Switch Theme:

Necromunda: The fundamental flaw of all official GW campaigns  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Baxx wrote:


A gang with only lasguns can cause injuries or death. But a gang with all boltguns will inflict more injuries and death.


True, and that's why we house ruled our campaigns with a strict limitation on wargear: full WYSIWYG and only one heavy/special/expensive basic weapon of each kind allowed per gang. Max two for expensive pistols instead (just because being single hand weapons there are more modelling combinations and players should be able to use all their models). That means just one grenade launcher, one bolter, etc... per gang and the player who is ahead can spend a lot of money on wargear will end up taking non optimal weapons like a flamer, rad gun, bolt pistol + close combat weapon, etc if he already has functioning gangers with better weapons like melta gun, bolter, grenade launcher or plasma gun.

No multiple plasma guns for van saars or grenade launchers/bolters for goliaths winning the first games. So far that 0-1 limitation has worked well in our campaigns, where the GM is always a player controlling one of the gangs and he can't really be more that just a simple arbitrator when controversies come.

 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





WYSIWYG is getting more difficult with 3d printing - you can print a whole model or the weapons pretty fast.

   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Hellebore wrote:
WYSIWYG is getting more difficult with 3d printing - you can print a whole model or the weapons pretty fast.


Yeah, not just that, even regular GW kits allow to spam some of the best weapons. But painting duplicates in low count models armies is boring, no one in my group wanted to do that. The WYSIWYG is a consequence to the fact that players wanted to differentiate their models as much as possible while also making use of all the bitz included in the kits they bought.

Someone willing to 3D print multiple expensive weapons doesn't share the mindset of my playing group. We're talking about a game that works best with people with garage hammer mentality, not those who want to min max the best options.

 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN

Baxx wrote:


Yes, other games do have this flaw. But they had better counterbalancing systems.

And the purpose of this thread seems to be to discuss if this flaw exists and to try to frame exactly what the flaw is, and if a significant number of people think that it's fixable or indeed needs to be fixed. I don't think the subject of this thread is to find a solution.

(Because that would require house rules. And therefore the dreaded GM. Unless GW themselves develop a better campaign system, which they have shown absolutely no interest in doing)


Fair enough. I really am not trying to be a jerk about it, I really am trying to understand. Basically, this thread is "Do you agree that water is wet? Discuss!" Since we all agree water is wet, the real question is why does that matter to the game design?

If the thread is to just tell us that there is a flaw in the campaign system..... great. Why does it matter and what do we want to do about it? How does it impact the design goals of the game? What different goals does it hinder?

Now, it sounds like you are trying to get alignment on the fact that "water is wet" in this thread? To me that is not an interesting discussion, but if that is where we are, I have a better understanding of the goals of this thread.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/02 16:40:14


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in no
Longtime Dakkanaut





Water is wet should be obvious, but as this thread clearly shows, it's not obvious to everyone.

Hence false arguments like:
-"the campaign shouldn't need to be balanced"
-"the reason I see a need for an Arbiter is that they are the balancing tool"
-"New Necromunda is just like old Necromunda, GorkaMorka and Mordheim"
-"Old Necromunda (without arbitrator) has exponential growth"

I'm not interested in discussing solutions with people who can't agree that new necromunda campaigns are fundamentally flawed in a different way compared to all other related campaign-based games. This started as a disagreement about this particular topic. There are countless other discussions about how to fix the problems (and many suggestions are also made in this thread). I'm not interested in that discussion here and now, but anyone who are feel free to discuss that here as much as you want!

 Blackie wrote:

True, and that's why we house ruled our campaigns with a strict limitation on wargear: full WYSIWYG and only one heavy/special/expensive basic weapon of each kind allowed per gang. Max two for expensive pistols instead (just because being single hand weapons there are more modelling combinations and players should be able to use all their models). That means just one grenade launcher, one bolter, etc... per gang and the player who is ahead can spend a lot of money on wargear will end up taking non optimal weapons like a flamer, rad gun, bolt pistol + close combat weapon, etc if he already has functioning gangers with better weapons like melta gun, bolter, grenade launcher or plasma gun.

