PDA

View Full Version : Weapon Restrictions - your thoughts?



AMBS
22-04-2007, 06:19
My friends and I have started playing with the new rulebook.

The first change we all had to accept was the new weapon restrictions for each gang.

Have any of you tried these out and what are your experiences from it?
Do you even think that weapon restrictions are a good idea?

Kedlav
22-04-2007, 06:41
They're absolutely, positively asinine. Completely arbitrary and not even based on the model range. Additionally, they aren't even terribly well balanced or suitable fluff-wise. Yet another reason to stick to the Big Yellow Book

Major_Gilbear
22-04-2007, 12:24
They're absolutely, positively asinine. Completely arbitrary and not even based on the model range. Additionally, they aren't even terribly well balanced or suitable fluff-wise. Yet another reason to stick to the Big Yellow Book

Totally agree. What *really* gets me is that the new rulebook added all this useless crap, and yet was still full of typos and copy errors. Yeah, well done GW, that was money well spent on a new edition...:wtf:

Stick to the Big Yellow Book (BYB) as Kedlav says.

Angelwing
22-04-2007, 13:28
I dont use them at all. They ignore the model range and many of my conversions wouldnt get used.
They got ignored in the Vets night shop campaign last year as well.

Major Gilbear: I'm curious. Why didnt you download the free copy of the rules first?

Major_Gilbear
22-04-2007, 15:46
I bought the original rules when Necromunda came out.
Then, a few years after Necro was taken off the shelves, the new version of the game came out: "Necromunda Underhive".
It was originally a printed book, and that is what was scanned into the currently downloadable PDFs. The new version was full of dopey errors and did nothing to clear up any of the old books FAQs. I have the new version in its current PDF form, but it is not as good as the original BYB.
Sure, some of the rules like the "High Impact" and "Full Auto" rules are nice, but really, that's a whole two paragraphs that are just a bit of icing (so maybe ten minute's work?). Most ppl used the "Full Auto" rules anyway as a House rule, especially after Gorkamorka came out.

The biggest reason that the HWLs are dumb though is one that never seems to be touched on much.
Yes, they are needlessly restrictive. Yes, many models are now "illegal". Yes, they are unfair in how weapons are distributed, and don't fit the Houses' fluff very well.
The crucial bit IMO is that they also miss the fact that Necro isn't like WH40k or WHFB. Players keep their gangs from game to game, and the variation between the Houses is marked by the skills that their gangs acquire. The weapons are actually pretty irrelavant to this, and only affect gangs in their first game or two (and most of the restrictions like Leader-only or access to to the Common Weapons list is limited to outside the first game anyway!). So the HWLs shouldn't (and indeed don't) work like their counterpart lists in the the Core Games.

Reesraw
23-04-2007, 00:16
edit: wrong thread...

Catferret
23-04-2007, 12:59
I'm not a fan of the new HWL's either. Even after GW tried to fix them and added a few more weapons to each list they still didn't make sense.

I quite like the High Impact rules but they don't really have much effect on the game. Most high strength weapons do multiple wounds anyway. Plasmaguns are a little better now but I used them anyway. I'd still rather have a Powersword over a Powerfist too.

Damien 1427
28-04-2007, 09:03
Since they have no grounding in the background, and seem to make no sense, I never use them. Sure, there were unbalanced segments of the original rules, but the basic gang armoury wasn't one of them.

I feel it limits creativity and seems a very cynical way of shifting the original models, and as such I think it should be stripped from the rules entirely.

I'll be honest and say for the basic rules (Not the updates of Outlanders) the only good change was from Sustained Fire Dice to regular ones. That was quite nice.

nightgant98c
30-04-2007, 17:02
I don't use them. I can't come up with any reason any of the house gangs couldn't aquire any of the coomon weapons. It might make sense to make them cheaper to some housees, since they would be more common.

gitburna
04-05-2007, 15:15
While losing some of the flexibility, what is DOES do is stop people spamming up on Swords right from the off.

parry parry parry, that was my one biggest gripe about 40k 2nd edition and necromunda :- If you didnt have a parry or two you were knackered for close combat.

Now that swords are limited from the start, i think that any spare cash is possibly more likely to be distributed in a more varied fashion.

Major_Gilbear
04-05-2007, 18:06
While losing some of the flexibility, what is DOES do is stop people spamming up on Swords right from the off.
Hmm, no offence, but I think that is pretty weak arguement...

