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.

Vorian wrote:
It isn't inevitable that they have their gang devastated though.

If the game allows people to be so badly beaten that the rest of the campaign isn't fun anymore then it's a failure of design.

I haven't played the current campaign to say if that's the case or not, but in general there should be mechanisms to help recovery and stop run away success.

All down to the luck of the dice though, and at least some player skill.

We’ve all had nasty surprises happen to us, and lost a Ganger or three in the first couple of games. That’s not a design flaw, because it’s relatively rare.

If it’s your first game and 50% of your Gang is left pushing up the daisies, then I can understand the reset switch. But if it’s over three or four games? Hazard of the system.

Nope, if you are turning up to a game with 0% chance of winning the game is broken.

It is a situation that should have been foreseen and solved before it ever occurred.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
IMO? yes. I don't agree with the sort of play that involves challenging a higher-rating gang then bottling ASAP just to farm the underdog bonus - you've got to try to attempt the mission, at least - but if stuff starts going wrong? Yes, I'll run. If my leader's dead and a Champion has a sucking chest wound, then my one remaining champion is going to throw in the towel. Give it a couple of "side games" and they'll be back. If you're just re-starting the gang at the first sign of trouble, why not just play skirmish mode all the time?

There is underdog compensation, though, isn't there? bonus Reputation or tactics cards, anyway.

Bionics in Necromunda '95 weren't much cop as a balancing mechanism because they were rare. I had a few, but most of my injured gangers just struggled on with the missing body parts.

This isn't me speaking from a position of lofty strength here - my champions have missed as many games as they've been in, I've got a collection of reduced WS and S fighters and I've got a rescue mission to do (thankfully it's only for a ganger). I'm doing my dues at the bottom of the leaderboard.

But you're tweaking it away from the scenario we're discussing! You don't challenge a higher-rating gang. You could very well be the higher rating gang, except you got less Toughness and Wounds than your lower-rating opponent. So good luck trying to attempt the mission with T2 W1 leader/champions. Stuff goes wrong, and your gang rating is not affected by it! If you ever manage to "get back", you'll be at a disadvantage because you now have a higher gang rating for weaker fighters. Which means that again, your opponent could get additional Toughness or Wound level-ups and still be the underdog compared to you.

My motiviation for playing Necromunda is the infinite game, so the finite game of Skirmish mode is not something I care for. Same with Blood Bowl really. I much enjoy leagues over tournaments.

There is no underdog compensation for playing a crippled gang! There is even a punishment for losing your leader, so while you normally would be the underdog, your opponent is receiving the underdog bonuses instead.

Bionics in original Necromunda, 2nd edition and NCE was good motivation to hang on to your crippled fighters. Now there is no such motivation, hence re-buying them.

My brutal Renderizer champion crushed so many enemy fighters. He earned his +1 WS. This would take his cost (and the gang rating) up +30. Next game, he gets karma'd and receives -1WS. Now he is back to base WS, and any further level-ups requires more XP. But my opponent may have +1WS level-up and still not be underdog. The champion is bloated. This is not something that would cause me to restart the gang. This is something I'd fix easily by just paying 150 credits. Now the Champion can level up faster and give less impact on gang rating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vorian wrote:
That's fine if you enjoy it. But a significant number of people will just lose enthusiasm and stop playing the campaign.

The campaign system should always result in games where both people actually have a chance at the start of a game.

I have very little interest of the finite (sub) game that the scenario is, compared to the infinite game of campaign. Remember previous Necromunda? Playing against a much powerful gang was something I enjoyed, even when having little to no chance of winning. Winning the battle is less important than winning the war. The previous underdog system would award you with great amounts of XP for playing stronger gangs, so even if I lost, my gang would get a bunch of level-ups like +1BS, +1WS, +1S, +1W, +1T. You wouldn't need to play many such games before your underdog gang was no longer underdog, but instead equally or more powerful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

All down to the luck of the dice though, and at least some player skill.

We’ve all had nasty surprises happen to us, and lost a Ganger or three in the first couple of games. That’s not a design flaw, because it’s relatively rare.

