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.

Say you have a battle brewing. Your team is ambushed, and maybe 5-10 guys take on your party of three or 5. Which ruleset would resolve this battle faster - Necromunda rules, Wrath and Glory, or 40k D100/Fantasy Flight RPGs?

For the longest time, based on the word of someone I trust quite a bit, I was going to base my upcoming Necromunda RPG campaign on Necromunda rules as much as possible, because I heard that they were effectively much faster than actual 40k RPG rules, of any kind.

Now I've been hearing, quite firmly from someone else I trust, that such is absolutely not the case. I.e., RPG rules are certainly faster when it comes to resolving combat than Necromunda rules.

I haven't at all had sufficient time to actually play these games yet, but I've been making other preparations for my RPG campaign to come - lore, art/music etc.

Having a Necromunda RPG based heavily in Necromunda rules was always the most enticing to me, both because there is so much already written for it and it's such an amazing game. No need to 'translate' the rules into another RPG system for everything already fleshed out and, most importantly, faster combat.

Now that I'm learning that might not be true, I need to ask you all: What do you know? What even is the advantage to Necromunda rules in the first place if RPG rules would somehow be faster, AND far more detailed? What is the truth?

Necromunda would be faster, but it's a skirmish game that naturally has a lower level of detail compared to an RPG.

If you're playing an RPG, I'd use the RPG rules.

Right? So why would anyone say an RPG would be faster? Admittedly mass combat rules are a thing in RPGs, at least in Rogue Trader RPG etc., and I can see *those* larger battles becoming more efficient on a per-model basis.

But also it's pretty common in RPGs to spend an entire night doing a single combat session...maybe? To be honest my small amount of experience really makes me second guess all of this. I think I need a more detailed perspective. Could you break down your reasoning a little?

So one thing to keep in mind with RPG games is combat in them varies a lot not just on the rules set, but also on the party playing the game. Some parties play with light combat rules and focus purely on the rules - combat is short sharp and fast and they get either lots of combats per evening or loads of other story stuff.

On the other hand they could indeed spend the entire evening on one combat event if they stretch things out and use every random rule and roleplaying and creative fighting and all.



Now wargames are more tightly structured as they aren't designed to run through a DM during the game (typically). So everything is pretty much simplified to specific turn sequences and actions and such. You can only do what the rules specify and allow; so it could make a roleplay party more focused on just the combat and get through it quicker than if they can customise the fight experience using the RPG combat system

Hmm. I've played the Fantasy Flight 40k RPGs a bit. Haven't played Necromunda, but have played Shadow War. Haven't played Wraith & Glory.

Technically, I think the FF RPG rules could *potentially* be the fastest depending on how you want the battle to play out and what you want to emphasize. Like, a single handflamer attack could potentially take out half the enemies in one go if you're fighting in an alley or something. Depending on which rules you're using, a gun firing on full auto can potentially hit multiple enemies too. And if you're using theater of the mind, you don't have to take the time to set up terrain and minis and spend a few turns maneuvering models into position.

Also, if you're already using RPG rules for the non-combat scenes, then using the same RPG rules saves you time/energy of "booting up" a different system in your brain.

I think which system you want to use will just depend on what kind of tone and gameplay you're going for. If you want lots of little bits and pieces of wargear and rules for supporting non-combat stuff, you're probably better off sticking to an RPG system. If you want the game to feel more like a series of combat with some roleplaying in between, then the Necromunda rules are a good fit and have the added benefit of being designed with Necromunda-tier gear and factions in mind. If you wanted to let someone play a goliath in the FF RPGs, you'd have to modify some ogryn rules or something.

 Netsurfer733 wrote:
Could you break down your reasoning a little?

My reasoning is this: An RPG is about telling a story and developing your character. Part of that character is the crunch of their rules, their abilities, and everything that goes into making that character from a rules perspective.

If you suddenly switch to a completely different rule set to work out combat - say, Necromunda's rules - then nothing the character has in the RPG really matters. You lose the nuance of differences, the granularity inherent in RPGs vs skirmish games vs mass combat games.