All the restrictions do is limit the swords to some Houses and not others. That, and chainswords are available to all Leaders, and thus everyone in any gang after the first game - chainswords give a parry too.

Could you tell me how allowing House Escher to take all the swords they like balances against the other Houses who cannot tak any at all please?

Could you tell me why I have to wait a game before I can give my gangers equipment that would be considered essential/routine in the Underhive (like Flugs for example)?

Could you tell me how only letting House Cawdor take handflamers makes the Juve-Handflamer-Overwatch combo fair for all the other Houses?

No?

Well, that could be because the HWLs aren't balanced, aren't needed and because in Necromunda House gangs don't need the extra "theming" that the restricted weapons access seems to be trying to give.
In WH40k, Orks used to have Autoguns, Bolters and Lascannons. Now they have Sluggas, Shootas and Zzap guns. It makes the Orks more themed to have thier own guns in WH40k. In Necromunda, playing your gang over enough games to acquire skills provides the themes, not the frustratingly flawed and gimmickey HWLs.


parry parry parry, that was my one biggest gripe about 40k 2nd edition and necromunda :- If you didnt have a parry or two you were knackered for close combat.
Well, take Flails then. Flails negate any parries your opponent has. Also, skills like "Step Aside" and "Parry" can help you against an opponent with parries even if you have none of your own. If you're having trouble against oppenents who use lots of Parries, post here in Warseer and we'll try and help you find a way around it. Granted though that Parry is a very powerful skill and is largely undercosted on the equipment that grants it.


Now that swords are limited from the start, i think that any spare cash is possibly more likely to be distributed in a more varied fashion.
Nah, not true. You only have to look at the starting gangs people post around here to see that they are pretty much identical to the gangs people posted up before the dark days of NU. Simply put, it is because shooting is generally a more effective activity for the majority of one's gang at the start.

gitburna
08-05-2007, 15:53
Thankfully i've never played in the sort of Necromunda meta-game you have.

Major_Gilbear
08-05-2007, 18:10
Re-reading my previous post it does sound a bit inflammatory, so I apologise if any offece was caused gitburna.
However, instead of posting a trite little troll-baiting comment, you could at least be kind enough to enlighten us as to how you arrived at the conclusion that HWLs are balanced? I never see a sound arguement for them you see, so you have me intrigued.

gitburna
08-05-2007, 19:10
Fair enough :)

I just dont think theres any real issue. While im a bit "Doh!" that i cant have lasguns in my starting goliath gang for example, i can take bolters instead, something i probably wouldnt have considered otherwise and while they might not be the *best* option, im bound to rack up a shooting increase or two before long, and then Mr Bolter will be a bit deadly..

The main thing im glad about is the Swords though. While Escher can have them in droves, i dont think i'll come across any of that particular gang and the fact weaponry should be modelled on the figure means that i should only come across swords on specialised CC fighters.

Getting rid of the sword has also made me look at twin pistol fighters, and Mauls, and massive clubs etc as viable weapons. As i say while i enjoyed necromunda in the old days, the parry was downright annoying, particulalrly against said escher gang which was played by a beardy git. I felt like if i didnt take a sword for as many fiughters as possible then i was screwed,a fool, whereas now i look at the lists and think, "+1 strength mauls look tasty"

So for starters it has given me [perversely you might say] a greater freedom of choice in choosing which weapons i want. My Shotgun+flail ganger for instance doesnt look so much like a stupid waste of credits now.

The Cawdor handflamer issue looks like it could be a problem, who's to know until i come across it.

Mostly i suppose i feel like the weapon lists theme the gangs ever so slightly more, whereas before i felt like all gangs were more or less the same. I dont think the house weaponry unbalances the game in any major way and if anything, the rarity of some of the weapons means if i really want a sword or a plasma pistol i will send my leader to go and buy one rather than sploshing my 20 creds on one as common item "just in case" or what have you.

Major_Gilbear
08-05-2007, 19:47
Do you think that if the weapon and equipment lists were better priced you might have had the same feeling about trying new weapon combos? And similarly if some of the more duff items/weapons had a makeover?

Ex1> The Stubgun loses the penalty to hit at long range and the bonus at short (to balance it out), still costs 10cr. Would be a better Juve weapon than it was before, only now it bears out the fluff that stubs are common and reliable.