If it’s your first game and 50% of your Gang is left pushing up the daisies, then I can understand the reset switch. But if it’s over three or four games? Hazard of the system.

I can't help but get the feeling you're commenting on the basis of losing a couple of Gangers or 3. I can replace 2-3 Gangers per game as long as my Champions and Leader survives! I never restart the gang because I lose Gangers, hardly ever even if I lose Champions. Money is so cheap in N17, replacing Gangers is hardly an issue. Losing the leader is not something that is rare, it happens to me frequently.

Some of the bonuses trigger off gang rating, so yes, a high-rating gang full of crippled fighters might be disadvantaged. However, others trigger off crew rating - so it doesn't matter if my gang rating is sky high, if I've only got three models turning up, I'll get that bonus.

Also, you're doing better than I am; enough credits to replace 2-3 gangers per game? I wish! it's taking me slightly over a game to recruit a new ganger. How are you managing to get so much cash while simultaneously having no available champions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was never keen on relying on bionics to patch up my fighters - they hardly ever appeared at the trading post, so at best they were a way to patch up a leader or a particularly well-favoured ganger, but most of my other crippled fighters just had to do the best they could with a gammy leg and only six fingers.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Some of the bonuses trigger off gang rating, so yes, a high-rating gang full of crippled fighters might be disadvantaged. However, others trigger off crew rating - so it doesn't matter if my gang rating is sky high, if I've only got three models turning up, I'll get that bonus.

Also, you're doing better than I am; enough credits to replace 2-3 gangers per game? I wish! it's taking me slightly over a game to recruit a new ganger. How are you managing to get so much cash while simultaneously having no available champions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was never keen on relying on bionics to patch up my fighters - they hardly ever appeared at the trading post, so at best they were a way to patch up a leader or a particularly well-favoured ganger, but most of my other crippled fighters just had to do the best they could with a gammy leg and only six fingers.

Are you twisting the case? I got my champions available (specifically stated so in my argument). Fixer skill also helps.

Chaos can earn 4D6x10 credits, their gangers cost 35. Orlock can earn 3D6x10 + 3D3x10.

How are you able to get a bonus based on crew rating? How can your crew not be bloated if your gang is bloated?

Baxx wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

Baxx wrote:
The more you pile on negative consequences, the more often I re-start the gang. Gives less continuation, less progress.

Lightweight. I've never restarted a gang in a campaign, no matter how badly mauled. Takes the fun out of it.

As for removing other gangers from the campaign, do the Venators get to capture more gangers than usual? After all, you get one at most, if you hold the field at the end, and then the other side gets to do a rescue mission. And once they are sold, that's what the prison break scenario is for.

Losing the leader and having both champions in Recovery with -1T / -1BS / -1W takes the fund out of it. How fun would our 2nd game be? You won the first one, devastated my gang and now you get to rape a small gang consisting of only survivors? I don't get to play more than a handful of games per month. Therefore I insist those games should be of quality. I'd love to have enough games that I can just plough through all the losses.

There are ways around this though
- You play someone else who similarly suffered in the first round of play
- You play a scenario that favours the weaker gang

I do think the classic game is better in this regard and really something the new game needs; the 'giant killer' bonuses you get for the smaller gang, the increased chance of lower gang rating be able to choose a scenario, the fact that all of your gangers can work territories (rather than the 'all eggs in one basket' of only champs/leader), and the moderation through increased cost for larger gangs.

The only time I ever saw a restart with classic Necro was following that custom mission where gangers have to sail around the swamp hunting for the crystal eyes from the swamp-spiders. We didn't play enough terrain and one guy was supremely unlucky and had about 5 gangers fall into the swamp and be insta-killed. But otherwise, even if you get an ass-kicking in a few games the regulatory mechanisms and some careful choice of scenarios should help you back on your feet.

Sure if you have many players to choose from, you can pair up the weakest. Unfortunately I don't have much choice, there's about 2-3 other friends where I live that play Necromunda.

My point was, when you lose the leader, even if you get back on your feet, you'll be at a permanent disadvantage (your opponent will be the underdog while having a more powerful gang). This was not the case before, where losing the leader could make your gang better.

