If you haven't noticed, I have been continuously updating the "Mordheim resources & supplements" page for the past months (it just doesn't show up in the posts section).
Sure you can find all these things out there on the internet, but if you just want a good browse to decide which setting to throw your gaming group into, this may be useful for you as all supplements are organized and listed, with additional advice and how to adapt it to your needs.
As of today, it now lists:
- Mordheim base rulebook
- Mordheim universal rules supplements
- Mordheim "City of the Damned" setting supplements
- Empire in Flames Campaign Setting
- Border Town Burning Narrative Campaign
- Sartosa - the Pirate Isle Campaign Setting & Campaign system
- Lustria - Cities of Gold Campaign setting
- Khemri - Land of the Dead Campaign setting
Coming soon:
- Relics of the Crusades Narrative Campaign
- Sylvania Campaign setting
- Vampire Hunters Narrative Cooperative Campaign*
- Kharak Azgal Campaign Setting
- Albion - the Misty Isle Campaign setting
*A special mention for Vampire Hunters is required, as only recently (the shame!) did I found out about it.
This a cooperative campaign where several warbands gather to defend a town from the predations of a Vampire Lord (played by a Campaign Master). Very extensive design went into this, and combines very clever boardgame elements in a very simple way.
Narrative rules options for Age of Sigmar, Warhammer Fantasy and Mordheim. Generate instant stories in your games.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Warhammer Warbands & 'Freeform Movement': playtesting
In this post I will tell about my attempts at bringing a type of Age-of-Sigmar-like Freeform Movement into Warhammer 8th Edition rules, in the context of the Warbands rules.
It looks very promising and close to what I've been striving for.
Previously I have discussed and tested some rules for Freeform Movement (part1, part 2, part 3), which was inspired by the unit movement mechanics present in Age of Sigmar. Being very honest, this type of unit movement was not really an innovation of Age of Sigmar: this was mostly how Skirmishers moved in 6th and 7th Edition, which was scrapped in 8th edition in favour of quadrangular units of spread-out models. The innovation that Age of Sigmar brought to it, however, was one of the great cinematic mechanics or Warhammer 40K: Pile-in.
I attempted before to introduce these Freeform Movement rules in regular Warhammer 8thEd games, and I quickly managed to slow down the game: Pile In and Retreating from Combat was great but moving large units with a fully dynamic shape was a bit of a nightmare, regardless of how useful it was tactically (dissected here). So I decided to tackle this last problem twofold: narrow down the size of the units on the table, and reduce the freeform-type movement only to Skirmishers, Fast Cavalry and units in 'Loose Formation' (a rules variant that allows nonskirmishers greater movement flexibility at the cost of Combat Resolution bonuses).
How to do this? The perfect tool already existed: Warbands.
Warhammer Warbands games are smaller-scale Warhammer games (100-499 pts), following essentially all the same rules, but allows for minimum units sizes to go below the listed value in the armybook. This allows for a greater variety of unit types to be fielded while still keeping the game small and the table less cluttered with models.
And what do you know: we found that mixing normal ranked-up units and others with high movement flexibility led to a very very interesting and tactical game.
- New roles for your good ol' units: The terrain could be explored better and many average units now gained great tactical value, as they were better able to position themselves to counter-charge (or Pile-in), and explore new battle roles as harassers or very strong strike forces where before this could only be performed by Skirmishers or Fast Cavalry. A unit in the right place (even if not a powerful one) can make much more of a difference. In this way, one can maximize the value of small-sized units which previously had to be taken in very large numbers to be in any way effective, as strategic movement now becomes much more important.
- Chained combats and combined arms strategies: because the Pile-In rule allows units within 3" of an enemy to immediately get engaged in combat, this makes combined arms defensive formations very interesting (if you charge a unit you must fight the surrounding ones). Therefore, engaging in combat and managing unit coordination becomes far more interesting than it ever was, with many more possible combinations. It also makes for massive cluster combats to get triggered very quickly, with all units entangled in the middle, and possibly leading to quicker combats and games (which I think we all are fond of).
- Baiting and Retreating even better: Given that units can elect to retreat from close combat, this allows for better control of which units are commited to which fights, and allows very interesting shenanigans in controlling the battlefield. Of course, ordering a retreat is not without its risks, as the units must immediately test to Rally to see if they reorder their line or keep running.
- Harassers become more true to form: Even better, units that before would anyway serve in harasser roles (because there was never any point to ranking them) but did NOT have the Skirmisher or Fast Cavalry rule can now benefit from the same movement flexibility. They only miss out on using Unit Standards, and the -1 to be Hit with rannged weapons (Skirmishers) or the Vanguard rule (Fast Cavalry). We are talking about things like Chaos Warhounds and Dire Wolves, who simply 'feel' like they should have been skirmishers.
