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.

Umm... no it hasn't.

Then I suppose all those "Core-set expansions", Rules supplements, etc... existed only on my imagination?

This stink because is a "Day-1 DLC", that makes you wonder "If it is allready done, why don't they just put it on the base product"? And thats a legitimate critizism. I agree with it, even.

Some dillusional statements in here...
Regardless, at least we have a timeframe to work by. It seems GW would like us to have time to paint.

I just need to know when Arbites are going to get sweet, sweet models.

That's all I need to know.

 Galas wrote:
Then I suppose all those "Core-set expansions", Rules supplements, etc... existed only on my imagination?

This stink because is a "Day-1 DLC", that makes you wonder "If it is allready done, why don't they just put it on the base product"? And thats a legitimate critizism. I agree with it, even.

So supplement coming year later means game is day 1 DLC? At least back in '90's many games I got had supplements coming not on day 1 and indeed could come years later.

But ok Warhammer is obviously all day 1 DLC since codexes are spread out years with last ones being completed years later.

 Galas wrote:
Then I suppose all those "Core-set expansions", Rules supplements, etc... existed only on my imagination?

This stink because is a "Day-1 DLC", that makes you wonder "If it is allready done, why don't they just put it on the base product"? And thats a legitimate critizism. I agree with it, even.

I mean, I can understand why they would sell it separately as the new box sets being marketed as a refined version without campaign stuff.
But I think if they included it, the price would have increased anyways, so its probably a wash.
As a computer and electronics sales associate, I'm used to things not coming with other important things.
And yeah, the game industry has always ascribed to the expansion method of generating additional revenue. It just doesn't look like DLC

tneva82 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Then I suppose all those "Core-set expansions", Rules supplements, etc... existed only on my imagination?

This stink because is a "Day-1 DLC", that makes you wonder "If it is allready done, why don't they just put it on the base product"? And thats a legitimate critizism. I agree with it, even.

So supplement coming year later means game is day 1 DLC? At least back in '90's many games I got had supplements coming not on day 1 and indeed could come years later.

But ok Warhammer is obviously all day 1 DLC since codexes are spread out years with last ones being completed years later.

Sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Neronoxx wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Then I suppose all those "Core-set expansions", Rules supplements, etc... existed only on my imagination?

This stink because is a "Day-1 DLC", that makes you wonder "If it is allready done, why don't they just put it on the base product"? And thats a legitimate critizism. I agree with it, even.

I mean, I can understand why they would sell it separately as the new box sets being marketed as a refined version without campaign stuff.
But I think if they included it, the price would have increased anyways, so its probably a wash.
As a computer and electronics sales associate, I'm used to things not coming with other important things.
And yeah, the game industry has always ascribed to the expansion method of generating additional revenue. It just doesn't look like DLC

I have no problem with expansions. They are (Where) great. One of my favourite products of all time, Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne was an Expansion. I know Expansions are generally gone (Ignoring some strange cases like The Witcher 3 ones, etc...) and we live in the age of DLC's.
But even then, DLC's can be made in many ways. Day-1 DLC's, don't feel right. Is even worse when the contect is already there, you need to pay to "Unlock" it. In Videogames this is more obvious.

The boxed game is designed as a contained gaming experience.

But that and nothing else, and you’ve still got a fully functioning board game (at least in theory, as none of us have really seen the book).

The Gang War book is an expansion, a way to do more and add more.

It’s not a compulsory purchase to make the boxed game work.

That’s not exactly Day one DLC.

Eh? "Day 1 DLC" means exactly that - additional content available on ... day 1. Not supplements coming later on.

The usual reasons for supplements are:
1) stuff wasn't ready for the release date - obviously not applicable
2) additional material that wouldn't fit in the base game - probably not the case here
3) it's not really part of the base game, but here it is if you want it - seems to be the reasoning here. The base game is the two specific Goliath and Escher gangs (I wouldn't be surprised if there's background explaining a personal feud between the gang leaders) in the Underhive. All the rest - the other Houses, games in Hive City (i.e. on 3D terrain), creating your own gangs and progressing them game after game - has been deemed as extras. so it's being sold separately.

The Gang War book will probably be twenty quid - If that were included in the box set, the price probably wouldn't have gone up by £20, but it could perhaps have gone above the price point they wanted, so it's on sale separately.

Edit - are videogames these days really literally unplayable without paying for this "day 1 DLC"? Or are you just at a disadvantage compared to other people if you don't partake?

