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.

Baxx wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Noooo! Give me more! More more more more more!

I do understand the desire for simplicity and restraint both - but I cannot get enough Necromunda.

Just….keep it optional. Leave the House Of books as they are. Don’t tinker with those. But give me more settings, more campaign variety, more gribblies and more weirdos.

How many 7 cycle campaigns (3-1-3) of the same blue-print would be interesting to you? Have you played all 3? They're so similar I've summarized them in a table Did you play assault on precinct mini-campaign? Van Saar linked scenarios? All 95 scenarios?

I would like a proper campaign, but realize we're never gonna get it.

Reducing their qualities to a table could actually conceal/obscure the differences between them, though.

I've only played the original generic campaign (now defunct, by existing in a defunct book, I believe) and Dominion, but they were quite different. The main difference being that money flows a lot thicker in Dominion, and affords much more interesting gang development in a shorter period of gameplay.

I haven't paid much attention to the campaign types that followed Dominion, but the "starvation and struggle" one takes things in the opposite direction, doesn't it? Making it very difficult to upgrade your gang?

So, like, good for you for wrangling those into a single table, but it seems like your table is designed to *hide* information rather than convey it accurately if it makes those 2-3 types seem similar.

(I wouldn't be surprised if the third type is similar to Dominion, though, since iirc it basically replaced "territories" with "scams and grifts" or whatever they're called, that do pretty much the same things.)

Is there many relevant differences between the current Necromunda and the 1995 Necromunda?

 Altruizine wrote:

Reducing their qualities to a table could actually conceal/obscure the differences between them, though.

I've only played the original generic campaign (now defunct, by existing in a defunct book, I believe) and Dominion, but they were quite different. The main difference being that money flows a lot thicker in Dominion, and affords much more interesting gang development in a shorter period of gameplay.

I haven't paid much attention to the campaign types that followed Dominion, but the "starvation and struggle" one takes things in the opposite direction, doesn't it? Making it very difficult to upgrade your gang?

So, like, good for you for wrangling those into a single table, but it seems like your table is designed to *hide* information rather than convey it accurately if it makes those 2-3 types seem similar.

(I wouldn't be surprised if the third type is similar to Dominion, though, since iirc it basically replaced "territories" with "scams and grifts" or whatever they're called, that do pretty much the same things.)

Gang War 1 (defunct N17) is very different from the current 7 cycle blue-print campaign format, yes. You never played any campaign newer than 4 years, but you are desperate for more? That sounds very strange to me. I haven't played 40k since 5th edition, still I don't care how many new editions are coming down the road.

The table shows all info and hides nothing. They are that similar. Any new amount of campaigns will just be new rows in a table I'm not a game designer, but I think I would be able to do something similar myself. The reason I put campaigns in tables are:
-They each have their own type of resource (Territory/Racket)
-They have similar attributes (access to TP/BM yes/no, Alignment/Allegiance, triumphs)
-They have identical cycle structure (Occupation/Expansion/Insurrection: 3 cycles, Downtime: 1 cycle, Takeover/Justice/Damnation: 3 cycles)

Depends on what you mean by "relevant". The game mechanics are fundamentally different, and that leads to differences in how skills are expressed.

However, the concepts are still the same. You build a gang, which fights other gangs to get loot and experience to upgrade your gang.

I guess the weapon stats are still pretty similar, as the game still relies on the same kind of strength/toughness comparison.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Is there many relevant differences between the current Necromunda and the 1995 Necromunda?

More color art and less 80s pop culture references?

 NAVARRO wrote:
Is there many relevant differences between the current Necromunda and the 1995 Necromunda?

Everything.

I’m not a big fan of a purely Dominion Campaign as it’s presented. It’s just too different from the old ways.

However, it definitely has bits I’d want to incorporate.

For instance, my first campaign, once we’ve had a dry run “everyone should now know what they’re doing” campaign, is to be rooted in the exploration of a New Dome.

For that, I’ll probably cleave closer to the original Necromunda when it comes to Territory. That will represent the Gangs exploring and seeing what’s what within it.

The second Campagin? That is when I’ll borrow from Dominion, to give the Gangs a way to seize choice territory from rivals, and perhaps start setting up the more specialist “really good for My Gang” type territory - or to wreck such things.

It’s extra work on my behalf, but that’s just Necromunda to me

Flinty wrote:Depends on what you mean by "relevant". The game mechanics are fundamentally different, and that leads to differences in how skills are expressed.

