Another "adaptation" or proper, faithful implementation?

I've got lured into buying Mordheim before (which I believe was made by the same team as this game), and was disappointed largely. The whole idea of adding HP into it, imo, didn't any good to the game (yes, the TT also had some HP concept, but those were more like "lives"; most soldiers had just one "life", so one proper hit - and they are down). I also believe I saw reports claiming they did something to RNG to make it.. less random 🙂 More following the almost ideal randomness, so to say, without any extremes (such no true randomness, in the end).

I expected a thrilling, challenging, unpredictable and brutal gameplay, were a lucky rookie can kill your best mercenary with a single lucky hit to the head (i.e. something similar to Blood Bowl experience I'm a big fan of) - and what I believe was the core experience in TT - and instead I got a sort of chess-like experience with overextended, boring, mostly predictable fights. Like, I remember situations where my and enemy's soldiers were standing each against other for 5-6 turns, striking 2-3 times per turn, before one of them finally would drop dead, and the other one would remain with most of his health gone. And this happened again and again, so predictably, so.. ugh.. unrealistically (yes, I know, it's a game, though..), so unbearably boring. Even huge terrible creatures still would need 2-3 turns to kill a regular lineman. That's just the opposite to "brutal" and "thrilling" to me. I couldn't find enough motivation to play it, in the end.

So, the question is: what will we see in this one? I believe TT Necromunda is even more brutal and thrilling and unpredictable, comparing to Mordhaim. In the end, it's sci-fi settings, with a lot of powerfull guns and technologies. Will it again be some "casual-friendly", amlost devoid of randomness and madness (and fun) implementation, or the real thing this time? Though I understand why it may be done in such way (seeing all those whiners about "unfair" RNG in Blood Bowl and everything 🙂 ), that just means it's a dead game to me.

last edited by Mori-Mori

I don't think a lot of people share your view of true randomness being desirable. To me, TT isn't something that should be faithfully translated into game mechanics, the system is too different. One thing is that when you play TT you can see the dice, you know that it really is random, and the reason I don't like to play say Poker on a game is I don't actually trust the program to be truly random. Even if it is, the perception that it's rigged will frustrate more people than it will please.

So no, I highly doubt they'll be going to do what you're looking for, and without collecting survey data, I think it's because gamers generally prefer more along the lines of Mordheim than what you're looking for, stats for damage and defense profiles creating a consistent ability to judge strengths and create tactics based on these. Randomized just seems like mash them together and see what happens. Personally I don't think the more randomized version would be the better game.

Now there will probably be differences, how the focus on guns is going to effect the game is unknown, if there will be Critical Hits and how much it will hurt. But if you're expecting them to abandon HP and damage in favor of single hit randomized I believe you'll be disappointed as I think the majority prefer it the way they did it in Mordheim. I'd be disappointed if they did it your way frankly, can't please everyone.

Or the shorter version, I think it will be similar to Mordheim's mechanics and I disagree that is a bad thing.

I can accept that both approaches are valid and popular ways to design a game, yet this is what I can't agree with:

So no, I highly doubt they'll be going to do what you're looking for, and without collecting survey data, I think it's because gamers generally prefer more along the lines of Mordheim than what you're looking for, stats for damage and defense profiles creating a consistent ability to judge strengths and create tactics based on these.

Chess-like games you are referring to, the ones where "skill and skill alone decides the winner" have little to do with how things happen IRL, and that's their main flaw which is despised by many gamers. Just imagine you need to design a proper realistically-feeling tactical game with guns, but without RNG affecting gameplay much - can you even imagine a gunfight which simply proceed in a totally predictable way? Would such game feel realistic at all? Jagged Alliance and Operation Silent Storm are excellent examples of a extremely popular tactical game, which didn't use a chess-like mechanics and stayed amazingly believable and realistic, while being totally turn-based games at the same time.

