre-game discussions so much more of a hassle.
Rolling a D6 like a D3 isn't applying modifiers, its just getting around the fact that you've a D6 not a D3 to roll. A modifier changes the result of the dice roll; rounding up/halving to get the actual result of the dice roll isn't modifying the result.
Overread wrote: Rolling a D6 like a D3 isn't applying modifiers, its just getting around the fact that you've a D6 not a D3 to roll. A modifier changes the result of the dice roll; rounding up/halving to get the actual result of the dice roll isn't modifying the result.
Exactly.
Anybody claiming otherwise should be given a harsh pointy stick whipping.
Not 100% clear on how I would handle a player bringing a 66 sided dice though
What if GW crafts such wording so we can quickly detect people that won’t be fun to play against? (Not referring to Baxx. Dude is only asking the question)
Overread wrote: Rolling a D6 like a D3 isn't applying modifiers, its just getting around the fact that you've a D6 not a D3 to roll. A modifier changes the result of the dice roll; rounding up/halving to get the actual result of the dice roll isn't modifying the result.
Exactly.
Anybody claiming otherwise should be given a harsh pointy stick whipping.
It's more likely that anyone arguing against it is having a mental "derp" moment. We all get them when something is really simple, but something in our brain refuses to budge no matter how much logic we throw at it. Sometimes that doesn't end until hours later when the brain gets out of its rut and goes "You know you were an idiot back then!"
Heck, they do that with all their games. I firmly believe they write games that are fun to play with people who are your friends or at least people you'd like to remain friendly with.
Of course, in environments where pick up games are the norm, people rely heavily on the publisher to have tight rules that don't require a 15 minute pre-game chat about this/that weapon option and interpretation of various things (e.g., which list of options will we use for us both playing Escher if you have the Gangs book only and I have Book of Blades).
Eh the D3 has been in DnD for generations and other games too. It's a staple of gaming. It's no different to them just giving results as a 1-2 do x - 3-4 do y and 5-6 do z.. Roll a D3 is just quicker and after 2 mins explaining most pepole get it without issue.
Good to see some unity here, it won't be a problem should an of us play together. I much agree with the consensus. I think the word "natural" is what makes some players think otherwise.
Phew, I for one would rather play against someone who happens to have a different interpretation of what a "natural roll of 1 on a D3 that's actually a halved D6" means, than someone who would immediately accuse anyone with a differing opinion of trying to cheat or purposefully being obtuse.
My immediate interpretation was that it referred to the D3 roll (i.e. the D6 roll of 1-2), but I can certainly see how someone might see it as meaning the D6 roll of a 1 only. As D3s for GW also only ever refer to a halved D6 roll (and Newcromunda has a talent for both being unclear and occasionally counter-intuitive), I would not be entirely surprised if that's even what they meant, even if it seems illogical to me.
My immediate interpretation was that it referred to the D3 roll (i.e. the D6 roll of 1-2), but I can certainly see how someone might see it as meaning the D6 roll of a 1 only. As D3s for GW also only ever refer to a halved D6 roll (and Newcromunda has a talent for both being unclear and occasionally counter-intuitive), I would not be entirely surprised if that's even what they meant, even if it seems illogical to me.
Is there any reason to not use a D6 instead of a D3 if that is the case though? (genuine question, I don't play the game, I have no idea what modifiers are possible, how often they'd be applicable, and on top of that I'm not super great with probabilities). I am assuming it's because there are relevant modifiers but they still want a high failure rate, but I don't know. What's some of the possible scenarios for failure where this discussion might come up?
I thought it was pretty obvious. A natural roll is different from a roll result.
In N17 a D3 is a D6 with special rules. You can't just substitute a 6 sided D6 with a 4 sided D3. That's not supported by the rules. In N17 a D3 is a 6 sided dice that has natural numbers 1 to 6 which produces results (not natural) 1 to 3. I don't see what's difficult to understand.
I mean, bloody hell, the rules spell it out for you:
1) To roll a D3, roll aD6 and halve the result, rounding up.
2) Sometimes players will be instructed to modify a dice roll.... If the rules ever instruct the player to halve a result .... any fractions are rounded up unless otherwise instructed.
3) A ‘natural’ roll is the actual number rolled on a dice,regardless of any modifiers applied.
A roll of 1 one on a D6 is a natural 1 on a D3. A roll of a 2 on a D6 is not a natural 1 on a D3.
My immediate interpretation was that it referred to the D3 roll (i.e. the D6 roll of 1-2), but I can certainly see how someone might see it as meaning the D6 roll of a 1 only. As D3s for GW also only ever refer to a halved D6 roll (and Newcromunda has a talent for both being unclear and occasionally counter-intuitive), I would not be entirely surprised if that's even what they meant, even if it seems illogical to me.
Is there any reason to not use a D6 instead of a D3 if that is the case though? (genuine question, I don't play the game, I have no idea what modifiers are possible, how often they'd be applicable, and on top of that I'm not super great with probabilities). I am assuming it's because there are relevant modifiers but they still want a high failure rate, but I don't know. What's some of the possible scenarios for failure where this discussion might come up?
This particular situation came up with the previewed "jump boosters", which add D3+3" to a move, but malfunction on that roll of a "natural 1". So the nature of the die is functional here, to simply limit the potential movement distance.
Henry wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious. A natural roll is different from a roll result.
In N17 a D3 is a D6 with special rules. You can't just substitute a 6 sided D6 with a 4 sided D3. That's not supported by the rules. In N17 a D3 is a 6 sided dice that has natural numbers 1 to 6 which produces results (not natural) 1 to 3. I don't see what's difficult to understand.
Well, that's part of the catch: from a quote I saw elsewhere, the rulebook states you can use the "halved D6", but it's not outright stated you have to, so people could for example use an actual D3 if they have one. Furthermore, I'd argue the halving of the D6 is not a modifier in the typical sense of the word - it's not about altering the value of the roll, it's about simulating rolling another type of die, which has the natural results of rolling a 1, 2 or 3, after which modifiers can be added as normal to create the final resulting score.
Well, last time some issues were discovered in the preview, they were (partially) solved in the day-1 FAQ, maybe they'll do so again this time.
I thought it was pretty obvious. A natural roll is different from a roll result.
In N17 a D3 is a D6 with special rules. You can't just substitute a 6 sided D6 with a 4 sided D3. That's not supported by the rules. In N17 a D3 is a 6 sided dice that has natural numbers 1 to 6 which produces results (not natural) 1 to 3. I don't see what's difficult to understand.
Henry wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious. A natural roll is different from a roll result.
In N17 a D3 is a D6 with special rules. You can't just substitute a 6 sided D6 with a 4 sided D3. That's not supported by the rules. In N17 a D3 is a 6 sided dice that has natural numbers 1 to 6 which produces results (not natural) 1 to 3. I don't see what's difficult to understand.
Nothing stops you using a D3. GW just doesn't sell them for the game so they use a D6. It's standard gaming practice and has been for years.
If you really don't like it you could modify a D6 to simply read 1 2 and 3 on two sides instead of one side.
A 1 or 2 on a D6 being used as a D3 is a natural 1.
My immediate interpretation was that it referred to the D3 roll (i.e. the D6 roll of 1-2), but I can certainly see how someone might see it as meaning the D6 roll of a 1 only. As D3s for GW also only ever refer to a halved D6 roll (and Newcromunda has a talent for both being unclear and occasionally counter-intuitive), I would not be entirely surprised if that's even what they meant, even if it seems illogical to me.