Mass combat rules within the RPG itself add a lot of abstraction to speed things up, but are still based upon the same basic stats that general combat would use. So your character's abilities/rules still matter, as those are translated within the bounds of the RPG. A completely alien system, like Necromunda, would require translation and dilution of those rules/abilities, which both seems like a lot of work to achieve a similar (or lesser) result, and takes away from the point of developing a character (IMO).

Naturally big combats in an RPG would take longer as the rules are more detailed, but a lot of that can be mitigated by the GM (even without using in-built 'mass combat' abstractions). The GM can group adversaries together, avoiding having initiative rolls for every NPC combatant, not making dodge/evasion rolls for each NPC like their lives matter as much as the player characters, and so on. The larger the combat you can track fewer things with NPCs (wounds, ammo, etc.) and simplify things, letting the player characters use their full rules and abilities - the game's about them after all - whilst the NPCs can just stick to basic actions like moving and shooting and doing the occasional weird thing (psychic powers, a reckless attack, etc.).

 Netsurfer733 wrote:
Right? So why would anyone say an RPG would be faster? Admittedly mass combat rules are a thing in RPGs, at least in Rogue Trader RPG etc., and I can see *those* larger battles becoming more efficient on a per-model basis.

But also it's pretty common in RPGs to spend an entire night doing a single combat session...maybe? To be honest my small amount of experience really makes me second guess all of this. I think I need a more detailed perspective. Could you break down your reasoning a little?

You could spend an entire session on combat, but personally I feel that RPGs that end up like that are designed poorly (obvious exception if that's the goal of the game and the group). Take D&D for example, first and second edition were pretty fast (we used to plow through 5-6 combats a night, maybe 20-30 minutes each). 3rd edition slowed down a fair bit, but a lot of that was complexity. 4th and 5th dialed down the complexity, but combat took even longer (~2 hours!) because they also lowered damage but kept absurdly high hit points (especially for monsters), which wasn't one of 1st or 2nd editions sins (though they had other problems). 4th was also built really specifically around a 55% success chance on hitting, which was really swingy (though they added 'math fix' feats later on).

Most of the warhammer RPGs I played (the earlier ones) suffered from high lethality and but low success chances, which made the game very swingy or involved stacking bonuses in weird ways, but could make for long combats. Or very short ones depending on how (un)lucky the party was.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Mass combat rules within the RPG itself add a lot of abstraction to speed things up, but are still based upon the same basic stats that general combat would use. So your character's abilities/rules still matter, as those are translated within the bounds of the RPG. A completely alien system, like Necromunda, would require translation and dilution of those rules/abilities, which both seems like a lot of work to achieve a similar (or lesser) result, and takes away from the point of developing a character (IMO).

Idk I guess I would be up for that though; I mostly care about the narrative, not about the combat. 'Translation and dilution of those [RPG] rules/abilities' is actually what I've been leaning towards for a long time.

Ok looking at everyone's replies, I guess this is all as murky as I feared it might be, so I'll go into a bit more detail for what I had in mind. I actually do dream of having folks in a room, using a hex map to represent their world, and then using actual terrain to represent whatever 'encounter' actually warrants representing it in such a way. Be it combat, or a tense situation, or anything that could benefit a 'closer' look. Think Battlefleet Gothic Armada 2 campaign (https://images.gamewatcherstatic.com/image/file/4/db/100624/20190623170238_1.jpg) , etc. So a two-layer system, heavy on the miniatures. And yes, I'm very mindful (and excited) about the prospect of getting many many civilians prepped and ready for this.

Cruising around Necromunda like that, seemed like it would benefit from the 'accuracy' of the Necromunda rules...but admittedly you are all making me think that realistically, in the end, the amount of work to flesh out Necromunda rules in this way might not be worth it/cause it to bend over SO far backwards that it truly would be a very different game. I just hate not being able to use Necromunda rules on Necromunda, though.

I suppose one big question is - what importance does the extreme (and very fun) level of detail in RPGs like 40k FFG RPGs REALLY matter for the story/experience? Why not use Necromunda character cards as opposed to character sheets and get away with roughly the same enjoyment for a fraction of the work?