No multiple plasma guns for van saars or grenade launchers/bolters for goliaths winning the first games. So far that 0-1 limitation has worked well in our campaigns, where the GM is always a player controlling one of the gangs and he can't really be more that just a simple arbitrator when controversies come.

That's all fine and reasonable. Too bad the game can't run smooth without this house rule, or at least had something to the similar effect in the official rules! Never needed strict rules like these in all my years playing previous editions. The point I made however is that gang rating correlates to everything of importance in this game:

Winning = more credits, rare items, bonuses, rating, XP, resources, less injuries and death
Losing = less credits, rare items, bonuses, rating, XP, resources, more injuries and death

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/12/02 16:52:17


 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




 Blackie wrote:
 Hellebore wrote:
WYSIWYG is getting more difficult with 3d printing - you can print a whole model or the weapons pretty fast.


Yeah, not just that, even regular GW kits allow to spam some of the best weapons. But painting duplicates in low count models armies is boring, no one in my group wanted to do that. The WYSIWYG is a consequence to the fact that players wanted to differentiate their models as much as possible while also making use of all the bitz included in the kits they bought.

Someone willing to 3D print multiple expensive weapons doesn't share the mindset of my playing group. We're talking about a game that works best with people with garage hammer mentality, not those who want to min max the best options.


Isn't finding the best/most useful options for the credits available part of the game? Recruiting the best players is part of college sports. Drafting the best players and signing the best free agents is part of pro sports. Setting up the best car for the track is part of racing. That's pretty much an integral part of every game ever made that didn't have symmetric teams (chess, checkers, etc). I don't understand the community attitude towards people that play tabletop games with the best list they can make. That's half the point of the game. I also don't expect people to spend hours building and painting substandard models just to intentionally handicap themselves. To me, that seems a lot less fun than getting rolled by Van Saar quad plasma at 1000 creds. I also don't understand the narrative argument as any commander with half a brain would equip his guys with the best weapons he can get his hands on for the mission at hand. If he's going into a confined zone mortalis to collect hidden weapon caches which will require going hand to hand, he's probably not going to take a sniper rifle just so his guys look different. IMO the onus is on the player getting beat to go over their options again and find counterplays. That's how you get better at the game, not by forcing your opponent to paint up overcosted weapons. I also find painting 3-4 plasma guns vastly more fun than painting up rad guns that are totally useless on the battlefield.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/02 20:15:08


 
   
Made in no
Longtime Dakkanaut





Yes, I also don't understand this duality. A lot players will say stuff like:
-"Necromunda doesn't work competitive and people shouldn't play to win"

At the same time, I see countless discussions all over the internet for people asking stuff like:
-"What is the best way to start my gang"

Where people actively discuss "drop that weapon, take smoke grenades instead" or "trim off the fat, take an extra stimmer".

This is another big problem for me in this game. I like to try new angles, do original builds, twists or min-max in crazy ways. Not necessarily math-hammer WAAC style, but more crazy fun style, like I had an old 1500pts Blood Angels army ages ago with 6 dreadnoughts in it. It wasn't great, but fun and unique (no other faction was able to do so).

Problem now if someone do something crazy/original/fun is either that it will be super powerful (like my friend stumbled into van saar and plasmas,ending up dominating everything) or suck horrendously. And once something is good or bad, it will be exponentially good or bad.

Problem is the game doesn't offer much counterplays against fresh gangs starting with BS2+ fast shot rapid fire plasmas. And certainly no casual counter plays. Once you go down that route, everyone is limited to top tier choices, for example goliath with only boltguns, nade launchers and +1T genesmithing. And when in that situation, what's the point of having 400 weapons to choose from, when only top 2-3 weapons are valid? What's the point of having 96 different skills when you only need the top 2-3? What's the point of having 400 tactics cards, when a selected handful beats all the rest? What's the point of having all kinds of options?!?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/12/02 22:34:49


 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




I think people are playing on the wrong style table for Necromunda if they have an issue with Van Saar. I took 2 plasma guns with fast shot and trick shot and a dual plasma pistol with gunfighter in my starting list. I'm 0-4 because we've been playing on smaller tables with tons of terrain and we rolled a couple missions like caravan where you need mobility and close combat to score any victory points. They were close games but in one game one of my plasmas ran out of ammo turn 1. The next game a guy blew himself up turn 2 on an overcharge and ended up in recovery with a head injury so I had to spend 30 creds to get him back to full health. Their counterplay is positioning and the fact that they can either run out of ammo or kill themselves fairly easily.
   