However, the concepts are still the same. You build a gang, which fights other gangs to get loot and experience to upgrade your gang.

I guess the weapon stats are still pretty similar, as the game still relies on the same kind of strength/toughness comparison.

I was wondering if someone creating a gang and playing the 1995 Necromunda would be able to small tweak the gang if he wanted to expand to the current campaigns and books.
More like if its a natural extension to the ruleset or a total break away from it.

warboss wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Is there many relevant differences between the current Necromunda and the 1995 Necromunda?

More color art and less 80s pop culture references?

I just managed to find my original books( both of them) and all the templates and tokens all super mint ( just need to find the dices) and yes very 80's and very retro XD
Looked at getting metal gangs on eBay and wow... no way!

Baxx wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Is there many relevant differences between the current Necromunda and the 1995 Necromunda?

Everything.

So not compatible in any way shape or form? Himmmm ok.

 NAVARRO wrote:
So not compatible in any way shape or form? Himmmm ok.

Well, in one shape or form: you can take many of the new minis and just use the old game ^^. Viceversa you might need to cut more weapons from gangers that can't use them anymore.

It depends on how the gang is armed. There is much more weight on house-specific weapons in this edition. for example, in the 1995 version van saar would be armed largely as other gangs with a mixture of lasguns, shotguns and auto-weapons. the latest Van Saar release has directed them down largely energy weapons, with las-equivalents of shotguns and autoguns.

However, Orlocks still have access to the main range of N95 wepaon spreads so would be less affected.

 Flinty wrote:
It depends on how the gang is armed. There is much more weight on house-specific weapons in this edition. for example, in the 1995 version van saar would be armed largely as other gangs with a mixture of lasguns, shotguns and auto-weapons. the latest Van Saar release has directed them down largely energy weapons, with las-equivalents of shotguns and autoguns.

However, Orlocks still have access to the main range of N95 weapon spreads so would be less affected.

I don't think there's many nu-orlocks equipped with las weapons, actually...

You could also largely use the newer campaign systems to run using N95 gangs. I don;t know how that would affect balance regarding income or experience building, but you could do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
It depends on how the gang is armed. There is much more weight on house-specific weapons in this edition. for example, in the 1995 version van saar would be armed largely as other gangs with a mixture of lasguns, shotguns and auto-weapons. the latest Van Saar release has directed them down largely energy weapons, with las-equivalents of shotguns and autoguns.

However, Orlocks still have access to the main range of N95 weapon spreads so would be less affected.

I don't think there's many nu-orlocks equipped with las weapons, actually...

But do the house list prevent access to basic lasguns and laspistols? the newer Van Saar list pretty much restricts non-energy weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also this discussion probably needs to be started again the specialist Games forum

Thanks guys I will stop bombarding with questions XD

Ratlings gang, setup as N95 count as Orlock with one brute, Im set.

The difference between N95 Orlocks and current is minimal, but if you've got a lot of Ratling snipers, you might be better running them as Delaque.

Be aware that in a game where clever use of terrain is key, using Ratling models might put other player’s noses out of joint!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Be aware that in a game where clever use of terrain is key, using Ratling models might put other player’s noses out of joint!

It shouldn't, really, since a short model using their lack of height to hide behind terrain won't be able to see/target anything themselves.

It would only matter if a strategy of "HIDE EVERYTHING ALWAYS" was viable, but it's not (and any gang can already do that by going prone behind 1mm of cover).

 Altruizine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Be aware that in a game where clever use of terrain is key, using Ratling models might put other player’s noses out of joint!

It shouldn't, really, since a short model using their lack of height to hide behind terrain won't be able to see/target anything themselves.

It would only matter if a strategy of "HIDE EVERYTHING ALWAYS" was viable, but it's not (and any gang can already do that by going prone behind 1mm of cover).

With alternating activation, a short model can hide where a taller one wouldn’t be able to, and then just move around the obstacle in its own activation.

Similarly, a Ratling could be completely obscured to everyone apart from its intended target, where a taller model would be visible. Imagine the walkways. Ratling and Target are on the walkway. Everyone below can see the Target, but not the Ratling hidden behind a piece of scatter terrain which wouldn’t obscure a taller model.

The solution is easy, just stack two ratings on top of each other to provide one model.

