Necromunda New Edition

[Captain Idaho]

23 minutes ago, Antarius said:

As for the amount of rulebooks released since 2017, I mean that's just a fact. I'm not talking "House of XYZ" either, I'm talking straight up core rulebooks.

 

Um, there's been 2 editions and a single core rulebook since 2017?

 

What other core rulebooks have we had since?

Edited Monday at 01:44 PM by Captain Idaho

[Ripper.McGuirl]

I agree that it’s too early to tell what we will be seeing in the new edition, and also agree that some of what they are saying is making me a little uneasy. 
The modifiers to hit were something I felt was very Necromunda to me, and was not in the way of learning the game or anything. The way they describe it sounds more like 40k/kill team/warcry/AoS to me, profile wise. Same with the armor save being on the profile. This doesnt mean it’s as fixed as those games but it *does* sound like how those games function, which is inherently different from what we have known in Necromunda. 
That doesnt mean it will be *bad*, but it definitely sounds different. And it sounds like some of their other games, and not everyone who plays Necromunda *wants* it to be like their other games, so there is some consternation.

I am eager to know more!

 

Follow up question: Do we know that the rulebook in the box is the same as the standalone rulebook? 

Edited Monday at 01:50 PM by Ripper.McGuirl

[Antarius]

I honestly don't know what's going on here? I've never claimed to be optimistic or that it was somehow mandatory to be optimistic about the new edition (I have in fact, repeated my own skepticism), so I really don't understand how that's supposed to be relevant to my point about speculation?

I still don't get how my lack of agreement with your statement of an emerging pattern means I am supposed to have personally attacked you somehow. I absolutely have not, but by all means report my ad hominem, if you think I have made one.

To be clear, what I have done is:

- say that I am not personally super optimistic about this new edition, but that the game is in fact, in need of streamlining

- say that we know some (customisable and gang-specific) models aren't going away

- said that we don't actually know anything else at this point and that I think some of the doomsaying is going a bit too far, by assuming facts not in evidence

- said that people often perceive very different patterns from the same evidence, especially when, as in this case, there's not a lot of evidence

You're free to disagree with any of that, of course. But saying I am somehow attacking you, rather than merely disagreeing somewhat is nonsensical.

[Captain Idaho]

8 minutes ago, Antarius said:

I honestly don't know what's going on here?

 

I just don't like being called a fool.

 

Besides that, we shall see how it goes with the new edition. Maybe it'll be cool, I doubt it since GW have turned into a particular style that has meant their new games are putting me right off.

Edited Monday at 02:04 PM by Captain Idaho

[Antarius]

 

26 minutes ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

I agree that it’s too early to tell what we will be seeing in the new edition, and also agree that some of what they are saying is making me a little uneasy. 
The modifiers to hit were something I felt was very Necromunda to me, and was not in the way of learning the game or anything. The way they describe it sounds more like 40k/kill team/warcry/AoS to me, profile wise. Same with the armor save being on the profile. This doesnt mean it’s as fixed as those games but it *does* sound like how those games function, which is inherently different from what we have known in Necromunda. 
That doesnt mean it will be *bad*, but it definitely sounds different. And it sounds like some of their other games, and not everyone who plays Necromunda *wants* it to be like their other games, so there is some consternation.

I am eager to know more!

 

Follow up question: Do we know that the rulebook in the box is the same as the standalone rulebook? 

One would hope so. But I don't think they have confirmed it.

As for the profiles it might just be like the ganger cards for characters, or it might be like the different gangers come with different armour as it is and they've just incorporated that into the profile and cost, but still be changeable. It might also be set in stone, of course, but I think there are some assembly variants in (at least the Van Saar) gang boxes that change saves so it would be strange to nix it completely. It's also a possibility is that they move to something more Kill Teamy where e.g. the Van Saar shield guy has his own profile and I don't really know what to think about that; on the one hand I'm not crazy about it, otoh we already kinda have "positionals" so maybe the change is not that big in practice.

In any case, I honestly do think weapons and armour could use some streamlining, but of course it depends very much on how they do it. But different types of gangers having weapons that look like an already existing weapon but does something slightly different is something I'm not going to miss if they remove it.

[Ripper.McGuirl]

42 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

What other core rulebooks have we had since?