(Voss is threatening to open up the discussion of 40k FFG RPG rules' worth which I know is a loaded one. But I'm still inclined to use 40k FFG RPG rules like Rogue Trader *IF* I went the RPG route...)

I'm not making any threats, let alone 'loaded' ones. (or much about FFG's rules at all, which is why I specified the earlier warhammer RPGs)

I'm stating my own experiences with how long combat takes with different games. Particularly in regards to the idea that a single combat session should/could take an entire night, which to me with a standard RPG and RPG group, is pretty terrible and dull. (again, unless super detailed, 'padded-sumo' combat is the goal)

It really depends on what you are looking for. Speed specifically I would at least assume Necromunda. I find that combats in the rpgs can drag unless the party knows exactly what they are doing immediately - get someone flip flopping, or a psyker yolo pushing and rolling psychic phenomena every turn, followed by checking injury tables if applicable, and so on and you can have individual turns eating up tons of time. On the flip side, you get a lot more detail and levers to pull to make some truly unique encounters.

It also depends on how much out of combat stuff you want to have, as I am unsure how well Necromunda is with that, while in the rpgs most things you do can be fairly easily given to a skill. Of course, you can easily then run into the problem of most of the players rolling up bureaucrats with zero combat skills for your big fights.

The only time I've found combat tedious in the 40k RPGs was when:

1. We were play-testing Dark Heresy 2.0. Be thankful the combat rules from the original version of that game never made it to print. Jesus H. Christ that combat took forever.

2. When I was GM'ing games of Deathwatch, an RPG that is basically "Easy Mode" when you don't prepare encounters as Marines in that game are so damned tough.

You don’t need to use Rules for Models to have RPG Battles using Models.

A nicely crafted 3D board does add to TTRPG games, as it adds “real life” type visuals and what have you. But all you really need do is either set your range conversion, if the RPG uses them, or do a Kill Team and don’t worry about it too much.

If you really want to create range considerations, just declare stuff like Pistols - 12” max, Rifle equivalents 24”, man portable heavy weapons 36” etc, and apply evenly.

Voss wrote:I'm not making any threats, let alone 'loaded' ones. (or much about FFG's rules at all, which is why I specified the earlier warhammer RPGs)

I'm stating my own experiences with how long combat takes with different games. Particularly in regards to the idea that a single combat session should/could take an entire night, which to me with a standard RPG and RPG group, is pretty terrible and dull. (again, unless super detailed, 'padded-sumo' combat is the goal)

I must not have come through clearly at all, lol I would love to go down that path but I was just saying it's a rabbit hole, it's all good man. I.e. just how worthwhile existing 40k RPGs are in the first place. It is a really interesting point though about "high lethality and but low success chances" because I sure as hell don't have the kind of RPG-wide experience to know how it compares to anything at all. Maybe the low success chances means I/the GM should be generous about giving bonus chances to hit things and that might help move things along?

kurhanik wrote:It really depends on what you are looking for. Speed specifically I would at least assume Necromunda. I find that combats in the rpgs can drag unless the party knows exactly what they are doing immediately - get someone flip flopping, or a psyker yolo pushing and rolling psychic phenomena every turn, followed by checking injury tables if applicable, and so on and you can have individual turns eating up tons of time. On the flip side, you get a lot more detail and levers to pull to make some truly unique encounters.

It also depends on how much out of combat stuff you want to have, as I am unsure how well Necromunda is with that, while in the rpgs most things you do can be fairly easily given to a skill. Of course, you can easily then run into the problem of most of the players rolling up bureaucrats with zero combat skills for your big fights.

Yeah that's the thing, I want to be able to have combat anywhere/at any time, but I also want to represent even some key non-combat situations with miniatures. So it'll be pure RPG style on that 'higher/zoomed-out' level hex map, and then - combat or no - represent the campaign via terrain and models when the group reaches a choice hex that they want to really spend some time in or would otherwise benefit from that level of detail. We can come up with light and easy RPG rules to append to Necromunda but the problem with those Necromunda rules is just how baked-in all the hand-wavy post-battle sequences are, etc. Still not 100% sure how I want to approach it, but I've been leaning towards just making a massive 'errata' or something...

