Necromunda Tactics Ep.1 General Tips and Strategy

[@maqusan22]

Me: *agreeing to take up Necromunda with some friends*: "oh well, I guess it's time to look at some tactics videos and get my head around an entirely new system" Video: "It's actually got a lot in common with Blood Bowl" Me: *looking at shelf full of international Blood Bowl tournament trophies*: "I'm listening..."

[@luluhammer]

yess pleeease more necromunda content! Just discovered the channel, can't wait for you to grow!! Im working on starting an "ex profundis" kind of project with a youtube channel

[@cammo1397]

Thanks. Comparison with Blood Bowl was insightful.

[@KingReckores]

Clicked for necromuda learned about blood bowl

[@HoneyCMB]

Great video! Really appreciate the examples showing minis and terrain to help visualize the types of situations you're talking about

[@GenJacoty]

It's really great to see some Necromunda advice. Trying to get into the game and I can really use it.

[@paperboyjay8161]

Greetings from Germany 🇩🇪 Thanks for the general tactics! Shared it with my Gaming Group 😊👍

[@Blackmuseops]

Thanks for doing this! I'm planning to use Necromunda to get into bigger 40k games, and was getting exhausted looking for tactics tutorials, as opposed to the bigger games which are a dime a dozen

[@StaticElf]

Yair Koren Koniecpolski Awesome! Well I just posted episode 4 so make sure to check out the others! Please let me know the what you like/don’t like about my vids and please don’t hesitate to join in the conversation. For Episode 4 I want to know what gang you guys want to see first for an in depth review so post your favorite gang in the comments of that vid! Subscribe and turn on notifications to know when I post new weekly Necromuda Tactics content!

[@PMMagro]

Play Kill team, excatly the same models as 40K...

[@elias1579]

Thanks for making this video! Just now getting into Necromunda. Long time Warcry Player, I wanted to get int a little bit of a slower skirmish game. Warcry is super fast and punishes mistakes, want to take my time a bit more and get into some book keeping and in-depth with weapons and what not. I tried Kill Team since I was a king time 40K player but found the game to be lousy and boring. I still play Warcry/40k/AOS every month just want to take a break and do something new

[@gustavosmith7648]

Thank you for the advice. Definitely will be watching the series of videos

[@ThroatSore]

Definately agree with your views about cards.

[@dimitribureau]

ty for the job man, keep on

[@garfieldwithissuez]

Great video, very insightful. Subbing please keep the necromunda content coming.

[@adamphilip-phillips3794]

Thank you for this. It's very helpful as I'm just getting into necromunda so still making lots of mistakes. I love the house rule witch gotcha cards. If you could do a video on that that would be useful to share with my local gaming group

[@StaticElf]

Adam Philip-Phillips I will add that to the episode list!

[@dc1316]

You want to win a game because you followed the rules, but the tactics cards are part of the rules. Yes some are over powered but a lot of them are actualy very good and thematic to that gang. Adds to the immersion as its something you would think they would do.

[@StaticElf]

D C i see your point but the game functions just fine without them. MANY of them are ridiculously broken and cause the Arbitrator to “be the bad guy” who has to take the really really good ones away from players. I feel many other games such as 40K and AoS could really benefit as well if they did away with Formations, Battalions, Detachments and all the C-C-C-COMBO! Brokenness that can happen when your army is allowed to be 7 Flying Hive Tyrants because there is no Force Org. These are ALL just the crack pot opinions of an old man who plays with toys (Me) so other groups are free to do whatever they please.

[@MountedDeath85]

I really like the idea of nobody using the tactics cards as standard but rather use them as a balance for lopsided matches. Still lets the tactics see play but in a regulated way. Our local play group also is not a fan of things like 7 flying hive tyrants OMEGALUL at that point its just who wants to spend more money to win.

[@Tsunamiash80]

In our rolling home campaign, we award 1 tactic card to a team that loses (and it stacks so someone losing 4 games in a row gets 4 tactics cards). It's obviously not enough incentive to throw a game but it helps less experienced players avoid getting drowned out. As soon as you win, you are going into the next skirmish with no tactics again.

[@camstocks1657]

Hi! great vid. Whats the zone mortalis terrain you'e using?

[@StaticElf]

The Death Ray Designs set is what I use.

[@camstocks1657]

@@StaticElf it's really nice! I've just ordered from TT combat. Not as nice, but cheaper!

[@tommothedog]

Hey man, where did you get your walls, they look great

[@StaticElf]

They are from Death Ray Designs! Check them out!

[@jasonwingett9553]

Have you any tactics to help defenders in scenarios like ambush,the trap and other scenarios where defenders concentrated in the middle.

[@StaticElf]

Jason Wingett I’m sure I can get you some stuff on that! Stay tuned for my next video!

[@StaticElf]

Jason Wingett posted a vid to answer your question! Hope it helps!?

