PDA

View Full Version : Necromunda - Outlanders. are they broken?



jigplums
24-01-2006, 17:10
as the title.

In the past i've certainly found that outlanders seem much better than standard gangs in most ways, and have always done really well in any games we played. Is it just because were so good[:)] or are they actually broken

Grimshawl
24-01-2006, 18:37
if your asking about them as they were written in the outlanders supplement then I do think the scavies had a few loopholes that could be exploited/brocken like the canable rule that allowed you to throw a scavie in the pot to avoid starvation for the entire gang, no matter how big a gang was, my friend used this rule to eventually ammass nearly thirty scavies, he would scavenge with almost everybody and use the creds to buy one guy for the pot and one guy for the gang just about every fight.

Czevak
24-01-2006, 20:39
For one off games they may be stronger, but only being able to have one territory can be an ****, as well as the fact that any gang members captured are likely to be sold to the guilders rather than be rescued.

Tomothy
25-01-2006, 01:53
The original outlander rules were too broken. Most of them started off with a whole host of bonuses to "offset" the lack of heavy weapons and lack of territories. One other small downside was missing an advance level for the recruits starting at 0xp.

However the number of ways you could abuse the lack of an income chart with outlanders made the lack of territories a joke really.

And the number of bonuses given completely outweighed the disadvanteges.

Ratskins (most inherently overpowered):
1. Resilient. First and foremost amongst their advantages this completely overpowers the gang, reducing the chance of their dying to 1/36 as compared to 1/6 for every other gang. Not only that but it doubles the chance of getting a beneficial injury.
2. Treacherous Conditions. Can be a null event. But can also completely ruin your opponents advantages (esp heavy weapons with limited range result) and (pit of despair) can be really scary.
3. Free maul. A str 4 weapon at no cost is nothing to be sneazed at.
4. Option to take blindsnake pouches. Useful
5. Foraging +1. A small bonus, but gives each guy a 2/3 chance to feed himself and at the same time a 1/3 chance to feed someone else. This gets more useful later as your gang gets larger due to lack of injury.
6. +/-2 on Scenario table. An awesome bonus. Especially if you want to abuse lack of income table with something like caravan.
7. Shaman. Can roll up some very useful skills, but you do have to pay appropriately.

Scavvies (second worst, unless you decide to really abuse the rules, then they are the worst)
(Extra downside of increased chance of ammo roll)
1. Cannibalism. For 25 creds you can feed your 35 man gang and get a free maul out of it. All that scavenging money is pure profit.
2. Free maul. Yay.
3. Scaly. Try and work out a costing system for Necro. This guy doesn't fit into it. He's a beast. And his guns are awesome.
4. Lower cost of weapons goes to fixing ammo roll downside.
5. Mutants. Very useful.
6. +1 WS makes up for losing a juve advance and makes them the ultimate horde swarm at the start of a campaign.
7. Zombies. Plague. Also the most abusable part. Start a gang, 1 leader, spend 700 creds on only scavvies, no weapons. Get yourself 28 scavvies. Wait until you get to choose scenario. Choose caravan. Spend that final 200 creds on zombies. Get lots of money. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Redemptionists (not as abusable as the last two, but if you try to work the income angle you will always do better than a house gang).
1. Weapons Caches. Sure you may starve a little, but flamery goodness here you come.
2. Converting. Nice, very nice.
3. Practically unbreakable due to hatred. And they can reroll attacks.
4. Exterminators. For 10 creds you get a weapon that is as effective as a flamer about 75% of the time. Yay.
5. Eviscerator is expensive but nothing to be sneazed at either.

Spyrers
The hardest to play out of the outlander gangs, but in the hands of a skilled player they are very dangerous. Annoying when someone tries to argue they can have a one-man spyrer gang. Which they can't. They lack men but they get equipment bonuses, lots of equipment bonuses. Don't be fooled, jakara are the power.




The new rules try to fix some of these problems up. They started well with scavvies but then added in far too many downsides. The ratskins came through without their shaman and with a downgraded resilient but still too powerful. And they get totem warriors. The spyrers were the best changes (although i miss multiple power boosts). The redemptionists didn't really get fixed, their exterminators are still too good and are now just cheaper hand flamers. And their income got made better after their territories got taken away.

The income problems with outlanders didn't really get addressed. Hell they didn't even take out caravan.

Darkseer
25-01-2006, 07:06
They Outlander gangs are strange and unusual. They're there for fun, rather than to be competitive.

Now, you can try and be competitive with them by having hordes of crap blokes. This is the best way to succeed financially as there are always plenty of guys to go foraging.
However, this also means you'll have lots of inexperienced gangers when your opponents' normal gangs have BS4 or 5.
Your gang will be able to keep itself running with creds, but will be rubbish and easily shot up.

Alternatively, if you play the gang close to a normal gang in style and numbers, then you could be facing starvation after the first game if your territory and foraging rolls don't go so well, but on the flip side, your gang is in good stead to win games and get experience.

Tomothy
25-01-2006, 09:09
Are you kidding? Gimme a campaign where my opponents are playing house gangs under 2nd ed rules and i'm playing an outlander gang (i'd prefer to choose but i can take any of them) and i will be more than just competitive. Especially if we use as much terrain as i'm used to (think laser pointer as the only effective way to determine line-of-sight).

Every single guy in the large gang is going to get +D6xp every game. Every time I've played weight of numbers has always been an advantage not a disadvantage. More options, more shots to take, less chance of bottling. At worst the smaller gangs might get a little more concentration of skills and advances. But it won't be much more, all being equal about player skill.