- Small Elite shock troops for guerilla fighting: thanks to the Warbands rules, units composed of elite or expensive models could be now taken in small sizes (therefore more affordable), and when maneuvered correctly, say as an opportunist flanker, became very very usable assets when before they had to be taken in large numbers to have a decent cost-benefit out of them. Even better, they can be used as strike forces against enemy Commanders or wizards, as their small unit size can allow them to squeeze past bigger units and not expose themselves to a charge, and use the terrain to block any pursuit by larger units.
- Large lumbering but very steady units: Conversely, keeping one or two larger units of ranked troops added a large punch (due to the large number of Combat Resolution bonuses they can use) and provided a strong army center as they would almost always benefit from Steadfast. Even (or especially) cheap Core troops are really effective at this, as larger units can be fielded for less points. The contrast in maneuvering speed between them and 'Loose Formation' units also made the game look more realistic, as the large ranked unit slowly swivels around to face its threat, while small contigents of models jump around the battlefield, taking cover and trying to reach the enemy's backline.
- Shooting becomes more important: with more small units to shot at, some of which possibly containing higher-points models, the chance of eliminating entire units quickly with ranged shooting becomes much more appetizing and feasible. With the added ability to explore complex battlefields, units can achieve better positioning to shoot and even embark on forward strikes to eliminate warmachines, but also have to account for...
- Better cover: with added movement flexibility and ability to explore terrain better comes the chance to set up more complex batttlefields, which provide more tactical choices for moving through cover (and avoid enemy fire) and blocking your opponent's charges.
- Adaptable to Warhammer Army games: Needless to say, these rules are also very easily applied to small-scale Warhammer games (500-1000 points), only forfeiting the Warbands-only rule to take ultra-small units (3-8 models, depending on listed minimum size). And because unit positioning is more elevant now, the games becomes more balanced at that scale than they used to, because more units on the table can control more of the board than before (due to their higher freedom of movement). It also used to be the case that certain units, if taken in lower points games, would have an overpowering effect on the whole game; or vice versa, in that certain armies could really only become effective at higher points levels because their units were not well-rounded enough (so they had to take many different types to deal with every threat) or because they needed certain costly synergies to make the army work. With added movement flexibility, the underdogs now have more strategic options to chose from, and therefore this is something that should appeal to the more tactical-minded players too
- Flexible Squeezing: this is something I proposed in a previous post, as a compromise to getting rid of my rules for full flexible movement for large units, and still allowing them some ease of movement around terrain. This rule was inspired by the Kings of War ruleset, where units ignore impassable or blocking terrain while turning or pivoting, as long as they finish the movement at least 1" away from it. A great and simple idea, that can make wonders when fiddling around with large units around nasty special-effects terrain or just simply blocking terrain.
So there you have it. These 4 rules, especially in the context of the Warbands rules, work wonders.
- Pile-In
- Loose Formation
- Retreat from Combat
- Flexible Squeezing (see above)
Try them out (together or just one or two) and see how you like them. I would suggest ~300 points in a Warbands game (not too much, not too little).
Phew! Done. Now to put this together into a proper rules document I can upload...
Roll high and prosper!
It looks very promising and close to what I've been striving for.
Previously I have discussed and tested some rules for Freeform Movement (part1, part 2, part 3), which was inspired by the unit movement mechanics present in Age of Sigmar. Being very honest, this type of unit movement was not really an innovation of Age of Sigmar: this was mostly how Skirmishers moved in 6th and 7th Edition, which was scrapped in 8th edition in favour of quadrangular units of spread-out models. The innovation that Age of Sigmar brought to it, however, was one of the great cinematic mechanics or Warhammer 40K: Pile-in.
I attempted before to introduce these Freeform Movement rules in regular Warhammer 8thEd games, and I quickly managed to slow down the game: Pile In and Retreating from Combat was great but moving large units with a fully dynamic shape was a bit of a nightmare, regardless of how useful it was tactically (dissected here). So I decided to tackle this last problem twofold: narrow down the size of the units on the table, and reduce the freeform-type movement only to Skirmishers, Fast Cavalry and units in 'Loose Formation' (a rules variant that allows nonskirmishers greater movement flexibility at the cost of Combat Resolution bonuses).
How to do this? The perfect tool already existed: Warbands.
Warhammer Warbands games are smaller-scale Warhammer games (100-499 pts), following essentially all the same rules, but allows for minimum units sizes to go below the listed value in the armybook. This allows for a greater variety of unit types to be fielded while still keeping the game small and the table less cluttered with models.
And what do you know: we found that mixing normal ranked-up units and others with high movement flexibility led to a very very interesting and tactical game.