If one videogame comes with a contained single-player gaming experience and ask you to pay 20 bucks to unlock the multiplayer-competitive mode... thats a damm Day one DLC.

To be honest, I have no problems buying the core box and the Supplement. But I still think is a bad practice.

Why is it a bad practice? It's giving me more choice. If I'm buying this to play with my kid, for instance, and the campaign material is irrelevant to me, I don't need to buy it. Going with your computer game analogy, that sounds like a great deal - multiplayer has never been a selling point for a game for me, so if I don't need to buy that module, great!

If this book were a limited print run, or not available in Spain or something, then that'd be different.

Adding 150-200 more pages to a Bulk printed rulebook, so the base game contains more, instead of less, even if you don't want to use it, doesn't costs GW enough to justify making the basic box more expensive.

Of course, the elephant in the room is: If they can separate it, and gain more money, why whouldn't they? And they did it. A business is a business to gain money, they don't have any obligation of being "ethical". Even being "ethical" is more a marketing strategy than anything else.

So, I'm gonna bite their strategy and give them more money. But to me is pretty obvious that no, this is not a "consumer friendly", or consumer-anything movement from them.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The boxed game is designed as a contained gaming experience.

But that and nothing else, and you’ve still got a fully functioning board game (at least in theory, as none of us have really seen the book).

The Gang War book is an expansion, a way to do more and add more.

It’s not a compulsory purchase to make the boxed game work.

That’s not exactly Day one DLC.

Lol, lets be honest, no one will play the game whithout the campaign system. Its an obviojs day one dlc. Not that i really care, but lets call a spade a spade

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 The Infinite wrote:


That is a semantic argument at best; alternating activation just masks the major problems with an IGOUGO system, it doesn't actually address them inasmuch as hopes you don't notice them.

Ignoring the above statement which I simply cannot take seriously, you still haven't provided any examples of systems that are so clearly superior to the alternate activation with tactics card system Necromunda seems to be going for.

Since we haven't seen the full system yet, let alone played it or formed a full judgement on it, that's an utterly absurd demand.

And the decision has nothing to do with keeping the price of the box low. 60 pages more in a rulebook wont have much of an impact on production and logistic cost, and even if it would, they could have then put it for free on a pdf on the web site. I said it before, but i fully expect gw to nickel and dime us to death with necro. Luckily for them, im so happy that the game is coming back that i will happily oblige

It is worth pointing out that Blood bowl followed exactly the same release structure with death zone season one launched on the same day as the core game.
Blood bowl launched with an app where you could (and still can) buy a bundle of the core rules and death zone for £15.
It seems likely that Necromunda will do something similar.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, why are people calling this IGOUGO. It's not that at all.

It's an initiative/priority based system. It's more akin to combat in the 40K RPGs than traditional GW games.

From the video it looks like a bog standard alternating activation system.

Heaps of people think this is what IGOUGO means because that's what it sounds like - "I do a thing, then you do a thing". It really implies fast turnover. IGOUGO is not a great term for "I do all the things for 30 minutes, then you do all the things for 30 minutes".

 The Infinite wrote:


Since we haven't seen the full system yet, let alone played it or formed a full judgement on it, that's an utterly absurd demand.

And yet you do seem to have a rather strong opinion on individual components of the system that by your own admission you've never seen in action.

You also equated alternate activation to igougo, so I don't think asking you for what you consider the superior alternative is somehow absurd.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 The Infinite wrote:


Since we haven't seen the full system yet, let alone played it or formed a full judgement on it, that's an utterly absurd demand.

And yet you do seem to have a rather strong opinion on individual components of the system that by your own admission you've never seen in action.

You also equated alternate activation to igougo, so I don't think asking you for what you consider the superior alternative is somehow absurd.

So I've said I don't like all that I've seen and am reserving judgement until more info is available and reviews are out, and in your mind that equates to "a rather strong opinion".
Right...

I understand the differences in the two systems, they are both however from the same game design school of thought that seems to limit decision making to your own turn, making you a bystander when your opponent is acting (be that for a full turn or for a single activation, it is irrelevant). I'm not a fan of that design choice. Now, should that be mitigated in some way, enabling player interaction and decision making in some manner, then I'll be more inclined to look favourably on it. And finally, I'm not about to start making comparisons with other games just using my limited knowledge, before the new system is out and before anyone's had a chance to play it.
Your absurd demands are rejected.

 The Infinite wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 The Infinite wrote:


Since we haven't seen the full system yet, let alone played it or formed a full judgement on it, that's an utterly absurd demand.