Ex2> Swords now cost 15cr each and give a parry. If a model has a two swords, rather than getting two parries you still only get one. However, if you face an opponent with a parry, then because you have two swords you still get one. Against a foe with two parries, you cancel each other out at usual. Tricky to explain, but very straightforward in practice.

In both of those examples, weapons have been changed a bit to make them a better choice; something that GW does with all its other games. I just don't really understand why they haven't done that this time around, and have fobbed us all off with the HWLs instead.

I guess I'd rather have say 10 good choices rather than 2 good and 8 bad or even 5 good and no bad.

An popular alternative suggested to the HWLs was to give each House full access to all the weapons as they used to, but give them penalties or discounts on some weapons. I like this idea myself (a good compromise I think), but the imbalance between cost and value of many weapons as-is makes this no better than the HWLs... Like swords and handflamers being worth much more and laspistols and stubs being overpriced.

gitburna
08-05-2007, 23:42
Do you think that if the weapon and equipment lists were better priced you might have had the same feeling about trying new weapon combos? And similarly if some of the more duff items/weapons had a makeover?

Ex1> The Stubgun loses the penalty to hit at long range and the bonus at short (to balance it out), still costs 10cr. Would be a better Juve weapon than it was before, only now it bears out the fluff that stubs are common and reliable.

stubbers to me have always just been a cheap back up for someone with something like an Autogun. i agree the -1 to hits a bit toss, but they do only shoot single shots one at a time unlike the autopistol which i imagine to be an uzi style burst. And with the option for dumdum bullets they're like cheap and nasty boltpistols. Good for close combat!


Ex2> Swords now cost 15cr each and give a parry. If a model has a two swords, rather than getting two parries you still only get one. However, if you face an opponent with a parry, then because you have two swords you still get one. Against a foe with two parries, you cancel each other out at usual. Tricky to explain, but very straightforward in practice.

i like all those ideas, i still think you'd see 75% of models carrying swords though. best thing would have been to charge 20-30 for a sword, and more still for a chainsword.


In both of those examples, weapons have been changed a bit to make them a better choice; something that GW does with all its other games. I just don't really understand why they haven't done that this time around, and have fobbed us all off with the HWLs instead.

Sometimes they do remove options as well though, look at the original rogue trader lists with their huge random tables. i think the best thing as i see it for this method is that it makes the sword seem more like a specilaised, unusual piece of kit, for specialist fighters. Clubs and mauls and knives feel more Underhive than Samurai/ Saracen swords


I guess I'd rather have say 10 good choices rather than 2 good and 8 bad or even 5 good and no bad.
i dont think there are any bad choices except maybe the lascannon and Heavy Plasma guns [should have been capped at just plasma guns IMO] which dont feel like they belong in the underhive. A juve with a stubgun might not be the best fighter in the hive, but there has to be a base-level somewhere doesnt there?


An popular alternative suggested to the HWLs was to give each House full access to all the weapons as they used to, but give them penalties or discounts on some weapons. I like this idea myself (a good compromise I think), but the imbalance between cost and value of many weapons as-is makes this no better than the HWLs... Like swords and handflamers being worth much more and laspistols and stubs being overpriced.

That would also work quite well, but i suppose the idea is that the rare weapons are bought from a community arms dealer so they cost the same wether they're bought by a Delaque or a Goliath. If you know what i mean. And the house weapons represent the ones that they can get hold of In-House. Also im not sure i agree that laspistols are overpriced. They do have a lower accuracy at range compared to autopistols but they have excellent reliability. Again perhaps not the best weapon for a Juve but an excellent back-up weapon for a more experienced fighter


To be fair, so far i cant really comment on the Handflamer issue,not having had any beardy experiences with them. i suppose the reason they were put in was to allow redemptionist models with exterminator cartridges attached to their weapons.I certainly cant think of any Cawdor models with hand flamers...mostly they seemed to be autogun and lasgun armed. I suppose that they do allow Cawdor juves a kind of head start when compared to the stubber . Maybe if they were s3 instead...

Major_Gilbear
09-05-2007, 00:11
I would certainly up the cost of swords (20), chainswords (30) and lasguns(30).
Handflamers should lose the template IMO; ie become auto-hitting range-6 one-shot pistols. That would dull the cheesy abuse but still keep the weapon working more or less as intended.

Laspistols and stubguns need beefing up though, as they are supposed to be the most common "civilian" weapons in the Imperium! As it stands, I think I'd rather have an Autopistol or a Bolt pistol any time. Besides, backup weapons need to be useful, and if they are lesser guns with a -1 to hit at ranges over 8" as well, then you're really stuffed if you have to rely on them.

