Necromunda 3.0

Madness · Private Joined: 18 Jul 2009 Posts: 58 Medals: None

Yes, I'm saying it's fine, specially if the alternative is to implement rules that either suck or are too complex, because you have the triangle
working - simple - detailed, you can't get all 3, you have to pick 2, or one and 2 halves. In this case I'm going with working and simple, which mean no rules for encumbrance, because no matter what the rule, if it's not 2 pages of rules, I can find a way to equip a guy with a ridiculous amount of weapon and get away with it. Like the Gang made of a Leader with 176 knives.

But again, feel free to implement any system, and I assure you I can destroy it without raising an eyebrow. Not because you are incompetent or stupid. But because it's either overly complex or flawed.

KRUG_666 · Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:19 am Post subject:

I have to agree with Madness here. alot of these rules re-writes seem complex and unnecessary...the one and only problem I have with the game was the ammo roll and it was dismissed early on this thread....For the most part, the game is fine for those who enjoy playing for the sheer enjoyment of it. Necromunda is not 40k or fantasy, it does not need to be updated every 4 or five years...many of the posts in this thread make me feel as if you want the game to be a tournament friendly game with role playing rules.....I don't care for it personally....and if their was a complete re-write with your vision of the game, I would not play it.

Caelwyn, I understand you and Goobafish and the other like minded folk have worked hard on this, good for you...no need to get sore over someone giving you an opinion...besides isn't feedback what you wanted?
_________________
www.krug666.blogspot.com

Madness · Private Joined: 18 Jul 2009 Posts: 58 Medals: None

Crazy idea time: how about we layer the game into core rules and advanced ones?

Caelwyn · Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:27 pm Post subject:

KRUG_666 · Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:32 pm Post subject:

Caelwyn, I'm not over reacting, I'm just stating how I feel about this whole Necromunda 3.0....It's just my opinion...no need to be on the defense...I have not participated in this thread mostly because I have other obligations and I personally don't see a whole lot needs to be changed, I have no desire to make the game "better" because I think it's fine, nor do I plan throw any ideas out there to help either. I may be the minority when it comes to changing the game and I realize that but, putting people on blast just because they disagree with you does not make you right either.
_________________
www.krug666.blogspot.com

Caelwyn · Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:39 pm Post subject:

Madness · Private Joined: 18 Jul 2009 Posts: 58 Medals: None

Cael, what about my last proposal? Split the rules into core and advanced ones?

Caelwyn · Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:22 am Post subject:

Madness · Private Joined: 18 Jul 2009 Posts: 58 Medals: None

I'm proposing it right now 'cause in my opinion the problems are 2:
1. Fixing the game shortcomings
2. Adding more options

Point 1 should be fixed by surgical strikes with limited damage in the appropriate sections with the least impact possible.
Point 2 can lead to proliferation and should therefore be relegated to optional advanced rules.

Caelwyn · Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:06 am Post subject:

Jack The Snipper · Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:01 pm Post subject:

I had the thought while reading this exchange that it might be helpful to write the rules twice: once for simplicity and easy readability, and again to iron out any loopholes and ambiguities at the expense of stylistic concerns. The second would function almost as a giant errata detailing exactly how everything works and exhaustively covering every possible circumstance, with the former being limited to frequent occurrences in order to make it approachable to those who don't possess a fanatic dedication to absolute clarity.

I'm not sure how helpful that would actually be; I think there's only so much you can leave out of a rulebook without starting to frequently encounter problems (like Gorkamorka… I love that game, but there are loads of ambiguities in the rules and that drives me up the wall). I'd be willing to take on writing (or editing, whatever) a perfectly explicit rulebook. I'd help with an accessible version, too, but that's not something I'd be good at. I would have a hard time figuring out which rules to leave out or present in a less wordy form.
_________________
Heads will roll…

Madness · Private Joined: 18 Jul 2009 Posts: 58 Medals: None

I'm writing here because it wouldn't make sense to write in the other threads.

Apparently you don't care about limiting the proliferation of equipment or continuity with the 2nd edition background.

That is the thing I love most about necromunda and I really won't be able to help you with your rules if that's the road you're going down on.

I would just advise you to write a statement of intent listing your constraints and objectives. Without constraint and objectives every project is bound to suffer from scope creeping.

Also if I stumbled upon such a thing, I wouldn't have wasted my time and your time arguing about stuff that I deem very important and you don't care about.

I'll be continuing with a development of small rules adjustment that fix Necromunda without changing its nature too much.

Also if you want I'm working on a wyrd gang in the sg "official" forum.

Caelwyn · Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:35 am Post subject:

Twinlinked · Recruit Joined: 14 Aug 2009 Posts: 11 Medals: None

there needs to be more clarification on the rules for shooting,

as in fast shot rule states fighter may fire a number of time equal to the number of attacks he has

this is an issue because i have had opponents claim that that means a ganger could say fire a pistol once and throw a grenade once - further to that, what happens if after the first shot an ammo check is failed.

regardless of the drafters intentions, there should be no ambiguity in these rules, there is too much chance for different interpretations with vastly different results

A.