The scavvies are better than juves (which are cost equivalent)
Ratskins are better than gangers and braves are better than juves
Brethren and novices are the same as their equivalents.
None of the outlanders guys are crap.

Darkseer
25-01-2006, 09:15
Ok.

In my redemptionist gang, when I went numerous, I had 23 models in my starting gang. All of them novices.

They rushed across the board and sweet jesus, it didn't matter how many of them fell, they were gonna close with them Van Saar boys and rip them to peices....then the Van Saar gang bottled after shooting down a few of my boys.

Similar things happened for the next 3 games.

The Van Saars quickly became sharp shooting masters, picking off a few of my gang, then legging it when they got too close.


D6 experience is pretty poor when you need to be wounding things to get REAL experience increases. Besides, most of those increases you do get, are trying to boost your novices up to be of ganger status and ability, which is easier said than done.
It also highlights just how much novices/juves suck, considering how few of them actually get good at something.

Sounds like you've been up against some noob players who don't know they can bottle, or just run off the board if the "Outlander swarm" tactic is working for you.

Mad Makz
25-01-2006, 09:17
Ultimately Outlanders as originally written really require a campaign Arbitrator to not get too powerful, due to the fact that the numbers game can be a huge advantage. A good Arbiter can put the squeeze on Outlanders when their numbers get too big by adding in some additional campaign rules, or sending the Arbites in with another gang thin out the Riff Raff etc.

Essentially, what's missing from the outlanders income rules is all the bribes/pay offs etc that is required to keep the law looking the other way (which I figure is built into the regular gangs income charts) so a good campaign arbitrator can make up for this by creating some additional heat on these units (or adding the odd disaster to the outland sections of the underhive that more heavily effects the Outlanders than the slightly more legit gangs.)

Also, the one thing you HAVE to ban is them being able to pillage an Archeotech Hoarde. They get an absolutely ridiculous amount of income from it if they pillage it, and it can entirely break a campaign if they happen to get hold of one.

Tomothy
25-01-2006, 09:26
Ok.

In my redemptionist gang, when I went numerous, I had 23 models in my starting gang. All of them novices.

They rushed across the board and sweet jesus, it didn't matter how many of them fell, they were gonna close with them Van Saar boys and rip them to peices....then the Van Saar gang bottled after shooting down a few of my boys.
Well, thats because you picked the worst tactic to utilise. A juve rush? Honestly.


Similar things happened for the next 3 games.

The Van Saars quickly became sharp shooting masters, picking off a few of my gang, then legging it when they got too close.
Sounds like your opponent knew what he was doing. If you don't play with any back up, any ranged support, ie any basic weapons then you should expect to get trounced.


D6 experience is pretty poor when you need to be wounding things to get REAL experience increases. Besides, most of those increases you do get, are trying to boost your novices up to be of ganger status and ability, which is easier said than done.
It also highlights just how much novices/juves suck, considering how few of them actually get good at something.

Sounds like you've been up against some noob players who don't know they can bottle, or just run off the board if the "Outlander swarm" tactic is working for you.
No. I just use tactics. I use skill. I don't juve rush.
Basic weapons always help. You need to shoot at your opponent, even if you're a hth gang you'll need ranged support to keep your opponent's heads down. The ability to move up behind cover and then pop out and take a pot shot at your opponents heavy works wonders.
You don't need 23 guys to outnumber your opponent. House gangs generally take a (useless) heavy weapon. If they do that you'll outnumber them as it is. Don't over equip. Don't take only juves.

If you have an opponent that bottles repeatedly pick the scenario you play intelligently. Raid, or the best scenario in the game...Caravan. Something that stops him bottling.

Darkseer
25-01-2006, 09:39
Novices can all take autoguns, so yes, I did have fire support.

You can force your opponent to play non-bottle missions, but that doesn't stop him from walking off the board.

Tomothy
25-01-2006, 12:35
Well when you said 23 i thought 23 x 25 + 140 (for priest) = 715.
Which leaves approximately 11 credits per guy for weapons. Doesn't leave much money for basic weapon support as each guy that has one means another has no weapons beyond a knife. Nor did your post imply you did much fire support. Plus novices aren't particularly good at fire support. So forgive me for making assumptions based on the facts you gave.
Also no-bottle missions prevent your opponent doing just that. There are no rules for "walking off the board".

On the subject of looting archeotech hoards, we always played 240 credits, which is a hell of a lot but not 720 which is what some people play (ridiculous). Nowhere does it say the special rules have any effect on looting, just the income for the territory (and the listed income for archeotech is 2D6x10).

The idea of bribes is interesting.

Darkseer
25-01-2006, 12:36
It was round 23 guys. Could have been 20, maybe 21.
I didn't bother to sit down and do all the creds precisely.
I was giving an example.

Tomothy
25-01-2006, 12:48
A house gang will generally have about 11 guys at most. An outlander gang will nearly always outnumber that without resorting to 100% juves.

Darkseer
26-01-2006, 06:49
Yes, that's right...

thenorm42
26-01-2006, 13:25
It's hard to say which of the Evil Three outlander gangs are most overpowered. Redemptionists' Exterminators are utterly evil, especially when used on overwatch, and all those Deacons with nice special weapons are damn good too. Ratskins practically never die after the battle, and are horrific if the Underhive Hazards weather table thing is being used. Scavvies are pretty clearly abusable.