Also, funny you should mention the RT weapon tables; I was thinking of the same parallel with Confrontation, Necro's precursor. The Confrontation tables were ordered in categories; better gangs got to roll on better tables, and richer gangs got to spend more on each table they could roll on. Scavvies always got the worst tables and little money, whereas the Venators (Cawdor) got the best tables and the most money! Kinda reminded me of House Escher and House Cawdor now :p. Was unfair/unbalanced then, and still is now.

Catferret
09-05-2007, 03:09
I'd start using stubguns if they got a +1 to hit at short range for the same cost. Not too big a bonus but worthwhile I think.

Tomothy
09-05-2007, 05:11
Ex1> The Stubgun loses the penalty to hit at long range and the bonus at short (to balance it out), still costs 10cr. Would be a better Juve weapon than it was before, only now it bears out the fluff that stubs are common and reliable.
Uh, they don't have a bonus at short range. In my campaigns i usually give them +1 short range and a 3+ ammo roll instead of 4+.

I don't run house weapon lists and i don't mind swords being the be all and end all of hth, my version of the skills list means parry is not such a big deal on the combat chart. I usually have one flail equipped guy to take them out anyway.

I also don't mind lasguns and autoguns being the way they are. Losing the armour save mod doesn't make much of a difference. I like the 5 cred difference and often use an autogun over a lasgun so i can get a better weapon elsewhere with that 5 creds. 2+ ammo vs 4+ ammo doesn't make a huge difference in my games.

Major_Gilbear
09-05-2007, 18:48
Uh, they don't have a bonus at short range.
:o Just checked, and you're absolutely right - just goes to show how infrequently I or anyone else I've played with take Stubs.

I doubt gaining +1 would sway me much (I already thought they did!), but losing the LR penalty would be enough for me to consider them. Even so, the Autopistol is such a good gun, I still reckon my old habits would catch up with me...

I do agree with your Lasgun/Autogun assessment; I always field autoguns myself. For exactly the reasons you've explained, and because I usually try and get all the gangers a backup pistol (you know which one!).
Whilst you don't usually need a backup pistol (less with a Lasgun), I find that when you really have to pin an enemy at short ranges, the pistols do the job successfully more often; the +2 at 0-8" is a big help.

My main reasoning for bumping up the Lasgun cost is to make it a harder choice over the Autogun; the 10 credits reflects having an ammo roll three times better and a modest save modifier more fairly than 5cr IMHO. I know it is modest figures we're talking about here, but it always seems to matter at the wrong moment - like when you're broke :p .

Tomothy
10-05-2007, 04:44
I dunno, i always thought about changing laspistol to +1 short no mod long.

Taking the -1 long off stubgun would totally undermine that. Plus don't forget stubguns come with dum dums. Easy way to get a str 4 shooting weapon that is a bit more viable now.

Catferret
10-05-2007, 12:28
Never shoot with Dumdums! It's got a 50% chance of exploding! That's worse then a Bolt Pistol!

Tomothy
10-05-2007, 12:39
33% if you use my change

Catferret
10-05-2007, 12:43
True... But hadn't you also said to up the cost earlier in this thread? Or was that somebody else?

Tomothy
10-05-2007, 14:09
Somebody else, i would keep the cost the same, upping it brings on whole new problems as currently even the laspistol doesn't really stack up with the autopistol.

Catferret
10-05-2007, 14:30
I couldn't remember who had said it.

Laspistols aren't too bad. It's a reliable backup for people with Bolt weapons but otherwise I agree that Autopistols are too good to pass up on. Bolt Pistols are a good second choice. I occasionally use Plasmapistols on Leaders with Shotguns. Two Range 18" weapons seems to work quite well. The higher BS of a Leader allows you to hit despite the long range penalty.

gitburna
10-05-2007, 15:16
I dont really see what peoples issue with the laspistol is, to be fair. Whenever i've played, If its long range im usually hitting enemies around the 5/6/7 to hit mark. At this point i think i'd sooner be shooting the laspistol because then im more than likely still going to be shooting it the turn after. Both get the same bonus at short range.

So it comes down to being a lot more reliable versus a bit more accurate at long range [and good luck getting a better score to hit than a 6+ most of the time in any case].

On the other hand, autopistols look much cooler, cant beat a goliath model with an Uzi in each hand!

