Necromunda Underhive, new pics p 53

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.

**H.B.M.C.**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So does chess follow modern design principles? Because that game has been around for ages. What exactly is a modern design principle? Its a bit of a vague term, tbh.

Clearly what chess needs is proprietary dice, status effect counters (thousands of them) and a whole lot of ability cards.

**argonak**

I really enjoy the greater general simplicity of 8ths rules. And the alternating activations they've mentioned really has my attention. necromunda was small enough it didn't really need alternating activations to avoid one player feeling bored, but I'm exciting to see GW taking a step away from IGOUGO. Its been since Epic 40k that they tried that.

Tack on their willingness to make rules and point changes based on feedback and results of gameplay, and I really like this new GW direction.

**Chamberlain**

People prefer different things. We had a 8th edition 40k in 40 minutes and SW:A day on the same urban terrain. Most of the people hated SW:A after playing 40k in 40 minutes using 8th. The main reason was SW:A has a pinning mechanic on hits.

It makes the game so much more tactical, but when you're just looking to have a blast moving guys around and rolling dice, it can give people an negative experience. Like "skip your next turn" in old board games.

Since different people are looking for different things, I wonder which GW will pick. Will it having pinning and play like SW:A or will it have total freedom of activation like 8th edtion 40k? Or will there be a pinning mechanic on the scenario/advanced rules level that can be applied if you want it?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does pinning giving people playing less seriously a negative experience when it's combined with alternating activations?

**PsychoticStorm**

Mymearan wrote:
Yeah, I don't like talking about "modern" game design either, game systems aren't cars, they don't automatically improve over time. As an examplke, people like to tout alternate activations as an example of modern design but it has advantages and disadvantages just like IGOUGO.

I do not think we have "modern" game design in rules details and usage, I feel modern game design is in design principles.

So "modern" game design is about tight, clear rules, speed of play and good game balance, one would argue that these are simply good design principles and should be classical, but the pre 90s game design (and GWs game design until quite recently) was expecting the players to balance the rules and armies among themselves.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samsonov wrote:
I do not think the Necromunda rules were bad, they just were not great. However, they were good enough for the campaign system to work pretty well. Incredible background, good (if not massively balanced) gang development, excellent scope for modelling miniatures and terrain, plenty of scope for story telling. Add in rules which were not brilliant but largely worked and you had a classic.

It had many problems in the details, been an outlaw was with the right territories a far easier job than been a "law abiding" gang witch should be the opposite, the random WS /BS boost that was fixed on Mordheim, the XP exploitation for underdogs, not a bad system but needed quite a tight up that was not done, but it was serviceable.

I still maintain it had a spirit that Gorkamorka and Mordheim never got even though Gorkamorka had the vehicles everybody was asking for in Necromunda and Moerheim had the lore and for once the Artwork of Blanche that was fitting in the nightmarish setting.

**adamsouza**

Modern design princliple in RPGs usually revolve around using the same core mechanic for all resolution.

If you played D&D during it's 1st and 2nd editions it was obvious that each writer/designer implimented a new and different mechanic almost every time they added something to the game. Attacks and Saves both rolled D20s but work differently. Psionics worked completely differently. Skills had their own rules. Thief abilites didn't work like skills, etc...
Once 3rd edition rolled around, almost every resolution became D20+ modifiers to beat a target number. 4th edition took it step farther turning what were previously saving throws into attack rolls, etc...

Necromunda's shooting and melee operate on completely different mechnics, unlike 8th editions where they both roll to hit verses a static target number.

**JohnHwangDD**

PsychoticStorm wrote:
Mymearan wrote:
Yeah, I don't like talking about "modern" game design either, game systems aren't cars, they don't automatically improve over time. As an examplke, people like to tout alternate activations as an example of modern design but it has advantages and disadvantages just like IGOUGO.

I do not think we have "modern" game design in rules details and usage, I feel modern game design is in design principles.

So "modern" game design is about tight, clear rules, speed of play and good game balance, one would argue that these are simply good design principles and should be classical, but the pre 90s game design (and GWs game design until quite recently) was expecting the players to balance the rules and armies among themselves.

adamsouza wrote:
Modern design princliple in RPGs usually revolve around using the same core mechanic for all resolution.

You know, *both* of those things can be true. Fewer mechanics reducing to a single core mechanic leads to tighter, clearer rules that play faster and are easire to balance. And vice versa.

Activation mechanics vary a lot, for different effect, and alternate single activation vs Igo-Ugo are simply the extremes of the spectrum, which are more naturally suited toward certain types of games. There's more than one way to allow (or force) interaction / reaction appropriate to the game scale.

