Rules patch: Monster Mounts v8.1 (and chariots)

Much discussion has been had recently regarding the new "End Times" combined profile of models mounted on monsters. Here I wish to address how to re-balance the existing split profile mounted models, which, in conjunction with my previous patch on cannons, should render these models fully attractive for fielding and for the right reasons.
But before, I will rant. I'm so sorry. (please scroll down for actual rules patch please)

RANT START:
  Many have applauded that changing to combined profiles of monster mounts + riders is a good idea that streamlines the game. With the increased numbers of wounds, it is now easier for these important models to survive the first turns of cannon-fire, and thus justify their points worth in the game. However, I put forward that the problem was never in the mounts themselves, but in the rules for cannons (which affect both rider and mount unlike other ranged attacks, as I addressed here). Therefore, trying to fix the problem by changing something which was not the problem itself is bound to cause further disruption of the rules.
  First, combined profile models induce two major changes in how mounts behave: they benefit from all the defenses (armor & wards) of the rider, and (most aggravating) their attacks benefit from the bonuses of the rider. This is best seen on Karl Franz Ascendant's griffon attacks benefiting from Ghal Maraz's power, or Mortach Manfred von Carstein's dread abyssal's attacks being used to fuel the Magic phase. From my "roleplay-y point of view", this is quite unrealistic, and feels far too forced.
  Secondly, because combined profiles blend the defenses and attacks of the rider and mount, this creates unmanageable balance issues which invariably require these models to be pre-designed (such as special characters) and therefore limit customization (which is one of the key features of character creation in Warhammer). In this way, it will become impossible (at least under the current ruleset) to merge profiles as they exist in current rulebooks, as the threat of expanding the attack and defense benefits of the rider to the mount itself will make the game unplayable (10 attack vampire lord on zombie dragon with Red Fury, a 4+ ward and a 1+ armor?... and 9 wounds).
In my humble opinion, the rules were just fine, but I will try to address them a bit further.
RANT END

PROBLEM: Characters mounted on monsters (or chariots, which fall under the same rules) can be significantly vulnerable to be taken down directly (cannons, massed close combat attacks), which contradicts their high points investment. Characters mounted on monstrous mounts (such as elves on Great Eagles or Chaos Knights on Juggernauts) are more protected: they always use the highest of the characteristics between the two (rider or mounts) in addition to increasing the armor save as normal for a mount. On the other hand, riders of monsters/chariots gain no additional benefit other than an increase in armor, becoming more vulnerable and can be targeted freely in close combat by any model that can attack them.
SOLUTION: when models attack a ridden monster model (or ridden chariot), if they wish to direct their attacks at the rider they must first succeed on a roll of 3+ to get past the mount (or the chariot which is in the way). Roll once for each attack that you wish to target at the rider (even if they come from the same model). If they succeed they may target the rider normally, otherwise they must direct their attacks at the mount. Note that this only applies to attack allocation in close combat: abilities which affect a unit in base contact (such as the The Other Trickster's Shard) would still affect the entire mounted model (both rider and mount).
This makes the mount(or chariot) an effective defense for the rider, but the chance of attacks getting through is higher in close combat (3+ to hit the rider) than when the model is targeted by ranged attacks (5+ to hit the rider). This keeps close combat still the best chance to strike directly at the rider, as before, but helps the rider stay protected, as he is on a high vantage point and a huge monster is blocking the way.

The patch is incredibly simple, and the monster can still be taken down first (which tends to actually be easier than taking down some characters, what with armor and ward saves). This will leave the (previously mounted) character very unprotected and (if facing a ranked unit) mostly lacking in attack output to counteract the static CR such a unit can put out (and invariably might force the character to break).
Put together with the patch "cannons only hit the rider+mount on a 5+, otherwise only the mount is hit", which is also incredibly simple, I believe this puts these expensive but very cool looking models back as the centerpieces of your army.

There you go. Simple patches (hopefully) that tackle the initial issue at its heart (instead of switching the rules of mounted characters on their heads).

Mordheim as a Roleplay Game: part 1

In this series of posts I will be discussing how to harness the Mordheim rules to run an RPG game. First I will discuss its benefits and flexibility (and how they can be applied), and in following posts I will discuss how to adapt rules and elements to flesh out the game for roleplay purposes.

Mordheim has a solid game engine: simple and intuitive stats, logical combat procedure, and easy-to-incorporate special rules. The game is very well-suited to be adapted for a pen-and-paper RPG format.

