Perpetual Campaign Rules Draft

[Dave]

Also we forgot to do captives yesterday, but I'm adding in that you can only take captives if you haven't bottled.

This is cool too, means you have another reason to try and hang it out after you have bottled until your opponent also bottles.

Captives are tricky in general as you have the potential of every other game being a rescue mission, the proposed rules seem workable.

[Tom]

I'm thinking we need something to address the situation Dave is in where he has only two guys not in recovery for the next game.

Something like the optional ability to take loss of 2 rep and d3x10 creds to have a week of going to ground and bring everyone out of recovery. Throw in a test of your alliance if you have one.

The rep cost seems a good way of making it negligible to a gang already struggling to make a name, but that a more established gang will avoid as it might start hitting the amount of hangers on and territories etc they can hold. And the small cred cost makes it not an auto take option when you have no rep to lose.

I like this idea, do you have to have sufficient Rep to do it or is it case of pay what you can? Iā€™m three games in and still only on 1 Rep.....

I would probably add that you can only do it if you have <50% of your gang available, just to stop those who would happily pay to have their leader back for the next game.

Good point. And yeah, if you're already at minimum the rep cost is essentially free.

[Tom]

I think I've got the basic scenarios sorted in my head now. The lower rep gang picks and there are basically three aims, creds, rep and holdings (territories/rackets), and two types of scenario (standard, raid with sentries). They can only pick a raid if their opponent has sufficiently more rep than them.

Standard creds - Loot chest grabbing Ć  la Frostgrave. Lots of creds to grab.
Standard rep - Defiling gang relics. Potentially larger rep gain.
Standard holdings - Holding objective markers. Winner gets choice of two holdings, loser can get remaining holding if they do well enough.

Whoever picks the scenario chooses if it is played with a standard pick 10 for crews or escalating with reinforcements like the Border Dispute scenario.

Raid creds - Stealing creds
Raid rep - Ambush
Raid holdings - That one where you're trying to destroy an objective. Damage, destroy or steal a holding.

Feeling like I've got a really good underlying structure to this now. Just got to get it all written down.

Also reworked Loot Caskets. I've added a chance to take them with you when you flee to make it less 'winner takes all'.

Loot Caskets/Ammo Caches

On opening a Loot Casket roll a D6 (not modified for smashing)
1: Frag Trap
2: Becomes an Ammo Cache if opened by hacking, or a Frag Trap if opened by smashing.
3-4: Becomes an Ammo Cache
5-6: Immediately gain D3x5 creds

If a fighter uses a carry Loot Casket/Ammo Cache action to leave the table they may remove the Loot Casket/Ammo Cache from the table and secure it.

If an unengaged and not seriously injured fighter within 1ā€ of a Loot Casket/Ammo Cache leaves the table due to fleeing the battlefield they may attempt to take the Loot Casket/Ammo Cache with them by rolling a D6. On a 1-2 it is left on the table, on 3-4 it is removed from the table but lost, on a 5-6 it is removed from the table and secured by the fleeing fighter.

If one gang remains on the table at game end then if they have not bottled they secure all remaining Loot Caskets/Ammo Caches remaining on the table. If they have bottled they only secure those within 1ā€ of a friendly not seriously injured fighter.

A secured Ammo Cache or Loot Casket is worth D3x5 creds to the holder at the end of the scenario.

[Dave]

This is looking nicely fleshed out now, great stuff!

[Tom]

Having had my Stimmer minced by Gary's Ambot in a recent fight, I'm suddenly very interested in the idea of introducing an element of opposed WS in melee.

Guiding principles for a replacement:
- Keep it simple! No changes to the whole melee system, just modify to hit rolls.
- Reduce the 'rocket tag' element of melee specialist on melee specialist being instant win to whoever gets off the charge.
- Don't punish middling melee guy on melee specialist attacks to the point where it feels useless charging them as the first strike bonus is wiped out by your terrible odds of hitting.

After a lot of faffing I think just a simple opposed values system might work best.

Base to hit:
3+ if WS better than opponent.
4+ if WS equal or only one point worse than opponent
5+ if WS two or more points worse than opponent

Slight nerf to to-hit for WS2+ against basic opponents but I think they can weather it. There's still value in raising WS from 3+ to 2+ when it comes to people trying to hit you. I played around with various break points like doubling for 2+ or 6+ to hit, but in the end decided they confused more than helped or skewed things a way I didn't like.

The two point requirement for 5+ was thinking back to that Ambot on Stimmer attack, WS3+ attacker on WS2+ defender would feel very harsh to reduce to a 5+ to hit.

Thoughts?

[MoodyGit (Gary)]

Admittedly your stimmer scared the crap out of me.

From what i can see GW have gone big on hit rolls being only about the attacker to cut down on tables. What do you think they put in the game to offset it?

Should we attempt to keep these at arms length or let them waste time eating worthless chaff?

You guys have played more games and is my introduction of the big guy changing the dynamic too much?

Just thinking if a change of style before a change of rules.

If you think GW changed without a contingency (never!!) then it's something we can play test. Maybe look at a reaction still happens if you are taken out but negative to hits for wounds taken showing there was a fight even if unsuccessful.

[Dave]

Looks reasonable to me, the simplified 40k system for Necromunda has never felt right to me.

Give it a try next game.

[Dave]

From what i can see GW have gone big on hit rolls being only about the attacker to cut down on tables. What do you think they put in the game to offset it?

Random charge distance? It is quite hard to get into melee at times so I guess when you do get there they wanted to make it count.

[MoodyGit (Gary)]

From what i can see GW have gone big on hit rolls being only about the attacker to cut down on tables. What do you think they put in the game to offset it?

Random charge distance? It is quite hard to get into melee at times so I guess when you do get there they wanted to make it count.

Makes sense, having the third party was the spanner in the works?

[Tom]

Itā€™s been rumbling around as a feeling since Daveā€™s Cawdor leader turned out to be so brutal! My Stimmer is easily as scary as the Ambot so no worries about changing dynamics by bringing him.