Is there any reason to not use a D6 instead of a D3 if that is the case though? (genuine question, I don't play the game, I have no idea what modifiers are possible, how often they'd be applicable, and on top of that I'm not super great with probabilities). I am assuming it's because there are relevant modifiers but they still want a high failure rate, but I don't know. What's some of the possible scenarios for failure where this discussion might come up?
This particular situation came up with the previewed "jump boosters", which add D3+3" to a move, but malfunction on that roll of a "natural 1". So the nature of the die is functional here, to simply limit the potential movement distance.
Oh ok, that makes it clearer. It also makes the question more relevant, I can now see a very reasonable case for the other interpretation.
/edit - in fact, I'd probably argue that only a single pip on the D6 results in failure, because a 1/3 chance of failure, even in a narrative game like Necro, seems to be less fun, and the author of the rule intended failure to be 1/6, whilst still having successful rolls result in +4" to +6" movement bonus.
How do they stop you?
You're making a D3 roll. They use a D6 as an example because GW doesn't sell D3 dice and they keep all their system in-house as much as possible.
The rules also don't say you can use a digital dice roller, but people use them all the time.
How do they stop you?
You're making a D3 roll. They use a D6 as an example because GW doesn't sell D3 dice and they keep all their system in-house as much as possible.
The rules also don't say you can use a digital dice roller, but people use them all the time.
You keep saying it's standard in gaming. I know how a D3 works. Except GW have made specific rules for a D3 in N17 that aren't conventional.
The rules (from the rulebook) are:
1) To roll a D3, roll a D6 and halve the result, rounding up.
2) Sometimes players will be instructed to modify a dice roll.... If the rules ever instruct the player to halve a result .... any fractions are rounded up unless otherwise instructed.
3) A ‘natural’ roll is the actual number rolled on a dice, regardless of any modifiers applied.
A roll of 1 one on a D6 is a natural 1 on a D3. A roll of a 2 on a D6 is not a natural 1 on a D3. Please stop saying things unsupported by the rules.
IMHO: Trying to argue that a ”natural 1 on a D3” is the exact same as a ”natural 1 on a D6” (odds and all) is beyond stupid.
(Edit/Note: I am not in any way claiming persons behind such an argument being stupid)
Sorry Henry, there are lots of rules in Newcromunda where the texts are (extremely) vague and/or misleading. Not around D3 though - where the whole point is having 33% possibilities.
By using the method suggested (not a mandatory one) by the Necro rules we are in fact rolling a D6 - which will only turn into a D3 *after the result is converted*, thus it is not a D3 at the time of the roll.
Therefore the whole quoting and other arguments are absurd.
Ask yourself: can one roll ”a natural 4” (or 5 or 6) on a D3?
Also a D3 modified by +1 is supposed to produce a result of 2-4, this clearly indicates that the first ”modification” (of the D6 roll) is done to make it a D3. Otherwise the +1 would have been added at the same time, producing a final result of 1-4.
Thus, all references to ”D3” is an *already modified D6 roll* (or a true or digital D3) and will always produce an unodified/natural result of 1-3.
kendoka wrote: IMHO: Trying to argue that a ”natural 1 on a D3” is the exact same as a ”natural 1 on a D6” (odds and all) is beyond stupid.
At least I've got the rules to support my position - hell, I've quoted them. I'd counter that trying to make an argument that doesn't bother to acknowledge the rules is beyond stupid.
A D3 as you know it (a dice that only produces three results) is not the same as a Necromunda17 D3 (I'll abbreviate this to N17D3 from now on to avoid confusion). If you are literally rolling a D3 while playing the game then you are not rolling an N17D3 - if that's how you want to play the game then that's cool, it's your custom house rule, I shan't be coming around your house to stop you playing that way. But, unless GW errata it, you will not be playing the game following the rulebook.
I'll add this to explain just why you're wrong (I know this was said by Overread, but you agreed with it):
Overread wrote: Rolling a D6 like a D3 isn't applying modifiers,
Yes it is - the rules literally say it is.
Overread wrote: its just getting around the fact that you've a D6 not a D3 to roll.
Please provide evidence for this, as there is nothing in the rules that says this. In fact the rules say the exact opposite.
Overread wrote: A modifier changes the result of the dice roll; rounding up/halving to get the actual result of the dice roll isn't modifying the result.
Yes it is - the rules literally say it is.
This really didn't age well
Overread wrote: It's more likely that anyone arguing against it is having a mental "derp" moment. We all get them when something is really simple, but something in our brain refuses to budge no matter how much logic we throw at it. Sometimes that doesn't end until hours later when the brain gets out of its rut and goes "You know you were an idiot back then!"
But then, you're not alone. The whole last page was full of people, like yourself, patting themselves on the back over not being able to understand a simple rule.
Yeah there's no ambiguity there. 'To roll a D3, roll a D6 [...]' If they wanted to refer to the D3 roll of 1 (A natural 1 on a D3, no doubt about it.) they wouldn't have worded it that way in their system of halved D6s. It's not about stupidity...
Henry wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious. A natural roll is different from a roll result.
In N17 a D3 is a D6 with special rules. You can't just substitute a 6 sided D6 with a 4 sided D3. That's not supported by the rules. In N17 a D3 is a 6 sided dice that has natural numbers 1 to 6 which produces results (not natural) 1 to 3. I don't see what's difficult to understand.
I mean, bloody hell, the rules spell it out for you:
1) To roll a D3, roll aD6 and halve the result, rounding up.
2) Sometimes players will be instructed to modify a dice roll.... If the rules ever instruct the player to halve a result .... any fractions are rounded up unless otherwise instructed.
3) A ‘natural’ roll is the actual number rolled on a dice,regardless of any modifiers applied.
A roll of 1 one on a D6 is a natural 1 on a D3. A roll of a 2 on a D6 is not a natural 1 on a D3.
According to this argument, you would accept it as possible to roll a natural 6 on a D3?
I find it funny that people can see both sides and obvious, and find it difficult to even consider the other view. It was surprising to see the first wave of replies, all firmly supporting one side. But I knew from similar debate on Yaktribe that several players see it opposite (poll is split ca 50/50).
As someone else said, it takes a certain level of evil mastermind to even invent this confusion for something as basic as rolling a D3
Oh ok, that makes it clearer. It also makes the question more relevant, I can now see a very reasonable case for the other interpretation.
/edit - in fact, I'd probably argue that only a single pip on the D6 results in failure, because a 1/3 chance of failure, even in a narrative game like Necro, seems to be less fun, and the author of the rule intended failure to be 1/6, whilst still having successful rolls result in +4" to +6" movement bonus.
Yeah, logically I agree with the strict D3 point of view, I won't accept changing the definition of something as basic as dice. On the other side, the 1/3 probability of failure is really harsh. I know at least 2 places with this wording. One is for new Goliath Stimmer (champion), who can gain additional attacks, but is reduced to a single attack if failed (again 33.33% change). I would never use that ability, as the stimmer should have enough attacks from base stats and additional close combat weapon.
For the new Orlock specialist juve (Wrecker prospect), I could be tempted, but failing a Charge (and becoming Pinned instead) can in critical situations be a death sentence.
So yeah, I agree the failure is "less fun". I would use both abilities (almost) every time if the chance of failure was 1/6.
kendoka wrote: IMHO: Trying to argue that a ”natural 1 on a D3” is the exact same as a ”natural 1 on a D6” (odds and all) is beyond stupid.
At least I've got the rules to support my position - hell, I've quoted them.