First, the stats (Characteristics): each is obvious and straightforward, and especially define a models key attributes: WS and BS describe combat ability, while M, S, T, I and Ld define physical and (one) mental attributes. W is the rough equivalent of HP. These define a character quite well for RPG game mechanics.

Initiative sees a lot of use, as it not only determines reaction speed in combat, but is used to evade attacks and hazards, as well as to climb and land safely from falling.
Strength and Toughness may see less varied use, but they are so crucial to survivability that they take a very key role in any adventure. Strength also comes in for purpose of pushing/pulling, and Toughness is used as a health/endurance  defense (against diseases).
Leadership is more complicated though, because it encompasses all of a model's mental attributes, and is slightly too limited for a proper RPG (but I'll come back to it later).

Attacks however is an attribute that specifically only contributes to Close Combat (which it does immensely), but has zero value for anyone who specializes at range. There may be space for development here (I'll get to it later).
Movement is movement, and running is at double speed limiting your ability to shoot (intuitive). The way charging mechanics works does put some strange quirks into combat movement, but these are not too severe. But the fact that jumping and climbing mechanics are fleshed out, together with good movement measurement practices (distance in space as opposed to a square/hex grid) makes fully 3d movement very easy. Because of this, you can play on any terrain surface (even or uneven) and props, with no problem.
Wounds and the Injury table put a nice spin on HP, doing away with larger numerical bookkeeping of damage and putting emphasis on saves that prevent wounds. The injury table also adds a LOT of uncertainty to combat, making it very dangerous and hyping drama. And finally, the game is deadly: it is not that difficult to get knocked out of combat, which increases realism and definitely makes it NOT a good game engine for" heroic fantasy". There is a mitigating factor on the deadliness, which is the Serious Injury table: you only have a certain probability of dying outright after being knocked out, but chances are you will end up with nasty battle wounds and handicaps. There are no resurrection spells, and many risky things (including exploration) can get you hurt. This makes the game engine very suited to gritty dark fantasy settings (which Warhammer is).

In terms of character progression, the Experience and skills system of Mordheim have it covered. By default your upgrades are somewhat random (except in choice of skills), but this could be adapted. But most importantly, it is VERY EASY to generate a new character, making it less of a burden to get back into the game if your character dies. But the randomness helps ensure that a player will not do the same character twice. Another hidden perk of the system is that this ALSO makes it easy for the Games Master to create new NPCs (anyone who has spent hours optimizing an NPC with class levels, in D&D/Pathfinder, know exactly how painful and time-wasting this is).
The skills list offer mostly a choice of combat-oriented abilities (as eexpected but not dissimilar to many other rpgs). Yet there are many skills devoted to movement, and also exploration and relating to purchase of goods. It really only lacks "social" skills, because the game runs otherwise with no role play interaction. But for the most part, existing skills cover everything you'd want.

Mordheim also offers a very good equipment inventory list, and includes already a rarity/availability roll, and skills that interact with it. It is low-magic oriented, so again, well suited to a gritty campaign. The weapons system has a good level of complexity, but their characteristics are well modeled and have a significant effect on a character's combat output and strategy. On top of this, the Hired Swords and henchmen rules provides all costs required for additional recruitment of NPCs into the warband.

The Exploration system of Mordheim is simplified and appropriate for a behind-the-scenes scavenging and resource gathering. However, the exploration mechanics play a large role in the game (especially as a source of income) and have a lot of skill support, so they will always weight significantly in character choices. But good news: the rules mechanics of Exploration dice can very well be adapted to on-the-spot exploration (I will tackle this later on).

Furthermore, the scalability is very good. The game rules power just as easily a regimental army-based game (WHFB) as well as an team skirmish-based game (Mordheim) so scaling up the number of models does not complicate the game too much. Again, this is a boon to Games Masters, as it becomes simple to just throw more enemies at the group without making the fight last forever. Also, the level of threat of multiple enemies increases more realistically, and the characters can be in considerable danger from this (anyone who has tried to stage a combat against many weak enemies, in other RPG games systems, knows how frustrating this situation normally is).

On top of this, because the characteristics system is so intuitive and it is relatively easy to design new special rules, it becomes very flexible for the Games Master to design new creatures and monsters.