And my view on the Stub gun is that its a cheap back up weapon for fighters armed with stuff like an autogun or heavyweapon. They have their place as a sidearm. Main weapon less so, in all fairness. Its also a failry cheap way of giving a fighter a s4 in melee.

Besides, some of the stubgun models just look really cool as well. from Juves armed with "Robocop" style guns to the massive magnums of the plastic orlocks, to the ork-styled uber revolvers of the goliaths.

Yeah, good old stubber :)

Catferret
10-05-2007, 15:31
Why would you be giving a model with a Heavy Weapon a pistol as backup? Their role is to stand back and shoot at long range. Surely a basic weapon would be more likely to be in range when their big gun jams?

gitburna
10-05-2007, 15:32
I Also, funny you should mention the RT weapon tables; I was thinking of the same parallel with Confrontation, Necro's precursor. The Confrontation tables were ordered in categories; better gangs got to roll on better tables, and richer gangs got to spend more on each table they could roll on. Scavvies always got the worst tables and little money, whereas the Venators (Cawdor) got the best tables and the most money! Kinda reminded me of House Escher and House Cawdor now :p. Was unfair/unbalanced then, and still is now.

I never managed to get all the confrontation rules buit i remember that game fairly well. I think the Escher list would be balanced a little better if the heavy or special weapons were more restricted. IE they've more fully traded in for the swords and pistols. Maybe even removed one of either lasguns or Autoguns from the list [after all, they did that to the goliaths] Then i think the swords would have made up for that.
As for Cawdor, im not sure, perhaps the handflamer should go up in price a little more still, at the moment theyre a 1 shot flamer that can be stuffed away into a holster or whatever. If anything the hand flamer is possibly a better buy than the normal flamer [2 for the price of 1, and doesnt require a heavy to carry it]. Yeah, perhaps upgrade the price to 30. It is an excellent pistol after all.

Catferret
10-05-2007, 15:36
That's a very good point bout the cost of Handflamers. I hadn't thought about the fact that they were reliable flamers if you buy 2. No explosion chance either. Cost was based on the old ones having a truly tiny range. About 4" I think. Now they use the full template they need to be upped a little.

gitburna
10-05-2007, 15:40
Why would you be giving a model with a Heavy Weapon a pistol as backup? Their role is to stand back and shoot at long range. Surely a basic weapon would be more likely to be in range when their big gun jams?

Because what happens when the enemy vents or tunnels onto you and goes for your heavy ? What about if your heavy ends up in a Gunfight? Maybe you'll want to move with the heavy and so you cant shoot the heavy weapon, or the enemy is charging you and you want the bonus to hit at short range. Pick a reason!

Catferret
10-05-2007, 15:49
Lasguns get a +1 at short.

Vents and Tunnels don't concern me. They deploy at end of their turn. If you can't see them with your guys then Overwatch them with a few of your guys. The Heavy and his bodyguards should do the trick.

In a Gunfight scenario you have a -1 Initiative for carrying a Heavy Weapon. I've still seen Heavies going first and gunning down all the opposing models. Even pinning them is enough to stop them firing back.

As far as moving Heavies goes, I do it all the time and find that range 24" from a Lasgun is required whereas pistols are better suited to the 2/3 of my gang who run forward for the first couple of turn.

gitburna
10-05-2007, 16:45
I'd sooner give the lasgun [or an autogun] to a ganger who will be able to shoot it as his main weapon.At some point after a few games when ive got money, gangers and possibly weapons spare i'd equip him with a shotgun for a versatile back-up weapon. An autopistol on the other hand is a nice hold-out weapon which will shoot out to 16" and be extra accurate at short range.

Overall i think lasguns/autoguns are unnecessary for a heavyweapon guy.

Major_Gilbear
10-05-2007, 19:00
That's a very good point bout the cost of Handflamers. <snip> No explosion chance either.

I thought there was discussion about this (at SG?), and the ruling was that you still had to roll a dice even though the gun auto-hits. Basically, the dice roll can still come up a "1" and explode the weapon. IIRC, this was the issue with the old Redemptionist Exterminators (even cheaper at 15cr!).

Tomothy
11-05-2007, 01:18
Yeah I think I saw that, can't point to the thread now. Nowhere does it say they don't explode, i would just treat them as per auto ammo weapons where, like Gilbear said, you roll an extra dice, if it comes up 1...Kaboom! Technically giving them a greater chance of blowing up than a flamer.