No, you haven't, not in full at least. This is what I believe to be the actual quote from the rulebook - verbatim. Please indicate if it is incomplete, and correct it if necessary (this text is taken from a poster on another forum; I took it to be the exact text as found in the rulebook, which I do not have at hand):
"D3 - The rules might also call for a D3 to be rolled, but an actual three-sided dice is not necessary. To roll a D3, roll a D6 and halve the result, rounding up."
This text clearly indicates that while you can roll a D6 to represent the D3, this is not the only way to get this result: while "an actual three-sided dice is not necessary", it seemingly is an option if you do possess one. In addition, the halving of the dice to create D3 results is not clearly regarded as a modification - this is a separate entry in the rules.
Finally, I think we can indeed safely agree that this is, after all, an area that requires an FAQ solution, and is not clearly A or B.
The poll at yaktribe has 20 votes in favour of 1/3 failure and 17 in favour of 1/6 failure. A strangely polarizing topic, each side often have this automatic assumption that their initial interpretation is correct, and can't even understand that others see it differently. Almost like modern politics?
Snipping pieces of text is common and, so long as it doesn't change the context of the quote, perfectly acceptable. Nothing I cut out changed the context. The rules support my position.
Coenus Scaldingus wrote: This is what I believe to be the actual quote from the rulebook - verbatim.....
"D3 - The rules might also call for a D3 to be rolled, but an actual three-sided dice is not necessary. To roll a D3, roll a D6 and halve the result, rounding up."
See, snipping unnecessary text.
Coenus Scaldingus wrote: This text clearly indicates that while you can roll a D6 to represent the D3, this is not the only way to get this result: while "an actual three-sided dice is not necessary", it seemingly is an option if you do possess one.
Nothing you just quoted supports that. There is a direct instruction on how to roll a D3 in Necromunda17 - you roll a D6 and modify it. Inferring anything different, or thinking you can roll any other sort of dice to get the result, is you inventing new rules that aren't supported by the rulebook.
Coenus Scaldingus wrote: In addition, the halving of the dice to create D3 results is not clearly regarded as a modification - this is a separate entry in the rules.
Sorry, I'm completely baffled by how you come to this conclusion.
Coenus Scaldingus wrote: Finally, I think we can indeed safely agree that this is, after all, an area that requires an FAQ solution, and is not clearly A or B.
As there seems to be so much confusion this absolutely needs an FAQ. I can fully appreciate how people have come to the wrong answer, but there is only one correct answer. I'll stop now as I'm clearly being argumentative for the sake of it, but I felt a little provoked by the self congratulatory gibberish I'd read on the previous page.
Baxx wrote: That is very precise sir! I can understand your view, but rolling a natural 6 on a D3 still sounds hilarious to me
Kanluwen wrote: Ehhh...it really only needs an FAQ if you're looking for an argument.
If you're supposed to halve your result, and a 1 or 2 is considered a 1--that would be the 'natural 1' result on a D3.
Why include the word "Natural" then? If 1 is equal to natural 1 and 2 is equal to natural 1 it seems redundant (which is the reason I asked for an example of possible modifiers - I was thinking there was a possibility of a skill along the lines of "Character can subtract 1 from dice roll", which would make 3 be equal to 1, but not natural 1, but this doesn't seem to be the case).
Anyway, this is probably the first RAW discussion I've been involved in for at least a decade or two, and I've had my mind changed, so no one can accuse me of partisanship on this issue, I now plan to take another twenty year sabbatical from RAW discussions, Au revoir to you all : )
Today, here, on Necromunda, we’ll discuss the value of tight rules writing and play testing. Later on, we’ll also look at how games companies are adapting the DLC model and splash releases to capitalize on FOMO to boost sales.
...I take it at least some of y'all have contacted whatever the FAQ email address is for Necromunda to flag the "natural 1" situation for an FAQ?
Is there an actual 3-sided die on the market? I know in the Dungeon Crawl Classics dice set I have (which includes things like a d5 and d7, amongst other oddities), the d3 is a d6 numbered I to III on two sides each.
Crimson wrote: It is rather absurd that people think that D3 that has only three possible results can produce 1/6 odds.
Okay, last one, I promise.
In Necromunda what is a D3? Please provide me the rule reference for what a D3 is.
I can tell you what a D6 is as the rule says "D6 – This is a regular six-sided dice, marked 1 to 6".
I can also tell you what a D3 is. The rules say it is "...roll a D6 and halve the result...".
It doesn't say a D3 is a three or four sided dice marked 1 to 3 - in Necromunda that is not a D3. If you roll a three or four sided dice marked 1 to 3 you are not rolling a Necromunda D3.
Why are people assuming that the rules don't mean what they say?
A D3 in Necromunda has three possible results from six natural numbers because you roll a D6 and modify it.
What is absurd is that people are finding this simple rule so difficult to understand.
Crimson wrote: It is rather absurd that people think that D3 that has only three possible results can produce 1/6 odds.
Okay, last one, I promise.
You do?
In Necromunda what is a D3? Please provide me the rule reference for what a D3 is.
I can tell you what a D6 is as the rule says "D6 – This is a regular six-sided dice, marked 1 to 6".
I can also tell you what a D3 is. The rules say it is "...roll a D6 and halve the result...".
Why are people assuming that the rules don't mean what they say?
A D3 in Necromunda has three possible results from six natural numbers.
It says that physical D3 is not necessary, not that one cannot be used. The instructions of how to obtain the result using a six sided dice are merely for the convenience of those who may not obtain physical d3s or dice apps. Arguing anything else is an utterly bizarre case of rules-lawyering that goes against both logic and common sense.
What is absurd is that people are finding this simple rule so difficult to understand.
Crimson wrote: The instructions of how to obtain the result using a six sided dice are merely for the convenience of those who may not obtain physical d3s
Have you any evidence to prove this or are you just making stuff up. As I said before, if this is your house rule then that's cool. But don't pretend it's the actual rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: It says that physical D3 is not necessary, not that one cannot be used.
So please show me the rules for what a D3 is.
They have gone to the effort of defining a D6 -"D6 – This is a regular six-sided dice, marked 1 to 6", I'm sure it should be relatively easy for you to show me the rule where they define a D3 as an object marked 1 to 3. (there ought to be a crickets emoji. Or maybe a tumbleweed)
I thought a "natural" roll meant the actual facing of the die that comes up, therefore a "natural" 1 on a D3 would only be possible when the facing side shows "1".
A facing side of "2" would still result in a 1 for the purposes of the role, but it, in essence, would be an unnatural 1.
If you are unable to understand how language works, what dice are or what their purpose it the conversation is pointless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I thought a "natural" roll meant the actual facing of the die that comes up, therefore a "natural" 1 on a D3 would only be possible when the facing side shows "1".
A facing side of "2" would still result in a 1 for the purposes of the role, but it, in essence, would be an unnatural 1.
Yes, I appologise, but I wasn't prepared for quite how inane the response was going to be.
Crimson wrote: If you are unable to understand how language works, what dice are or what their purpose it the conversation is pointless.
If you are unable to understand how to apply the understanding of language to written rules then, yeah, there's no point.
The problem as I see it is exactly as you've laid it out, and I honestly do understand how you've come to your conclusion. Those in your camp are approaching the game with an assumption of what a D3 is and are then completely ignoring the rules of the game when they run contrary to that assumption. As I always said as a rules lawyer - I can stand here and tell you how the rules work, but I can't force you to follow them.
Yes, I appologise, but I wasn't prepared for quite how inane the response was going to be.
Crimson wrote: If you are unable to understand how language works, what dice are or what their purpose it the conversation is pointless.
If you are unable to understand how to apply the understanding of language to written rules then, yeah, there's no point.
