We are going to start a Necromunda (1st ed) campaign and I have chosen spyrers.

Spyrers are a quality-over-quantity gang and they have a lot of nasty abilities. For example, the Jakara has a mirror shield that can bounce back laser, plasma and melta attacks.

My question is, do I have to warn my opponent of my gang's abilities?

In the mirror shield example, I could either:

  1. Not tell my opponent and bounce attacks back
  2. Warn them before they shoot
  3. Warn them before the game

N.B. I am not advocating hiding anything. My opponent will always have access to the rulebook and my roster.

  • I've got rules to Necromunda so I don't know if thats specific to that or not but the question can be applied more broadly to all game with variable abilities. I tend to play where all players say what abilities they have to the table. This keep public info public and is a more enjoyable experience. If you enjoy having info on a table and think that the other player needs to ask then that sounds like a miserable experience to play with if a player is going to try and sneak and advantage that way. Jun 27, 2017 at 18:45

1 Answer 1


In theory, case #1. In reality, this depends on the game environment.

In a casual game, where the focus is enjoyment and learning how the game works, it usually pays to be as open as possible. People generally don't get fun out of "Oh, you forgot rule X, so I'm going to immediately exploit that information" and it's not supposed to be a viable strategy either (unless a "hidden ruleset" is supposed to be one of the mechanics.) Warning the opponent of these things helps with the fun and learning factor (You're not going to learn how to play the gang well by people accidentally triggering your reflections. You're going to learn how to play them well by utilizing the threat of said reflection to it's fullest, and how other players might counter it.)

In a competitive environment, all that goes out the window. Your opponent is expected to know the rules and abilities within the game. You would be right to assume that if they're shooting at you, they're cognizant of the consequences.

You must log in to answer this question.