- New roles for your good ol' units: The terrain could be explored better and many average units now gained great tactical value, as they were better able to position themselves to counter-charge (or Pile-in), and explore new battle roles as harassers or very strong strike forces where before this could only be performed by Skirmishers or Fast Cavalry. A unit in the right place (even if not a powerful one) can make much more of a difference. In this way, one can maximize the value of small-sized units which previously had to be taken in very large numbers to be in any way effective, as strategic movement now becomes much more important.
- Chained combats and combined arms strategies: because the Pile-In rule allows units within 3" of an enemy to immediately get engaged in combat, this makes combined arms defensive formations very interesting (if you charge a unit you must fight the surrounding ones). Therefore, engaging in combat and managing unit coordination becomes far more interesting than it ever was, with many more possible combinations. It also makes for massive cluster combats to get triggered very quickly, with all units entangled in the middle, and possibly leading to quicker combats and games (which I think we all are fond of).
 |
| Coordinated unit formations can advance and concentrate on enemies using Pile In, enhancing creativity in defensive strategies. |
- Baiting and Retreating even better: Given that units can elect to retreat from close combat, this allows for better control of which units are commited to which fights, and allows very interesting shenanigans in controlling the battlefield. Of course, ordering a retreat is not without its risks, as the units must immediately test to Rally to see if they reorder their line or keep running.
- Harassers become more true to form: Even better, units that before would anyway serve in harasser roles (because there was never any point to ranking them) but did NOT have the Skirmisher or Fast Cavalry rule can now benefit from the same movement flexibility. They only miss out on using Unit Standards, and the -1 to be Hit with rannged weapons (Skirmishers) or the Vanguard rule (Fast Cavalry). We are talking about things like Chaos Warhounds and Dire Wolves, who simply 'feel' like they should have been skirmishers.
 |
| Dire Wolves adopt Loose Formation to cut around terrain more easily. |
- Large lumbering but very steady units: Conversely, keeping one or two larger units of ranked troops added a large punch (due to the large number of Combat Resolution bonuses they can use) and provided a strong army center as they would almost always benefit from Steadfast. Even (or especially) cheap Core troops are really effective at this, as larger units can be fielded for less points. The contrast in maneuvering speed between them and 'Loose Formation' units also made the game look more realistic, as the large ranked unit slowly swivels around to face its threat, while small contigents of models jump around the battlefield, taking cover and trying to reach the enemy's backline.
 |
| Cheap core troops are very useful in large numbers against even powerful models, thanks to their ability to remain Steadfast and concentrate Combat Resolution bonuses from ranks and Standards. |
- Shooting becomes more important: with more small units to shot at, some of which possibly containing higher-points models, the chance of eliminating entire units quickly with ranged shooting becomes much more appetizing and feasible. With the added ability to explore complex battlefields, units can achieve better positioning to shoot and even embark on forward strikes to eliminate warmachines, but also have to account for...
- Better cover: with added movement flexibility and ability to explore terrain better comes the chance to set up more complex batttlefields, which provide more tactical choices for moving through cover (and avoid enemy fire) and blocking your opponent's charges.
 |
| Explore all the nooks and crannies of the battlefield by moving with Loose Formation. |
- Adaptable to Warhammer Army games: Needless to say, these rules are also very easily applied to small-scale Warhammer games (500-1000 points), only forfeiting the Warbands-only rule to take ultra-small units (3-8 models, depending on listed minimum size). And because unit positioning is more elevant now, the games becomes more balanced at that scale than they used to, because more units on the table can control more of the board than before (due to their higher freedom of movement). It also used to be the case that certain units, if taken in lower points games, would have an overpowering effect on the whole game; or vice versa, in that certain armies could really only become effective at higher points levels because their units were not well-rounded enough (so they had to take many different types to deal with every threat) or because they needed certain costly synergies to make the army work. With added movement flexibility, the underdogs now have more strategic options to chose from, and therefore this is something that should appeal to the more tactical-minded players too
- Flexible Squeezing: this is something I proposed in a previous post, as a compromise to getting rid of my rules for full flexible movement for large units, and still allowing them some ease of movement around terrain. This rule was inspired by the Kings of War ruleset, where units ignore impassable or blocking terrain while turning or pivoting, as long as they finish the movement at least 1" away from it. A great and simple idea, that can make wonders when fiddling around with large units around nasty special-effects terrain or just simply blocking terrain.
So there you have it. These 4 rules, especially in the context of the Warbands rules, work wonders.
- Pile-In
- Loose Formation
- Retreat from Combat
- Flexible Squeezing (see above)
Try them out (together or just one or two) and see how you like them. I would suggest ~300 points in a Warbands game (not too much, not too little).