The problem as I see it is exactly as you've laid it out, and I honestly do understand how you've come to your conclusion. Those in your camp are approaching the game with an assumption of what a D3 is and are then completely ignoring the rules of the game when they run contrary to that assumption. As I always said as a rules lawyer - I can stand here and tell you how the rules work, but I can't force you to follow them.
Let's quote the rules then.
Necromunda Rulebook wrote:The rules might also call a D3 to be rolled, but an actual three-sided dice is not necessary. To roll a D3, roll a D6 and halve the result, rounding up
So the process of rolling a D3 is to roll D6, halve it and round up. Until you have completed this whole process, you have not rolled a D3, and no result for it exist. Thus only possible outcomes of this process are 1, 2 and 3. Savvy?
Necromunda Rulebook wrote:The rules might also call a D3 to be rolled, but an actual three-sided dice is not necessary. To roll a D3, roll a D6 and halve the result, rounding up
So the process of rolling a D3 is to roll D6, halve it and round up. Until you have completed this whole process, you have not rolled a D3, and no result for it exist. Thus only possible outcomes of this process are 1, 2 and 3. The end.
Okay, we're getting somewhere. From this then I take it you concede that a D3 in Necromunda is not a dice marked 1 to 3, but is in fact a modified D6?
Then we go to the rule for natural numbers - "A ‘natural’ roll is the actual number rolled on a dice, regardless of any modifiers applied".
Until you have completed this whole process, you have not rolled a D3, and no result for it exist.
Precisely - now you're getting it.
The important part is that it doesn't matter what the result of the D3 is. It only matters what the natural roll of the D6 is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Thus only possible outcomes of this process are 1, 2 and 3. Savvy?
This is irrelevant as we aren't interested in the result of the D3, we are interested in the natural roll of the D6.
Since the rules don't forbid you using an actual D3* are you arguing that if you roll a D6 for a D3 result then you can potentially have a 1/6 chances at a natural 1; whilst if you roll an actual D3 you'd have only a 1/3 chance of a natural 1?
*They state that you do not necessarily need to use a D3, not that you are forbidden from using one.
Overread wrote: Since the rules don't forbid you using an actual D3* .... *They state that you do not necessarily need to use a D3, not that you are forbidden from using one.
Firstly, that's not what the rules says - it doesn't say that you don't need to use a D3, it says you don't need to use a three sided dice. There's an important difference because it hasn't yet defined what a D3 actually is.
That's also not how rules work. Note for a D6 it specifically tells you to use a 6 sided dice marked 1 to 6. It doesn't tell you in the D3 rules to use a dice marked 1 to 3 - by your logic since the rules don't tell you want you can't do then you could have a 100 sided dice marked 1 to 100 and call it a D3 and that would be okay. That's obviously nonsense, but it uses the same logic as you just have.
To understand how this rule works you must first ditch your assumption of what a D3 is - you will not understand how this rule works until you ditch your preconceptions and actually follow the rules of the game.
Overread wrote: are you arguing that if you roll a D6 for a D3 result then you can potentially have a 1/6 chances at a natural 1; whilst if you roll an actual D3 you'd have only a 1/3 chance of a natural 1?
That's not only what I am arguing, that is also precisely what the rules of the game are saying.
Crimson wrote: It doesn't matter. It is merely a process for producing a random number from one to three.
Nonsense, it's integral to why you haven't been able to grasp the meaning of the rule.
Yes. In case of D3 that number is either one, two or three. No other possibilities exist.
For a D3 used somewhere other than Necromunda you would be correct. But a D3 in Necromunda has 3 results produced by 6 natural numbers. Let go of your assumption of what a D3 is and start following the rules.
The result happens on natural roll of one on D3.
Which we've already shown that a D3 is actually a modified D6. In Necromunda a natural roll of a one on a D3 is exactly the same as a natural roll of a one on a D6 - there is no difference.
I really like how the only person quoting actual rules in this discussion is the one whose intelligence and general character is being called into question.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: So... eagerly awaiting my Ogryn. Anyone got tips for the kit or a review?
I got it today, but apart from the kit being fine and very directive like all Necromunda plastic kits, I have nothing really interesting to say (follow the building notice and you can't really go wrong). The GW website is pretty much telling it all.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: So... eagerly awaiting my Ogryn. Anyone got tips for the kit or a review?
I'm seeing tons of photos on FB with people showing off the conversions they've made, either making Lascutter/Rocksaw-armed Ogryn Slaves, or just adding more basic weapons like bix axes and brute cleavers and whatnot.
Seems that mixing them with the regular Ogryn kit is extremely easy, and that the Ogryn/Bullgryn Grenade Launcher arm makes a good base for various types of ranged weapon arms.
Grinshanks wrote: This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever read
Yeah no kidding. We're at, what, two pages of this meaningless drivel?
Kanluwen wrote: They made it clear early on she was going to have two head options, so I'd assume that she'll still have the other and they just showed the one.
I completely forgot they showed two head-options in the original preview. I'm happy now.
I must say, all of these are some of my favourite sculpts. The Cyber-Mastiff gives me heavy Wolfenstein vibes, and I love everything about the Rogue Doc.
Hell even Kal Jerico has a Cyber mastif (gift from his mum and sister)
But yeah sort out those Escher pet models
If they would have just written the rules so that Escher champions and leaders could actually take the phelynxes that come in the new plastic box this wouldn't be a problem.
Or did they not make rules available for phyrr cats yet?
Nice models!
There's rules for the phyrr cats and another (big monster that I can't spell from memory) in the new House book alongside the new lizardkitties. So we've got the stats for them. Indeed I'd wondered if they'd been quietly retired from the game since the models vanished from sight,so I was very glad to see them in the book.
Hell even Kal Jerico has a Cyber mastif (gift from his mum and sister)
But yeah sort out those Escher pet models
If they would have just written the rules so that Escher champions and leaders could actually take the phelynxes that come in the new plastic box this wouldn't be a problem.
I'd rather have not-yet-released phyrr cats that have a chance of looking decent, than see more of those horrid catratlizardthings on the table!
Coenus Scaldingus wrote: I'd rather have not-yet-released phyrr cats that have a chance of looking decent, than see more of those horrid catratlizardthings on the table!
I didn't first like them when I saw the pictures, but after assembling the models I love them. The paintjob in that kit's promo pics somehow make them look way worse than they really are. And in any case I don't think it would have been too much to ask to have an option to give them to the leaders and champions, that wouldn't have precluded them having an option to have expensive and currently non-existing resin cats as well.
Coenus Scaldingus wrote: I'd rather have not-yet-released phyrr cats that have a chance of looking decent, than see more of those horrid catratlizardthings on the table!
I didn't first like them when I saw the pictures, but after assembling the models I love them. The paintjob in that kit's promo pics somehow make them look way worse than they really are. And in any case I don't think it would have been too much to ask to have an option to give them to the leaders and champions, that wouldn't have precluded them having an option to have expensive and currently non-existing resin cats as well.
After seeing pictures of the unpainted models, the Death Maidens certainly grew on me (even more so when improved with some slight tweaks); they aren't nearly as bad as GW's paintjob had led me to believe. The catratlizards not so much, yet, but I did just pick up a box this morning, so let's see if I change my mind once I work with them. If not, they may still find a use as mutant rats for my Skaven, so there's a bonus!