Maybe the release is near?

Is that from GW, or your own work?

From their Facebook page.

Those things being imitation Guardian spears is actually pretty clever.

 BrookM wrote:
From their Facebook page.

Those things being imitation Guardian spears is actually pretty clever.

It also means they have seen guardian spears... which means Custodes in the Underhive!

or that imperial propaganda has made its way into the trash for Cawdor to find...

Vorian wrote:
Nope, if you are turning up to a game with 0% chance of winning the game is broken.

It is a situation that should have been foreseen and solved before it ever occurred.

If you genuinely see a 0% chance of a win, that’s not the game, but yourself.

I for one do not mind the odd uphill struggle. Just adapt your tactics accordingly. Look to mob individual enemy fighters. Do what you can to get the odds more in your favour. There are no 0% chances of winning. Ever.

After my first game of the cycle, I had my leader, a champion and a ganger left for the next match, after losing my 2nd champ to a stingy doctor and my other 3 fighters were in recovery.
Game 2 was against a full strength Orlock team (hadn't played anyone else yet due to scheduling.)
We rolled for scenario. I got to pick, choose sabotage, and played Metal Gear Solid with my goliaths.
He came close to killing my boss, by we blew up the objective and bolted.
He didn't gain much, just 10 creds and 1xp for all his guys.
On the other hand, I gained a 100 (at 190 now) creds, a bunch of rep, and both my leader and champ have 9xp to spend
And that was 3v10.

Necromunda isn't such a unbalanced game you can't always find a victory for yourself.
Just my 2 cents.

CAWDOR WHEN

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Nope, if you are turning up to a game with 0% chance of winning the game is broken.

It is a situation that should have been foreseen and solved before it ever occurred.

If you genuinely see a 0% chance of a win, that’s not the game, but yourself.

I for one do not mind the odd uphill struggle. Just adapt your tactics accordingly. Look to mob individual enemy fighters. Do what you can to get the odds more in your favour. There are no 0% chances of winning. Ever.

Good grief. It might surprise you to learn I didn't literally mean a 0% chance.

Technically there's a non 0% chance I can walk through a wall, that doesn't make for a fun game either.

stormboy wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
From their Facebook page.

Those things being imitation Guardian spears is actually pretty clever.

It also means they have seen guardian spears... which means Custodes in the Underhive!

or that imperial propaganda has made its way into the trash for Cawdor to find...

I imagine that they feature in a lot of artwork (especially Ecclesiarchy stuff like stained-glass windows) and mythology. I really like the Cawdor weapons because they fit them so well, and also the idea of Custodes and other Imperial elements (including Space Marines) being these mythical bits of holy lore. I also enjoy when it's made more obvious that the Imperium is not one mind about anything; ie the average citizens don't know the same information we do, and across the Imperium there are wildly different interpretations, myths, methods of worship, and so on.

I don't mind a 0.1% winning chance, like walking through wall. Just reap the rewards afterwards, make stronger gang out of it.

Vorian wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Nope, if you are turning up to a game with 0% chance of winning the game is broken.

It is a situation that should have been foreseen and solved before it ever occurred.

If you genuinely see a 0% chance of a win, that’s not the game, but yourself.

I for one do not mind the odd uphill struggle. Just adapt your tactics accordingly. Look to mob individual enemy fighters. Do what you can to get the odds more in your favour. There are no 0% chances of winning. Ever.

Good grief. It might surprise you to learn I didn't literally mean a 0% chance.

Technically there's a non 0% chance I can walk through a wall, that doesn't make for a fun game either.

So clamber over the wall? There’s always a way.

stormboy wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
From their Facebook page.

Those things being imitation Guardian spears is actually pretty clever.

It also means they have seen guardian spears... which means Custodes in the Underhive!

or that imperial propaganda has made its way into the trash for Cawdor to find...

Necromunda is quite close to Terra, and they are fanatics.

Vorian wrote:
Nope, if you are turning up to a game with 0% chance of winning the game is broken.

It is a situation that should have been foreseen and solved before it ever occurred.