You know, or just throw every single Necromunda rulebook etc. out the window and go with an RPG for an RPG set on Necromunda. Sigh.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The only time I've found combat tedious in the 40k RPGs was when:

1. We were play-testing Dark Heresy 2.0. Be thankful the combat rules from the original version of that game never made it to print. Jesus H. Christ that combat took forever.

2. When I was GM'ing games of Deathwatch, an RPG that is basically "Easy Mode" when you don't prepare encounters as Marines in that game are so damned tough.

That's funny, I heard play-testing for DH 2.0 was actually way better than what came out? I guess it ultimately wasn't lol. Might be interesting to learn of it though.

You are making me wonder though, could the new RPG (https://cubicle7games.com/blog/Warhammer-40000-Roleplay-Imperium-Maledictum) coming out actually be as good if not better than DH 2.0 rules? I always heard 2.0 beats 1.0 Rogue Trader etc. any day of the week (mostly). For a campaign in 2023 though, I'm still thinking old 2015 Rogue Trader/DH RPG rules...

That sounds kind of fun if they really represented Deathwatch etc. with the truly obliterating power of Astartes though. You could always just double the # of enemies if it was easy though, yeah?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:You don’t need to use Rules for Models to have RPG Battles using Models.

A nicely crafted 3D board does add to TTRPG games, as it adds “real life” type visuals and what have you. But all you really need do is either set your range conversion, if the RPG uses them, or do a Kill Team and don’t worry about it too much.

If you really want to create range considerations, just declare stuff like Pistols - 12” max, Rifle equivalents 24”, man portable heavy weapons 36” etc, and apply evenly.

Siiiigh....I hate how right you are. It's just the Necromunda rules are SO vast and wonderful and already roleplay-esque, I really hate to just throw them all out the window. But yeah, using all Necromunda models and terrain is still 110% applicable in an RPG, of course. It's just a lot of rules converting/devising my own personal RPG rules-book and that...might take some work? Has anyone else heard of anyone else doing something crazy like that?

What do you mean 'do a Kill Team' and don't worry about it too much?

I think both Necromunda and other 40k RPGs use range considerations etc. built in, so I don't think there's an issue there right? To me it's mostly just a matter of time, and getting the right focus. I want to focus on the narrative, but we need to have some out of combat rules etc. Level of detail is absolutely delicious and delightful but a model-heavy 'two-layer' hex/terrain setup like I've mentioned is probably going to come with a fair bit of time as-is, right? Genuine question lol.

If you are doing any rp at all, I'd suggest going for the rpg stuff instead of trying to bolt on rpg rules into Necromunda. As I said, there are just so many levers to pull, and there are rules for so many 40k things in the books, as well as simple ways to just build a new baddie/monster. So unless the only things they are facing off against are specifically necromunda gangs, it would be much easier to use other models. Between the different game systems, there are rules for most anything if you dig enough, albeit there was a slight rules shift between earlier and later rpgs so you might need to do some manual work to convert between the two, but that is basically 2 minutes of work to fix that.

For speed of play I'd suggest instead of the standard npc/character sheets for the various baddies you'd face your players against, to print off a sheet that includes the description of all the talents they have. Otherwise you'll be page flipping constantly until you internalize all the talents and traits.

If combat is the overall goal, just make sure your players have enough meatheads, and give the brains something to do. Maybe to help lean in, give each player 1 "free" aptitude to further customize their character a bit, and ensure they have at least one fighty one. That way if someone makes a character with no built in combat potential, they at least get one aptitude that will work towards that.

Also, it depends on if you are using "Theatre of the Mind" or minis. I suspect if you are going the Use Minis route, the tabletop rules would be better, maybe faster.

kurhanik wrote:If you are doing any rp at all, I'd suggest going for the rpg stuff instead of trying to bolt on rpg rules into Necromunda. As I said, there are just so many levers to pull, and there are rules for so many 40k things in the books, as well as simple ways to just build a new baddie/monster. So unless the only things they are facing off against are specifically necromunda gangs, it would be much easier to use other models. Between the different game systems, there are rules for most anything if you dig enough, albeit there was a slight rules shift between earlier and later rpgs so you might need to do some manual work to convert between the two, but that is basically 2 minutes of work to fix that.