Catferret
11-05-2007, 04:15
I'd never seen that rule anywhere. It would make them a bit more reasonable for their cost. Frankly I vote for bringing back the old tiny template for them and let them have an Ammo Roll rather than "one Shot".

bertcom1
11-05-2007, 10:18
The house weapon lists are silly in that the source of weapons are traders in settlements, which means all weapons would be available to anyone.

They only make a small amount of sense for a starting gang, as it would represent the more common equipment

KaldCB
11-05-2007, 12:14
But they are just for the starting gang, after first match you can buy weapons from all the list.
I don't see why som many pepole hate the weapons lists. makes picking a gang a little more then just the skills...

bertcom1
11-05-2007, 16:45
Dn't you have to give up rare trade rolls to buy weapons that aren't on the House list? Or was that changed?

Major_Gilbear
11-05-2007, 18:06
After the first game, "Leader" items become freely availble to the rest of the gang to purchase, and likewise the common equipment items (eg, respirators, etc).

Otherwise, to buy a weapon that your House doesn't normally have access to but is common, you have to wait until you've played at least one game and then give up a roll on the Trading post for each weapon you want to purchase.

At least, that is my understanding of it. Bear in mind though I don't use these rules as I happen to think they are a bit, um... well, poo.


I'd never seen that rule anywhere. It would make them a bit more reasonable for their cost.
The more I think about it, the more I think it was a rules clarification at the time of the BYB edition. I'm pretty sure it has been asked on the SG forums since then as well.


Frankly I vote for bringing back the old tiny template for them and let them have an Ammo Roll rather than "one Shot".
QFT.

GW used to print the templates in the back of their rulebooks so that if/when you lost the templates you could photocopy yourself a new set. This would be the simple way around having different sized flame templates.
Since GW now sell plastic versions though, they would much rather you bought them than made your own... Kerchingg! Plus, we mere gamers are obviously too dumb to follow a simple instruction like "photocopy these templates for your own use" and thus must be provided with a plastic alternative.:rolleyes:

Yorkiebar
11-05-2007, 18:48
I don't like weapon restrictions, simply because I think people ought to be choosing gangs based on their character, not their rules.

Damien 1427
11-05-2007, 18:52
I don't see why som many pepole hate the weapons lists. makes picking a gang a little more then just the skills...

But they don't make sense.

How come one of the most technologically advanced gangs in the entire Hive (Van Saar) don't have access to perhaps the most advanced basic firearm in the entire game (The Bolter)? But a bunch of religous rabble (Cawdor) and essentially pink orks (Goliath) can? Bolt waponry is delicate, requires constant maintenance and the ammunition is expensive and difficult to acquire unless you have the contacts... And with Van Saar being essentially the biggest arms dealers in Primus, you'd think they could kit their goon squads out with them.

Sorry, but I just can't see any good argument for the restrictions. Too many people take swords? Take flails, or remember you too can take swords. The arguments that one side can dominate the other don't really hold water when you remove the Weapon Lists from the equation altogether. Suddenly, we're all back on a level playing field.

Angelwing
12-05-2007, 03:30
I don't like weapon restrictions, simply because I think people ought to be choosing gangs based on their character, not their rules.

I would say people ought to be choosing gangs based on which models they like best trumps even that.
There just doesnt seem to be any point in the restrictions.

Kargush
12-05-2007, 12:03
Played a campaign with the old rules. Never used the new ones. Except that we used the new gang creation rules a guide. Came out second to, with power axes, flamers, power fist, and a lot of other stuff in my "armoury".

Personally I like the old rules. Like I said, I've not yet seen the new rules, so I can't make a "ruling", but I'm not so keen on the restrictions. After all, the Eshers might not have a moniature with a lascannon, or even a "doctrine" of not using very many, but why should that be a hindrance?

gitburna
12-05-2007, 16:35
Too many people take swords? Take flails, or remember you too can take swords. The arguments that one side can dominate the other don't really hold water when you remove the Weapon Lists from the equation altogether. Suddenly, we're all back on a level playing field.

I dont think that this "one side dominates the other" thing is really the case.
Its the way armies a differentiated in 40k and other games, for example.

Anyway, the point about swords is exactly that too many people take them. How exactly are they being reduced in number if i start taking them as well.
Bah, swords should be for specialist fighters, not an essential weapon for all fighters. All swords should be much more expensive and less widely available. In fact if i was in charge of rereleasing necromunda figure ranges, the escher gangers would have much fewer swords, maybe one ganger and one on a leader.