For a small skirmish like Necromunda, with a half-dozen to a dozen figures per side, I think a card-based mechanic might have worked best.

**Chamberlain**

There are also cycles. From what I understand 60s wargaming was super simple with basic principles and it wasn't until later did things get cumbersome. Similarly the first D&D products were really simple and only when things went "advanced" did they start piling on endless ways to handle different things.

**H.B.M.C.**

adamsouza wrote:
Modern design princliple in RPGs usually revolve around using the same core mechanic for all resolution.

So the opposite of 8th then? Like where they introduced a movement stat, but don't use it for charging.

**Galas**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
adamsouza wrote:
Modern design princliple in RPGs usually revolve around using the same core mechanic for all resolution.

So the opposite of 8th then? Like where they introduced a movement stat, but don't use it for charging.

A little forced and out of topic. Not that funny.

5,5/10. You can do better H.B.M.C.

**Theophony**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So does chess follow modern design principles? Because that game has been around for ages. What exactly is a modern design principle? Its a bit of a vague term, tbh.

Clearly what chess needs is proprietary dice, status effect counters (thousands of them) and a whole lot of ability cards.

Don't forget custom maneuver tools for the pieces.

**xerxeshavelock**

argonak wrote:
And the alternating activations they've mentioned really has my attention.....Its been since Epic 40k that they tried that.

Not to be pedantic, but Epic: Armageddon also used Alternate Activation, as did the rather excellent Betrayal at Calth. I have a feeling that some design principles may have made it from Calth to here - talk of Action Points for example. The pinning mechanism being that weapons such as bolters remove Tactical Points, reducing enemy actions. Works extremely well, and gives an actual reason to value a basic weapon.

**ik0ner**

What worries me about "updated" rules in relation to GW is that it usually seem to mean either all or some of the following; removal of the psychology rules, oversimplification of morale, no fov, and bonkers cover rules.

I like the minis though.

**CURNOW**

Theophony wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So does chess follow modern design principles? Because that game has been around for ages. What exactly is a modern design principle? Its a bit of a vague term, tbh.

Clearly what chess needs is proprietary dice, status effect counters (thousands of them) and a whole lot of ability cards.

Don't forget custom maneuver tools for the pieces.

And a slightly bigger scale so you can make out all details on the models plus more factions than black or white ..oh and terrain

**H.B.M.C.**

Sorry... too many windows!

**AndrewGPaul**

psst ... this is the Necromunda thread.

Still, the necromunda ruleset would probably work quite well for the sort of skirmish warfare the OT actually depicts.

**Insurgency Walker**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
More factions? A Scum faction and then... *crickets*

I said it earlier, the scope of the Galactic Civil War does not befit a wargame (or even a skirmish game). The Rebels don't have anything unless you make it up.

One of the latter reports evens says "Snowspeeders were mentioned." Yeah, no gak they were. That's the only ground vehicle the Rebels have (in the movies, and without making anything up). At best you can get a U-Wing now thanks to Rogue One, but that's it.

Even in the minis we've seen so far one of the things the Rebels have is stolen from the prequel era.

I think Star Wars, as a whole, since being bought by Disney, has a prequel-era phobia. Everything is so solidly focused on the original trilogy and not daring to deviate from that (Ep 7 was the biggest Ep 4 love-letter ever written) that it's leaving a wealth of material in the dust. The Clone Wars were a war, a real war between fleets and armies with campaigns and battle lines. The Galactic Civil War was more of an insurgency. One is fit for a wargame/skirmish game. The other is not.

Time for bed, you missed your target thread!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or more coffee!

**jeff white**

Galas wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
adamsouza wrote:
Modern design princliple in RPGs usually revolve around using the same core mechanic for all resolution.

So the opposite of 8th then? Like where they introduced a movement stat, but don't use it for charging.

A little forced and out of topic. Not that funny.

5,5/10. You can do better H.B.M.C.

Oh, I dunno.
I thought it was pretty spot on.
8.8/10

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AndrewGPaul wrote:
psst ... this is the Necromunda thread.

Still, the necromunda ruleset would probably work quite well for the sort of skirmish warfare the OT actually depicts.

Funniest part being he edited that post 2 times.

**H.B.M.C.**

Yes, I had many windows open.

**insaniak**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yes, I had many windows open.

Yeah. Fresh air is bad for the brain...

**Slayer Dragonwing**

Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far we have not seen any weapons in common between the Goliaths and Eschers. I am curious if this means gangs will get unique weapons, or if they will go even further and have a separate armoury for each gang. Either way, it will make for great conversion fodder for INQ28 and other games.