And yet you do seem to have a rather strong opinion on individual components of the system that by your own admission you've never seen in action.

You also equated alternate activation to igougo, so I don't think asking you for what you consider the superior alternative is somehow absurd.

So I've said I don't like all that I've seen and am reserving judgement until more info is available and reviews are out, and in your mind that equates to "a rather strong opinion".
Right...

I understand the differences in the two systems, they are both however from the same game design school of thought that seems to limit decision making to your own turn, making you a bystander when your opponent is acting (be that for a full turn or for a single activation, it is irrelevant). I'm not a fan of that design choice. Now, should that be mitigated in some way, enabling player interaction and decision making in some manner, then I'll be more inclined to look favourably on it. And finally, I'm not about to start making comparisons with other games just using my limited knowledge, before the new system is out and before anyone's had a chance to play it.
Your absurd demands are rejected.

In a perfect world, turns wouldnt be necessary. But the world isnt perfect, and people arent going to pay attention to their opponent while theyre moving their own models. IGOUGO and alternate activation are options, with random activation, action points etc being others. But playing simultaneously just bogs games down. Sure, its not great if you have to wait 30min to take your turn, but thats why alternate acitvation is a thing - instead of waiting for your opponent to do *everything*, you just have to wait til theyve activated a single unit/model. Its still *far* preferable to any sort of simultaneous system, simply because it leads to a far more relaxed atmosphere. You have time to think, to plan while your opponent does his thing.

 Tyr13 wrote:

 The Infinite wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 The Infinite wrote:


Since we haven't seen the full system yet, let alone played it or formed a full judgement on it, that's an utterly absurd demand.

And yet you do seem to have a rather strong opinion on individual components of the system that by your own admission you've never seen in action.

You also equated alternate activation to igougo, so I don't think asking you for what you consider the superior alternative is somehow absurd.

So I've said I don't like all that I've seen and am reserving judgement until more info is available and reviews are out, and in your mind that equates to "a rather strong opinion".
Right...

I understand the differences in the two systems, they are both however from the same game design school of thought that seems to limit decision making to your own turn, making you a bystander when your opponent is acting (be that for a full turn or for a single activation, it is irrelevant). I'm not a fan of that design choice. Now, should that be mitigated in some way, enabling player interaction and decision making in some manner, then I'll be more inclined to look favourably on it. And finally, I'm not about to start making comparisons with other games just using my limited knowledge, before the new system is out and before anyone's had a chance to play it.
Your absurd demands are rejected.

In a perfect world, turns wouldnt be necessary. But the world isnt perfect, and people arent going to pay attention to their opponent while theyre moving their own models. IGOUGO and alternate activation are options, with random activation, action points etc being others. But playing simultaneously just bogs games down. Sure, its not great if you have to wait 30min to take your turn, but thats why alternate acitvation is a thing - instead of waiting for your opponent to do *everything*, you just have to wait til theyve activated a single unit/model. Its still *far* preferable to any sort of simultaneous system, simply because it leads to a far more relaxed atmosphere. You have time to think, to plan while your opponent does his thing.

I agree, there are various ways to abstract within the frame of a game system (different "schools of thought" so to speak) and I'm sure we all have preferences to different ways it has been done or could be done (simultaneous play can be a lot of fun, though I've only seen it in board games so far and I have no idea how it'd be ported to a miniature game). I like to be engaged with the game and feel like I can influence events, even if only slightly, as often as possible; it's been a long time since I've enjoyed any game where I've had to sit waiting for my opponent to finish before I can do anything other than "plan".

 The Infinite wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


That you're making the best guess you can from whatever information you have available? Yeah, that sounds about right. I mean if there's something more to your objection feel free to lay it out, but your argument seemed to pretty much boil down to "this is too much like Necromunda, I wanted a totally different 'modern' game".

What argument? You're literally reading my name and my dissatisfaction with the game system presented in the video and extrapolating down some seemingly random path.

Then perhaps you should have laid out your thoughts properly the first time instead of just saying "it's rubbish, not modern enough, bleh".

I liked the two actions on activation (and the different action choices), I liked the addition of aiming as an action in place of movement, I liked the jam mechanic, I liked the different stats for the models rather than every house having the same base stats.
(mainly QOL changes/additions to the original system)

I didn't like that models couldn't react to being shot, or that seeing an enemy move/act in line of sight didn't enable any triggers/interrupts (though those may still be available), or that there were no conditional/delayed skills (again, thus far).