While flails are touted as a counter to swords, they're much riskier to use and probably slightly less effective overall. And suitable modelling options are *far* harder to come by.

bertcom1
12-05-2007, 18:51
Isn't the big problem with swords the rules for how they work?

i.e. the parry rule?

Surely a change to that would be better, perhaps something like:

Parry: Opponent doesn't get a critical hit when rolling two 6s?

Two swords would mean opponent doesn't get a critical hit unless rolling three 6s?

Bubble Ghost
12-05-2007, 19:25
The main problems with the lists are background ones. First of all, and most obviously, they don't match the character of the gangs - there's not even an attempt to hide the fact that they're only there to match the models. That in itself is insulting enough to the intelligence of players of a game largely about character and improvisation.

More insidious, though, is that fact that the lists' very existence undermines not only the basis of the game's background, but one of the alleged reasons for re-releasing the game in the first place. This is that House allegiance had become to dominant, making the Underhive seem like a grotty suburb of Hive City rather than a unique frontier where people blend together. It gets in the way of the 'community spirit in adversity' atmosphere which is part of what Necromunda took from westerns, making their association based on House look less like banding together with like-minded souls for survival and more like an obligatory excuse to beat up other House members, football hooligan style. It also undermines all the gumph about how tough life in the Underhive is supposed to be because it implies people can afford to be picky.

Bottom line is that it drastically dilutes Necromunda's flavour, which is the main reason for playing it in the first place.

Daredhnu
02-06-2007, 22:11
i never liked the trading system and now with the house weapon lists they have made it even worse.:mad:

you have to give up all of your possible rare items to be able to get 1 very common weapon? i don't think so.

bloody fools, idiots! damn them, damn them all to hell.

anyway i did use them.:cries:

now i'm sad that i'm not smart enough to come up with a better trading system.:wtf:

I AM SMART ENOUGH!!!

and i will come up with a better ..... no i have come up with a better trading system. (sort off)

but where do you guys think i should post it here in the necromunda forum or the rules development section.:confused:

Catferret
03-06-2007, 02:53
It's related to necro so start a new thread in the Necro section I say.

Major_Gilbear
03-06-2007, 03:34
you have to give up all of your possible rare items to be able to get 1 very common weapon?

I might be missing something (I don't use the new rules), but I think you should re-read page 97 of the LRB.
I don't think the new rules mean that you give up all your rolls, but each roll you give up allows you to buy up to one weapon. So if you buy a non-House weapon, your leader must be uninjured and gets D3-1 rare-trade chart rolls instead of D3. To buy more weapons, you give up a roll for each. Obviously you need to roll to see how many items you are offered, but you need to decide how many weapons you are buying before you roll to determine what -if any- rare items you are offered at the trading post.

Anyway, I'd suggest that if you have a new trade system you want to post, you start a new thread for it as Catferret says.

Daredhnu
03-06-2007, 11:08
so they changed that huh :confused:

my nice and shiny rulebook says you have to give up searching for rare item in order to buy 1 weapon not on your own house weapon list.

not that it really matters cause i'm making a new system anyway so cheers.:D

Ancientsociety
05-06-2007, 20:47
Well, the Underhive rulebook fails in a lot of respects. It's a cheap imposter of the original. Gone is the beautiful artwork and sketches (replaced by reprinted INQ artwork), gone is the fluff, gone is the nice layout of techy headers and footers. The weapons list is just the most glaring example to veteran players.

I just don't understand SG's reasoning behind the "house-specific" list. It doesn't fit fluff, it doesn't fit background, and it doesn't fit the 1st ed model range. The Houses are arguably the best factions as far as logistics in the Underhive is concerned, so why wouldn't their fighters have access to all the equipment they could field against their enemies? These aren't outlaws or outlanders with lack of support. House gangs are essentially the Underhive's paramilitary armies.

How is it that Van Saar (who are arguably the most tech-savvy of all the houses) cannot have the mechanically complex and difficult to maintain bolter (at least fluff-wise) but Cawdor can (even described at the top of their list as using weapons made SPECIFICALLY to "get close enough to take their enemies down")?

Also, with Cawdor why, if they want to get into CC so badly, are they relegated to ONE CC weapon - the knife!?