Phew! Done. Now to put this together into a proper rules document I can upload...
Roll high and prosper!
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Empire Burning: campaign finale and lessons learned
It has been too long without an update here. Moving countries and
starting a new job, and no internet at home, does take a toll on one's
ability to keep updating things regularly. Getting internet set up in
Europe is so much easier (and cheaper)!
I'm sharing today some images of our campaign finale, and how we managed to deliver a fair entertainment, as well as a chance for the campaign win for everyone involved, even though many were very far behind in the Campaign Points score.We loosely based the scenario rules on the great "Colony of Plenty" scenario from Mutiny in Marienburg (in development), with its multiple objectives, hostage-taking and monster bonanza!
The "Empire Burning" campaign was our group's field-test, at 6's2Hit wargaming shop and cafe, of the framework that I put together for an Empire in Flames campaign. It built very much on the framework set out in the Border Town Burning and Mutiny in Marienburg campaigns (all credit to their authors is due), but drew on a large number of scenarios, released over time in Town Cryer and a few others. It used very much the same campaign Objectives as Border Town Burning, with a few adaptations (as those objectives are already quite generic).
Linking the theme of a warband with actual objectives to fulfill and themed rewards created a great motivation that kept players engaged in a long-running campaign. Although the length of the campaign was believed to be too long by our group, the presence of objectives changes a simple league-battles group, which has only the accumulation of XP and loot as an objective (and therefore has a large chance to become boring), into something much more entertaining and with roleplaying/narrative value.
- Not all warbands can leverage well particular Objectives available to them.
This is a bit of a thorny issue, as some warband types were much more suited to fulfill certain CP(campaign point)-granting "tasks" of some Objectives than others. Some of this should be discussed beforehand, in as impartial and non-competitive way as possible (to prevent future arguments), and either include some small changes in the Objective rules or choose another option.
- Objectives can have very different progression speeds.
Objectives vary a lot in how you can implement their progression. Those that depend on obtaining specific objects (such as Artifacts, in The Celestial Protectorate and The Scion of Chaos) have a huge bottleneck in their progression because they cannot succeed if they do not obtain them, while those that do not even need to interact with other warbands (The Lure of Fortune) have more independence in controlling their progression. Sometimes, Objective achievements make the fulfillement of their CP-granting "tasks" easier (such as 'The Damned shall Burn' gaining bonuses and defenses against the warbands whose defeat will grant them CPs), while for other warbands (such as the 'Scion of Chaos' not gaining any bonuses to find the Artefacts) their task of fulfilling their objectives is not helped in the least by their Achievements.
- A portion of scenarios (~30%?) MUST include material rewards.
While progressing through the campaign, we noticed that monetary rewards from scenarios were not being enough for some warbands, while for others they were quite good. This was caused mostly by scenarios that had a winner-takes-all condition, where the surviving warband at the end could scoop up all the remaining treasure that hadn't been yet picked up. We fine-tuned it so that warbands that lose while some of its warriors are still carrying treasure will keep it as long as they are outside of charge range when they rout. This solved some problems, but not all. The remaining problem was still caused by some multi-player scenarios with large rewards for the winner, and also because many of our scenarios in our long list did not include material rewards, especially items that the warbands could use or sell (making skills that deal with making money from selling equipment relatively useless).
This imbalance can cause some warbands to fall behind in power-level even if they are winning the right scenarios for their campaign progression.
- Remember, lots of cover!
Scenarios in the "open" wilderness may make players inclined to set up terrain more sparsely than they would otherwise in urban or forest terrain. This is a big problem, especially when shooty warbands are involved, and it took us a while to understand this was a source of the problem. Even in plains terrain, there are lots of scenery pieces one can use, especially lots of hills (with gentle slopes) and shrubs, which create a more organic-looking environment and break line of sight sufficiently to re-balance Mordheim gameplay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The campaign also had us asking several questions, and how many other different ways one can play Mordheim:
- Can you play Mordheim cooperatively, against a set of rules and tables rather than another player or Games Master?
- Can you use the Mordheim rules as a GM-run RPG? (this I have discussed previously)
- Can you use Mordheim as a one-shot boardgame-like event, for ease of play with a larger demographic?
I have covered a few of these in previous posts, and will do so more in the future, as I think the game system is so flexible that it can be taken in many different directions.
I think there is growing interest in Mordheim again in gaming communities, maybe partially due to the Mordheim videogame, but also due to the ease of play and getting into the game.
I will be exploring these possibilities in the future, so we can bring this game to more people and share the enjoyment of (affordable!) narrative miniature wargaming.
PS: this hat is a joke ;) I support in no way the presidential candidate who popularized this hat. Thank John Oliver for this idea.