So, in summary, the rules are well fleshed out and support most of the aspects required to run an RPG fantasy game. The rules are all there in the internet, for FREE as the product has been discontinued (so distribution between players will NEVER be an issue), and a lot of great material is available online. Check Liber Malefic: these guys produce amazing, professional-quality material, and are responsible (in part) for bringing the much acclaimed "Border Town Burning" supplement for Mordheim.

Watch out for the next part in this series of posts, where I will try to supplement and adapt the Mordheim rules for general everyday RPG use.

UPDATE: The releases about Mordheim RPG can be found in later posts, click HERE. 

Want "The General's Compendium"?

Check the Scenario Sources page for the link.

As the book has been out of print for several years now, and you can't actually buy it from GW, I see no problem in spreading this information. The book is amazing, and if GW still sold it, I am sure people would buy it (even if the rules relate to 6th Edition).

I do not host the book file itself. If anyone has a problem with me linking for the file, please let me know.

Enjoy

Rules Patch: Charges v8.2 (I'm gonna enjoy this one)

Charging mechanics suffered a significant amount of change from 7th to 8th edition, and I'd have to say definitely for the better: no range guessing, work out each charge and response at a time, etc etc.
However, some things went away, and other things have crept up that make the charge mechanics odd and somewhat reality-defying.

Here are a few suggestions, use them together or one at a time (depending on which rules aggravate you more), hope they serve you well.

PROBLEM: 2D6" of charge range added to Movement characteristic, even on an average roll, can be significantly farther than what a unit could otherwise cover during a march move (especially units that are slow). Dwarves in particular stick out, being able to shoot out on a charge, but otherwise being extremely slow.
SOLUTION: the roll for charge range is M + D6 + D3" (EDITED from +D4"). Models with the Swiftstride rule roll an additional D6 (as before) and discard the lowest D6 of the two (not the D3).
This makes charges slightly shorter, and make the Movement characteristic of the model more relevant. On average, and considering Swiftstride, each unit will still charge roughly equivalent to their march move, and only to a maximum of M + 10 on the highest roll.

PROBLEM: distance between chargers and chargees (thats a word, right?) is measured by the shortest point between them, causing some situations with chargers which are not directly facing the target measuring from their closest front corner, and gaining a very wide wheeling move completely for free because full movement covered during charge is not counted for, only closest distance).
SOLUTION: distance between charger and target is measured from the center of the front rank of the charger, and the middle point of the face of the target unit (be it the front, side or rear of it).
Measuring from the center is the most balanced compromise I could find. Although I considered measuring from the farthest front corner of the charger, if you then have to measure to the farthest front corner of the chargee, that would be complicated, or the wording would have to be "the corresponding corner facing the farthest corner of the charger"...  and rules argument over wording would ensue, I would need a diagram to explain... this way is simpler.

PROBLEM: charging, as opposed to being charged, provides as benefits only a +1 to CR, +S bonuses if wielding certain weapons, +1A if you have Devastating charge, and the fact that you can enhance your unit during your own magic phase (which you know its going to see combat immediately). However, it provides little intrinsic benefit for the combat itself (in 7th chargers used to strike first), other than the +1 CR.
SOLUTION: chargers gain +D3 Initiative in the round of combat during which they charged.
This is a middle ground solution between 7th edition "Chargers strike first" and 8th edition "everyone strikes at Initiative". This counterbalances slightly some of the issues caused by models that will always strike first (even if they dont have the rule), and gives more reason to players to commit their units to charge instead of being charged. Undead, for instance, gain little benefit from charging, as they almost always get hit first, and have to endure 2 rounds of combat before they can heal their units back up.

PROBLEM: the charging unit always 'closes the door' first to its target (even if the target is significantly smaller), often making it swing around significantly and cause it to be redirected (to great effect).
SOLUTION: the smaller unit between charger and chargee is the one that 'closes the door'. To decide which unit is larger, it will be the one with more full ranks (of 5+ models, 3+ for monstrous units, or 1 for monsters). Units of Cavalry, Monstrous Cavalry/Infantry/Beasts, Chariots and Monsters always count as having +1 rank for this purpose, to represent their added ability to break formations. If both units have equal number of ranks, then they both close in into each other by the same amount until they are in contact. The exception to this rule are Frenzied units: they will always 'close the door' first to their target.

(EDITED 3-12-15: added +1 bonus for monstrous inf, beasts and chariots, and monsters always count as being 1 full rank)
This rule gets rid of the unrealistic situations where a tiny small unit redirects a huge unit by a significant angle. It will still allow Frenzied units to be baited and redirected around, so this weakness can still be exploited. It significantly limits the strategy of redirecting, but its renders the game more realistic.