Why would Escher suddenly "prefer plasma guns for their high firepower" - considering it is the most difficult to maintain and hazardous to use????

bosstroll
03-07-2007, 15:53
My group took a look at the new rules and decided to let them be, the BYB rules simply reflect the underhive much better. HWL lists are silly, no sustained fire dice is simple heresy, they booted all the cool templates. Over all, BYB forever :)


Oh, someone a way up in this thread said that a dum-dumed stubgun has a 50% explode chance, thats a wrong calc since its actually only 8% ('6' to hit = 16%, half failed ammo roll = 8%) ;)

ash_wednesday
25-07-2007, 21:11
I use the House weapon rules. I like them fro the fact that they do limit weapons and trys to balnce it out. It made the starting gangs a bit more intresting and stable. It prevent the players from starting out with the most powerful weapons in the game. It also incourge the players to use other weapons.

It got boring when every gang started with nothing but boltguns, boltpistols, chainswords and a plasma cannon or a lascannon.

I liked the fact that you would have to work your way to get those weapons as the rule that if you wanted a non-house weapon, to gave up the right to use the trading post.

Mind you, I do agree with guys about the weapon list not agreeing with the fluff of each house or the model ranges and the list should be tweaked a bit more but the generial idea and reason behind it is cool.

BigRob
26-07-2007, 10:09
I think that the idea is sound, but the rules dont follow. Goliaths for example are good, they are "pink orks" as people have said and are all about big weapons, loud guns and lots of bangs, so, having no energy weapons makes sense, they prefere heavy guns with solid shots and recoil.
However it seems only the Goliaths make sense, every other gang doesnt really. Whos going to take Lascannons? If Delaque prefere concealed weapons why dont they have more pistol choices? Why are Hand Flamers not Leader only?

If you dont like the lists, tinker with them or just ignore them. Hopefully Specialist Games will release better, more background inspired lists in the future.

House Weapon lists: A nice idea until they wrote it

Damien 1427
27-07-2007, 23:40
As I've said, if you want to limit yourself, feel free to do so. I wrote a Delaque list where the Gangers had Stub Guns, the Heavies had Shotguns, and the Leader had a Bolt Pistol. :eek: I did that to fit into the theme I concocted in my head - Essentially a Legitimate Businessmens Social Club.

That's the kind of limit I feel you should have. Ones you set for yourself to create a theme, not abitary restrictions that attempt to create balance by throwing out the core element of balance - That everyone has the same freaking fear.

jpf1982
22-08-2007, 17:43
I have to say that I prefer the old Big Yellow Book. Other than I paid 40 dollars for it whereas I can get UH from the site for free I just don't feel UH added anything worth caring about. The only rules from it that changed that I like are the way sustained fire works.

And as far as the weapons list goes I think it's dog crap. At least for my gang; I play scavvies and we can't start with shotguns anymore instead we get some crap blunderbuss with even crappier range. To argue it some more it doesn't even ignore cover, since when does a blunderbuss not ignore cover, the name blunderbuss implied on any other weapon does. And come on how basic is a freagin shotgun! even the dregs of humanity should be able to scrap up a few.

feintstar
18-09-2007, 03:47
So guys, for all you folks who don't use the Restricted weapon lists, I'm just wondering how to work outlanders into your campaigns. Considering that, say, only Redemptionists have access to the little flamer thingies, does everyone in your group have access to those? Or, conversely, can ratskins go around buying Heavy Bolters?

I ask because while I have the BYB, I don't have the old school outlanders.

Catferret
18-09-2007, 04:04
Ratskins can buy Heavy Bolters, they just have nobody who can use them...

None of the Ratskins have a model designated as a Heavy. Best they could do is get a model with Specialist and give them a Plasmagun or Grenade Launcher. Or hire Brakar the Avenger.

Carlos
18-09-2007, 16:49
Most of the new rules are rubbish. Weapon restrictions dont make sense, and like before the income table is severely broken. We always played as thats the amount you TAKE OFF not LEFT WITH otherwise your gangs all get quite poor. Where is the fun in that?

Recently my Enforcers decided to go solo (4 of them died in one battle. They are out for revenge on the gang that did it) and so I took the 480 creds I had gained from various things but had no use for, left all the equipment behind (to keep things fair) and brought up a load of new stuff for them.

Now I plan to take revenge on the goliath 'Punk Spiriters' (and their goddam lascannon-wielding, Infra-sight-toting BS4 heavy) and hire up Karloth Valois and a horde of plague zombies and then sit back and shoot them to hell whilst they get overcome by a horde of zombies....