Interesting how the contents of that box work out by the way (at least on first inspection). For each Death Maiden, there are 3 heads (the third of which, not shown in the promotional material, actually especially nice), 3 right arms (2 needle pistol variants, 1 toxic nail polish) and only 2 left arms (1 each of the aforementioned). But for every 2 mutant lizardcats, there are 6 head options on the sprues, yet several of those appear completely identical (same scars etc.), only having slightly different neck joints. I suppose the Maidens can be nicely kitbashed with the basic plastic Eschers, but I'd rather have seen more options for them (options that could in turn also make the basic Eschers more interesting, just like having the plastic needle pistols) than just a bunch of duplicated cat heads. Maybe I'll make them into shoulder pads or wall trophies or something...
Has anyone got pictures of the Phyrr cat things. The original sculpts that seem to have gone away.
I can’t even really remember them now.
Hand had they said they are redoing them or just took away and never mentioned?
There's rules for the phyrr cats and another (big monster that I can't spell from memory) in the new House book alongside the new lizardkitties. So we've got the stats for them. Indeed I'd wondered if they'd been quietly retired from the game since the models vanished from sight,so I was very glad to see them in the book.
We had those rules for 2+ years already. The only news is the phelynx catlizards and the possible change in cost of the phyrr cat which was later reverted by the FAQ.
While the book does have a lot of new content, much of it is also reprint of existing rules.
Danny76 wrote: Has anyone got pictures of the Phyrr cat things. The original sculpts that seem to have gone away.
I can’t even really remember them now.
Hand had they said they are redoing them or just took away and never mentioned?
From memory, some time after the preview Andy Hoare mentioned on one of the Twitch streams that the cats were being changed as the FW team felt they could do better, or something along those lines. The overwhelmingly negative comments following their preview were not acknowledged as such, but I assume they played a role as I can't think of many cases where figures were previewed and then redone instead of being released shortly after. No idea why it has taken this long. Sure, several other houses are missing their pets (and brutes) too, but these are known to have been worked on. We haven't heard about a release for the previewed Escher champions with new weapons yet though, perhaps they'll be joined by the cats - if not, I don't know when they will get around to them.
Chairman Aeon wrote: $27 shipping to Canada—are you mad Forge World. I really want a plastic spruce of hangers-on.
This is one of the rare instances where you actually can blame somebody else - international postage is garbage these days all around. I used to order stuff from the USA all the time since it was often cheaper even with the risk of being slapped with duty fees, but these days once you account for shipping the price difference is often so small it doesn't justify the 1-2 week wait.
I thought Servalen would be a plastic GW release but it turns out it is Forge World... that means no sale then. Too bad because I really like the model.
Chairman Aeon wrote: $27 shipping to Canada—are you mad Forge World. I really want a plastic spruce of hangers-on.
I have never paid postage to FW and I have no plans doing so. Back in the day free shipping treshold was quite high so you had to plan purchases. Nowadays it is lower and models are more expensive so you usually reach free shipping without even trying.
TBD wrote: I thought Servalen would be a plastic GW release but it turns out it is Forge World... that means no sale then. Too bad because I really like the model.
Any particular reason why you thought she'd be GW plastic? I mean, I can count the number of individual character releases GW have put out in plastic on one hand after a nasty accident with a table saw - I think we're only looking at the Kal Jericho and Stubbs set, to date.
In the early previews I was expecting the Death Maidens to be resin as well. In general all the specialist and pet necromunda releases have been resin from FW. Which is thankfully a world away and superior to finecast.
Chairman Aeon wrote: $27 shipping to Canada—are you mad Forge World. I really want a plastic spruce of hangers-on.
This is one of the rare instances where you actually can blame somebody else - international postage is garbage these days all around. I used to order stuff from the USA all the time since it was often cheaper even with the risk of being slapped with duty fees, but these days once you account for shipping the price difference is often so small it doesn't justify the 1-2 week wait.
Rubbish! Stop empowering multinational corporations to pocket shipping and handling costs as profit. As some one selling my childhood to people all over the world there is no way two small blisters cost $27 to send from England to Canada—unless it’s next day delivery. And once you’ve discounted that option the difference between the rest of the options is days not weeks.
Besides wasn’t FW supposed to have some US operations or stock? It’s almost like they want me to order from across the other pond.
And if it's coming from the US...prices have been getting jacked up because the USPS has been getting gutted. Even though FedEx is a private company and is what GW uses, their stuff goes through the USPS because that's how these shipping companies keep $$ flowing, by foisting it onto the USPS.
Chairman Aeon wrote: $27 shipping to Canada—are you mad Forge World. I really want a plastic spruce of hangers-on.
This is one of the rare instances where you actually can blame somebody else - international postage is garbage these days all around. I used to order stuff from the USA all the time since it was often cheaper even with the risk of being slapped with duty fees, but these days once you account for shipping the price difference is often so small it doesn't justify the 1-2 week wait.
Rubbish! Stop empowering multinational corporations to pocket shipping and handling costs as profit. As some one selling my childhood to people all over the world there is no way two small blisters cost $27 to send from England to Canada—unless it’s next day delivery. And once you’ve discounted that option the difference between the rest of the options is days not weeks.
Besides wasn’t FW supposed to have some US operations or stock? It’s almost like they want me to order from across the other pond.
I don't moralise about "alternative providers", but don't kid yourself that you're going to them because FW are "forcing" you with unreasonable(ie, standard) posting costs. There are loads of North American companies that make cool things I'd like - t-shirts, models, computer accessories - which I have to pass on because I can't justify either doubling their price with shipping costs or rolling the dice on untracked rickety paddlesteamer-tier surface mail. Another thing I don't normally do is use the word "entitlement", but hey, if shoe fits then wear it.
TBD wrote: I thought Servalen would be a plastic GW release but it turns out it is Forge World... that means no sale then. Too bad because I really like the model.
None of these special characters or additional minis are GW plastic, everything is FW resin. Only exception is Kal & Scabs (one time exception).
Core parts of the main gangs will however be plastic, like new specialist champs and prospects.
Any particular reason why you thought she'd be GW plastic? I mean, I can count the number of individual character releases GW have put out in plastic on one hand after a nasty accident with a table saw - I think we're only looking at the Kal Jericho and Stubbs set, to date.
TBD wrote: I thought Servalen would be a plastic GW release but it turns out it is Forge World... that means no sale then. Too bad because I really like the model.
Any particular reason why you thought she'd be GW plastic? I mean, I can count the number of individual character releases GW have put out in plastic on one hand after a nasty accident with a table saw - I think we're only looking at the Kal Jericho and Stubbs set, to date.
Because when it was initially previewed on the Community page it nowhere said it would be Forge World and I never paid attention to any of the previous characters since they are ugly miniatures. Also I probably saw the kit you mentioned at the local store(s) so it might not weird to think there might be more plastic kits coming.
GW should preview FW and their non-FW stuff separately so the people who are not interested in FW don't see it mixed with the regular releases.
GW should preview FW and their non-FW stuff separately so the people who are not interested in FW don't see it mixed with the regular releases.
If they do that they lose out on sales. AoS shows this, they dropped a load of really great sculpts from the line this year, yet kept all the Goblin models - guess which ones were about the only ones that got a fair bit of marketing and showing on the GW community pages. Granted that wasn't the only reason, but suffice to say if FW gets left to one side then its market will never grow. They should be advertised side by side not hidden away in a dark corner.
GW should preview FW and their non-FW stuff separately so the people who are not interested in FW don't see it mixed with the regular releases.
If they do that they lose out on sales. AoS shows this, they dropped a load of really great sculpts from the line this year, yet kept all the Goblin models - guess which ones were about the only ones that got a fair bit of marketing and showing on the GW community pages. Granted that wasn't the only reason, but suffice to say if FW gets left to one side then its market will never grow. They should be advertised side by side not hidden away in a dark corner.