I think I'm probably most frightened of the Redemptionists, to be honest, but that might be horrible memories of Brother Wrath, one of my friends' hardest gangmembers. The old Quick Shot, 3 attacks, Gunfighter, Hip Shooter, 2 one-in-a-million Needle Pistols combo (he was so, so jammy on his after game rolls too...). My poor little Van Saars didn't stand a chance.

TWB
28-01-2006, 01:14
Funnily enough, Everyone I know who's run outlander gangs has had trouble competing with house gangs, the lack of regular income to replace injured/killed gang members will quickly inconvenience most outlander gangs making it harder to fight, scavenge and so on.

On Scavvies: The option to buy new gang members occurs after the gangs income is resolved, so an existing gang member must be eaten before the trade section of the post game sequnce, now it's entirely possible that the gang buys a nice juicy gang member who'll stand about at the back of the battle waiting to get eaten, but a good arbitrator will deal with this accordingly (Announce that the eaten individual had contracted zombie plague and force each gang member to make a roll on the plague chart, or perhaps allowing gangs facing the scavvies to use the Monster roll from the scavengers scenario, maybe just make it harder to hire new members because of the gangs "reputation". Hell if you're lazt you can give out free bounty hunters to people fighting scavvies or up the bounty).

On Ratskins: Resilient wasn't so much of a boon, Ratskins might not die as often as normal underhivers, but they sure do rack up nasty injuries. All Nasty injuries on the chart are cumulative and none of the good ones are (with the exception of "survives against the odds") so while a high level Ratskin may have horrible and impressive scars he'll quite likely have less than 7 fingers, at least one eye/ear missing and 12 Old battle wounds meaning he fights once a year (and remember any model who doesn't take part in a battle because of OBW's can't forrage).

Spyrers: Spyrers are spyrers and a single death in the team can all but screw them. They are only really nasty once they have a large amount of upgrades which does take a long time. They are reasonably easy to kill because every other gang in the game will outnumber them and easily and punish them if they remain focussed.

Redemptionists: These guys have the rep for being THE hardest Outlander gang to run, they only have one reall advantage and that's the Redemptor priest's "redeemer skill" which isn't as great as it sounds, it prevents him from performing any other post game function (and if he's OOA, that prevents him from redeeming) and he can only redeem one guy at a time.


Necromunda is only really fun if you're playing a Campaign, and then you need an Arbitrator who should be responsible for making sure nobody cheats. To be honest, cheating is pointless in what's supposed to be a fun way to spend some time with some firends.

Tomothy
28-01-2006, 02:41
Funnily enough, Everyone I know who's run outlander gangs has had trouble competing with house gangs, the lack of regular income to replace injured/killed gang members will quickly inconvenience most outlander gangs making it harder to fight, scavenge and so on.
The two i played, ratskins and scavvies never seemed to lack money.


On Scavvies: The option to buy new gang members occurs after the gangs income is resolved, so an existing gang member must be eaten before the trade section of the post game sequnce, now it's entirely possible that the gang buys a nice juicy gang member who'll stand about at the back of the battle waiting to get eaten, but a good arbitrator will deal with this accordingly (Announce that the eaten individual had contracted zombie plague and force each gang member to make a roll on the plague chart, or perhaps allowing gangs facing the scavvies to use the Monster roll from the scavengers scenario, maybe just make it harder to hire new members because of the gangs "reputation". Hell if you're lazt you can give out free bounty hunters to people fighting scavvies or up the bounty).
Everything you've brought up there requires an arbitrator in order to balance the scavvy issue. I played a scavvy gang, it always had 3 scavvies i'd never bought any weapons for, they'd be used as overwatch bait and forerunners of the gang. If they got injured, i ate them. All the other creds for foraging could then be spent on more scavvies. If they got a skill/advance, they earned a name and i used them.

This isn't to say I tried to get them injured. They were used just as tactically as the rest of my gang and quite a few of them got into melee, earned names and made it into the gang. But i still had one that i could eat after every game. Is it really abuse if i do what the scavvy gang is supposed to do? If it was meant to be only captives it would be, maybe it should have been only captives or injured scavvies but that still wouldn't have "fixed" it cause i still would have done the same thing.


On Ratskins: Resilient wasn't so much of a boon, Ratskins might not die as often as normal underhivers, but they sure do rack up nasty injuries. All Nasty injuries on the chart are cumulative and none of the good ones are (with the exception of "survives against the odds") so while a high level Ratskin may have horrible and impressive scars he'll quite likely have less than 7 fingers, at least one eye/ear missing and 12 Old battle wounds meaning he fights once a year (and remember any model who doesn't take part in a battle because of OBW's can't forrage).
Here's some stats for you:

INJURY NORMAL MEDIC RESILIENT
DEAD 16.67 2.78 2.78
BAD 33.33 38.89 22.22
NONE 38.89 45.37 54.01
GOOD 11.11 12.96 20.99
Medic results are given assuming you only reroll death and only for a little comparison. A ratskin is more likely to end up with less bad injuries, more good injuries and not dead than a house ganger. House gangs are also far more likely to end up with gangers with multiple injuries which isn't taken into account on that table.
So i don't know where you come up with that statistic unless the people you have played with take numerous unnecessary chances because their gangers have resilient. It is only if you take more chances with them that they will end up with more injuries. If you use them just as carefully and tactically as a house gang then you will be fine (barring terrible rolls).