The need for triggered responses and interrupts is largely negated by the turn format. What we saw in the video was a con-show floor demo game with three models per side, considering they didn't even bother to cover several mechanics we know for a fact are in the game, making judgements on what is and isn't in the game on the basis of the video is, to say the least, premature.

I didn't like the flat to hit stats in close combat (better suited to mass battle games rather than skirmish scale IMO), or that it resolved on charge order rather than being an actual contest (arguably one of the better mechanics 40K 2nd Ed ported to Necromunda).
I didn't like there was no seize/steal initiative mechanic (so far).

I'm entirely ambivalent regarding the specific dice mechanic used to determine hit rolls, but I do strongly prefer charge order because it at least allows low-Int models a chance to win a fight if you can set up the charge properly, while Initiative order makes low-Int models worthless in melee unless they're extremely tough. I don't get your complaint about a seizing mechanic, players dice off at the start of each game turn to choose who goes first or second, and after that point it's alternate model activation, interrupting that sequence would either be pointless or completely unbalanced depending on how you went about it.

(all developments that have been successfully implemented over the past two decades in a variety of miniature games to great improvement over 1990's game design)

Such a great variety you still can't actually bring yourself to name any, but regardless, that's your opinion of what would be a great improvement not an absolute objective fact - plenty of people are going to be disappointed that this isn't a straight-up re-release of the original Necromunda rulebook with some typo fixes, so evidently there are still plenty of fans of 1990's game design floating around.

I'm in two minds as to whether I like the the cover template/ruler or not, on the one hand it simplifies cover mechanics somewhat, on the other it looks like complexity for its own sake rather than writing a solid ruleset.
I'm in two minds as to whether I like a stat card for each model, table space is always a premium and having to find space for a lot of supplementary cards instead of an app or print-out seems backwards.

It simplifies the cover mechanics but is also complexity for its own sake? You were right the first time around; "can you see it yes/no, does it have one line or two" is actually admirably concise by GW rules writing standards, making LoS far less contentious without resorting to the verbiage necessary for a category-based cover system. I don't care for cards myself, but it'll take five minutes to stick the blanks to a sheet of paper, scan it, and have unlimited Roster Sheets in the new format, assuming they don't just provide them online or someone else hasn't already done it, a bit of a nitpick that one.

I could go on, but you get the gist.

I do. It's almost as if laying out your actual argument for people to read rather than making some ambiguous comments and then getting annoyed when people interpret them in the obvious way makes your view easier to understand, whodathunk.

Oh yeah a miniature game played on card tiles with extensive campaign and character advancement systems is entirely different to the new Necromunda, I see exactly what you're saying [/sarcasm]

A miniatures board game is in no way the same thing as a skirmish tabletop wargame that provides 2D printed terrain in the box - by all accounts Necromunda will function equally well on FW Zone Mortalis tiles, or your own custom tunnel layout, a miniature boardgame is just a boardgame with fancy counters, they are demonstrably different. You're basically arguing that death metal and Spanish folk music are basically the same thing because they're both music and they both have guitars in them

I'm guessing from your flag that English isn't your native language so let me explain. I was saying that Mordheim was made even better when a player took up the mantle of the GM role and managed the campaign actively rather than everyone just playing the game as a "scenario-based "PvP"" system. The post launch support is the best thing Mordheim received, it took a solid enough game and made it a whole lot better.

Ooooh, dude, making snarky comments about assumptions in one post and then trying to guzzle down your own foot in the next isn't a good look - I use a VPN, my forum flag changes several times a day. I've never felt the need to "GM" a Mordheim campaign, if you set them up properly the run themselves, and the rest is down to player attitude in your group, I don't see any reason Newcromunda won't work exactly the same way.

That is a semantic argument at best; alternating activation just masks the major problems with an IGOUGO system, it doesn't actually address them inasmuch as hopes you don't notice them.

Even if it were merely a semantic argument, when you're discussing what a thing is or isn't semantics are fairly vital chief. IGOUGO and alternate activation are entirely different methods of constructing the turn sequence. IGOUGO is the traditional GW/eww gross 1990's way of doing things; order of play is determined at the start of the game, each player takes all possible actions with their whole army, then the other player does the same, etc until completion. Alternate Activation typically determines order of play more than once, in this case with a dice-off at the start of each game-turn(Bolt Action uses a blind-picking mechanic, other games use card draw etc), then players alternate taking actions with individual models. AA doesn't require specific mechanics to address the quirks of IGOUGO because it does so inherently - interrupt and reaction mechanics are only needed in IGOUGO-based systems because otherwise you have huge tracts of dead time where one player isn't able to affect the tabletop in a meaningful way; AA means players are constantly acting and reacting over the course of the turn.