[@soupalex]

good tips, but why do you say "+1 to hit is better than +1 to wound"? if the target roll is the same (e.g. if you hit on 4+ wound on 4+), they're mathematically equivalent (you say an axe is no good if you fail to hit… but equally, a knife is no good if you fail to wound). the only reason to prefer +1th in necromunda (assuming equivalent target rolls, and ignoring other weapon effects, armour, etc.) is, being hit with a shooting attack will cause pinning… so there is still some benefit in hitting but not wounding (when you're shooting, anyway… in melee, you should pick the weapons that make your hardest target rolls easier; e.g. an orlock ganger attacking a goliath ganger with an axe (4+ into 4+ = 9/36) is better than attacking with a sword (3+ into 5+ = 8/36)

[@StaticElf]

Because if you fail the to hit you never get to roll the to wound. Which makes it more effective when you fail 100% of the to wound rolls you don’t get to roll because you failed the to hit. I do suggest buffing your to wound with a weapon upgrade but not until you increase your ballistic skill +1 first And second, Pinning is this whole game. It gives you action advantage in the next turn which allows you to move and shoot more than your opponent which increases your chances of seriously wounding and out of actioning enemy gangers (not to mention accomplishing scenario objectives). You can’t see how good pinning is on paper but once you start getting games in you will realize the value of pinning “Pinning is Winning” is literally the slogan for this KZbin channel. You can have the statistically most deadly weapons in the game on every ganger but if your opponent keeps them pinned all game with their Lasgun gangers they will win the scenario. Mathhammering will only get you so far.

[@soupalex]

@@StaticElf yes, i acknowledge that +1th is better than +1tw (all other things being equal) in the case of shooting attacks, but the example you gave was for melee. i know that, intuitively, "hitting" seems more important than "wounding", because you roll to hit _first,_ but in actuality the order of the roll is not important from the perspective of probability: if your probability of attacks hitting is 1/2 and your probability of hits wounding is 1/2, then the desired outcome (hitting and wounding) is (1/2)*(1/2) = 1/4 if your if your probability of attacks hitting is 2/3 and your probability of hits wounding is 1/2, then the desired outcome (hitting and wounding) is (2/3)*(1/2) = 2/6 = 1/3... which is exactly the same as the probability of hitting and wounding if your cth was 1/2 and your ctw was 2/3. it doesn't matter if your chance of hitting is better (unless pinning is an option, which it isn't in melee), because you need to wound _as well._ there will be situations when +1 to wound will be preferable to +1 to hit (even if we ignore situations where your target roll is already 2+... obviously if you're hitting on 2+ after cover, getting +1 or +2 to hit from short range doesn't matter): if your target is harder to wound than it is to hit (before modifiers), e.g. if you're at 3+ to hit and 6+ to wound, it's much better to take the +1 to wound ((4/6)*(2/6)=8/36, versus ((5/6)*(1/6)=5/36). i hope this explanation makes sense. i see a lot of 40k and necromunda players making this "better to improve hit chance than wound or AP" error-i can see where it comes from, bc i used to think the same way-but (outside of situations where pinning is applicable!) it simply doesn't matter, because you need to pass _both_ tests to achieve the desired outcome. hitting and not wounding is just as useful as not hitting at all.

[@soupalex]

tl,dr: +1 to hit is not always better than +1 to wound, and they are exactly equivalent when the original target rolls are the same (except when pinning is a factor). goonhammer have an article on dice probabilities (written for 40k but mostly applicable to 'munda too, as the hit/wound/save system is common to both). the section on "the influence of modifiers on gatekeeping rolls" is especially relevant here, the main takeaway being that _"The impact of a modifier _*_depends on the initial probability of the roll_*_ being modified... Their influence is greater when the probability of success is already low..."_ www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-understanding-modifiers-and-re-rolls/

[@StaticElf]

@@soupalex I never said it was “always” better. I am saying that in most situations it is better. Especially early in a campaign and/or when upgrading new gangers. And just as with shooting you fail every to wound roll in melee that you failed the to hit roll on. So the same logic applies to melee as it does to shooting regardless of the pinning. As a person who leans heavily toward shooting gangs I would say my gang loses 100% of melees unless I just get amazingly lucky (which means they wiff their rolls). I would rather rely on pinning to keep that melee gang from ever getting to roll a melee to hit or to wound. So pinning when done tactically means they should miss 100% of their melee rolls because they never get into melee combat. Or when they do it is against speed bump gangers I sacrifice to complete the scenario. Statistically better weapons can’t win you a scenario. They can give you advantages but many time what is way more important (in my opinion) is more gangers on the table and keeping the enemy pinned. Give me 10 gangers with auto guns versus a gang with 5 gangers armed with heavy bolsters (or duels wielded power swords) and I am confident I can with 9 out of 10 matches.

[@soupalex]

@@StaticElf definitely, there are other factors besides chance to hit and wound… but i'm not talking about pinning, or additional weapon effects, or weight of numbers, or any of that-i'm talking about whether it's better to improve your cth or ctw by the same degree, and the fact is that-discounting the things that i am explicitly not talking about!-it makes no sense to say that one is better than the other (whether the rules tell you to test one before the other or vice-versa), except when the target rolls are different (in which case, mathematically, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot to improve the odds on the "easier" roll instead of the "harder" one, given the option). *"…just as with shooting you fail every to wound roll in melee that you failed the to hit roll on."* no! you don't! you just terminate the process there because you now have knowledge of one of the rolls, and the _outcome_ of [hit+no wound] is the same as the outcome of [miss+wound] (or [miss+no wound]. all that rolling to hit _before_ rolling to wound determines, is whether it becomes worthwhile to learn the outcome of the wound roll for that attack; the hit roll _does not influence the outcome of the wound roll,_ only the outcome of the attack in total. it would not change your odds of making a successful attack one iota, if you were to roll to wound _before_ rolling to hit, regardless of the relative probabilities of either check succeeding individually.