I'm sharing today some images of our campaign finale, and how we managed to deliver a fair entertainment, as well as a chance for the campaign win for everyone involved, even though many were very far behind in the Campaign Points score.We loosely based the scenario rules on the great "Colony of Plenty" scenario from Mutiny in Marienburg (in development), with its multiple objectives, hostage-taking and monster bonanza!
 |
| The Fallen Cathedral where the last Artefacts were hidden: everyone had a chance at the final prize. |
The "Empire Burning" campaign was our group's field-test, at 6's2Hit wargaming shop and cafe, of the framework that I put together for an Empire in Flames campaign. It built very much on the framework set out in the Border Town Burning and Mutiny in Marienburg campaigns (all credit to their authors is due), but drew on a large number of scenarios, released over time in Town Cryer and a few others. It used very much the same campaign Objectives as Border Town Burning, with a few adaptations (as those objectives are already quite generic).
 |
| Sisters of Sigmar confront the heretics guarding the vaults holding the Artefacts. |
 |
| Dangerous monsters lurk in the vaults. The Undead warband disturbs a particularly large one: a slumbering cave Giant!! |
 |
| Dwarf Treasure Hunters following the 'The Lure of Fortune' Objective drive their armored "trade" wagon onwards, filled with valuable trade goods, on their last stretch to victory. |
 |
| More monsters hiding in the vaults!! A dangerous Cockatrice flits about, turning warriors here and there to stone. |
 |
| The horde of Night Goblins, following 'The Scourge of the Realm', tramples across the landscape nabbing Artefacts from the tombs as leverage to attract their rivals, the Marauders of Chaos. |
 |
| The final victors and last warband standing: the Nurgle Hung Marauders of Chaos. Their leader obtains all the 4 four Chaos Artefacts, ascending as a Daemon Prince, and wins the campaign. |
Things we learned:
- Objectives create story and emotional investment.Linking the theme of a warband with actual objectives to fulfill and themed rewards created a great motivation that kept players engaged in a long-running campaign. Although the length of the campaign was believed to be too long by our group, the presence of objectives changes a simple league-battles group, which has only the accumulation of XP and loot as an objective (and therefore has a large chance to become boring), into something much more entertaining and with roleplaying/narrative value.
- Not all warbands can leverage well particular Objectives available to them.
This is a bit of a thorny issue, as some warband types were much more suited to fulfill certain CP(campaign point)-granting "tasks" of some Objectives than others. Some of this should be discussed beforehand, in as impartial and non-competitive way as possible (to prevent future arguments), and either include some small changes in the Objective rules or choose another option.
- Objectives can have very different progression speeds.
Objectives vary a lot in how you can implement their progression. Those that depend on obtaining specific objects (such as Artifacts, in The Celestial Protectorate and The Scion of Chaos) have a huge bottleneck in their progression because they cannot succeed if they do not obtain them, while those that do not even need to interact with other warbands (The Lure of Fortune) have more independence in controlling their progression. Sometimes, Objective achievements make the fulfillement of their CP-granting "tasks" easier (such as 'The Damned shall Burn' gaining bonuses and defenses against the warbands whose defeat will grant them CPs), while for other warbands (such as the 'Scion of Chaos' not gaining any bonuses to find the Artefacts) their task of fulfilling their objectives is not helped in the least by their Achievements.
- A portion of scenarios (~30%?) MUST include material rewards.
While progressing through the campaign, we noticed that monetary rewards from scenarios were not being enough for some warbands, while for others they were quite good. This was caused mostly by scenarios that had a winner-takes-all condition, where the surviving warband at the end could scoop up all the remaining treasure that hadn't been yet picked up. We fine-tuned it so that warbands that lose while some of its warriors are still carrying treasure will keep it as long as they are outside of charge range when they rout. This solved some problems, but not all. The remaining problem was still caused by some multi-player scenarios with large rewards for the winner, and also because many of our scenarios in our long list did not include material rewards, especially items that the warbands could use or sell (making skills that deal with making money from selling equipment relatively useless).
This imbalance can cause some warbands to fall behind in power-level even if they are winning the right scenarios for their campaign progression.
- Remember, lots of cover!
Scenarios in the "open" wilderness may make players inclined to set up terrain more sparsely than they would otherwise in urban or forest terrain. This is a big problem, especially when shooty warbands are involved, and it took us a while to understand this was a source of the problem. Even in plains terrain, there are lots of scenery pieces one can use, especially lots of hills (with gentle slopes) and shrubs, which create a more organic-looking environment and break line of sight sufficiently to re-balance Mordheim gameplay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The campaign also had us asking several questions, and how many other different ways one can play Mordheim:
- Can you play Mordheim cooperatively, against a set of rules and tables rather than another player or Games Master?