Rules patch: Steadfast v8.1 (so many things that can be changed...)

Oh, this one has been aggravating me personally, ehehe, and it's surprising how much people disagree with how GW made the rule in this edition, but nobody seems to be willing to address it in a practical manner. At least as a gentleman's agreement in casual games.

PROBLEM: charging a ranked unit on its flank or rear with another unit (with at least 2 or more ranks of five or more models) disrupts the first unit's ranks. This negates that unit's rank bonus (GOOD!) but does not negate steadfast (REALLY!?).
SOLUTION: disruption negates steadfast. (I can't make this any simpler.) EDIT(6/06/15) A unit cannot be steadfast against any model that can Thunderstomp them.
This rebalances the steadfast mechanic, especially considering the significance of flank charges in a combat. Furthermore, it grants more stability to Monsters, which can struggle severely against large blocks of infantry, and have the odds stacked against them in terms of breaking the opponent.

PROBLEM: undead units gain no benefit from being steadfast, which is a huge benefit to most other races in Warhammer, and often the reason why many terrain pieces (such as buildings) are beneficially exploited by generals.
SOLUTION: undead units that are steadfast suffer 2 less wounds due to Unstable. This stacks with any other effects that modify the Unstable rule (such as a -1 to Unstable wounds granted by a BSB).
Despite the fact that undead are mindless, and the strength of their numbers should not impact their capacity to fight effectively, the combat pressure a large body of corpses provides should be taken into account. Generally, this will mostly come into play with units such as skeletons and zombies, which are easily destroyed anyway, so it simply mitigates how crippling this mechanic is to such units.

Hopefully, neither of these two changes are too powerful, but make the game more logical and coherent, and ensure that some races don't get the short end of the stick when it comes to certain situations, SIMPLY due to a game mechanic particularity (such as undead gaining no benefit from steadfast from being inside buildings).

Warhammer Fantasy revised Terrain generator (8th edition)

This is the Terrain generator I use in my games.

Revised 8th Edition Terrain Generator: download here.

I took the 6th edition terrain generation tables, with the diverse environments such as Realms of Men, Badlands, Mountains, etc, and rammed in them the 8th edition terrain options, and changed things up a bit as well.

I also curbed a bit the probability of a terrain piece to be mysterious: only some forests have a chance to be mysterious, and then only on a D6 roll of a 6. No more deathtrap tabletop: terrain is to be used to a general's advantage without (too) much of a surprise.

I tweaked a bit the options you can get if you are a defender in the specific scenario you're playing, and if you're a native of the environment.
For example, Empire and Bretonnia can turn 'walls' and 'fences' they roll on the table into 'Blessed Bulwarks' if the battle is fought in the Realms of Men, and High Elves can turn them into 'Blazing Barricades' if the battle takes place in the shores of Ulthuan.
Also, I included what I call 'shrines': if a defending, native player rolls a settlement or encampment (can be anything from a few houses to a double-building Elven Hall), this includes not only obstacles but also a shrine, which is a magical focus which benefits the defender. Empire defenders can pick 'Sigmarite shrines', Bretonnians can pick 'Grail Chapels', Dwarves can pick 'Dwarven Brewhouse', Undead can pick 'Charnel Pit' and Dark Elves of course can pick ' Altar of Khaine'. The list goes on.

As a little bonus, the last page includes a quick reference of all the terrain pieces from the table, so you don't have to flip through the Rulebook. Some of these include small changes I made, such as the 'Sorcerous Portal' having a max of 24" on its spells, and they can be dispelled as normal.

Enjoy!

Rules patch: spears v8.3

This one is mostly a realism fix (for the narrative/roleplay-inclined out there), as spears themselves do not perturb the balance of the game in any way.

PROBLEM: although the "fight in extra rank" ability of spears nicely recreates the 'phalanx' combat technique, spears do not provide any additional benefit against charging cavalry (which was one particular usage in which the spear shined, particularly during the middle ages).

SOLUTION: a spear-wielding model on foot gains an additional benefit if it has not marched during its turn (it can however 'swift reform' and still gain this benefit). If such a unit is charged on its front by a unit of warbeasts, cavalry, monstrous cavalry or a monster, it gains +1 Strength during the first round of combat against those particular models only. Any attacks directed against enemy models that are not in contact with the front of the unit, or that did not charge this turn, do not receive this benefit. 