For clarity, because Internets, I’m not suggesting or hinting that Navarro wants do Ratlings purely for advantage. Just demonstrating whilst a cool idea, it may not be well receive by opponents.

Not much I can do about them being small, maybe some strategic terrain on the bases to lift them up a bit. But not too worried about other players since this will be self-contained private group campaign XD Its more for the modelling than anything.

Dont want fancy weapons either and the idea is to build something themed around Bigby Crumb, Ratling Slopper incursions hunting for exotic food.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For clarity, because Internets, I’m not suggesting or hinting that Navarro wants do Ratlings purely for advantage. Just demonstrating whilst a cool idea, it may not be well receive by opponents.

All good all good I did not think that for a second Sir. Thanks for the help.
One thing GW should do is have just 1 page a bit more clear about all these new books.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Be aware that in a game where clever use of terrain is key, using Ratling models might put other player’s noses out of joint!

It shouldn't, really, since a short model using their lack of height to hide behind terrain won't be able to see/target anything themselves.

It would only matter if a strategy of "HIDE EVERYTHING ALWAYS" was viable, but it's not (and any gang can already do that by going prone behind 1mm of cover).

With alternating activation, a short model can hide where a taller one wouldn’t be able to, and then just move around the obstacle in its own activation.

Similarly, a Ratling could be completely obscured to everyone apart from its intended target, where a taller model would be visible. Imagine the walkways. Ratling and Target are on the walkway. Everyone below can see the Target, but not the Ratling hidden behind a piece of scatter terrain which wouldn’t obscure a taller model.

All models can do that, though. It would only matter on a crazy board of exclusively scatter terrain, where there were no walls or structures (so that human-sized infantry would always have their heads above terrain).

Also, the described tactic isn't especially viable compared to the alternative of standing still in heavy cover and using your extra action to aim instead of to move.

Edit: the only case I can see short models being slightly onerous is if they are a pure melee build that wants to stay obscured for the entire duration of the game, except when they're charging/fighting

 NAVARRO wrote:

So not compatible in any way shape or form? Himmmm ok.

It's the same at the same time completely different. If you're looking to roll dice and have fun playing with what you got, you can safely do so. Sure, you might break some less meaningful restrictions (many of the new weapon restrictions are more like plastic mini assembly guides than actual game rules). New Necromunda got about 400 unique weapon profiles, so while most old weapons exist in new, many new weapons doesn't exist in old.

The game doesn't break by having van saar with autoguns or goliath with lasguns. Game breaks by having fresh gangs start with BS2+ Rapid Fire Fast Shot Plasmas.

There still no Juves as Models.

Wonder what we get next.

For next week's releases he only GW release is the cawdor weapons pack.
The rest is forgeworld/ not available for order by stores.

I checked the store order forms for Australia yesterday.

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
For next week's releases he only GW release is the cawdor weapons pack. The rest is forgeworld/ not available for order by stores.

You mean for just Necromunda, or everything that GW is putting out this Saturday?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
For next week's releases he only GW release is the cawdor weapons pack. The rest is forgeworld/ not available for order by stores.

You mean for just Necromunda, or everything that GW is putting out this Saturday?

Specifically Stig Shambler, Clovis the Redeemer and the Sheen Birds.
They are not available for order, so therefore my supposition that those models will be forgeworld.

Releases have been disrupted so much that Clovis was first teased back in April.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/13/underhive-informant-like-fire-like-worshipping-the-emperor-then-youre-in-luck/

Then the model first seen painted 21st June 2021.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/21/underhive-informant-pray-youre-not-in-klovis-the-redeemers-little-black-book-of-torture/

Oh right, sorry. You had me worried that everything was direct only. I really want that BB Khorne pitch...

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Specifically Stig Shambler, Clovis the Redeemer and the Sheen Birds.
They are not available for order, so therefore my supposition that those models will be forgeworld.

You didn't need supposition or store order availability, we knew these to be Forge World. Basically everything is Forge World except a very few core products. Gang specific brutes, special characters and pets are always Forgeworld.

But Kaaaaaaaal!!!!! And dogs packaged in orlock specialist team box (box nr 2). Yaddayada.

Well I for one didn't know if it was FW or GW but that to me makes all the difference.
Thin and fragile parts are iffy in GW plastics but in FW resins are to be avoided at all costs.

Wasn't the new releases supposed to go up on FW today or did I miss something?