- Can you use the Mordheim rules as a GM-run RPG? (this I have discussed previously)
- Can you use Mordheim as a one-shot boardgame-like event, for ease of play with a larger demographic?
I have covered a few of these in previous posts, and will do so more in the future, as I think the game system is so flexible that it can be taken in many different directions.
I think there is growing interest in Mordheim again in gaming communities, maybe partially due to the Mordheim videogame, but also due to the ease of play and getting into the game.
I will be exploring these possibilities in the future, so we can bring this game to more people and share the enjoyment of (affordable!) narrative miniature wargaming.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
"The RuleHammer": a checklist compilation of rules patches & house rules
As some might feel I haven't dropped enough Warhammer Fantasy content recently (which is true), I felt it was time to just compile this version and send it out.
The RuleHammer: a rules patch compilation. (click to download)
New versions of the file will be updated over time. Check back to see which version is available for download.
The "RuleHammer" is a compilation of house rules and rules patches, many of which have been discussed previously in this blog, and also from other alternate sources of inspiration.
What it is: the list contains small rules changes, trying to resolve some remaining problems of the Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition ruleset, in the simplest way possible, and without changing too many things. While this may lead to significant differences in gameplay (hopefully for the better), the document is meant to be as easy to incorporate as possible by players who already have a good grasp of the rules.
What it aims to achieve: to fix some of the rules inconsistencies, imbalances and general problems reported by the gaming community. In addition, some changes were introduced to inject a bit of "simulationism" or "realism" (oh, that loaded concept...) which some felt was missing in some aspects of the game. This is Warhammer Narratives after all.
The overall approach was to keep the game as faithful to the original ruleset as possible, without interfering with the rules players were used to, and simply changing individual single points, one at a time.
How to use it: go over the list, point by point, and agree with your opponent or gaming group which rules changes you want to use. Tick the boxes for those you wish to incorporate, and make sure everyone has a copy of the document with those choices.
There you go, Community. Enjoy.
Hope people can make good use out of it.
All feedback is welcome.
The RuleHammer: a rules patch compilation. (click to download)
New versions of the file will be updated over time. Check back to see which version is available for download.
The "RuleHammer" is a compilation of house rules and rules patches, many of which have been discussed previously in this blog, and also from other alternate sources of inspiration.
What it is: the list contains small rules changes, trying to resolve some remaining problems of the Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition ruleset, in the simplest way possible, and without changing too many things. While this may lead to significant differences in gameplay (hopefully for the better), the document is meant to be as easy to incorporate as possible by players who already have a good grasp of the rules.
What it aims to achieve: to fix some of the rules inconsistencies, imbalances and general problems reported by the gaming community. In addition, some changes were introduced to inject a bit of "simulationism" or "realism" (oh, that loaded concept...) which some felt was missing in some aspects of the game. This is Warhammer Narratives after all.
The overall approach was to keep the game as faithful to the original ruleset as possible, without interfering with the rules players were used to, and simply changing individual single points, one at a time.
How to use it: go over the list, point by point, and agree with your opponent or gaming group which rules changes you want to use. Tick the boxes for those you wish to incorporate, and make sure everyone has a copy of the document with those choices.
This document is not meant to supplant or compete with other community-based projects, such as 'The 9th Age' or '9th Edition'. Rather, I hope to give a resource to players who were looking for something a bit less "chunky" than a completely redesigned ruleset, and give them flexibility over what they want to incorporate.
There you go, Community. Enjoy.
Hope people can make good use out of it.
All feedback is welcome.
PS: I know there is interest in Warhammer Fantasy Campaign rules. Im still working on expanding the base rules from 'Blood in the Badlands' with material from 'The General's Compendium': lots of random tables, veteran units and captured Heroes!
Monday, February 29, 2016
The Narrator has moved to Boston!!
Congratulations to Kenny for putting together such a fine business, and together with Wayne and Tyler for making it so approachable and easygoing place to game, eat and just hang out.
 |
| Kenny (far left) and Wayne (far right). |
 |
| Tyler |
I will soon attack the local places, to gather around other Warhammer Fantasy gamers and raise an all-new Mordheim Campaign group from scratch.
Watch out, Compleat Strategist, Pandemonium Games and Hobby Bunker, I'm coming for you!
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Mordheim Campaign: a playtest to "The Enemy Within"
Today I will show you a few snapshots and experiences from our Mordheim campaign, which has been running for the past year, in the hope to pass on some useful advice.
Roughly a year ago, I managed to spark interest among some Warhammer Fantasy gamers here in Edinburgh to start a Mordheim campaign. Throughout that period, a group of 5 swelled to 10, with a few others more interested, such that we didn't have any more space to cater. Even now, every two months or so another person manifests interest. The low barrier to entry (15-20 models required) and the flexibility of the system added to its allure, and our constant presence at the local venue and the amazing terrain at the table also drew a lot of attention.