This provides good utility for spearmen units, especially when used defensively, making them more reliable against some of the worst hard-hitters in the Warhammer range, and the perfect answer to heavily armored cavalry. However, to gain this benefit requires them to severely sacrifice their mobility, and still does not increase significantly their ability to Wound their target in the first place, essentially preventing the rule from giving too much power for so few points (spears are normally 1 point/model).

With this rule, which is situational and rarely coming into play in an aggressive (forward-moving) army, the usage of spears in Warhammer becomes more realistic and coherent, and the dreaded 'schiltron' becomes a tool in a Warhammer general's arsenal.

EDIT: originally had the spearmen gain +1S instead of ASF. Although while logical, it ignored the fact that spears should strike the chargers first, regardless of the impact of the charge. But putting in both rules with no change in points would be overpowering, so I sticked with the ASF.
EDIT #2: the idea above was not really good... it rendered (quite obviously, if one wonders for a bit) Elven spearmen with no added bonus (as they already have ASF). So I went back to my original idea (a charge into spears grants extra force to the spear attack) and granted the next best thing to St bonus: +1 to Armor Penetration. 
EDIT #3: bonus from spears returned to +1S, as it originally was. This was inspired by the recent rumours about Warhammer Fantasy 9th Edition. Spearmen on foot are not overpowered as it is, and with the limitation of  not being able to claim this benefit if it marched, it is not an exaggerated benefit.

Rules patch: Cannons v8.1

What better thing to start the "rules patches" section than with trying to fix the rules for cannons.
I am well aware than I am not by far the first, nor will I be the last, to try and do this. Nevertheless, I think it should be done.

PROBLEM: Cannon shots are 100% accurate in terms of lateral accuracy (i.e. they only scatter longitudinally), which is unrealistic and in some situations (like shooting at lone infantry characters) game-breaking.

SOLUTION: When determining where a cannonball will land, after picking the spot you wish to shoot, you must scatter it with a scatter dice and a d3 if your shot is within short range, or a d6 if your shot is at long range. Only then do you roll for range with the artillery dice. All effects (benefits or penalties) that normally affect the artillery dice roll do not affect the first scatter roll.

This keeps the cannon pretty good when shooting at large things, because the scatter is not too much, but it curbs its ability to shoot at small targets. Additionally, it grants advantage to it when the cannon is shooting at point blank.

PROBLEM: When cannon shots hit ridden monsters/chariots, it always affects the rider as well.

SOLUTION: the rider only is affected by a cannonball hit on a 5+, just as for a shooting attack or a template-based attack.

This keeps the monster/chariot mount good for its points, because its death by cannon-shot does not immediately mean the death of the character (it is essentially like a 3+ Look Out Sir save). However, the cannon-shot still successfully eliminated the mount (which is worth a lot of points), fulfilling its purpose, and now the character has to scurry to safety.

Overview

Cannons are generally quite cheap for what they can perform in a game. This includes eliminating high-points monsters, but also characters as well. This has led to a metagame optimization arms-race, which disfavours monsters and characters riding them, as well as characters running outside units. As such, units which are otherwise gorgeous to collect/paint and a pride to field, become a liability in terms of list optimization.

This patch tries to address both the realism issues, as well as balance issues, by giving targets a slight advantage against the predictability of where the shot will land, as well as keeping monster mounts a reasonable choice for characters. However, it does not hamper the utility of the cannon, because the probability to hit a monster with it still remains good.

Not-too-nerfed, I hope.

Narrative the easy way: Scenario diversity

Here I will talk about scenario choice, where to find more scenarios, and their applicability to either pick-up games or more involved campaign situations.


A simple way to introduce new objectives and narrative purpose in battles is to simply play more and diverse scenarios.
It is difficult to overestimate the richness of Warhammer scenarios that are already out there. There are tons. Even if you only take the official ones that Games Workshop has released over the years.

At least in this 8th edition of Warhammer, there seems to be an assumption that "proper/normal Warhammer"  involves generating scenarios from only the Core six, in pgs. 144-150 of the Core Rulebook. They mostly all stick close to "equal points, equal conditions, everything fair" for both players, yet several just enforce rules shenanigans that mess up your deployment (and we know how important that is in this game). And NO core siege rules *cringe*, the Watchtower scenario being the closest thing to it (and disappointingly so). How can a fantasy medieval battle game not include sieges as part of its main gaming experience?