You say broken, I say character building

Yes, character building! Great opportunity for the gang to evolve.

Sure. Let's play chess in linked games. I'm an experienced player so I'm generally going to win an equal match - but everytime I win you start the game with one less piece.

How fun are you finding the games when we get down to you having a pawn and a king against my full set of pieces?

There is a point past which games become tedious foregone conclusions.

One of the last games I had was after a serious kicking; I had three models available against a full-strength gang. Totally one-sided, highly unlikely I'd win, but it was fun just seeing if I could take down any of the opposition before I went (as it happens, I didn't, but never mind).

Vorian wrote:
Sure. Let's play chess in linked games. I'm an experienced player so I'm generally going to win an equal match - but everytime I win you start the game with one less piece.

How fun are you finding the games when we get down to you having a pawn and a king against my full set of pieces?

There is a point past which games become tedious foregone conclusions.

You play through the scenario as best you can or choose one that minimises your disadvantage. Shootout for an example. Your gangers are going to be out for, what, a game, typically. Besides, nothing is stopping you buying more gangers. The only time I'd say quit and restart is when most of your gang is dead and you are out of credits.

 zedmeister wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Sure. Let's play chess in linked games. I'm an experienced player so I'm generally going to win an equal match - but everytime I win you start the game with one less piece.

How fun are you finding the games when we get down to you having a pawn and a king against my full set of pieces?

There is a point past which games become tedious foregone conclusions.

You play through the scenario as best you can or choose one that minimises your disadvantage. Shootout for an example. Your gangers are going to be out for, what, a game, typically. Besides, nothing is stopping you buying more gangers. The only time I'd say quit and restart is when most of your gang is dead and you are out of credits.

Yes, also you should not rule out using a tiles scenario if you're CC/melee orientated and on the lower rung.

Vorian wrote:
Nope, if you are turning up to a game with 0% chance of winning the game is broken.

It is a situation that should have been foreseen and solved before it ever occurred.

And sometimes life isn’t fair....wait, life just isn’t fair ever. I tell my kids that, the freaking Navy Seals are taught that. Even in a perfect world your not always guaranteed a perfect shake. You play with the hand dealt to you, if you win, Great. if you lose, lose with class and style. If you show up to a game you don’t have a chance of winning, then change the game. You might not walk away with anything, but if you create your own purpose for the game (take out one of his guys before your gang bottles), then you can still achieve a goal wether it affects your game or not.

There were people in our group no one wanted to play, open gaming group at our old FLGS, and everyone whined when they played against the WAAC guys. I just took the mentality of a real life situation where your gang got ambushed when short handed and making it out alive was important, but the gang leader (or guy filling in) wanted to make sure the other guy knew he was in a fight.

Talk to the members of the group. If anyone’s gang gets brutalized so bad then they get XXX credits influx as one of the larger gangs back them because they don’t want to lose what little influence they have in the area. Keep track of this influx as at the end of your campaign those credits have to be paid back before totals are tallied. (Have everyone decide if there’s interest involved too). Set loan minimums, have them take out loans in chunks of 100k, but not more than what would bump them over their opponent.

 Theophony wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Nope, if you are turning up to a game with 0% chance of winning the game is broken.

It is a situation that should have been foreseen and solved before it ever occurred.

And sometimes life isn’t fair....wait, life just isn’t fair ever. I tell my kids that, the freaking Navy Seals are taught that. Even in a perfect world your not always guaranteed a perfect shake. You play with the hand dealt to you, if you win, Great. if you lose, lose with class and style. If you show up to a game you don’t have a chance of winning, then change the game. You might not walk away with anything, but if you create your own purpose for the game (take out one of his guys before your gang bottles), then you can still achieve a goal wether it affects your game or not.

There were people in our group no one wanted to play, open gaming group at our old FLGS, and everyone whined when they played against the WAAC guys. I just took the mentality of a real life situation where your gang got ambushed when short handed and making it out alive was important, but the gang leader (or guy filling in) wanted to make sure the other guy knew he was in a fight.