To get this thing going properly, I decided to use the 'Empire in Flames' setting as the place for our campaign (with the fields and villages of the Empire as our stomping grounds). But I wanted the campaign to provide the players with a good dose of story for their warbands, so I introduced the innovations from"Border Town Burning" and "Mutiny in Marienburg".
So I cooked up a mashup of Empire in Flames together with Border Town Burning as a campaign framework, and injected loads of great Town Cryer scenarios that really bring life to the game. Thus, we started our fledgling campaign, Empire Burning: The End Times. (yes, it is a ridiculous title).
We are based at 6's2Hit, the local wargaming shop & venue, also now a cafe, which has become one of the best places to play wargames here in Edinburgh. Above you can see some of the tables we set up, thanks to their great and generous terrain collection, with also good use of my Terraclips modular dungeon scenery.
We had a wealth of warbands, and we explored also all of the different Objectives introduced in Border Town Burning and some from Mutiny in Marienburg.
Throughout this period, we substantially tweaked some fine points in the Mordheim rules, to address many of the imbalances people have cried out about over the years. We wanted everyone to have a good experience, and tidied several rules that the designers could themselves certainly have addressed. The fruits of our labour have been uploaded here: Mordheim Compendium - The Edinburgh Revision.
Thanks to these changes, people are now equipping their warriors with armor, no longer always giving two weapons to them, experienced warriors can parry better, and many other little things. Overall everyone has welcomed the changes, as they make the game flow smoother and fall less into powergaming builds.
I should note that our changes always try to be as little intrusive and complex as possible: we don't want to reinvent a game, we want to patch it up on the few holes it has, to the benefit of everyone. Nobody wins if the game ends up becoming unrecognizable to veteran players.
An interesting thing that happens in Narrative Mordheim campaigns is how the Objectives interact with the Scenario rewards, Exploration results and the special abilities of some warbands. Sometimes with very unpredictable and dire consequences, so be on the lookout.
One of these was the combination of the Ogre Maneaters warband and "The Body Trade" Objective (from MiM). To cater to the Body Trade objective in this campaign, we introduced a few scenarios where the winning warband could acquire captives. The Ogre player snatched a few stragglers through exploration and through scenarios, gobbled them up (thus raising the Ogres' Experience), and soon he had a veritable fighting force to contend against, and their Objective now granted them the ability to capture enemy warriors during combat. This caused a very quick increase in their Campaign Points (CPs) and more victims to increase their Experience, much to our worry!
Perhaps it was just a fluke in our campaign, but eventually we did have to carefully tweak the wording of the "Slaver" ability in the "Body Traders" Objective, to ensure that the player could not just simply capture enemies non-stop with his one all-powerful leader, and continually rack up CPs.
Narrative campaigns also provide great backdrop for alliances and backstabbings, which happened every now and again. Former enemies were forced to ally because they were faced against too powerful of an opposition (although still nurturing thoughts of betrayal). And certain individuals become infamous among the players, such as the Pestilence caster Marauder Seer (who would poison a quarter of a warband each
time his spell was unleashed) or the magic-carpet riding Dwarf Noble with his missile weapons.
However, it's good to be on the lookout for multiplayer scenarios which allow allied players to share the reward: in some scenarios warbands can themselves ally against an NPC monster, and then share its hoard (and thus there are no warbands competing on the table at the end). Such scenarios must ensure that at least 3 players are present at the beginning, otherwise there is no way to prevent both players from taking advantage of the rules (as they are no longer competing with each other, only against "the rules of the scenario").
Another important point about Scenarios is "winner-takes-all" types of scenario, especially multiplayer ones. Sometimes only one winner is intended and the reward is meant to be large (these scenarios should be used more seldomly, more relegated to Special scenarios). Other times, multiplayer scenarios where 3 or more warbands should have secured objective items around the table end with many of these items still unclaimed (and thus the winner takes them all): these scenarios seem harmless at first but many force the losing warbands to drop every objective item they are carrying, while the winner gets to earn all other unclaimed items. This can lead to large imbalances, so either make sure losers still get to carry something home (if they are not within charge distance of an enemy when they Rout) and don't put down too many of these objectives per scenario.
We also optimized a way to generate matches and determine scenarios, so that it could accommodate several players meeting for games separately instead of having to meet all together in one day to decide opponents.
We are still tweaking it as we go: for a long time the system favoured the underdog, which was not a problem, until it became clear that the warbands further ahead in CPs simply could not choose beneficial scenarios for them because they never go to pick one.
Now there is a chance that the challenged warband gets to instead pick the scenario.