Every box had a core rulebook in it that was slightly different, and also had reference cards that were all slightly different. Original N17 box, follow up underhive box, dark uprising, ash wastes, secundus, as well as the N23 rulebook, all were different rulebooks, and often available at the same time, and with a universal FAQ that was only sometimes included. 
It’s been an absolute mess, and I’m eager to condense it all down to a coherent place. I am less optimistic about the actual rule changes, but time will tell.

I imagine we’ll play a full campaign to see how we like it, and then either adapt it or revert.

[Ripper.McGuirl]

6 minutes ago, Antarius said:

 

One would hope so. But I don't think they have confirmed it.

As for the profiles it might just be like the ganger cards for characters, or it might be like the different gangers come with different armour as it is and they've just incorporated that into the profile and cost, but still be changeable. It might also be set in stone, of course, but I think there are some assembly variants in (at least the Van Saar) gang boxes that change saves so it would be strange to nix it completely. It's also a possibility is that they move to something more Kill Teamy where e.g. the Van Saar shield guy has his own profile and I don't really know what to think about that; on the one hand I'm not crazy about it, otoh we already kinda have "positionals" so maybe the change is not that big in practice.

In any case, I honestly do think weapons and armour could use some streamlining, but of course it depends very much on how they do it. But different types of gangers having weapons that look like an already existing weapon but does something slightly different is something I'm not going to miss if they remove it.

I pretty much fully concur here: some of the things they have mentioned *could* mean a direction I am not excited about. Or it could not matter.

No way to know until I have played it.

However, dear god I hope they write the rules the way they have been and do not adopt the Heresy Rule Language.

 

 

[Antarius]

5 hours ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

I pretty much fully concur here: some of the things they have mentioned *could* mean a direction I am not excited about. Or it could not matter.

No way to know until I have played it.

However, dear god I hope they write the rules the way they have been and do not adopt the Heresy Rule Language.

 

 

Yeah, the HH3 rulebook reads like what someone who has no idea what legalistic language is, thinks legalistic language sounds like. It's also been pretty universally panned from what I can tell and it's not something I think they have done anywhere else, so I really hope that remains the case.

[Gamiel]

10 hours ago, Antarius said:

It's also been pretty universally panned from what I can tell and it's not something I think they have done anywhere else, so I really hope that remains the case.

I don't remember which of all the podcast Im listning to it was but at least one of them had that the people in it over all liked HH3. 

[Ripper.McGuirl]

5 hours ago, Gamiel said:

I don't remember which of all the podcast Im listning to it was but at least one of them had that the people in it over all liked HH3. 

Oh, plenty of people like the edition. But no one likes the way they have written the rules. And by that I mean actual sentence structure, wording, and just generally the writing part, not the mechanics the writing is trying to explain.

[shamsael]

On 7/14/2026 at 8:42 AM, Ripper.McGuirl said:

Oh, plenty of people like the edition. But no one likes the way they have written the rules. And by that I mean actual sentence structure, wording, and just generally the writing part, not the mechanics the writing is trying to explain.

 

The phrasing is awkward, but the awkward phrasing results in unambiguous meaning.  I work in software development, and my job is plagued with people who write easy to read, natural sounding specifications that actually don't explicitely or unambiguously describe what's expected.  I would prefer HH3's specificity to an easy to read book accompanied by a pile of FAQ printouts explaining the intent and full implications of that book's rules.

 

HH3 is the best written rule book GW has ever produced and, based on how the community has received it (poorly), I think it will remain the best written rule book they will ever produce.

Edited Thursday at 01:17 PM by shamsael

[Ripper.McGuirl]

5 minutes ago, shamsael said:

 

The phrasing is awkward, but the awkward phrasing results in unambiguous meaning.  I work in software development, and my job is plagued with people who write easy to read, natural sounding specifications that actually don't explicitely or unambiguously describe what's expected.  I would prefer HH3's specificity to an easy to read book accompanied by a pile of FAQ printouts explaining the intent and full implications of that book's rules.

 

HH3 is the best written rule book GW has ever produced and, based on how the community has received it (poorly), I think it will remain the best written rule book they will ever produce.