Made in no
Longtime Dakkanaut





Why do terrain matter? You hit on 2+ rapid fire anyway, shooting twice per activation. Feels like this discussion is derailing though...
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




Baxx wrote:
Why do terrain matter? You hit on 2+ rapid fire anyway, shooting twice per activation. Feels like this discussion is derailing though...


Because you can only shoot what you can see. You also have to shoot the closest model. If you run your leader at me out in the open without any screening models, yea he's gonna get vaporized. If you duck in and out of buildings with a juve in front, you can probably get into combat with me and then it's over for me. I'm also confused as to how we hit on 2+ all the time while shooting twice. If I shoot twice, I can't aim first. I'm not always going to be at short range and if the table has terrain, I should be shooting at someone that's at least in partial cover.
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

 Toofast wrote:
Baxx wrote:
Why do terrain matter? You hit on 2+ rapid fire anyway, shooting twice per activation. Feels like this discussion is derailing though...


Because you can only shoot what you can see. You also have to shoot the closest model. If you run your leader at me out in the open without any screening models, yea he's gonna get vaporized. If you duck in and out of buildings with a juve in front, you can probably get into combat with me and then it's over for me.

This.

Baxx, what kind of tables do you use? How much LOS blocking stuff is there? How much height is there?
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Toofast wrote:


Isn't finding the best/most useful options for the credits available part of the game? Recruiting the best players is part of college sports. Drafting the best players and signing the best free agents is part of pro sports. Setting up the best car for the track is part of racing. That's pretty much an integral part of every game ever made that didn't have symmetric teams (chess, checkers, etc). I don't understand the community attitude towards people that play tabletop games with the best list they can make. That's half the point of the game. I also don't expect people to spend hours building and painting substandard models just to intentionally handicap themselves. To me, that seems a lot less fun than getting rolled by Van Saar quad plasma at 1000 creds. I also don't understand the narrative argument as any commander with half a brain would equip his guys with the best weapons he can get his hands on for the mission at hand. If he's going into a confined zone mortalis to collect hidden weapon caches which will require going hand to hand, he's probably not going to take a sniper rifle just so his guys look different. IMO the onus is on the player getting beat to go over their options again and find counterplays. That's how you get better at the game, not by forcing your opponent to paint up overcosted weapons. I also find painting 3-4 plasma guns vastly more fun than painting up rad guns that are totally useless on the battlefield.


It depends on what you expect from the game. From a pick up game against strangers I'd definitely expect all the things you listed, but from a game that mostly works as campaign played by a group of friends? I simply want to field unique models, all named, and play with my expensive toys, not bringing cheesy lists. I love listbuilding in 40k, I couldn't care less about it in Necromunda though. To me it's almost no point of the game, it's simply a matter of deciding which ones of my 25 dudes are going to start the campaign. We also avoid things like cards and all the tools to shoot twice, as they look too gamey.

And painting duplicates always bores me as well.

I understand someone can't imagine playing without a competitive mentality, I hope GW doesn't turn Necromunda into a tournament style game like 40k as the game's core and gangs rules are great, it just needs a few house rules to handle the campaigns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Toofast wrote:
I think people are playing on the wrong style table for Necromunda if they have an issue with Van Saar. I took 2 plasma guns with fast shot and trick shot and a dual plasma pistol with gunfighter in my starting list. I'm 0-4 because we've been playing on smaller tables with tons of terrain and we rolled a couple missions like caravan where you need mobility and close combat to score any victory points. They were close games but in one game one of my plasmas ran out of ammo turn 1. The next game a guy blew himself up turn 2 on an overcharge and ended up in recovery with a head injury so I had to spend 30 creds to get him back to full health. Their counterplay is positioning and the fact that they can either run out of ammo or kill themselves fairly easily.