Talk to the members of the group. If anyone’s gang gets brutalized so bad then they get XXX credits influx as one of the larger gangs back them because they don’t want to lose what little influence they have in the area. Keep track of this influx as at the end of your campaign those credits have to be paid back before totals are tallied. (Have everyone decide if there’s interest involved too). Set loan minimums, have them take out loans in chunks of 100k, but not more than what would bump them over their opponent.

You could also take it way further and start backstabing and back ally dealing with other players if people start getting ahead.

head hunting, bounties and the like would be hilarious fun.

but i guess some people may get salty when that kinda stuff happens even though it makes sense in game.

 Desubot wrote:

 Theophony wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Nope, if you are turning up to a game with 0% chance of winning the game is broken.

It is a situation that should have been foreseen and solved before it ever occurred.

And sometimes life isn’t fair....wait, life just isn’t fair ever. I tell my kids that, the freaking Navy Seals are taught that. Even in a perfect world your not always guaranteed a perfect shake. You play with the hand dealt to you, if you win, Great. if you lose, lose with class and style. If you show up to a game you don’t have a chance of winning, then change the game. You might not walk away with anything, but if you create your own purpose for the game (take out one of his guys before your gang bottles), then you can still achieve a goal wether it affects your game or not.

There were people in our group no one wanted to play, open gaming group at our old FLGS, and everyone whined when they played against the WAAC guys. I just took the mentality of a real life situation where your gang got ambushed when short handed and making it out alive was important, but the gang leader (or guy filling in) wanted to make sure the other guy knew he was in a fight.

Talk to the members of the group. If anyone’s gang gets brutalized so bad then they get XXX credits influx as one of the larger gangs back them because they don’t want to lose what little influence they have in the area. Keep track of this influx as at the end of your campaign those credits have to be paid back before totals are tallied. (Have everyone decide if there’s interest involved too). Set loan minimums, have them take out loans in chunks of 100k, but not more than what would bump them over their opponent.

You could also take it way further and start backstabing and back ally dealing with other players if people start getting ahead.

head hunting, bounties and the like would be hilarious fun.

but i guess some people may get salty when that kinda stuff happens even though it makes sense in game.

Allowed or not that stuff happened. Allegiances forged and broken.

Vorian wrote:
Sure. Let's play chess in linked games. I'm an experienced player so I'm generally going to win an equal match - but everytime I win you start the game with one less piece.

How fun are you finding the games when we get down to you having a pawn and a king against my full set of pieces?

There is a point past which games become tedious foregone conclusions.

Oh, you misunderstand, that's not how Necromunda works (or how it did work or should work rather). You may have a team of towers against my team of pawns. But for every game, one of my pawn is level-upped to a queen.

The result of a single game is nothing compared to the fate of the gang!

infinite game > finite game

Baxx wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Sure. Let's play chess in linked games. I'm an experienced player so I'm generally going to win an equal match - but everytime I win you start the game with one less piece.

How fun are you finding the games when we get down to you having a pawn and a king against my full set of pieces?

There is a point past which games become tedious foregone conclusions.

Oh, you misunderstand, that's not how Necromunda works (or how it did work or should work rather). You may have a team of towers against my team of pawns. But for every game, one of my pawn is level-upped to a queen.

The result of a single game is nothing compared to the fate of the gang!

infinite game > finite game

This. All of this.

Anyone interested in "fair" and equal matchups shouldn't be playing a campaign format. They particularly shouldn't be playing a campaign format GW game because HAHAHAHA.

I've been playing these kinds of things since the early 90s. Hell, original Talisman was BRUTAL. High level character you've built up over the previous three hours? Literally one turn away from the Crown of Command? Turn over that alternative ending card aaaaaaand...! Horrible black void. Dead. No save. Lose all your items. Out of the game.

I mean, here's the thing: I love playing Necromunda/Mordheim/Blood Bowl, etc. I'm also terrible at playing them. These two things can be mutually exclusive. I do pretty badly almost all of the time. But I have enormous fun playing regardless. I really don't understand why anyone would go into these games with the preconceived notion that there's some sacred balance to be found. That would make even my experience, an inveterate loser of literally thousands and thousands of games, so utterly boring.