I wouldnt mind all the intense wording if there were also a short version you could read at a glance. I want to be able to read the bold text and know what it does, then if I need to get into the nitty gritty, I can. Heresy right now has bolded text, but it doesnt have enough of the rule included to know what it does.
I do think currently Necromunda tends too far the opposite direction, particularly with Scenarios and campaign specifics. I have many times had to Arbitrate something that just wasn’t explained.

[Antarius]

I don't think it's necessarily true that this type of writing results in more unambiguous rules in practice. For one thing, it's pretty common for people to misunderstand dense or otherwise difficult to parse text (and, speaking as a teacher, my impression is that people make more mistakes the more difficult a text is). Another factor would be whether the writer of the text has accurately predicted whether more than one interpretation is possible, which is not an easy task at all. Finally, the rules themselves might simply not be unambiguous in all cases, regardless of how they're worded (whether or not they're intended to be, it takes a lot of skill as a rules writer to predict all possible interactions).

I think something like Warcry, with it's elegant (but carefully written) mix of natural English and keywords/rules jargon works a whole lot better in practice, when it comes to avoiding true ambiguity.

[m0nolith]

2 hours ago, Antarius said:

I think something like Warcry, with it's elegant (but carefully written) mix of natural English and keywords/rules jargon works a whole lot better in practice, when it comes to avoiding true ambiguity.

Aptly enough, here is a video from the guy who wrote the Warcry rules talking about how important technical writing is in tabletop games.

 

Edited Thursday at 04:40 PM by m0nolith

[Antarius]

Yeah, his channel is quite good! I can't remember if I saw that particular one, but I think pretty much all his comments on rules language are spot on. 

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, m0nolith said:

Aptly enough, here is a video from the guy who wrote the Warcry rules talking about how important technical writing is in tabletop games.

 

I do not know about Warcry, but overall I do not think GW's strength is in the wording of their rules.

 

GW's team obviously writes with precision in mind, it just seems to me like they get more verbose and legal-sounding without actually resolving the need for frequent FAQs, clarifications, and adjustments.

[shamsael]

17 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

I do not know about Warcry, but overall I do not think GW's strength is in the wording of their rules.

 

GW's team obviously writes with precision in mind, it just seems to me like they get more verbose and legal-sounding without actually resolving the need for frequent FAQs, clarifications, and adjustments.

 

Adjustments have nothing to do with clear and unambiguous rules writing.  If something is too strong, too weak, or works in a way that hurts the play experience, it can get adjusted, but that doesn't mean the rules that defined that too-strong, too-weak, or un-fun rule were ever difficult to understand.

 

HH3's rulebook has 2 pages of Frequently Asked Questions a year after release.  Old World's Jan 2025 FAQ (which was one year from its original release) had over 10 pages of Frequently Asked Questions for its main rulebook.

Edited 19 hours ago by shamsael

[Ripper.McGuirl]

1 hour ago, shamsael said:

 

Adjustments have nothing to do with clear and unambiguous rules writing.  If something is too strong, too weak, or works in a way that hurts the play experience, it can get adjusted, but that doesn't mean the rules that defined that too-strong, too-weak, or un-fun rule were ever difficult to understand.

 

HH3's rulebook has 2 pages of Frequently Asked Questions a year after release.  Old World's Jan 2025 FAQ (which was one year from its original release) had over 10 pages of Frequently Asked Questions for its main rulebook.

Yeah I think the ruleset is actually rock-solid and fun. But it is truly unpleasant to read, and that could be alleviated with better summaries for each rule. For example, Reactions all have the same format, but you dont know :cuss: it does until you have read trough multiple paragraphs of text.

Whereas current Necromunda will literally have references to headings/items that literally arent in the book.

There is a middle ground to be struck!

[shamsael]

8 minutes ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

Yeah I think the ruleset is actually rock-solid and fun. But it is truly unpleasant to read, and that could be alleviated with better summaries for each rule. For example, Reactions all have the same format, but you dont know it does until you have read trough multiple paragraphs of text.

Whereas current Necromunda will literally have references to headings/items that literally arent in the book.

There is a middle ground to be struck!

 

When i first read HH3, i compared it to the dry comprehensive rules doc for Magic the Gathering, and thought it would have been better to release these rules as a PDF, and to have the hard bound rule book be a bit more conversational.  I agree they are a chore to read, but I'm bugged when I see people say "it looks like they ran it through chat GPT" or "they tried to make it sound legalistic but didn't know what legalistic meant" or any number of other variations that to me sound like someone assuming that text flying over their head must be stupid because they can't grasp it.