Necromunda is only really fun if you're playing a Campaign, and then you need an Arbitrator who should be responsible for making sure nobody cheats. To be honest, cheating is pointless in what's supposed to be a fun way to spend some time with some firends.
Its not that easy to describe as cheating. These are their basic rules. Is a player supposed to just not use one of the standard rules for the gang? Sure using the ratskins +/-2 to pick caravan over and over again is abusive, but its not cheating. It shouldn't be done, but he'll still get to pick the scenario heaps even if he doesn't pick caravan. Sure using zombies like i described is abusive, but say you only buy 2d6 every time. Thats 2d6 meat shields that if they get into combat with an opponent can potentially DESTROY a gang post game sequence. Thats 2d6 meat shields protecting your guys. Easily payed for through another of their standard rules, cannibalism.

TWB
28-01-2006, 04:36
The two i played, ratskins and scavvies never seemed to lack money.
I can only relay what others have told me, I've never played an outlander gang.



Everything you've brought up there requires an arbitrator in order to balance the scavvy issue. I played a scavvy gang, it always had 3 scavvies i'd never bought any weapons for, they'd be used as overwatch bait and forerunners of the gang. If they got injured, i ate them. All the other creds for foraging could then be spent on more scavvies. If they got a skill/advance, they earned a name and i used them.

This isn't to say I tried to get them injured. They were used just as tactically as the rest of my gang and quite a few of them got into melee, earned names and made it into the gang. But i still had one that i could eat after every game. Is it really abuse if i do what the scavvy gang is supposed to do? If it was meant to be only captives it would be, maybe it should have been only captives or injured scavvies but that still wouldn't have "fixed" it cause i still would have done the same thing.

I'm not saying that using the rule is cheating, but to specifically purchase a Scav for no greater purpose than to eat is, well, not really in the spirit of things, is it? I'd personally endorse the idea of eating badly injured Scavs a kind of survival of the fittest deal. Disposable gang members just doesn't fit with the whole idea of Necromunda, to me.




Here's some stats for you:

INJURY NORMAL MEDIC RESILIENT
DEAD 16.67 2.78 2.78
BAD 33.33 38.89 22.22
NONE 38.89 45.37 54.01
GOOD 11.11 12.96 20.99
Medic results are given assuming you only reroll death and only for a little comparison. A ratskin is more likely to end up with less bad injuries, more good injuries and not dead than a house ganger. House gangs are also far more likely to end up with gangers with multiple injuries which isn't taken into account on that table.
So i don't know where you come up with that statistic unless the people you have played with take numerous unnecessary chances because their gangers have resilient. It is only if you take more chances with them that they will end up with more injuries. If you use them just as carefully and tactically as a house gang then you will be fine (barring terrible rolls).
A ratskin is less likely to die, meaning that they will live longer and accrue more injuries, a greater life expectancy means they will be injured more often. Gangers die and are replaced all the while old Two Rats sleeping continues to fight taking injuries. I didn't explain it very well, I meant to say they will live longer, but won't escape unscathed.



Its not that easy to describe as cheating. These are their basic rules. Is a player supposed to just not use one of the standard rules for the gang? Sure using the ratskins +/-2 to pick caravan over and over again is abusive, but its not cheating. It shouldn't be done, but he'll still get to pick the scenario heaps even if he doesn't pick caravan. Sure using zombies like i described is abusive, but say you only buy 2d6 every time. Thats 2d6 meat shields that if they get into combat with an opponent can potentially DESTROY a gang post game sequence. Thats 2d6 meat shields protecting your guys. Easily payed for through another of their standard rules, cannibalism.

For me competitive play is a non starter, I play with friends, In an arbitrated campaign, for fun, so the notion of gaming outside the box like this just doesn't scan. The Zombie horde thing is fine but I think if it's probably supposed to be held in check by the Scav Gangs' inability to bring large amounts of cash to bear.
Upon reflection (and having a look at the rules) I think the Canibal rule is a little too open to abuse, I'd definitely reword it to make it an option ONLY if the gang couldn't pay for food. Actually, It'd be interesting if the scavvies were only able to eat captives, perhaps Scavs are too scummy to make for good eatin'. Might give rise to a specific scavvy scenario "food fight"

Tomothy
29-01-2006, 02:36
A ratskin is less likely to die, meaning that they will live longer and accrue more injuries, a greater life expectancy means they will be injured more often. Gangers die and are replaced all the while old Two Rats sleeping continues to fight taking injuries. I didn't explain it very well, I meant to say they will live longer, but won't escape unscathed.
And you're missing my point. If you play properly and only get your guys injured as much as a house gang gets its guys injured you WILL NOT have as many injuries or deaths (by any means) as that house gang will.

It seems to me that most of the differences we're coming up against here are probably playing environment.

Do you have someone who will make the most of the advantages given to them in your group? If so they're overpowered. If not, then they will be advantaged over house gangs but not incredibly so.

Festus
29-01-2006, 19:17
Hi

Everything you've brought up there requires an arbitrator in order to balance the scavvy issue. I played a scavvy gang, it always had 3 scavvies i'd never bought any weapons for, they'd be used as overwatch bait and forerunners of the gang. If they got injured, i ate them...
I'd hate to play in your groups campaign, apparently.:cries:

Necro as a whole and Outlanders in particular is a great way to do some nice little roleplaying skirmish, and it gets pretty badly broken pretty soon if you try to use the loops in the rules to take advantage against the spirit of the gang/rules/setting...