While that may be true, if they do it the way TBD wants them to do it, he won't have to pay as much attention, so there is that trade off to consider.
Yep that's the missing Escher! Champions with hammers and claws and what looks like weapon/upgrade pack number 4 with the sword, underslung plasmagun and more.
That completes Escher save for their warbeast releases - which is odd because darn it Escher are supposed to field more warebeasts than the other clans
Not impressed: not a single new hand flamer in sight!
But seriously, not a bad pack in terms of filling the gaps in the range a bit, including some nice "different" arms (i.e. holding grenades and the likes, or the two-handed sword). And of course a nice power axe, which the FAQ told us they can't take anymore...
Shocking. Absolutely shocking. I'm shocked. This is my shocked face:
Coenus Scaldingus wrote: And of course a nice power axe, which the FAQ told us they can't take anymore...
Well it wouldn't be Newcromunda without obvious grievous errors that would take but a moment to fix yet somehow they still manage to feth it up in the FAQ.
Still, nice accessories. I have the other three (although I only bought two... weird), and 2 boxes of unbuilt Eschers. Not sure how I'll use it all. Honestly I'm more interested in the idea of further accessories for Orlocks/Goliaths. Wouldn't the world be grand if they granted us a one-handed Stub Cannon for Goliaths?
And of course the Slave Ogryn Gang is just crying for a weapons pack to make up for the beyond limited selection in its box.
Chopstick wrote: Look useful, but not very exciting considered most of them are useless for the new Wyld Runner and zombie champs.
Also no right arm servo claw.
And Goliath need an upgrade pack too.
Not having the Escher book, is there much room for upgrade options on the Wyld Runners and zombie women?
They have very limited weapon choice from their house list, their trading post choice also limited them to pistol and CC weapons, unless you promote them, or just use the model as other role.
The toy for Escher in this book is the chem that enhance their toxin and gas weapon, but they are one use per game, and have no model presentation.
Still, nice accessories. I have the other three (although I only bought two... weird), and 2 boxes of unbuilt Eschers. Not sure how I'll use it all. Honestly I'm more interested in the idea of further accessories for Orlocks/Goliaths. Wouldn't the world be grand if they granted us a one-handed Stub Cannon for Goliaths?
Yup, I bought 3 upgrade packs already, for the same price as an average game's starter box. Do I buy the 4th? Because the game is never "finished", I haven't had time or energy to even start on escher. I may end up dropping all of that plastic and resin and use 3rd party minis instead (Raging Heroes).
The constant meaningless changing of the game drains my energy for this game. I'm not interested in buying, building or painting any more gangs and definitly not any new pets, super champs or super juves. I never knew making a game "living" could kill it.
Still, nice accessories. I have the other three (although I only bought two... weird), and 2 boxes of unbuilt Eschers. Not sure how I'll use it all. Honestly I'm more interested in the idea of further accessories for Orlocks/Goliaths. Wouldn't the world be grand if they granted us a one-handed Stub Cannon for Goliaths?
Yup, I bought 3 upgrade packs already, for the same price as an average game's starter box. Do I buy the 4th? Because the game is never "finished", I haven't had time or energy to even start on escher. I may end up dropping all of that plastic and resin and use 3rd party minis instead (Raging Heroes).
The constant meaningless changing of the game drains my energy for this game. I'm not interested in buying, building or painting any more gangs and definitly not any new pets, super champs or super juves. I never knew making a game "living" could kill it.
I mean its "living" as much as 40K or AoS or Warmachine etc... It's just getting new content added to it.
The other flipside is a game with no new models and no new content released.
Consideirng most games that fall into the latter category tend to get forgotten/abandoned/dwindle in sales till they are pulled from sale - then I'm rather glad Necromunda keeps getting new content.
How many players know that Enforcers were just updated with a 3rd type of doggo (hardcase) from the Servalen release?
I play Underworlds and have played 40k and fantasy. Nothing of what goes on in other games resemble the chaos necromunda is in at the moment. It's not like the core rules of the game accidentally change after Morgok or Morgwaeth was released?
They can continue to release and sell new minis for 4-5 years without needing to make a single page of rules. Everytime they do make new rules however, it fails miserably.
I mean its not as if most Escher are well armoured to start with
Price is exactly what you'd expect for a resin character, £19 is the same as they charge for most of the other character models such as bounty hunters and the like.
They're hardly "resin characters" Overread. They're just Gang Champs, something you can make with the regular box. A box of Escher is cheaper than the four of the combined.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They're hardly "resin characters" Overread. They're just Gang Champs, something you can make with the regular box. A box of Escher is cheaper than the four of the combined.
But they are 100% full resin models exactly the same size as the bountyhunters/champions/etc... that FW has sold for ages. So it makes sense that they'd be sold at the same price.
Chopstick wrote: Also those "champs" are the only source for the official combi pistol and servo claw bits, and still there're no right arm for those weapons....
There's combi-weapon bits in the Champions Weapons pack (and a few of the HH kits) if you're up to some kit-bashing.
Overread wrote: But they are 100% full resin models exactly the same size as the bountyhunters/champions/etc... that FW has sold for ages. So it makes sense that they'd be sold at the same price.
That doesn't make it ok. It just means that they're all overpriced.
Those champs look much better unpainted, I was unimpressed when I saw the painted versions but now I’m considering getting one, despite the price.
Does anybody remember the time when GW was talking about how their long term goal was to produce everything in plastic, and how it would be cheaper? Now we live in a world where GW plastic characters cost more than FW resin characters.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They're hardly "resin characters" Overread. They're just Gang Champs, something you can make with the regular box. A box of Escher is cheaper than the four of the combined.
But they are 100% full resin models exactly the same size as the bountyhunters/champions/etc... that FW has sold for ages. So it makes sense that they'd be sold at the same price.
Same price as Belladonna or Kria, yes, but Thaetos 23-2 is significantly cheaper, Servalen is the same price for her plus the cyber doggie, Yar Umbra and the Deserter are the same price for the both of them together, and the "Necromunda Hired Guns" are only marginally more expensive for the three of them. Until the figures went up on the webstore, I for one would not have been able to predict a particular pricetag for them with any great confidence.
At a price closer to the three Hired Guns, I may well have contemplated a purchase just for the various bits (the figures as they are look fairly unappealing), but like this, a definite no. Bit of a waste of resin, and sculpting time.
Undead_Love-Machine wrote: Those champs look much better unpainted, I was unimpressed when I saw the painted versions but now I’m considering getting one, despite the price.
Does anybody remember the time when GW was talking about how their long term goal was to produce everything in plastic, and how it would be cheaper? Now we live in a world where GW plastic characters cost more than FW resin characters.
Not the first time. CDs cost pennies to make vs vinyl or cassette tapes but cost as much.
Ebooks and buying films online costs the same or more despite having near zero manufacturing and distribution costs.
Something, something late stage capitalism. Prices are based on what the market will bear, not costs.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Ebooks and buying films online costs the same or more despite having near zero manufacturing and distribution costs.
This is a myth. With videos, you need pretty good, speedy server. Any delay and you make experience unwatchable and are flooded with refund demands. There is a reason why youtube competitors are small and few, you need to invest huge sums into infrastructure first.
Ditto with ebooks, I did university class on these and "no manufacturing cost" isn't even remotely true. With a book, you need to do layout once, for your desired paper size, you're done pretty fast. With ebooks, you need to make something that will correctly format on dozens of different screens and devices, look good, and be readable - which isn't exactly trivial and if you gave me choice I'd pick doing proofs for paper, not ebook, any day.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Ebooks and buying films online costs the same or more despite having near zero manufacturing and distribution costs.
