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.

hi all
as I came to sci-fi games late (always played WFB)

I never played 40k back in the day .so playing necromunda, its combat system seems abit strange (apparently its 2nd or 3rd 40k combat system)

has anyone tried using a newer more up to date 40k combat system
either 5th ,6th or even 7th

would it still work

I am not sure that there is any need to do this.

Although clearly based around the earlier versions of 40k, I am not sure that the later ones bring anything to the party.

For myself I was loking at possibly hybridising Nec with mantic's Deadzone. Grid movement and the cover of in sight rules of DZ are more clean cut and stop the endless bickering over who can see who andhow much cover they have. Not a great fan of exploding dice (throw a 8 on a d8 and throw again) but a shift to D8 or D10 to even the combat tables is another idea.

 rockgod2304 wrote:
has anyone tried using a newer more up to date 40k combat system

"Up to date" isn't really the right way to think of it. The current WH40K rules aren't a ever more polished version of 2nd edition, they're intended for playing an entirely different game.

2nd edition was intended for a couple of dozen models per side, with maybe some modest vehicle support.
7th edition is intended to potentially have hundreds of models on the table, of which some will be huge models of death and doom.

The 2nd edition rules might be old, but they fit the kind of game Necromunda is - you're never left feeling like they're not up to the job being asked of them... on the other hand, the 7th edition rules probably would feel wanting.

If you change the CC system you would have to look at the skills too.

Seems like a pain when the Necro system works just fine.

I understand the question the OP was posting, but I know I (personally) think the second edition rules are just about perfect for the size/scope of a Necromunda game, and the increased focus on each individual in a gang. the rules for combat (especially melee) since 3rd edition 40K are pointedly thinned-down to facilitate the urge to get us to buy larger and larger armies (especially alongside ever-decreasing points values for each trooper).


Seems to me that ranged combat hasn't changed much, other than rules for squads show a weight of fire coming from so many guys in a unit, and tons of weapon-centric USR's. Same thing with melee. I think the more granular Necromunda/2nd edition melee system better shows man-to-man combat, which admittedly took forever when dealing with entire units.

I think it would first be necessary to know exactly what the OP felt was lacking in the existing necromunda rules.

Necro's combat is a touch more complicated, but then, it's tailored for a game where you only control 5-10 minis or so. I agree that Necro is about the ideal size of game for the 2nd edition combat mechanics. I've tried platoon size games of 2nd edition and they feel too crunchy to me. but IMHO, Necromunda is just the right fit for those mechanics.

If Necro seems more cruchy than what you're looking for, there's always the free "in the Emperor's Name" rulest (use the 2nd edition http://twhegamesshed.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/in-the-emperors-name/ ) which provides Necromunda size battles with a really streamlined combat system. However, if you want to play necro, then Necromunda would be my suggestion