The outlander Gangs have some bonusses, but they are easily necessary to let the gang survive.
Try to come up with nice scenarios for your campaign, run an Arbitrator campaign (or best: an Arbitrator-Team campaign, so that everyone can run a gang). With outlanders, it is often the scenario that is broken, not the Gang's rules.

Example:

Take Scavvies, take only Boss and 2 Scavvies.
Take the rest in Zombies.
Play Caravan raid.
Collect income...

Your gang will be the largest gang ever after this first fight!

But honestly, if you want to spoil the narrative, it is quite easy in Necromunda to do so with competetive/exploiting gaming.

Greetings
Festus

TWB
29-01-2006, 19:37
I'll agree with Festus here, if you start exploiting loopholes the game stops being fun and I don't play for anything except for fun.

Tomothy
30-01-2006, 01:20
Necro as a whole and Outlanders in particular is a great way to do some nice little roleplaying skirmish, and it gets pretty badly broken pretty soon if you try to use the loops in the rules to take advantage against the spirit of the gang/rules/setting...
You're trying to use the word loophole to denigrate the gang from being overpowered to just having advantages. It doesn't work like that. There was no tricky thinking involved in "i'll eat guys" or "my guys don't get hurt so much". These are the basic rules of the gang. I described the loopholes. Using the scenario rule of ratskins to pick caravan, and using zombie hordes with scavvies. The other things i described? Not loopholes. Basic advantages of the gang that overpower the gang.
How can you say they didn't intend you to eat your guys? Maybe they didn't intend it to be so powerful, you can say that. You can say the same about resilient because they obviously intended your guys to suffer less injuries, but they didn't do the math.

A loophole is disarm doesn't say a melee weapon so i can disarm your heavy's autocannon.
A loophole is the spyrer rules don't specifically say you have to have 3 guys (even though the gang construction rules which apply to every gang including them say you do) and thus build a gang with one spyrer and spend the rest on advances.
A loophole is killer reputation and someone arguing he only causes fear when he charges.

Take Scavvies, take only Boss and 2 Scavvies.
Take the rest in Zombies.
Play Caravan raid.
Collect income...
Uhm, not really, you only have 3 guys that can loot. Zombies can't loot.

Lyonator
30-01-2006, 02:49
Going way back to the first page...
how do 'we' figure that you cant have one 'pimped out' spyrer?
I dont recall there being a minimum size for a gang of that sort.

but yeah, outlanders are a *bit* powerful.

Tomothy
30-01-2006, 03:02
The section in the Sourcebook, the section on building the gang. That tells you how many credits you have and all the rules associated with building a gang, says you must have a minimum of three members to a gang.

The Outlanders book doesn't tell you how many credits you have, you abide by the gang creation rules listed in the rulebook, except where noted otherwise in the Outlander rules. It doesn't say spyrers can have 1 member and 1 member only. So you can't.

Festus
31-01-2006, 10:29
Hi

The section in the Sourcebook, the section on building the gang. That tells you how many credits you have and all the rules associated with building a gang, says you must have a minimum of three members to a gang.

The Outlanders book doesn't tell you how many credits you have, you abide by the gang creation rules listed in the rulebook, except where noted otherwise in the Outlander rules. It doesn't say spyrers can have 1 member and 1 member only. So you can't.

This is not true:
A Spyrer Gang, and indeed any outlander Gang, is not bound by these rules, as they have their own set for the creation of a gang.
The Spyrers do NOT have a Leader (a requirement for House Gangs), they do not automatically come equipped with a knife, etc.

I wouldn't advise on building a 1 Model Spyrer gang, as you are only one target and a lucky hit can end your gang's career for good, but according to the rules, this is perfectly possible.

Festus

Tomothy
01-02-2006, 02:29
So the section at the start of their rules describing how they are an exception to the normal leader rules doesn't fall under what i described? The answer is yes it does. You have to abide by all the rules of the sourcebook and rulebook unless explicitly stated otherwise.

If they are not bound by the rules of the sourcebook i'm going to have to ask you where it tells you how many credits you start with. It doesn't? Well then i guess you can't start a spyrer team at all.

The free knife is on the weapons list. Which for the other outlanders is different and specifically included to show exception. The Spyrer section says they do not trade at all. They do not buy "common" weapons even.

TWB
01-02-2006, 04:45
Ok what I was trying to say (before we got sucked into a rules lawyering legaleese thing) is that if you play to the spirit of the rules and the spirit of the game then the loopholes, which are given as examples of the outlanders being overpowered, don't exist and ergo they aren't over powered.

Tomothy
01-02-2006, 08:20
Resilient will still exist. Scalies will still not fit into a costing system. Spyrers still get better eq and armour and stats. Redemptionists will still have cheap flamers. ALL the advantages still exist. Just because some of the worst ones won't be abused doesn't mean they don't still exist.
Is resilient a loophole?
Is an extra free melee weapon a loophole?
Is +/-2 on scenario table a loophole?
Is cannibalism a loophole?
Are blindsnake pouches loopholes?
Are scalies loopholes?
Mutations?
You've seen my list at the beginning. You've seen the advantages listed. I don't understand why some people try to sit behind the defence of "spirit of the game". I don't see anyone providing any actual arguments balancing advantages against disadvantages. I don't see any refutations (that hold against scrutiny) of why the advantages aren't advantages to the extent i listed.

I am really getting annoyed that some people here keep referring to them as loopholes and say "playing within the spirit of the rules" will somehow protect you from overpowered gangs. Turning this argument into an attack on playing styles doesn't help. When you get right down to it, Necro is still a competitive game, the game is played to be won. Odds are in any new campaign someone is going to use the advantages given and play to the strengths of the gang.