This is a myth. With videos, you need pretty good, speedy server. Any delay and you make experience unwatchable and are flooded with refund demands. There is a reason why youtube competitors are small and few, you need to invest huge sums into infrastructure first.
Ditto with ebooks, I did university class on these and "no manufacturing cost" isn't even remotely true. With a book, you need to do layout once, for your desired paper size, you're done pretty fast. With ebooks, you need to make something that will correctly format on dozens of different screens and devices, look good, and be readable - which isn't exactly trivial and if you gave me choice I'd pick doing proofs for paper, not ebook, any day.
You're acting like people need to establish an entire Netflix-tier infrastructure to sell things on the internet. It's an undeniable fact that it costs less to distribute things digitally.
Also, paying one person to work, say, five times as long doing the initial layouts is more than compensated for by not having to pay multiple people on an ongoing basis to use the physical materials you also paid for and the machines which you're paying to operate to produce the physical goods, which you then have to pay more people to ship and warehouse and deliver and retail.
No, the cost of bringing digital goods to market is not literally "zero", but it's so minute - either taken in isolation or especially in comparison to the costs associated with physical goods - the idea that it provides a justification for keeping digital prices at the same or very nearly the same level as physical products is completely untenable. Like Kid_Kyoto says, digital goods cost what they do because people will pay it, not because the costs require it.
And Necromunda is an absolute of gak-show and repeated content.
Still very much part of GW and still part of the corporate structure. But we can argue back and forth the organisational struture and corporate politics all day until we're blue in the face and not get anywhere, so I'll refrain from any further comments on this.
As for the rest, well, yeah, it's a chaotic mess. Not sure what that's got to do with rules and models though. But again, personally, I'm rather enjoying the chaotic nature of the rules - very early GW!
Arachnos just looks ace. I can also see plenty of Adeptus Mechanicus/Haemonculi Coven conversions coming out of this.
I like that Forgeworld is making these little character models for Necromunda, though I want them to consider making minis for characters already in the rulebooks.
zedmeister wrote: Still very much part of GW and still part of the corporate structure.
Never said it wasn't, but we know that there are issues between GW proper and FW.
zedmeister wrote: Not sure what that's got to do with rules and models though.
It's indicative of all the issues that Newcromunda has had since it started. It's best described as an Early Access game that still hasn't hit V1.0 in 3 years.
If I'm honest, I don't think you'll ever have a V1 of the rules, whatever that entails. Going forward, you'll probably see an ongoing series like the house books presented so far but for additional gangs and so on. Each house book will probably have new additional rules and iterations and so on until a new annual and/or rulebook comes out to try to codify it all before the cycle starts again.
Another rushed release. More rules for the sake of more rules (bloat). The new weapon profile is different in the pdf from the web article. The new ability to recover seriously injured fighters is written without regard to any existing rules. Can it be used if Arachnos is broken, ablaze, pinned, seriously injured, insane or engaged? Can it be used in addition to the standard 1" recovery assistance? Abysmal quality... cool mini though.
That's a REALLY neat way of adding special characters to your gang - make them a hanger on rather than a Bounty Hunter/Scum/some other thing you have to keep paying for forever.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Is that special character one of the ones that's had rules for ages whilst we waited for the mini?
Both. It is a special character hangers-on version of the rogue doc. You could still use it as a generic rogue doc if you want. Similar style to the squat ammo jack and ratling slopper. All of these have a special rule allowing them to always take part in battles (so you get more use of the minis), because regular hangers-on almost never take part in battles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Graphite wrote: That's a REALLY neat way of adding special characters to your gang - make them a hanger on rather than a Bounty Hunter/Scum/some other thing you have to keep paying for forever.
That's not new though, it was the same for Ragnir ammo jack and Bigby slopper. Note that these hangers-on are weak compared to the expensive bounty hunters or even most hive scum. But you are right, a lot cheaper!
Fair enough, hadn't noticed it before - it'd certainly be a better way to actually add Scum than what we've got.
A fighter who turns up when you want, is pretty skilled but can't gain any xp, and the second he picks up any kind of injury wanders off? That would be something worth considering.
This fighter should be worse than most regular fighters in your gang, so you'd be better off not including this fighter (only applicable for random crews).
Funny how the article swapped the AP and Damage characteristic. Toxin with D1.... As those of us who have played should already know, Toxin does not inflict Damage. I guess it's safe to assume the profile in the pdf is correct, having -1 AP instead. They couldn't even get a single weapon profile right.
Blood Bowl already has a new edition invalidating all those cards (somewhere around 200). Also invalidated any star player or team not released in plastic/resin.
I could see the same for Necromunda. While we shouldn't expect a lot of new gangs. We already have 12 + 1 infected/corrupted per house (so 24 if you include variants).
For the cards (and everything else), the game is damned either way. A new release would invalidate tons of content. However, having all this content is a curse too. 388 tactics cards divided into 2 separate categories? Ouch!
Chairman Aeon wrote: Delaque are the Sister of Necromunda—the heralds of a new edition?
Agreed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: with my luck, Delaque will get something about a week before the new edition comes out.
That would fit with a 2021 release of a new edition.
Or my favorite option, a new edition in all but name like they did with the hard backed books superseding the Underhive box and Gang War supplements.
Really hope they don’t go in for another rework. I want to see scavvies, redemptionists, spyrers, ash waste nomads, ratskins and Karloff Valois and his hoard of plague zombies!
Cool model, but if it's resin I doubt i'd buy it. I like resin for little stuff like heads and maybe weapon arms and small stuff but not whole miniatures. When it comes to this game i'm pretty much just looking forward to them rounding out the rest of the house books and kits.
zedmeister wrote: Really hope they don’t go in for another rework. I want to see scavvies, redemptionists, spyrers, ash waste nomads, ratskins and Karloff Valois and his hoard of plague zombies!
A new core rulebook I can see happening after the 6 House of [...] books, but surely they won't redo the Houses again after that... right? Updated hardback codex-style books for other gangs that don't have them yet, probably (preferably before a new rulebook, so that the rulebook may in fact be compatible with all the existing material), but any further reworks seem a waste of time, resources and the last bit of goodwill the players might have. The only new things I want so see for Goliath or Escher after today are new miniatures for existing profiles: not a single new thing that's not already in either the House of Chains or the House of Blades, not a single new profile or addition (aside from an FAQed power axe option to be reinstated for the Eschers).
The Doctor is a fantastic model. I guess that if GW hadn't just released a new Fabius Bile, it'd come across as more original, but as it stands, it's still a fantastic model
I still think the 24 euros and above price point for every single Necromunda character is pretty hard pill to swallow, alas. I reckon I could make my own version of the guy for much cheaper, especially if I had access to a 3D printer (the 200-300 euros to gets started with one of those starts looking really appealing when you can print half a dozen necromunda-sized characters in one batch and in pretty decent quality...)
zedmeister wrote: Really hope they don’t go in for another rework. I want to see scavvies, redemptionists, spyrers, ash waste nomads, ratskins and Karloff Valois and his hoard of plague zombies!
A new core rulebook I can see happening after the 6 House of [...] books, but surely they won't redo the Houses again after that... right?..,.
All that needs to happen is a change to the stat line ala Blood Bowl (fans said cool, willpower and intelligence played too small a part in the game so we re-imagined them like so..) and we’re off to the races again. House of Scav Or Rats may be part of that but I can completely see them doing new gang books and/or annuals that would impact the major gangs.
