Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Baxx wrote:

 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.

 Dysartes wrote:
At least seven.

Ok keep'em coming then!

Chopstick wrote:

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.

Baxx wrote:
I don't understand why the game needed a 5th hammer. How many hammers are sufficient for Necromunda?

Well, it is produced under the Warhammer brand...

Baxx wrote:
I don't understand why the game needed a 5th hammer. How many hammers are sufficient for Necromunda?

Depends on how many nails need to be applied into the Necromunda coffin.

Baxx wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
At least seven.

Ok keep'em coming then!

Chopstick wrote:

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).

 Altruizine wrote:

Spoiler:

Baxx wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
At least seven.

Ok keep'em coming then!

Chopstick wrote:

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.

 Altruizine wrote:

Baxx wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
At least seven.

Ok keep'em coming then!

Chopstick wrote:

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.

 Coenus Scaldingus wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

Spoiler:

Baxx wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
At least seven.

Ok keep'em coming then!

Chopstick wrote:

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.

Voss wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

Baxx wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
At least seven.

Ok keep'em coming then!

Chopstick wrote:

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.

 Theophony wrote:

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?!?

 Altruizine wrote:

Confusion and memorization are personal issues.

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!

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 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.

Clockpunk wrote:

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...

 endtransmission wrote:

Clockpunk wrote:

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.

If only the enemy AI was half as good

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 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.

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.

Baxx wrote:
I don't understand why the game needed a 5th hammer. How many hammers are sufficient for Necromunda?

I don't usually work blue but...

 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.

 endtransmission wrote:

Clockpunk wrote:

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.