All you need is to be a GOOD player to play one and they'll be better than any house gang. Even if you both play within the spirit of the rules. And thats because advantages are only that if you don't squander them. Resilient is great but if you're not smart enough to use cover it won't save you. They won't need to abuse anything.

Arbedark
01-02-2006, 08:50
Tomothy. I'm not gonna get involved in this argument. But can I just ask 1 simple question.

When you play(ed) Necromunda, how did you play? (In very basic terms, I mean, did you do everything possible to win, did you role play your gang 100%, or a miz of the two?)

I'm not meaning this as an insult, I'm just asking. Because maybe this could explain peoples different views on situations.

Whenever I played Necromunda, I'd purposefully do stupid stuff which I felt was "in character" for my Gang.
Along with Role Playing my gang.
As I felt this gave me a more enjoyable game, although playing soley to win may have given other people a more enjoyable game.

I'm just interested.

Darkseer
01-02-2006, 09:05
I did silly stuff with my gang for character in the last campaign.
I had a juve armed with only a frag grenade -hilarious!

This years campaign has been announced it will be more competitive, so everyone is playing competitivly.

As long as everyone is playing in the same way, it's cool.

TWB
01-02-2006, 09:41
Nobody is denying that all of your statistics are right, what I particularly am trying to say is that when rules aren't exploited (like buying a 25 point scavvy to be eaten just because you get the free maul and the gang can collect more than that in a turn of foraging) then the special rules for the outlander gangs do ballance out the hardships of outlander life.

While your gang is running fine everything is hunky dory but when you run into a spot of trouble things get nasty, perhaps you are the defender in a hit and run, with no option to bottle you take more casualties than you would normally stomach, perhaps a weapon explodes at a key moment, whatever the reasons too many fighters finish the game OOA (or down with a bad roll) and your gang can't make it's 3 cred per fighter, bang instantly everyone in the gang is at -1S and -1T, suddenly most of your gang are probably T2, a majority of basic firearms are wounding on 3's not 4's, suddenly your gang can't wether a fight like it could,you either have to pull out of the fight early to preserve your men or push on and hope they'll last . . .

I've played as an Outlaw with house gangs and it IS hard, even with the advantages of a regular, fairly decent income, new equipment is rare and replacment fighters are hard to get hold of, but none of my gangs started as outlaws, they all had a time to aquire equipment and wealth before being outlawed, doing it from day one must be harder still.

Part of the problem here is that there are two kinds of advantage "game" advantage and "campaign" advantage. it's sometimes hard to see how a Game advantage can affect a campaign and how a campaign advantage can affect a game.

Tomothy
01-02-2006, 09:53
I probably did what you would consider a mix.

I name my gang, give them nicknames based on what happens in the game. But that doesn't mean I'll do stupid things, things that might cause the ganger to die, because i don't consider that roleplaying. These fighters are risking death every time they fight. But that doesn't mean i don't know how to laugh and have fun while playing. My last gang was named the Popcorn Colonels and all were given names like General Mayhem for someone that did a lot of damage.

I don't go so far as to equip all my gang with lasguns, I use a mix of boltguns, autoguns and lasguns (ditto pistols). But i don't use shotguns or stubguns at all as i don't think they are any good.

I work really well with flamers, but only get one (two at most), not the three i could have with a house gang. And I don't usually equip specialists with them unless i roll up a lot of specialists.

I don't usually use heavy weapons, but as everyone in my last campaign was i decided to use one because i find i work really well when i don't use it and they were all newbies.

I don't try to argue minor rule points. Like my opponent wants to run within 8" of my guy because he already knew my guy was there, thats fine. I will conform to a third person's decision on cover 100% of the time even if its not in my favour. But if i use a gang's rules i expect to be able to use them all and not restrict myself, unfortunately with the 1st ed Necro Outlander rules I can't do that. Because they are broken.

BTW I only play house gangs now, having played three of the four outlanders (once each, i had to retire the scavvies and ratskins and the spyrers met the vow) and finding they give too much of an advantage.

Tomothy
01-02-2006, 10:00
Sorry for the double post but TWB posted as i was posting.


Nobody is denying that all of your statistics are right, what I particularly am trying to say is that when rules aren't exploited (like buying a 25 point scavvy to be eaten just because you get the free maul and the gang can collect more than that in a turn of foraging) then the special rules for the outlander gangs do ballance out the hardships of outlander life.

That was just an example. I could have given them autopistols/sword and swapped the weapons onto another guy just before i ate him. Does that make it any better? No, the option is still there and the second way is actually more tactically effective. I did the first way because thats how i roleplayed my gang, i didn't use zombies or scalies at all.


While your gang is running fine everything is hunky dory but when you run into a spot of trouble things get nasty, perhaps you are the defender in a hit and run, with no option to bottle you take more casualties than you would normally stomach, perhaps a weapon explodes at a key moment, whatever the reasons too many fighters finish the game OOA (or down with a bad roll) and your gang can't make it's 3 cred per fighter, bang instantly everyone in the gang is at -1S and -1T, suddenly most of your gang are probably T2, a majority of basic firearms are wounding on 3's not 4's, suddenly your gang can't wether a fight like it could,you either have to pull out of the fight early to preserve your men or push on and hope they'll last . . .