Of course, if your main concern is to do something called "fair game system" (whatever "fair" does mean in this sentence), it's a valid approach. But you can't create a good, solid realistic tactical game using this approach, as real combat knows no "fairness" and doesn't ever proceed according to plans and regards your "stats" or "skills" highly. Rule of thumb is that the more narrow the scope, the more random factors affect the result. And tactical level where both Mordheim and Necromunda's action take place is the most narrow scope of them all. This is where some lucky occurrences may shift odds greatly, despite your best intentions. Or at least will force you to throw all your previous plans out of window and devise new one on spot.Thus they provide more dynamic, thrilling, unique experience.

I doubt the chess-likeness is in any way better and is more modern, or "proper PC mechanic". It's not like games affected by randomness is something more TT based, at all. The fact that Blood Bowl is still popular and has a lot of die-hard fans of its thrilling, unpredictable gameplay, despite all of chess-lover whinings, proves it, as well as success of games like Warthunder (which is much more realistic, and thus more affected by randomness, than World of Tanks, yet it's capable to assemble enough fanbase to survive), or a lot of realistic tactical games, affected by randomness greatly, like mentioned Jagged Alliance and Silent Storm series.

And here lies the main argument in favor of more randomness factor in gameplay - chess-likeness is a mainstream. Almost every turn-based game out there is chess-like mostly predictable grind fest. And following a mainstream is not always the most wise strategy, as it forces you to compete with great amount of other titles for the time of your audience (because people don't have limitless time, they need to share it between all their games). This is, imo, the core reason of success of few randomness based, hardcore games that still exist - they provide experience which is hard to find those days, thus become attractive alternative to scores of mundane chess-like turn-based games. That certainly makes them niche, but more competitive at the same time.

If Necromunda is designed the same way as Mordheim, it just becomes one another non-that-original turn-based game you have plenty around already. Better graphics, some specific styles - not a big deal, that really means almost nothing in such kind of a game. Just one more game you'll spend 20-40 hours for, and forget. If it comes designed as it was originally was, it has potential to gather a die-hard fan community which will be faithful to it for years (as original TT game had) - because it's unique and rare piece in modern casuals-ridden gaming scene, and people tend to gravitate to originality more than to mediocrity.

last edited by Mori-Mori

You are right about the slog of battles though, I spent far too much time calculating exactly how many men Id need to challenge a higher tier character just to complete a mission or objective on mordheim.

I remember playing Necromunda at my local games club and at home and remember taking out a boss or higher tier ganger with a Juve , or a lower rank ganger with a lucky shot in close combat.
I also remember one of my gangers with the heavy weapon overcharging the plasma and completely killing an enemy boss in one hit.

It was the really lucky shots that threw an entire match in Necromunda.
Id play games where a higher tier gang would quickly make short work of most of my gangers , but that one lucky lasrifle shot to their leader , turning their morale and making the enemy gang rout.

If they can translate the necromunda rule set into the game world then it should come out fine.
Cant wait to get my hands on the new necromunda and my new gang of delaque and start painting.

@DeTortor said in Another "adaptation" or proper, faithful implementation?:

Or the shorter version, I think it will be similar to Mordheim's mechanics and I disagree that is a bad thing.

+1

Mordhiem had amazing mechanisms, just needed some more polish that never really originated. GW make very fun and thematic games but are generally HORRIBLE at designing good game play mechanisms and old school Necromunder rules are no exception.

@detortor said in Another "adaptation" or proper, faithful implementation?:

Or the shorter version, I think it will be similar to Mordheim's mechanics and I disagree that is a bad thing.

I'm going to disagree. I think the Mordheim (video game not TT) mechanics will make the deadliness of the weapons used a joke. I hope they throw out the Mordheim actions system and health. Oh hey my Juve ganger got hit fully from a heavy using a heavy bolter... Oh he's Ok though, just a third of his hit points. Uggg no.

And hopefully there is no similar item to Wyrdstone either, and the go more with the TT's objectives systems.

last edited by Anguloke

I'd really prefer a more faithful implementation to the TT. There are some things that just ruin it if they do like they did in Mordheim. And there are some parts of the TT that just need to be kept rather than be adapted.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.