Every other scenario is seen as too "out there", unbalanced and assumed to ruin the fun for both players (or at least one). Now there is truth to this claim: some scenarios are indeed TOO unbalanced, and care needs to be taken when picking them. Maybe their place is more in a Warhammer campaign, where one force is at a disadvantage. One must bear this in mind when judging scenarios: some are indeed unfair to be applied in pick-up games.

So where can you find more scenarios? And are they easy to apply in a pick-up game, or convince your opponent they are worth it? And which should best be saved for more story-driven campaign events?

In this page I will be listing sources of additional scenarios that have been published by GW, so you can know where to look, and what kind of scenarios you can hope to find in each. I will also give commentary on some balance issues I have found.

The trick is: which scenarios are easily agreeable, that you can apply easily to a pick-up game? What if one of you wants to have a chance to fight in a more interesting scenario, but the other (while interested) is wary about balance and fairness (and if he will get his own chance to pick a funky scenario as well)?
I will cover this in the future in what I call "game setup/frameworks": how to set up a game, or series of games, and how/who chooses a scenario, maintaining fairness in the whole process for both players.

The state of the art: the rant that starts it all

To kick this blog off, I'll begin with the reasons that made me start it, and see if you might find some common ground in the following rant.

As some may agree, Warhammer Fantasy (as per the current edition, at least) suffers somewhat from the divide between what players call the competitive (warhammer as a sport) and the fluffy (warhammer as a storytelling/roleplaying experience).

While this has been discussed at length by others, I put forward that one of the biggest reasons that happens is that the core game rules do nothing to bridge this gap. The Core Rules only provide a basic framework for running fantasy battles, and your average basic pick-up game (which is the norm if you don't have a large enough group) runs without invoking any narrative components.
For an RPG player, this is generally no problem, because a rulebook/sourcebook is simply the tool used to build a story, which grows cooperatively between the players and the GM when they meet up.
Warhammer, however, is an adversarial game with no GMs to arbiter it (in most cases), so rules and balance are of much more importance to players (and reasonably so). Therefore, smooth operation of the rules and ensuring fairness is required for enjoyable gameplay.
Additionally, while an RPG session depends heavily on story elements to glue it together, a Warhammer battle has no need of story/narrative elements in itself, and can run simply as a strategy game (the competitive view). Therefore, narrative elements can easily be seen as superfluous add-ons, as they normally have no effect on the game.

From a gaming/strategy perspective, the Core Rules (as they are) have also caused a shift in the game towards a points denial approach to victory. This is fomented by the rules themselves: the battle setup of the 6 core scenarios and victory conditions. Additionally, the game penalizes certain unit choices, because they are simply sub-optimal in these conditions, as well as interaction with some armies whose basic strategy relies more heavily on avoidance tactics (Wood Elves for instance).
I am not by far the first to tackle this: MrMalorian and TheSustainableCenter have already approached this question nicely.

The way some things work (cannons, redirecting, steadfast, conga-lining, undead crumble, etc) is also quite incoherent with what you would expect in an actual battle, and simply become rules gimmicks that are used to great effect in strategy, in contradiction to common sense (especially for newer players).  

These are all points that I hope to cover in this blog.

Thankfully, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY!    :)

The solution can be very simple: include more scenarios, adopt house rules, and overall make the game better with our own hands. If RPGs do this ALL THE TIME without ANY problems, there is little reason why it can't happen for Warhammer.

Not everybody knows about it, because it's not official? Well, DotA didn't start official either, and it's huge now. And Erratas ARE official, but not everybody carries them around (and they can decide games).

As said in many Warhammer Rulebooks of editions past, "Warhammer is your game".

What I hope to contribute with this blog is a series of options and "patches", if you will, that you may find interesting and useful to add/modify in your game, that I have put together and use in my games. Mix and match, use what you like, throw away and spit on what you don't.

Whether for gaming among friends (your garage-hammer) or for a framework of standardized rules in your Friendly Local Game Store.

The goal is to bring Warhammer closer together, bridging the gap between army optimization (which is perfectly reasonable that everyone does) and interesting narrative games, with more purpose to the conflict, more variety in objectives and allowing all units to shine and have their place in the spotlight.

Explore, use it, tweak it and have fun.

Future post about campaigns

Placeholder

(under consstruction)