Yeah, that's the problem of min maxing the lists. Those van saars can either crush the opponents with no effort or succumb to a few bad rolls. That's why I never consider this kinds of lists, I prefer starting a campaign with more bodies, than risking to have half the roster unavailable after game 1, especially the best dudes. Typically 8 with Van Saars.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/03 08:50:53


 
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






I remain pretty old school when it comes to Gang Selection.

Only a few basic weapons (as in Lasgun, Autogun), the rest mostly pistols and CCWs. Get up nice and close whilst hugging cover.

This not only suits my play style, but I’ve noticed the Dice Gods tend to have a certain sense of humour when it comes to very expensive models…

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Pfizer vaccine administered 13:40pm 18 Feb 21. Still no second head. Second jab 13:35pm 6 May 2021. At the Masonic Hall. 
   
Made in no
Longtime Dakkanaut





Dice swings both ways, but are most likely to worsen the topic in this discussion.

As already stated, new Necromunda has exponential growth (at least in parts, unlike old Necromunda and all other related games which have linear growth), has limited to no self-balancing mechanics and finally, all the important elements correlates strongly. To make an extreme example to prove the point:

Winning = get all the credits, rare items, bonuses, rating, XP, resources, less injuries and death
Losing = get no credits, rare items, bonuses, rating, XP, resources, more injuries and death

This isn't the case of "all games are unbalanced", this is a case of new Necromunda having unique design problems no other games have.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/12/03 09:42:55


 
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






Which is why we alter those parameters.

Nobody walks away entirely empty handed. Winners do better of course.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Pfizer vaccine administered 13:40pm 18 Feb 21. Still no second head. Second jab 13:35pm 6 May 2021. At the Masonic Hall. 
   
Made in no
Longtime Dakkanaut





You do that as house rules. No other campaigns needed those house rules. This is an unique problem for new Necromunda only. All other campaigns have self-balancing mechanics and are linear. New necromunda was designed to be exponential without self-balancing (either intentionally or unintentionally). I cannot stress this enough because you give the impression you don't agree or don't understand.

I don't pay for books that need house rules on this fundamental level just to be playable (or at least enjoyable). I can take any other related campaign game and play it RAW "out of the box" and still enjoy the game.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/12/03 10:22:14


 
   
Made in gb
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Scotland, but nowhere near my rulebook

Oh GOD we've hit the point of "git gud"
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




If one person is saying the rules are broken and the other person says they have to change those rules when they play - those two people are saying the same thing.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Vorian wrote:
If one person is saying the rules are broken and the other person says they have to change those rules when they play - those two people are saying the same thing.


Exactly. What is really worth discussing is wether house ruling a game prevents having fun. And to what degree.

I have no doubt that Necromunda has flaws, but I can't see any significant difference between having a more balanced game system by GW rules or a more balanced game system by house rules since this is not 40k where it's common to play pick up games against random people.

My impression is that some people demands playing RAW because they need to feel that they're good at the game. They don't want someone saying their results don't matter since they don't play the official game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/03 10:45:04


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




That's not really what it is.

If I'm playing a game, the fun is from both of us playing to rules and seeing what happens.

A game is a series of interesting decisions and the feedback is how well you (or your opponent) do(es).

I'd be perfectly happy playing houserules to fix the game into what it should already be. A balanced game where you can make any decisions within the rules to not break the game.

If the houserules are things like "you can only take what weapons are on the models" or "the GM will add or subtract credits when they feel like it to keep gangs balanced" then it makes the interesting decisions pointless and ruins the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/03 10:53:31


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Vorian wrote:


If the houserules are things like "you can only take what weapons are on the models" or "the GM will add or subtract credits when they feel like it to keep gangs balanced" then it makes the interesting decisions pointless and ruins the game.


But what happens if the rules that make the interesting decisions pointless and ruin the game are actual official rules? Are you willing to house rule them in order to have a more balanced game where decisions matter? Because I can assure you, a lot of players would not be willing to do that. They'd either play strict RAW or not play at all.

