Commoragh the game: which rules for core mechanics?

So far there seems to be a lot of debate on which rule set to use for core mechanics. So for the sake of moving the project forward I made this Poll.

EDIT: Core meaning, for stats, cover, terrain, movement, etc. So how the models are moved, shoot, assault and so on. Nothing to do with the storytelling or narrative aspect of the game (skill charts, territories, gang advancements, etC)

Fellow Archons cast your votes!

Define 'core mechanics'?

I sort of feel the agreed consensus is 'Necro with adjustments for 6th' personally - which option would that be?

Thor665 wrote:

Define 'core mechanics'?

I sort of feel the agreed consensus is 'Necro with adjustments for 6th' personally - which option would that be?

Core meaning, for stats, cover, terrain, movement, etc. So how the models are moved, shoot, assault and so on.

I have voted for Necromunda because taking a wound isn't the end of a model (as it is in 6th). I think that this is more suited to the small numbers of a skirmish game, but we could always just make a slight modifications to 6th to have the same affect. Using 6th does have the advantage that everyone is familiar with the ruleset.

EDIT: The advantage to using the stright Necromunda ruleset is that all of the advancement and skills tables are already developed to work with that game, so we wouldn't have to adapt or write our own.

Creating the tables and charts and advancement trees ourselves would be fun and allow for our creative juices to flow freely. Plus anything we'd come up with would be loads more Dark Eldary than straight Necromunda.

First off, the question was for more just general game mechanics. I.e. - the movement phase, shooting phase, and assault phase being as they are in their respective books. Specifics, like if a model dies after getting his one wound taken away is something we can tweak.

I pulled examples from that Path to Glory game in the other thread, but I'll mention it here since you brought up the end of the model. In that game, if a model received enough wounds to remove it from a normal game of 40k, it is removed from play from that warband game. Then after that specific game has finished, a D6 is rolled for any model that was removed do to wounds. On a roll of a 1 they are removed permanently from the "game" as a whole, and are no longer in the warband so the player would have to recruit more. Any roll of 2+ and the model comes back for the next game just as if it was never wounded.

Add in some fluff for flavor where we want it, and something like that is taken care of.

Plastikente wrote:

I have voted for Necromunda because taking a wound isn't the end of a model (as it is in 6th). I think that this is more suited to the small numbers of a skirmish game, but we could always just make a slight modifications to 6th to have the same affect. Using 6th does have the advantage that everyone is familiar with the ruleset.

EDIT: The advantage to using the stright Necromunda ruleset is that all of the advancement and skills tables are already developed to work with that game, so we wouldn't have to adapt or write our own.

Those are all things you would add, nothing to do with the basics core mechanics. As a necromunda player, I can also say that the tables are pretty terrible and not balanced. Though the community version of necromunda did a lot to fix this. However the whole fun is we would make our own.

But like I said this is concerning core mechanics, i.e how weapon skill works, how attacks work. The wound thing is a tweak, nothing to do with 2nd edition rules. Necromunda also works with to hit modifiers rather than cover saves and opposed weaponskill tests, movement values etc.

Maybe I should have phrased this better.

Well I must say I would prefer a system like the role playing games have. Sure it may be too complex for a skirmish, but it would fit the dark city.

6th is simplier then necromunda, and simpler is better if you wanna spread the game.

Latest x-com on pc shown how much fun and brilliant tactics can relatively simple system contain. I strongly advice looking at it, becasue it is contains the very essence of skirimish games.

Mushkilla wrote:

Plastikente wrote:

I have voted for Necromunda because taking a wound isn't the end of a model (as it is in 6th). I think that this is more suited to the small numbers of a skirmish game, but we could always just make a slight modifications to 6th to have the same affect. Using 6th does have the advantage that everyone is familiar with the ruleset.

EDIT: The advantage to using the stright Necromunda ruleset is that all of the advancement and skills tables are already developed to work with that game, so we wouldn't have to adapt or write our own.

Those are all things you would add, nothing to do with the basics core mechanics. As a necromunda player, I can also say that the tables are pretty terrible and not balanced. Though the community version of necromunda did a lot to fix this. However the whole fun is we would make our own.

But like I said this is concerning core mechanics, i.e how weapon skill works, how attacks work. The wound thing is a tweak, nothing to do with 2nd edition rules. Necromunda also works with to hit modifiers rather than cover saves and opposed weaponskill tests, movement values etc.

Maybe I should have phrased this better.

What Mushkilla said. For me, this could be rephrased "Do we base this on 2nd ed with adjustments for a skirmish campaign, or on 6th with adjustment" - if we pick 2nd, we use Necromunda as the base, as Necromunda is 2nd with skirmish adjustments; if we pick 6th, then we use sixth and add some adjustments.

I voted 6th, as that's what we've all got, but am happy enough with either - and there are enough differences in the mechanics that I feel this choice does have to be made.

Sorry to say it but I'm kinda with crazy irish on this one and so haven't voted yet - if pushed then I'd prefer to consider a hybrid mesh of 6th with Necromunda (more weighted towards the 'storyitelling / narrative' element of Necromunda).

However my own personal (and hopefully humble!) opinion doesn't really gel well with the idea of this game becoming widespread - so if pushed for the 'making the game popular' route then I'd choose 6th as thats what most people have/are used to these days.

Right I think I need to rephrase this poll and start again, this is just about core mechanics, nothing to do with the storytelling element, territory, skill advancements or anything like that. People seem to be misunderstanding that.

This Poll is just to do with how basic movement, shooting and assault work.

I like the idea of using 6th Ed as a base, then adding elements of 2 Ed. For example, adding in shooting to hit modifiers for range, cover, movement etc. Also, for close combat you could keep the basic to hit system of 6th, then add to hit modifiers for charging into cover, enemy pinned, parrying etc. These modifiers could also have the knock on effect of making WS and BS increases more significant.

I would get behind that.

I voted for 6th. I think that porting over the Movement stat and armour save modifiers for weapons rather than AP values would be good though.

There's a lot of stuff that should come over due to the skirmish nature.

Frankly, the only big difference I see is that we're debating how assault is handled.

Thor665 wrote:

There's a lot of stuff that should come over due to the skirmish nature.

Frankly, the only big difference I see is that we're debating how assault is handled.

i'd say thats probably the real debate too. i think movement and shooting is similar between 2nd and 6th eds (2nd being the base for necromunda) and can just be modified as and when the rules are put into place but i think the assault system for 2nd is better as it can represent the speed of attacks by the dark eldar. for that reason i voted necromunda but the tables would have to be redone to reflect the nature of the dark city and its inhabitants. there is also a free pdf download for the necromunda rulebook on the GW site but i'll put a link at the end of this post anyway. i think a hybrid of the two is probably best though but the assault definately 2nd ed.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat480009a&categoryId=6700007a&section=&aId=21500022a

If we are going to use necromunda we would use the community edition. As the original necromunda rules were pretty terrible in terms of balance and rule issues. The community edition fixed most of these (bad skill charts, tech being really abusable, poor gang roaster balance, weapon balance etc).

I don't think original 'munda was as bad as that. Really just tech and swords being the issue to my mind. That said, I agree that we should use the community edition as a basis.

is there a link anywhere for the community edition? is there much in the way of difference or is it just tweaks to certain parts?

It's mainly rule clarifications and balance tweaks.

Community edition download

Yakromunda

Hope that helps.

cheers mush. will give these a once over when they've finished downloading