improving necromunda rules

[Demi_morgana]

last friday we decided to refresh necromunda so we're starting new campaign soon so far we had just a "test" battle just to remind rules and some tricks but after the game (and several beers ) we realised that compared to other games we played recently gw rules are... well they're simply boring
necromunda world is really great imo but rules remind chess
so we decided to modify them so make them at least a bit more enjoyable; below is what we're thinking about and if You have any ideas more - put it here

-there's only single bonus for being in cover, -1 for enemy shooter no matter if model is in "hard" or "soft" cover
-models can get into overwatch after walking (not running) but they get -1 modifier for shooting
-if enemy captures more than one ganger, in rescue missions You're rescuing all of them at once
-modifying getting advances: if ganger killes other modes using BS (for example) it can choose to get +1 BS, without rolling which statistic improves

some other ideas will be tested on friday so I'll post them too

[mahon]

the thing I would love to see changed is dropping the fixed order in which players take their actions, so called "IGOUGO".

I'd do it by rolling for initiative every turn - who wins initiative, he must/can choose to go first. The next turn you roll again. There would be room for some modifiers, eg. having infiltrators might modify the roll by +1 (for their scouting abilities), the more experienced leader might get +1, etc. Just suggestions.

What I don't like in IGOUGO games is their predictability - you know exactly when you're going to move, thus the game becomes more chess-like. A bit of unpredictability represents fog of war, which adds a bit of realism IMHO and always made the game more fun for me.

You simply cannot make precise plans, but always have to be prepared that something may go wrong...

[Nameless]

-there's only single bonus for being in cover, -1 for enemy shooter no matter if model is in "hard" or "soft" cover

I've never played Necromunda, so this is a question not complaint - why do you want to remove differentation between hard and soft cover? This is a commonly applied solution in table-top games, and imho really useful thing in skirmish games with plenty of cover.

I'd do it by rolling for initiative every turn - who wins initiative, he must/can choose to go first. The next turn you roll again. There would be room for some modifiers, eg. having infiltrators might modify the roll by +1 (for their scouting abilities), the more experienced leader might get +1, etc. Just suggestions.

Again, I'm not sure if my proposal could be implemented in necromunda game, but I'd suggest a solution taken from Warlord - Initiative Card Deck (it's called bit different, but I can;t recall actual name). Each player chooses a card colour and adds one card of that colour for each of his units (models in Necromunda?). Chosen cards make the mentioned ICD. The deck is shuffled before a game and each turn, and is used to generate order of deployment and moves.
This enforces whole lot of thinking (e.g., you can't move your troops into open that easily, because you don't know if you'd be able to cover them with a tank before you get shot to pieces).
You may then modify this system - each card is connected with specific model. If you choose you card, you would have to move that specific model, not any one chosen by you.
Special characters could give two cards to the Deck, to increase a chance of getting your model to move.
Infiltrators/scouts could allow to return any card to the deck immediately after it is chosen (once per turn, per game, in the deployment phase...)

Of course, cards are removed from the ICD when a model is killed (unit wiped out).

[mahon]

Right, Nameless.

I don't think that two types of cover slow game so much. Unless the players are really determined to find out precisely which cover applies in a given situation. In my games I usually allow a bit relaxed approach to this and if something's too difficult to judge quickly, it;s better to let a d6 decide than to slow the game.

Two types of cover represent concealment (cover which makes the target more diffucult to hit, but don't block the bullets too much) and cover (makes targetting more diffucult and blocking some bullets).

As for activation - most new wargames (well, all I've playted except for GW's games) use random activation... Either card activation (the most popular approach) or dice activation.

Card activations can be done in a few ways:
- you have a card for each of your models and it acts when its card is drawn (some models can have more cards, and in games like Necromunda you would be able to choose if you act on the card or wait for another but could act only once per turn. this increases your chances to act earlier)
- you have as many cards as you have models, but whenever you draw one of YOUR cards, you move any one of your models
- you have twice as many cards as you have turns (half for each player) + 1 "reshuffle" card,
or as many cards as you have turns (half for each player). you draw one card per tuirn and this force goes first in this turn...

etc.

[Nameless]

cover - I've been playing for quite a long time, I'm aware what are two types of cover for
I'm just curious why Demi wants to remove hard cover from his games. Perhaps it's connected with issue you mentioned, i.e slow pace of a game, perhaps -2 modifier makes cover in Necromunda too "powerful".

Initiative - I'll leave that to Demi's discretion that's his gaming group after all

[Demi_morgana]

as for cover: general idea of differing concealment and cover is good but in practise sometimes it's really hard to choose which one should be used:
some minis have elevated bases like rubble or junk and even because of only 5mm model can loose cover bonus... we decided that gangers move cautiously all the time seeking every possibility to get some protection so we want to try a single to hit modificator; of course it's still test

as for activation - that's what we want to change too; we thought about making initiative deciding about activation order, or adopting solutions from chain reation game... these rules are REALLY unpredictible!

[mahon]

unless you play with hgher Reputation minis - for military actions Rep 4 is recommended as the basic Rep.

Basing the test on I might be good (I+d6 ?)

[Nameless]

cover - I do hate rules, that are connected with real size of models. Should I get any advantage if I place my models as if they are lying or crawling? Should I cut off any parts of a model, which are risen too much?
I exaggerate, but you get the point.
Your gaming group is quite small I'm sure you could easily agree before game - these terrains grant soft cover, and these- hard.

activation - it's definitely a good idea to change the standard GW solution. It's up to you what method you choose.

[mahon]

Cover: I like it how uit's done in The Face of Battle and The Face of Modern Battle games. It is assumed the mini always tries to grab as mch cover as possible in a given position. Thus what counts is the type of cover (assigned to types of terrain/scenery), not actual exposition of the mini - why a mini in an "action pose" should be easier to hit than a prone miniature, if they represent the same kind of trooper?

[Demi_morgana]

unless you play with hgher Reputation minis - for military actions Rep 4 is recommended as the basic Rep.

Basing the test on I might be good (I+d6 ?)

I'm thinking about kind of "reaction" test...
maybe rolling UNDER initiative value would be enough? I mean a single test at the start of the turn determining activation order...