Limitations on the wargear has also always been a part of GW games, so it's not even that unreasonable as a concept. In 40k you can't equip an infantry unit with any combination of weapons you want, it's typically X models every Y models that can take Z weapon, etc...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/03 11:28:43


 
   
Made in gb
Battlefield Tourist





On an Express Elevator to Hell!!

Baxx, I feel like this is going in circles. If people don't agree with you on some of those points, and they haven't been able to see it for themselves when playing, I don't think anything you say is going to make a difference.

As far as I am concerned GW have released a game that is tremendous fun (or can be) but has more holes in it than a sieve, and is hilariously unbalanced. They won't make great efforts to stabilise the system and make it more balanced 'out of box' because that isn't a business priority for them. If it was, they would have done it already, and wouldn't continuously be releasing new rules and miniatures that make it keep going in the opposite direction.

What I would advise is spending some time on Yaktribe and having a look at some of the community-led amendments that exist for the rules. You could start with the NC18 community edition for starters. Personally, I like the work this guy has done (look at the posts by user alexflagg who has posted some links about halfway down the page)
https://yaktribe.games/community/threads/the-arbitrator-a-discussion-with-poll.9821/page-3#post-220699

I have gone further, taking some of Alex's suggestions with my proposed campaign and entirely used the NCE for pre and post game. Not sure if this is any use to use but please take a look and let me know what you think
https://yaktribe.games/community/threads/the-quest-for-the-blue-oyster.7127/#post-148555

Epic 30K&40K! A new players guide, contributors welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
Small but perfectly formed! A Great Crusade Epic 6mm project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/694411.page
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Personally I'm willing to change anything as long as I think it makes an interesting game, I'm trying to avoid talking about things I'd specifically like and stick to general concepts though.

I know a lot of players are RAW, that's also a perfectly reasonable position to take. You shouldn't have to be interested in games design to play a game. That's why it is important for the base rules of things to be decent.

Limitations are fine. If X models every Y can take Z and that's written down and everyone knows this at the start, then great.

If it's an ad hoc decision based on what each player happens to build (or in the old days what the sculpt had) then its bad. Not least because what one person thinks is ok will be different to another.

I like my Necro gangs scrabbling round in the dirt trying to survive, so personally I'd be all for all sorts of things to limit gangs. But only clearly defined at the start so all players know the framework they are making decisions in.

I also understand people enjoy getting all their toys game 1 and would be fine playing it that way - so long as everyone knows that framework before you start too.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/03 11:38:34


 
   
Made in ro
Fresh-Faced New User





 Pacific wrote:
Baxx, I feel like this is going in circles. If people don't agree with you on some of those points, and they haven't been able to see it for themselves when playing, I don't think anything you say is going to make a difference.

As far as I am concerned GW have released a game that is tremendous fun (or can be) but has more holes in it than a sieve, and is hilariously unbalanced. They won't make great efforts to stabilise the system and make it more balanced 'out of box' because that isn't a business priority for them. If it was, they would have done it already, and wouldn't continuously be releasing new rules and miniatures that make it keep going in the opposite direction.

What I would advise is spending some time on Yaktribe and having a look at some of the community-led amendments that exist for the rules. You could start with the NC18 community edition for starters. Personally, I like the work this guy has done (look at the posts by user alexflagg who has posted some links about halfway down the page)
https://yaktribe.games/community/threads/the-arbitrator-a-discussion-with-poll.9821/page-3#post-220699

I have gone further, taking some of Alex's suggestions with my proposed campaign and entirely used the NCE for pre and post game. Not sure if this is any use to use but please take a look and let me know what you think
https://yaktribe.games/community/threads/the-quest-for-the-blue-oyster.7127/#post-148555


Pacific, you have missed that Baxx is amongst the most prolific of Yaktribe posters and was central to the current YCE edition

But that's an excellent idea of just using NCE for pre and post. So much simpler! But how do you cards and things?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/03 11:44:14


 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




Thanks pacific, how up to date are those ? We are starting up a campaign so been looking over there for updates as there is no way I could do such work myself.
   