 Galas wrote:
Adding 150-200 more pages to a Bulk printed rulebook, so the base game contains more, instead of less, even if you don't want to use it, doesn't costs GW enough to justify making the basic box more expensive.

It likely costs more than you think. In addition to the added cost of simply printing and binding another 200 pages, it would greatly increase the weight of the game and make it more expensive to ship around the world. Not to mention that a heavier book would require additional packaging (like Dark Vengeance) to secure the book from destroying the sprues (like Deadzone). If I had to guess, it would add several dollars to the base costs, which would translate to an addition $15-$20 (at least) for the end user - the Blood Bowl books are only $25 to $30, so the savings to you probably aren't worth the loss of potential new players a more expensive box would entail.

Of course, the elephant in the room is: If they can separate it, and gain more money, why whouldn't they? And they did it. A business is a business to gain money, they don't have any obligation of being "ethical". Even being "ethical" is more a marketing strategy than anything else.

What GW is doing here, and did with Blood Bowl, is smart. It creates a tiered system that allows new players a complete experience at a price they are willing to pay without a lot of extraneous rules they may not be interested in initially, while more experienced players have an avenue towards the more extensive game. It's why something like 40k has three different starter sets, all designed around three different types of players. Necromunda also has three different starter sets - the core box alone, the core box + book, and just the book (if it is anything like the other lifestyle games GW makes, all the stuff in the core set will be available separately at some point in the near future). It separates the advanced version of Necromunda from the self contained boxed version.

While I understand wanting the box to be a product for experienced players, that's not what is really being offered. GW does have an avenue for upgrading it while still keeping the box set appropriate for potential new customers who are unfamiliar with GW games or Necromunda, or who might be more comfortable with board games than miniature games.

Sqorgar, all what you are saying is correct. I can understand the appeal to new players, and in the end, I believe is a good move, because a easier first experience for players, is better to the community as a whole..
But I'm not a new player, so at least for me this isn't as good as it could.. But as you said, I don't believe the gangs wars book is gonna be expensive, so is a minimal difference at the end, at least from the economical standpoint.

 The Infinite wrote:


I agree, there are various ways to abstract within the frame of a game system (different "schools of thought" so to speak) and I'm sure we all have preferences to different ways it has been done or could be done (simultaneous play can be a lot of fun, though I've only seen it in board games so far and I have no idea how it'd be ported to a miniature game). I like to be engaged with the game and feel like I can influence events, even if only slightly, as often as possible; it's been a long time since I've enjoyed any game where I've had to sit waiting for my opponent to finish before I can do anything other than "plan".

So player A wants to do model. Player B then interrupts or whatever to influence that one model activation. Player A then would be interrupting and doing something else to influence player B influencing player A. Player B then does something else to influence player A influencing player B influencing player A...Hmmm...YEah there\s limit on what influence makes sense. With IGOUGO reactions etc are useful. With alternative activations not needed.

Ii must say that i really appreciate, in all its absurdity, the argument that making you pay an extra for the advanced rules, is good for the players community. GW really did a hell of a job of convincing a few that it can do no wrong.

And i especially like the 200 extra pages argument, considering it was announced that gang war was a whooping 64 pages

I totally forgot that Gang Wars was 64 pages. Yeah, I'll go back to what I said before, theres 0 economical reasons to arguee that putting those 64 extra pages in the core rulebook would make the core box more expensive

otcs wrote:
Female bald Delaques? lol

Yes?

About 4 pages too late my frien lol

 Nostromodamus wrote:

While Goliath and Escher will be available in their own boxes from day one, they’ll be followed by the four other Great Houses in 2018.

Well, I'm glad they narrowed down a timeframe for us at last...

That is a huge let down, I was hoping that at least a few of the gangs would be out in December. Thanks for posting that H.B.M.C. and Nostromodamus!

On a side note I logged in today and saw three new pages of content from when I logged in yesterday and thought "GW must have posted some new stuff already.....awesome!" only to find three pages of people arguing about the the merits of different turn structures and whether or not Necromunda should be more like Infinity. Not to be rude, but would you gents mind taking that conversation to messages or another thread so we don't get this one closed down as well?


Edit: Giving credit where it's due.