Sure, if you don't plan for it. If you can loot, loot. If you can play scavengers or money getting scenarios do! Each of the outlander gangs has advantages to factor directly against the starvation, one main ones being no income chart.


I've played as an Outlaw with house gangs and it IS hard, even with the advantages of a regular, fairly decent income, new equipment is rare and replacment fighters are hard to get hold of, but none of my gangs started as outlaws, they all had a time to aquire equipment and wealth before being outlawed, doing it from day one must be harder still.

Outlaw is different from Outlander and not very much to do with this question. As they don't have the advantages the Outlander gangs do get in order to "balance" the disadvantages.

Arbedark
01-02-2006, 10:09
Tomothy. Thats interesting. I personally see things from both points of view. I can see where you're coming from with the Outlanders are overpowered. And where other people are coming from.

TWB, thats a really good point about the Game advantage and Campaign advantage.

Playing ratskins in a 1 off game doesnt have the same benefits as playing them in a campaign.

All this talk of Necromunda makes me want to start another campaign! :(

Tomothy
01-02-2006, 12:30
I don't think ratskins are even close to being overpowered in a one-off game. It's hard to judge though, because treacherous conditions can be such a big factor or a huge non-event. However i still think they get a lot of advantages, overpowered? Its too big a word, advantaged, yes. For a one-off game.

Glennie
01-02-2006, 13:29
In terms of campaign games, Ratskins are overpowered. In the campaign I'm currently playing the Ratskin player is running away with the campaign, the resilient rule is his saving grace, most of the gangs have suffered deaths whereas hes always escaped

Grimshawl
01-02-2006, 14:21
just a suggestion for those of you frustrated by the ratskins in campaigns, taking a bounty hunter or a pitslave with the shears to either capture the skins or have a chance to lope off their heads has proven to be somewhat effective for me in some games, and it tends to diswade them from rushing into hth as much as well.

TWB
02-02-2006, 02:23
That was just an example. I could have given them autopistols/sword and swapped the weapons onto another guy just before i ate him. Does that make it any better? No, the option is still there and the second way is actually more tactically effective. I did the first way because thats how i roleplayed my gang, i didn't use zombies or scalies at all.
I was only sticking to that example because it was the best I could think of.


Sure, if you don't plan for it. If you can loot, loot. If you can play scavengers or money getting scenarios do! Each of the outlander gangs has advantages to factor directly against the starvation, one main ones being no income chart.

Like I said, it's great when it's going well , but in that game where you loose drastically, you don't get any income from looting because you don't take the territory, less than half of your gang can forage due to injuries and such, even if you have money stashed, it runs out quick if things don't go your way, yes Outlander gangs have ways to negate this to a certain degree, but that's because they are perpetually forced to live as outlaws.



Outlaw is different from Outlander and not very much to do with this question. As they don't have the advantages the Outlander gangs do get in order to "balance" the disadvantages.
Outlaw is Outlander sans all the special rules, it's the best way to litmus test how an outlander gang fares.

Campaign and Game advantages. Game advantages allow you to win more games, Campaign advantages allow you to profit more from from games you play (I'm sure we've all heard of the Van Saar gang that's symultaneously running a hospital and munitions factory when not shooting holes in everything).
Personally I play to character of the gang, I won't do something stupid with a fighter if it can be avoided but my gangs tend to be equipped for the type of fight they do best at. But my Gang aren't a drilled military machine, so I will take risks where the reward is worth it.

Tomothy
02-02-2006, 05:41
I was only sticking to that example because it was the best I could think of.
And i was just pointing out that it was flawed because its an extreme that still applies when they're not taking things to the extreme. They'll still feed their whole gang with a scavvy.
Its all well and good to say "house rule house rule" but leaving it up to each individual arbitrator doesn't work. We're not game designers, and as we can see even they make mistakes. By saying "house rule" you're admitting that there is some flaw with the gang that overpowers it. What I am trying to do is point out that none of the outlander gangs are exactly equal to house gangs. By calling them loopholes you allow people to think that if they let them in and a person plays "nice" they'll be fine. That may be great for you, but i still think they start off with too many advantages for that to hold true.

Like I said, it's great when it's going well , but in that game where you loose drastically, you don't get any income from looting because you don't take the territory, less than half of your gang can forage due to injuries and such, even if you have money stashed, it runs out quick if things don't go your way, yes Outlander gangs have ways to negate this to a certain degree, but that's because they are perpetually forced to live as outlaws.
Not everyone plays until that point. A lot of people bottle out before then. The only Outlander gang that will have a real problem is Redemptionists. The other three have special rules to cover them for starvation and can bottle at will.

Outlaw is Outlander sans all the special rules, it's the best way to litmus test how an outlander gang fares.
I don't understand just exactly what it is you mean by that statement. Outlanders will nearly always perform better than Outlaws. Because they have both campaign advantages and game advantages.

TWB
03-02-2006, 03:04
Not everyone plays until that point. A lot of people bottle out before then. The only Outlander gang that will have a real problem is Redemptionists. The other three have special rules to cover them for starvation and can bottle at will.
Point being it's that time when you aren't allowed to bottle voluntarily or an unfortunate plasma missle ricochet takes half of your gang out (or even you have too many downed models and you decide to cut your losses and fail to get the 4+ needed to avoid a serious injury roll) that will send you reeling, in a game like Necromunda you have to rely luck, when the best you can do is hedge your bets, sometimes you loose.


I don't understand just exactly what it is you mean by that statement. Outlanders will nearly always perform better than Outlaws. Because they have both campaign advantages and game advantages.