Made in no
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Pacific wrote:
Baxx, I feel like this is going in circles. If people don't agree with you on some of those points, and they haven't been able to see it for themselves when playing, I don't think anything you say is going to make a difference.

Yeah sorry about that, there's been many interesting arguments and the discussion came full circle a while ago.

And to reply to Toofast and Racerguy, yeah you are correct terrain matter and I obviously don't have enough, which I think is a separate issue because I spent a lot of money on that sweet Sector Mechanicus terrain back in 2017 but it turned out I probably need twice as much to get the best effect. I think Kill Team does a good job in this aspect by abstracting terrain rules so less terrain have more impact. The best result I had for terrain was Zone Mortalis walls which effectively denies any long firelanes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PetitionersCity wrote:

Pacific, you have missed that Baxx is amongst the most prolific of Yaktribe posters and was central to the current YCE edition

Cheers

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/03 12:30:53


 
   
Made in ro
Fresh-Faced New User





Baxx wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
Baxx, I feel like this is going in circles. If people don't agree with you on some of those points, and they haven't been able to see it for themselves when playing, I don't think anything you say is going to make a difference.

Yeah sorry about that, there's been many interesting arguments and the discussion came full circle a while ago.

And to reply to Toofast and Racerguy, yeah you are correct terrain matter and I obviously don't have enough, which I think is a separate issue because I spent a lot of money on that sweet Sector Mechanicus terrain back in 2017 but it turned out I probably need twice as much to get the best effect. I think Kill Team does a good job in this aspect by abstracting terrain rules so less terrain have more impact. The best result I had for terrain was Zone Mortalis walls which effectively denies any long firelanes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 PetitionersCity wrote:

Pacific, you have missed that Baxx is amongst the most prolific of Yaktribe posters and was central to the current YCE edition

Cheers


TTCombat is your best answer, TK!
   
Made in gb
Battlefield Tourist





On an Express Elevator to Hell!!

Apple fox wrote:Thanks pacific, how up to date are those ? We are starting up a campaign so been looking over there for updates as there is no way I could do such work myself.


You would need to check, but I think the documents I was linked to were from start of 2020 so should be mostly OK.

I would say it would definitely pay to check what new units or rules everyone wants to use in the campaign, but as most of the rule changes are generic relating to the main structure of the campaign (a few mention skills specifically) I would have thought it was mostly OK.

PetitionersCity wrote:
Pacific, you have missed that Baxx is amongst the most prolific of Yaktribe posters and was central to the current YCE edition

But that's an excellent idea of just using NCE for pre and post. So much simpler! But how do you cards and things?


Ah I didn't realise! In which case, apologies Baxx, I am preaching to the converted

For Cards, this is the bit I have taken from the AlexFlagg document
Tactics Cards - You may not choose Tactics cards, even if the scenario allows you to (the only way you may choose a card is by using an Underdog benefit, below). When drawing your Tactics cards at the beginning of the game, you may draw freely from the Gang Tactics deck, or up to ½ your cards, rounded up, from your House Tactics deck. All bonus draws made during the battle must come from the Gang Tactics deck (not your House or Underdog Tactics decks).


The underdog penalty it references is this:
- Pick a House Tactics Card (200 credits) Sacrifice 2 card draws to choose House Tactics card from your deck (rather than drawing at random).



Epic 30K&40K! A new players guide, contributors welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
Small but perfectly formed! A Great Crusade Epic 6mm project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/694411.page
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

What a wierd restriction: Tactics Cards? Yeah, don't use 'em! Ok he can, but, like, only from this deck. Or the other deck, but only half the normal amount. No I don't care what the scenario says!

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What a wierd restriction: Tactics Cards? Yeah, don't use 'em! Ok he can, but, like, only from this deck. Or the other deck, but only half the normal amount. No I don't care what the scenario says!


Seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Newcromunda has a lot of issues with balance but tactics cards would be the last thing on my mind causing poor balance. It's almost solely to do with how xp, rep and credits are distributed. Allowing the gang with less wealth to choose intrigues for each game while the other gang has to choose them randomly is the first place I would start addressing that.
   
 
Forum Index » Games Workshop Board Games & Specialist Games
Go to: