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.

All the best campaign results I've had in Old Necromunda have come after I've had a complete kicking during the game by a vastly more powerful gang.

I realise it's rumbled on for quite a while, but the topic was how a campaign system should have mechanics to stop unfair games. Pointing out that there are different scenarios or a campaign system to affect the balance is the whole point.

If anyone thinks mechanics where you entrench extreme unfairness is any kind of good idea then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

A player should be able to lose 5 games in a row and go into a game against someone that's won 5 games in a row with a reasonable chance of winning.

They can be miles behind in the campaign, no issue with that, but the mechanics should be sufficient to deliver a game with unequal sides that is fun for not players and never allows 1 pawn and one king vs full set games. (which I also wasn't claiming N17 to do).

Sorry, that's just not how necromunda works.

It's not about reasonable chance of winning - at all. It never has been, and it certainly ain't now.

Playing a game without reasonable chance of winning can be extremely fun when you reap the rewards. It's all about the evolution of the gang, not the outcome of a single game! I would rather lose a game than suffer -1T on my leader! And the opposite is true too, I'd rather get +1T on my leader than win a game.

The campaign scenarios don't even have the concept of losing or winning the battle.

Baxx wrote:
Sorry, that's just not how necromunda works.

It's not about reasonable chance of winning - at all. It never has been, and it certainly ain't now.

Playing a game without reasonable chance of winning can be extremely fun when you reap the rewards. It's all about the evolution of the gang, not the outcome of a single game! I would rather lose a game than suffer -1T on my leader! And the opposite is true too, I'd rather get +1T on my leader than win a game.

Sure, you've just made up a completely different argument to disagree about. That doesn't relate to what I said.

Vorian wrote:
If anyone thinks mechanics where you entrench extreme unfairness is any kind of good idea then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I think gamers are overly obsessed with the concept of "fairness". GW has shown, repeatedly, that matched play and the appearance of fairness isn't how they think their games should be played. They go out of their way to make open play their preferred way of showing off the games, and spend a lot of effort to make these games interesting to both players, win or lose. Necromunda perhaps exemplifies this approach to wargaming the best, as it isn't a game about winning. It's a game about experiences. Winning is a goal, not the point.

A player should be able to lose 5 games in a row and go into a game against someone that's won 5 games in a row with a reasonable chance of winning.

Winning? No. But getting something out of the game, yes. Necromunda is a game that rewards losers too, and I think it even says in the manual that sometimes, your best option is to escape from a match with minimal causalities.

They can be miles behind in the campaign, no issue with that, but the mechanics should be sufficient to deliver a game with unequal sides that is fun for not players and never allows 1 pawn and one king vs full set games. (which I also wasn't claiming N17 to do).

It's not a fair game, but it could be a fun game.

Having a non tedious time, where you have a realistic opportunity to actually achieve something more than be stomped into oblivion.

Winning is just a short hand for "not losing terribly".

Vorian wrote:
Having a non tedious time, where you have a realistic opportunity to actually achieve something more than be stomped into oblivion.

Winning is just a short hand for "not losing terribly".

In the real world there is no fairness. Think of the Iraqi troops that fought against desert shield/storm. They had to play, no chance of winning, and took a kicking. Their campaign ended, it wasn’t a fair fight. Should the coalition have only sent in the same number of troops as Iraq? Or should it have been troops with only the same training level as the Iraqi troops? Nope, we wanted to win and we sent it all...and then some.

If you don’t want to play the game, then don’t, to me it’s not always about winning (which seems to be the only thing your after as you keep mentioning it), but learning about my opponent and trying to decipher what sort of strategy they are employing and how to counter it. I’m there for friendship and fun, and if I get to brag a big at the end of the day GREAT, but in a losing situation hopefully I can say “I gave it my best, and the bully got a bloody nose.”

Oldcromunda had the Underdog and Giant Killer bonuses.

Yes these would help you evolve the gang, not win the game.

Gang > game

Does the new game not have underdog and giant killer bonuses? I loved the original Necromunda and have been thinking about picking up the new game but honestly without those features a campaign would be a total waste of time unless the new game functions *totally* different than the old. Those features kept the game balanced during a campaign as even after a terrible battle where you lost a lot of people and had no credits you could leverage the exp and credit bonus you would get from future games to rebuild your gang.

Unfortunately no, GW has fumbled a lot of campaign mechanics lately. It was horrendous in Shadow War Armageddon. It is interesting in N17, but missing this cruicial part. The new campaign is different in many ways, but would benefit greatly from the underdog system of old. Now, an underdog would be more likely to choose scenario (and choose to be the attacker) as well as some scenarios give additional cards to the underdog.

You souldn't wait any longer, start playing now, because the game is really fun and at this point, rich with content. Some parts are not so good at the momeny (juves, leveling up juves, missing underdog system ++), but the game as a whole is great.

There’s a few scenarios that give extra rep for playing against higher rated guilds as well, which includes the detail scenario.

 Theophony wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Having a non tedious time, where you have a realistic opportunity to actually achieve something more than be stomped into oblivion.

Winning is just a short hand for "not losing terribly".

In the real world there is no fairness. Think of the Iraqi troops that fought against desert shield/storm. They had to play, no chance of winning, and took a kicking. Their campaign ended, it wasn’t a fair fight. Should the coalition have only sent in the same number of troops as Iraq? Or should it have been troops with only the same training level as the Iraqi troops? Nope, we wanted to win and we sent it all...and then some.

If you don’t want to play the game, then don’t, to me it’s not always about winning (which seems to be the only thing your after as you keep mentioning it), but learning about my opponent and trying to decipher what sort of strategy they are employing and how to counter it. I’m there for friendship and fun, and if I get to brag a big at the end of the day GREAT, but in a losing situation hopefully I can say “I gave it my best, and the bully got a bloody nose.”

In that analogy, what do you think your chances of getting Iraq to play next time are?

In the real world we can't make up excuses to invade the other person's house and force them to play.

A game is about meaningful choices, if the starting conditions are so out of balance that one side has no meaningful choices to make then it's just not a fun game for that person.

This is also not the same as not allowing asymetric starting conditions. Say, the Alamo, Rourkes Drift, Thermopylae... a scenario like those is unequal but still gives the weaker side meaningful choices.

Having the Alamo assaulted by the modern US army would not. A game should stop campaigns serving up games like that.

I don't get it, everyone's talking about how unfair this game is...

...that's the point. You have to play aggressive and dirty. And you're gonna have casualties. It's just a mechanic of the game.

And I SUCK at tabletop games, I don't know why I'm having zero issues with this game's campaigns.

Other tricks to help balance the game:

-Remove the 'recovery' and 'permadeath' of gangers, but HALF the credit reward.

-Underdogs get to use a card

-Call the campaign after one player gets too far ahead.

I'd think we could all agree setting your models up just to get stomped is not fun.

I don't like games where I steamroll the other guy either.

I want as close to 50/50 as possible so player skill actually matters.

hobojebus wrote:
I'd think we could all agree setting your models up just to get stomped is not fun.

I don't like games where I steamroll the other guy either.

I want as close to 50/50 as possible so player skill actually matters.

Necromunda isn't really a game about testing your skill. It's a game about telling stories. I have gladly set up many a game where I knew I would get steamrolled because I knew the story it would add to our campaign would be awesome and re-told many a time. Like that time I did a rescue mission to get a gang member back from an opposing gang, and my opponent only had a single sentry stood upon a tower guarding the prisoner. As expected I took him out easily, at which point he fell off the tower to his doom... only to use his last breath to sound the alarm, bringing all his mates onto the table and making my expected cakewalk of a Rescue mission an unmitigated disaster. Having every game be "as close to 50/50 a possible" would make it a completely different game and that story would never have happened. If you want that, I recommend Shadespire.

I agree with the second half of your last sentence, but not the first half. Balance and a progressive campaign go against one another, IMO. The very nature of a narrative progression like Necromunda is that someties, one side will be more powerful than the other. Now, the rewards should perhaps favour the underdog, but I'm not sure I like the idea of the [I]scenario[/] favouring the underdog. If that's the case, there's no point to bothering with an experience/advancement system.

 Mymearan wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I'd think we could all agree setting your models up just to get stomped is not fun.

I don't like games where I steamroll the other guy either.

I want as close to 50/50 as possible so player skill actually matters.

Necromunda isn't really a game about testing your skill. It's a game about telling stories. I have gladly set up many a game where I knew I would get steamrolled because I knew the story it would add to our campaign would be awesome and re-told many a time. Like that time I did a rescue mission to get a gang member back from an opposing gang, and my opponent only had a single sentry stood upon a tower guarding the prisoner. As expected I took him out easily, at which point he fell off the tower to his doom... only to use his last breath to sound the alarm, bringing all his mates onto the table and making my expected cakewalk of a Rescue mission an unmitigated disaster. Having every game be "as close to 50/50 a possible" would make it a completely different game and that story would never have happened. If you want that, I recommend Shadespire.

Sure, but in this case the defender had options. He could raise the alarm and then he could make decisions about what to do with the reinforcements.

If he had deployed all his guys at the start and you'd shot them all before his turn then... not a great story.

Andrew, you absolutely can ensure fair games in a campaign system - necromunda even has some of these mechanisms such as limited size scenarios, and there's lots of other things you can do.

In the past campaigns of old Necromunda when one gang became to powerful they had to face the Arbites or Genestealers outbreak. This was one of our groups ways to balance the playing field. Another was to retire a really successful gang as they moved up hive to a better life. Retirement was considered a great victory and you would then start a new gang at the bottom of the pack.

Our group really enjoyed the narrative and the story the game told. This is what made it such an amazing game.

I have a lot of great memories of those campaigns.

Vorian wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I'd think we could all agree setting your models up just to get stomped is not fun.

I don't like games where I steamroll the other guy either.

I want as close to 50/50 as possible so player skill actually matters.

Necromunda isn't really a game about testing your skill. It's a game about telling stories. I have gladly set up many a game where I knew I would get steamrolled because I knew the story it would add to our campaign would be awesome and re-told many a time. Like that time I did a rescue mission to get a gang member back from an opposing gang, and my opponent only had a single sentry stood upon a tower guarding the prisoner. As expected I took him out easily, at which point he fell off the tower to his doom... only to use his last breath to sound the alarm, bringing all his mates onto the table and making my expected cakewalk of a Rescue mission an unmitigated disaster. Having every game be "as close to 50/50 a possible" would make it a completely different game and that story would never have happened. If you want that, I recommend Shadespire.

Sure, but in this case the defender had options. He could raise the alarm and then he could make decisions about what to do with the reinforcements.

If he had deployed all his guys at the start and you'd shot them all before his turn then... not a great story.

Andrew, you absolutely can ensure fair games in a campaign system - necromunda even has some of these mechanisms such as limited size scenarios, and there's lots of other things you can do.

The alarm was a 4+ roll, so he didn't really have a choice. And that was after he miraculously survived a long fall. There was a 50% chance the game could've ended right then and there, but that's part of the fun.

Vorian wrote:

A game is about meaningful choices, if the starting conditions are so out of balance that one side has no meaningful choices to make then it's just not a fun game for that person.

Sorry I just have to disagree. This is not the case with necromunda and never has been the case. You're looking for games like Warmachine & Hordes. This is something completely different.

Vorian wrote:
A game should stop campaigns serving up games like that.

On the contrary, the game shouldn't stop this in campaigns at all. It is a very nice situation to be in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Now, the rewards should perhaps favour the underdog, but I'm not sure I like the idea of the [I]scenario[/] favouring the underdog. If that's the case, there's no point to bothering with an experience/advancement system.

Why is there no point? In my view, experience/advancement is the main point.

Vorian wrote:

Andrew, you absolutely can ensure fair games in a campaign system - necromunda even has some of these mechanisms such as limited size scenarios, and there's lots of other things you can do.

To an extent; but even limiting crew numbers doesn't help if all my guys are starting gangers and all yours are tooled-up veterans. The tactics cards help, and feel appropriate (at least when the underdog is the attacker); they know they can't win a fair fight, so they arrange an unfair one.

The Judge Dredd Miniatures Game had a very simple balance mechanism; the underdog got bonus cash to the value of the difference in ratings to spend on one-off reinforcements. Fine for gameplay, but it does diminish the achievement of having advanced your gang if the other guy gets to do the same thing for free.

Sure, so it's not two completely mismatched gangs, its a scenario where the mechanism to make it interesting was unlikely due to luck and not really player agency (from the random rolling for sentry numbers?).

Now, we could discuss the sentry mechanism and if it gave the defending player enough to do as a completely different subject, but this is scenario design. It can be done well so that this scenario is interesting even for hugely mismatched gangs. Using asymetric sides - which is cool.

Side 1 starts with X gang members
Side 2 starts with Y gang members

if side 1 achieves something they get Z members per turn. Obviously if both player 1 and 2 can effect this then it's more interesting for both players.

That's unfairness done in a great way.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

The Judge Dredd Miniatures Game had a very simple balance mechanism; the underdog got bonus cash to the value of the difference in ratings to spend on one-off reinforcements. Fine for gameplay, but it does diminish the achievement of having advanced your gang if the other guy gets to do the same thing for free.

There is a similar mechanism in Blood Bowl, but it doesn't diminish the achievement of having advanced your team. It just gives more balance to the game.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

Vorian wrote:

Andrew, you absolutely can ensure fair games in a campaign system - necromunda even has some of these mechanisms such as limited size scenarios, and there's lots of other things you can do.

To an extent; but even limiting crew numbers doesn't help if all my guys are starting gangers and all yours are tooled-up veterans. The tactics cards help, and feel appropriate (at least when the underdog is the attacker); they know they can't win a fair fight, so they arrange an unfair one.

The Judge Dredd Miniatures Game had a very simple balance mechanism; the underdog got bonus cash to the value of the difference in ratings to spend on one-off reinforcements. Fine for gameplay, but it does diminish the achievement of having advanced your gang if the other guy gets to do the same thing for free.

Yup, limiting numbers isn't going to make for a perfect game, its just one way you can stop extreme mismatches.

You can have inducements based on gang ratings, thats another fine mechanism. I played in a,campaign with that and it worked well. Obviously you need to make sure the stuff you're getting for free doesn't perform amazingly for the gang rating it costs or everyone will suppress their rating to be stronger!

You can also have economic boosts and penalties to help bunch gangs in the middle. Old Necromunda used to do this by decreasing profit based upon gang size, so the bigger you got the less you made. You could give free stuff to gangs that had got a hiding and were miles behind too (essentially what underdog bonus was) . It could have been fine tuned to be work much better than it did of course.

But there's lots of things, theres no reason you couldn't have infinitely running campaigns that didn't need you to retire gangs.

Vorian wrote:

That's unfairness done in a great way.

Here is the underdog system as it worked brilliantly in Necromunda: Underdog gets massive XP reward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vorian wrote:

But there's lots of things, theres no reason you couldn't have infinitely running campaigns that didn't need you to retire gangs.

This I can agree with Unfortunately, this is not true for Blood Bowl, where Chaos Kill teams rule at higher rating (and devastate all others).

Baxx wrote:

Vorian wrote:

That's unfairness done in a great way.

Here is the underdog system as it worked brilliantly in Necromunda: Underdog gets massive XP reward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vorian wrote:

But there's lots of things, theres no reason you couldn't have infinitely running campaigns that didn't need you to retire gangs.

This I can agree with Unfortunately, this is not true for Blood Bowl, where Chaos Kill teams rule at higher rating (and devastate all others).

We disagree on the definition of brilliantly, but sure, it was the idea behind it.

I do keep meaning to check the new system out and see if it does this bit better.

N17 does not handle underdog system better no.

This is also the first time I heard a complaint about the old Necromunda underedog system.

When you want to make a gang better, having that epic underdog bonus was the best way.

It's not so much I'm complaining about it. The system just generally let strong gangs get stronger.

I can't believe you competed in a campaign that didn't have major imbalance between the gangs inside 5 games.

A "perfect" system would let you play 20+ games without any gang becoming unviable or needing to be retired/ganged up on because it was a problem.

Necromunda is comfortably my favourite game, but it was never perfect.