For speed of play I'd suggest instead of the standard npc/character sheets for the various baddies you'd face your players against, to print off a sheet that includes the description of all the talents they have. Otherwise you'll be page flipping constantly until you internalize all the talents and traits.

If combat is the overall goal, just make sure your players have enough meatheads, and give the brains something to do. Maybe to help lean in, give each player 1 "free" aptitude to further customize their character a bit, and ensure they have at least one fighty one. That way if someone makes a character with no built in combat potential, they at least get one aptitude that will work towards that.

The only things they'd be facing off against is indeed Necromunda gangs, yes lol. And things you'd find in Forgeworld models especially, on top of all the Necromunda gangs. I've models for so much of the range I've been collecting for so long, and I intend to be heavy mini-focused, so there is that. Such is the conundrum...

But yeah, still you're right, I could just rebuild the models etc. into RPG rules. Maybe that would congeal into the best/ultimate result, but I suppose it would be more work, and we couldn't just pick up the latest Necromunda book and play. I'd have to massage it into the RPG ruleset.

Do you mean I would need to accomodate this 'rules shift' was between like Dark Heresy and then through like Only War or whatever was the latest book in the '1st edition' of 40k FFG RPGs (pre-Dark Heresy 2.0)? Or just between that whole 1.0 series vs the brief Dark Heresy 2.0 series? I thought everything in 1.0 was transferrable to any other game system (Deathwatch/Only War/Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader)

That's a really interesting point about standard npc/character sheets, I might write this down...but I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean. You mean a separate sheet of description for all the talents for all NPCs, and then use a more 'standard' character sheet for most baddies? That could work/save space, I think I hear you there if I'm understanding right?

Stormonu wrote:Also, it depends on if you are using "Theatre of the Mind" or minis. I suspect if you are going the Use Minis route, the tabletop rules would be better, maybe faster.

This guy gets it XD Lol; yeah by tabletop rules you mean Necromunda rules right? Yeah I'm going for minis route as much as I can, whatever I do. This is what they're for as far as I'm concerned. As much as I'm giving in to the possibility that an RPG system might be the superior choice here, Necromunda rules are still well in the running because, as I'm starting to suspect more and more, they might take about as much time roughly in-combat as an RPG system yes BUT...I'm quite sure they would definitely cut down on preparation time. Preparation for combat/initiative per each model for example, but then also things like full-fledged character sheets like kurkhanik was wisely alluding to finding ways around needing to deal with. Etc. So idk, maybe I'm starting to think Necromunda rules is the 'fast and easy' way to go here, as opposed to the RPG rules which would take a LOT more preparation time for converting all the rules/models etc, but may end up being the higher quality one in the end? If you guys think I'm right about that then maybe it really does just come down to me and gauging how much time I have...

Rogue Trader, Dark Heresy 1.0, and Death Watch are a slightly different ruleset - it is mostly just a few tweaks here and there though, but would still need a bit of work to convert to the later rulesets. I think for example unnatural (stat) went from doubling the stat to increasing its bonus it by a set amount (ie: unnatural toughness [2] would give you +2 Toughness Bonus, as opposed to x2).

Only War, Black Crusade, and Dark Heresy 2.0 are on the same system, there are a few small differences between them but for the most part you can just plug and play between the systems with little need for fixing things. The main difference is that Black Crusade's xp system involves god alignment while Only War and Dark Heresy 2nd are based on aptitudes.

Everything is transferable between the systems, its just that going from earlier to later systems, or vice versa, you might need 2-3 minutes of book keeping to get the stuff exactly right. Mainly to double check if an ability has changed slightly between game versions.

What I mean by writing down what talents do is that, if you have a stat sheet that says they have X talent or Y trait, unless you memorize what exactly that talent or trait does, you need to go page flipping. Its usually easier to write down what the talent lets you or the npc do as otherwise its easy to waste time looking it up or forget about it entirely.

If you are using entirely Necromunda gangs, then it depends on how much roleplay you want vs combat. The rpgs provide more of a means to vary characters in roleplaying situations, but if it is going to take a back seat for the most part, then it might be easier to use the tabletop game.