**Yodhrin**

I think the factions could very much do with some more "unique" gear, but I hope they don't take it too far, the core of a gang should still be grunts with common guns. Something like the variation in Mordheim warbands would be cool, with varied profiles for different henchmen and a couple of bits of special gear and skills etc for each gang, but if they make them all totally unique with their own weaponry it strays too far away from one of the big reasons Necromunda is appealing IMO - its depiction of the unsavoury end of "street level" humanity in a typical large Imperial Hive.

**AlexHolker**

I agree. There should be some ubiquitous gear like stub guns and lasguns that are manufactured by every House and can be found at every trading post.

For the uncommon stuff like swords and boltguns the system I used was a middle ground between original Necromunda and Specialist Games Necromunda: either your own House manufactures it and you can treat it as common gear, or you sacrifice one Rare Trade Roll to buy as many of that item as you want.

**Howard A Treesong**

I prefer the equipment be largely similar between gangs, the more variety and unique items, the more infrequently used rules exist which makes it harder to remember stuff, and more potential for one gang having an imbalance in their favour meaning that gang is overpowered.

**Eilif**

Mr_Rose wrote:So, the new Escher are armed with pretty standard gear, but the Goliaths have some new gear; a chainsaw polearm of some sort and a revolver longarm of some sort.
I for one hope this means the gangs will get gang-exclusive gear but more than that I just want more gear in general.
More variety in the guns in particular; I always thought that the underhive should have been a hotbed of illicit tinkering and outright invention, far from the prying optics of the Adeptus Mechanicus, with backstreet gunsmiths cooking up all sorts of weird and wonderful boomsticks for the… ah, connoisseur, of the armourer's art. But instead we got several sets of guns that were basically identical because the stats were cribbed from a wargame, where the statistics of large numbers demanded they be identical.
The CE made a good start, with the hunting rifle but there's a ways to go….

Mr_Rose wrote:Well, since there is a company that sells a gun that is literally two M1911 pistols welded together, with a common trigger for both barrels and I know that at least one person once made a sort of ersatz Gatling gun by mounting six AK-47s on a pair of discs turned by a hand crank, with a cam track to pull the triggers… yeah, kinda.

But also the sort of sublime genius of those guys that hand-finish and customise production guns to the exact specifications of the owner, down to the trigger weight and radius of curvature on the stock, and supply match-grade ammo, all to get the best possible performance out of the mass-produced gear.

Basically I want having a gunsmith in your territory to do more than just even out your ammo rolls, even if there's a price tag on the good stuff.

I see where you guys (and those that have made simialr suggestions) are coming from, but necromunda is already fairly granular. Further separating weapons, and hyper-detailing specialties is the kind of layers of detail that would kill the fun of necromunda. Sure all revolvers and some automatics are "stub guns" but that kind of abstraction makes it easier to balance factions and keep track of things. Despite the fact that it was based on the slighty-clunky 2nd edition rules I've generally found necromunda to play faster and easier than most any other edition of 40k and that's not just because of the scope. Over-complicating a good thing is never a good thing.

I do agree that NCE made a few nice additions to the overall weapons list, but we really don't need every house to have it's own set of weapons.

**JohnnyHell**

You can already see they won't, from the basic weapons previewed. But word from Andy Hoare is that Houses will have unique kit.

**argonak**

xerxeshavelock wrote:
argonak wrote:
And the alternating activations they've mentioned really has my attention.....Its been since Epic 40k that they tried that.

Not to be pedantic, but Epic: Armageddon also used Alternate Activation, as did the rather excellent Betrayal at Calth. I have a feeling that some design principles may have made it from Calth to here - talk of Action Points for example. The pinning mechanism being that weapons such as bolters remove Tactical Points, reducing enemy actions. Works extremely well, and gives an actual reason to value a basic weapon.

Sorry, I wasn't really thinking of Epic:A separately from 40k. It was just a modified rulebook to try and tempt back all the old Space Marine players who they pissed off. But I didn't realize they had it in Betrayal At Calth. All I ever heard was people buying that game for the minis, no one seemed to talk about the game. That does sound interesting though.

**Sam V.**

The news minis are awesome.

**adamsouza**

I think it would be cool if each gang had a signature weapon, or two, that the other gangs could only get at the black market.

**H.B.M.C.**

That sounds like a good idea to me.

I know not everyone liked them, but I thought the House weapon lists were a good idea, and not just to stop the proliferation of swords across all gangs.

**Galas**

Yeah, special wargear and habilities for houses could be cool. With a generic weaponry and skill trees availible for everyone that should be the 80-90% of the options, with the "specific only" being a minor part for flavour.