Edited 17 hours ago by shamsael

[Ripper.McGuirl]

21 minutes ago, shamsael said:

 

thought it would have been better to release these rules as a PDF, and to have the hard bound rule book be a bit more conversational.  

This would have been great. Or they could just put out a pocket sized version of the rules that are easier to look at and parse.

Necromunda would similarly benefit from a pocket sized rulebook: just the rules and no campaign, scenarios, or trading post. Something you can have at the table with you so you don’g have to have a device with you, and the big rulebook is for after the game when you are doing everything else.

[phandaal]

10 hours ago, shamsael said:

Adjustments have nothing to do with clear and unambiguous rules writing.  If something is too strong, too weak, or works in a way that hurts the play experience, it can get adjusted, but that doesn't mean the rules that defined that too-strong, too-weak, or un-fun rule were ever difficult to understand.

 

HH3's rulebook has 2 pages of Frequently Asked Questions a year after release.  Old World's Jan 2025 FAQ (which was one year from its original release) had over 10 pages of Frequently Asked Questions for its main rulebook.

 

I think we actually agree here. A clearly written rule can still be too strong, too weak, or unfun and need a balance change.

 

That was not what I meant by “adjustments,” though. I meant changes needed to resolve unclear, contradictory, non-functional, or unintended rules interactions.

 

My point is that GW’s increasingly verbose and technical wording still does not eliminate the need for FAQs, errata, and clarifications. Two pages vs ten pages may show that one ruleset handles this better than another, but both still illustrate the broader point.

[Timberley]

On 7/13/2026 at 3:25 PM, Antarius said:

 

One would hope so. But I don't think they have confirmed it.

As for the profiles it might just be like the ganger cards for characters, or it might be like the different gangers come with different armour as it is and they've just incorporated that into the profile and cost, but still be changeable. It might also be set in stone, of course, but I think there are some assembly variants in (at least the Van Saar) gang boxes that change saves so it would be strange to nix it completely. It's also a possibility is that they move to something more Kill Teamy where e.g. the Van Saar shield guy has his own profile and I don't really know what to think about that; on the one hand I'm not crazy about it, otoh we already kinda have "positionals" so maybe the change is not that big in practice.

In any case, I honestly do think weapons and armour could use some streamlining, but of course it depends very much on how they do it. But different types of gangers having weapons that look like an already existing weapon but does something slightly different is something I'm not going to miss if they remove it.

 

I assume this was something talked about during the FAQ video?  I've still not watched it because I'm still away, with terrible hotel WiFi.  If they have truly baked an armour save into the default profile for each ganger archetype, then that's a terrible step in my opinion.  What if I have to have my gang with no armour, apart from my leader who has mesh armour (because I'm poor or had a string of bad luck)?  Or I want to run a small team of Venators into that scenario that's armed and armoured better than your standard Inquistion Stormtrooper for a bit of a laugh?  Would they account for that in some way?  I hope they don't go towards the Kill Team model of having each archetype be a fixed profile, as that granularity I'm so wedded to would be diluted, and make it seem less 'Necromunda'.

 

To be honest, I'd like them to streamline the weapon profiles, so a lasgun is a lasgun, and the gang's profiles affect how good they are with said lasgun.  For example, historically Van Saar are the shooty-shooty gang, so good BS but bad WS, whilst Goliath are grapplers, so good WS but bad BS. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

On 7/16/2026 at 9:16 AM, shamsael said:

 

The phrasing is awkward, but the awkward phrasing results in unambiguous meaning.  I work in software development, and my job is plagued with people who write easy to read, natural sounding specifications that actually don't explicitely or unambiguously describe what's expected.  I would prefer HH3's specificity to an easy to read book accompanied by a pile of FAQ printouts explaining the intent and full implications of that book's rules.

 

HH3 is the best written rule book GW has ever produced and, based on how the community has received it (poorly), I think it will remain the best written rule book they will ever produce.

 

I work in law, and the phrasing is torture to read. It might specifically outline the mechanics, but if it prompts a stroke while reading, then it's not actually well written. Ease of readability is a component of good writing.