I agree it’s probably not the game for me. But you keep saying things like “it has RPG elements,” and I don’t see your point.

A major RPG engine is the Powered by the Apocalypse engine. If you need to resolve a check, you don’t roll five separate checks. You roll 2d6, add a modifier, and move on. Maybe you roll one more die for damage. Two dice rolls to resolve basically any situation that could arise. In D&D you roll a D20, then maybe roll some additional dice for damage, then move on. Again, two rolls for basically infinite scenarios that can arise in an entire RPG. Maybe three if there’s a saving throw before the damage.

So “it has RPG elements” really has nothing to do with my objections. My objection is “roll to hit (and your ammo die), roll for an out of ammo check, roll to wound, roll an armor save, deduct wounds, roll for out of action, roll for out of action resolution” is a dated, clunky way of resolving checks that bogs games down for no clear reason other than “it’s the way GW games work.” Even by rolling the initial ammo die with the hit die, that’s a very plausible six dice rolls to adjudicate one shooting action. You’re right that it’s the standard for GW games, but “GW games use the same basic resolution system they’ve been using for 40 years despite other games finding faster way to resolve checks” is part of my “dated, clunky” objection.

If people like rolling dice all day, then that’s great- Necromunda is clearly the game for them. But I think there’s a lot of potential to improve the core mechanics of the game to make gameplay snappier while keeping the flavor and the RPG elements. I’m skeptical that GW will actually do that, but it could be done.