Interesting... so the Goliaths upgrade their genetics, the Escher boost up with various chems and we Orlocks get enhanced skills purely from having a cool nickname.
Graphite wrote: Interesting... so the Goliaths upgrade their genetics, the Escher boost up with various chems and we Orlocks get enhanced skills purely from having a cool nickname.
I don't really care about the background reason for their "house buff" but reading that rundown makes me a little worried about the balance of the gangs.
Gene-smithing is extremely powerful. Escher drugs have powerful applications but are so costly that they don't compare to Gene-smithing. Now it looks like the Orlock buff might only be applicable to Leaders and Champions, and might replace a normal enhancement? That would be godawful faction balance.
Graphite wrote: Interesting... so the Goliaths upgrade their genetics, the Escher boost up with various chems and we Orlocks get enhanced skills purely from having a cool nickname.
I don't really care about the background reason for their "house buff" but reading that rundown makes me a little worried about the balance of the gangs.
Gene-smithing is extremely powerful. Escher drugs have powerful applications but are so costly that they don't compare to Gene-smithing. Now it looks like the Orlock buff might only be applicable to Leaders and Champions, and might replace a normal enhancement? That would be godawful faction balance.
There is a certain amount of asymmetry to how they attempt to balance things. On some level because there are a variety of rules for players and GM's to use to balance their games gangs do not need to be so directly balanced with comparable mechanics.
Not saying they should or shouldn't have more in the ways of those kinds of rule, but I'm sure the developers had a conversation along these lines... "Orlocks are the gang of generic humans and they kinda stop being that if more than just the most standout and note worthy member of a gang are able to gain these kinds of special rules".
The fact that we've got a tactic that give us free Scum concerns me.
We're going to get the Guild of Iron and Narco Lords as our normal allies, aren't we? No interesting guilders or criminals for you, Orlocks. Just Scum. Millions and millions of Scum.
Graphite wrote: The fact that we've got a tactic that give us free Scum concerns me.
We're going to get the Guild of Iron and Narco Lords as our normal allies, aren't we? No interesting guilders or criminals for you, Orlocks. Just Scum. Millions and millions of Scum.
They’ve already put the Narco Lords with the Goliath, so it can’t be them, at least. For guilders my guess is Guild of Coin, due to the travel connection.
Didn't realise the Narcs were already spoken for. Guild of Coin would make sense, but so does Guild of Iron. I'm fine with either, it would just be a bit galling to have both the scum alliances.
Dysartes wrote: Let's be fair - Primus is a wretched Hive of Scum and villainy, so it isn't like it'd be out of character...
You mean its worse than Mos Eisley....???? We were told we would never find such a place......
Bah they use fancy faster-than-light engines in Starwars. They don't go through literal hell to cross the vast empty blackness of space.
the have FTL Engines in SW enable them to travel thru Hyperspace and non-canon the dark side of the force was needed to do so before hyperspace engines were devloped
so it is not that far off
House of Iron up for pre-order! Includes new Book, dice, cards, new pack of models and a new modular command base terrain kit.
Note Escher cards went out of stock VERY fast so if you want em grab em fast
Those dice are weird; they look almost identical to the first edition of Orlock dice. All the other 2nd edition dice sets have contrasted quite strongly with their predecessors.
Although tbf I've noticed that the product photography for Necromunda dice usually doesn't depict their colour and finish accurately, so maybe these ones look more differentiated irl.
Where are those terrain sets located? I saw another one from Esher, I think, and lost track of it's location of where to get it...
These new figures are pretty cool. The Jetpacks give me some ideas, Thats something that you'd drop an Ork tactic on and drop a mass of young' un's on an enemies head in a human wave, and not even care if one or two exploded on impact.
SMH on the foregworld stuff though, If anything that makes me want to go scrounge up more command sprues from IG and use that equipment from them and the Scions sets.
So far, I ccan see equipment that you can "As is" all day long with no reason to throw in for resin bits overpriced and under used.
Heck, Vic's got some sweet bits that beat that Forge World dog in every way.
Grot 6 wrote: SMH on the foregworld stuff though, If anything that makes me want to go scrounge up more command sprues from IG and use that equipment from them and the Scions sets.
So far, I ccan see equipment that you can "As is" all day long with no reason to throw in for resin bits overpriced and under used.
Heck, Vic's got some sweet bits that beat that Forge World dog in every way.
...which Forge World stuff are you complaining about this time, Grot? There was nothing previewed for Necromunda from Forge World either on yesterday's "Next week's pre-releases" article (merely a DA unit for HH), nor the previous day's "Gridiron & Glory" preview day, where there was nothing for Necro at all.
That cloud was innocent, and didn't need shouting at.
Been meaning to ask for a while now, but seeing as how I'll be spending a fair bit next Sat on these preorders, does anyone here use ElementGames? If so, please send my your crystals reference - rather send a few extra rewards over to a fellow member rather than a rando account that may not even be active anymore.
Clockpunk wrote: Been meaning to ask for a while now, but seeing as how I'll be spending a fair bit next Sat on these preorders, does anyone here use ElementGames? If so, please send my your crystals reference - rather send a few extra rewards over to a fellow member rather than a rando account that may not even be active anymore.
If you still need a code then mine is GAV9887. Thanks!
I don’t have anyone set as my referral at moment so if you let me know your code then I can do the same.
To those outside of House Orlock, the sentimentality shown to their dogs is unusual, but for those within the clan, they will happily spend creds on cybernetics for their hounds to compensate for past injuries. The House of Iron book also introduces a new Orlock-specific Hive Scum, D060-K13, a Hardcase Cyber-mastiff.
Grot 6 wrote: SMH on the foregworld stuff though, If anything that makes me want to go scrounge up more command sprues from IG and use that equipment from them and the Scions sets.
So far, I ccan see equipment that you can "As is" all day long with no reason to throw in for resin bits overpriced and under used.
Heck, Vic's got some sweet bits that beat that Forge World dog in every way.
...which Forge World stuff are you complaining about this time, Grot? There was nothing previewed for Necromunda from Forge World either on yesterday's "Next week's pre-releases" article (merely a DA unit for HH), nor the previous day's "Gridiron & Glory" preview day, where there was nothing for Necro at all.
That cloud was innocent, and didn't need shouting at.
Only thing I made was an observation, chief. Not that you read it, anyway...
- Forgeworld equipment for the Eshers, and Orlocks, to be exact. Not enough for the price.
I said that there was a better deal to use the stuff from the IG, and Scions- Which is what I did this weekend... I picked up a few sprues of extra gear and are looking hard at Vic's stuff over in her bits on site. (2 bucks a sprue, at that.)
I can see where your misquoting can get you in trouble, though.. everyone's gangster until they start cutting and pasting menial quotes.
To leave it on a good note, The gang you want is the Corpse Grinder Cultists. Great looking figures, and even greater looking with this big box of plastic that if your not careful, you throw your back out with.
I have the genuine question thought on that Gang base, and if there was another one that was posted about a few months back that fell off the radar, for the Eshers.
Was there such a base, or is the one for the Orlocks base pictured above the only one so far?
Grot 6 wrote: I have the genuine question thought on that Gang base, and if there was another one that was posted about a few months back that fell off the radar, for the Eshers. Was there such a base, or is the one for the Orlocks base pictured above the only one so far?
Goliath got barricades, a turret & Gang Relics in their book and Escher got gas things, traps & Gang Relics - but neither had a model release (I thought there was a WarCom article about converting them, but I can't find it now).
At least I've got the rules to support my position - hell, I've quoted them. I'd counter that trying to make an argument that doesn't bother to acknowledge the rules is beyond stupid.
.