Exactly my point, if you want to measure how badly an Outlander gang would do without it's perks, check out how a house gang does in similar situations, it'll flounder and stuggle fast.

I managed to get hold of my 2nd edition 40K IG codex for a look at some prices, a Guardsman cost 10 points (dividing a squad costing 100 points by ten), this guy has flak armour, frag grenades and a lasgun. A lasgun from the wargear list cost 1 point, frag grenades cost 2 points. If memory serves, flak armour costs two points (from the Sisters of Battle codex released in the late 2nd edition), so retrofitting from there would suggest that Necromunda prices are somewhere in the region of 10X the 2nd edition cost.
This doesn't carry over for things like heavy weapons though, a Heavy bolter in the guard codex cost only 10 points. I belive that a lot of the 40K based entries in the Outlanders beastiary at the back of the book used this basic formula.

Tomothy
04-02-2006, 01:26
Point being it's that time when you aren't allowed to bottle voluntarily or an unfortunate plasma missle ricochet takes half of your gang out (or even you have too many downed models and you decide to cut your losses and fail to get the 4+ needed to avoid a serious injury roll) that will send you reeling, in a game like Necromunda you have to rely luck, when the best you can do is hedge your bets, sometimes you loose.
There aren't that many scenarios where the Outlander can't bottle as part of the scenario. The ones that do (hit and run, the raid) limit the attackers, and limit the defenders at the start. It's usually pretty hard to take out a whole gang (once again caravan is a broken scenario in this regard, if it goes well not only do you get a lot of money but the opponent can't bottle so you'll have taken out his whole gang).

But, regardless, i agree if you reach that point it could be trouble. But it also could be trouble for a house gang as well. Getting smashed is never good.

Exactly my point, if you want to measure how badly an Outlander gang would do without it's perks, check out how a house gang does in similar situations, it'll flounder and stuggle fast.
Now you're just talking my points back at me. I know Outlaw gangs won't do as well as Outlander gangs. House gangs won't even do as well. Why? Because Outlander gangs are overpowered. Which is what i've been saying, so it appears we're in agreement.

I managed to get hold of my 2nd edition 40K IG codex for a look at some prices, a Guardsman cost 10 points (dividing a squad costing 100 points by ten), this guy has flak armour, frag grenades and a lasgun. A lasgun from the wargear list cost 1 point, frag grenades cost 2 points. If memory serves, flak armour costs two points (from the Sisters of Battle codex released in the late 2nd edition), so retrofitting from there would suggest that Necromunda prices are somewhere in the region of 10X the 2nd edition cost.
This doesn't carry over for things like heavy weapons though, a Heavy bolter in the guard codex cost only 10 points. I belive that a lot of the 40K based entries in the Outlanders beastiary at the back of the book used this basic formula.
Yes, i don't know much about 2nd ed 40k but this has been discussed elsewhere by those who have, and they agree that generally that is the case. I don't see what that has to do with what we've been talking about.

TWB
05-02-2006, 18:55
I know Outlaw gangs won't do as well as Outlander gangs. House gangs won't even do as well. Why? Because Outlander gangs are overpowered. Which is what i've been saying, so it appears we're in agreement.

Nice try ;), but no. My contention is that the disadvantages of an outlaw life are equalled out by the Outlander gangs' special rules, this puts them on an equal running with law abiding house gangs otherwise Outlander gangs wouldn't be worth playing, because it would be too hard for them to acheive anything, like a long time Outlaw gang.

nightgant98c
16-10-2006, 08:56
I have played both as and against outlander gangs. My personal take is that there is some imbalance. I don't see them as broken, but they are a bit bent. I don't think the advanteges that you seem to see as the problem are. I think it's that the disadvantages really aren't that bad. But even so, I've never had any long-term trouble with outlander gangs. Things tend to balance out ove the course of a campaign.

-Prime-
16-10-2006, 19:06
The ratskin resilience is the only thing that slightly bothers me.


Nobody is denying that all of your statistics are right, what I particularly am trying to say is that when rules aren't exploited (like buying a 25 point scavvy to be eaten just because you get the free maul and the gang can collect more than that in a turn of foraging) then the special rules for the outlander gangs do ballance out the hardships of outlander life.


I agree fully with that. As long as someone is exploiting the rules and playing to the spirit of the game it works quite well IMHO.

Broom
17-10-2006, 16:23
I think outlanders suck, as do most people at Eastern Fringe.

Lord Humongous
17-10-2006, 21:19
Broom- really? That's not the Eastern Fringe I remember...

I think part of the issue is that outlanders just tend to be easier to run than house gangs. Outlander fortunes can swing wildly, and its not hard to take advantage of a strong windfall, or just start a new gang and build them up quickly. House gangs need to play much more consistantly and conservatively, need to plan ahead more, and tend to advance more slowly at first. However, once you get some good rare items and a strong base of territories, they can be quite strong.
One thing that I've noticed is that very few house gang player focus on capturing territory. I fela that holding more than 5 territories is VITAL to having a strong house gang. Ideally you want at least 6 really good (d6x10 income) ones.
Also, its almost always better as a house gang player to ransom back captives. The cash goes right into your stash, and you avoid loosing people during the raid.
House gangs just aren't as "exiting" to play as outlanders; you need to be cautious and steady to build them up.

viperidae99
21-10-2006, 10:57
Nothing wrong with outlanders or any other gang. Only probs are those who whinge about them.