The balance to strike is between fairness on a game-by-game basis, overall game balance and just players having fun each round.
But perhaps the most important thing we found about Mordheim Narrative Campaigns is: how long should they be?
Our own was running at the speed of a game turn every two weeks (give or take a few holiday periods), and we got 20 turns done so far. We are all either professionals or graduate students, so our schedules are pretty full to arrange a game every week.
Certain scenarios granted CPs bonuses to
certain Objectives if the warband wins it, so there was an extra boost that sped
up the campaign, depending if the right warbands won the right scenarios: I added this in specifically, which would mean our campaign would progress more quickly. Because of the Border Town Burning specific objectives,the campaign revolved much around the four Chaos Artifacts. These were damn hard to find, so until they were there was a long, long crawl in terms of Campaign Points for several Objectives, while others surged ahead at high speed (those which DIDN'T need Chaos Artifacts to gain their CPs). This is something to bear in mind when playing Border Town Burning as well.
The thing to be careful of is how long people are willing to invest. Wargamers generally are interested in shorter, few-months long campaigns, while they paint up their warband and any other accessories they might acquire, before joining a different campaign (of the same game or another). Roleplayers might be interested in campaigns lasting a year or two, where there are more stories unfolding with each game. Of course most people fall somewhere between these two extremes, and the frequency of game turns will also make a lot of difference.
It is possible that a bit of liberal and careful boosts to everyone's CPs now and again, or throwing in campaign Items (like Chaos artefacts) at a set turn number, may help propel things forward.
Finally, after stress-testing and optimizing so many scenarios and Objectives this past year, I will pull all of this together to craft a proper, final version of the Empire in Flames campaign, "The Enemy Within". It will focus on village-raiding and hostage-taking (of imperial nobility), with the possibility of manipulating imperial politics so that warbands are thrown into opposition. All the while leaving the way open to invaders and conquerors.
Hope we have helped, and possibly inspired someone else to organize their own campaign, or just pick up Border Town Burning and run it from there.
Stay tuned for more developments!
Roll high and prosper!
So I cooked up a mashup of Empire in Flames together with Border Town Burning as a campaign framework, and injected loads of great Town Cryer scenarios that really bring life to the game. Thus, we started our fledgling campaign, Empire Burning: The End Times. (yes, it is a ridiculous title).
Throughout this period, we substantially tweaked some fine points in the Mordheim rules, to address many of the imbalances people have cried out about over the years. We wanted everyone to have a good experience, and tidied several rules that the designers could themselves certainly have addressed. The fruits of our labour have been uploaded here: Mordheim Compendium - The Edinburgh Revision.
Thanks to these changes, people are now equipping their warriors with armor, no longer always giving two weapons to them, experienced warriors can parry better, and many other little things. Overall everyone has welcomed the changes, as they make the game flow smoother and fall less into powergaming builds.I should note that our changes always try to be as little intrusive and complex as possible: we don't want to reinvent a game, we want to patch it up on the few holes it has, to the benefit of everyone. Nobody wins if the game ends up becoming unrecognizable to veteran players.
An interesting thing that happens in Narrative Mordheim campaigns is how the Objectives interact with the Scenario rewards, Exploration results and the special abilities of some warbands. Sometimes with very unpredictable and dire consequences, so be on the lookout.One of these was the combination of the Ogre Maneaters warband and "The Body Trade" Objective (from MiM). To cater to the Body Trade objective in this campaign, we introduced a few scenarios where the winning warband could acquire captives. The Ogre player snatched a few stragglers through exploration and through scenarios, gobbled them up (thus raising the Ogres' Experience), and soon he had a veritable fighting force to contend against, and their Objective now granted them the ability to capture enemy warriors during combat. This caused a very quick increase in their Campaign Points (CPs) and more victims to increase their Experience, much to our worry!
Perhaps it was just a fluke in our campaign, but eventually we did have to carefully tweak the wording of the "Slaver" ability in the "Body Traders" Objective, to ensure that the player could not just simply capture enemies non-stop with his one all-powerful leader, and continually rack up CPs.
Narrative campaigns also provide great backdrop for alliances and backstabbings, which happened every now and again. Former enemies were forced to ally because they were faced against too powerful of an opposition (although still nurturing thoughts of betrayal). And certain individuals become infamous among the players, such as the Pestilence caster Marauder Seer (who would poison a quarter of a warband eachtime his spell was unleashed) or the magic-carpet riding Dwarf Noble with his missile weapons.
However, it's good to be on the lookout for multiplayer scenarios which allow allied players to share the reward: in some scenarios warbands can themselves ally against an NPC monster, and then share its hoard (and thus there are no warbands competing on the table at the end). Such scenarios must ensure that at least 3 players are present at the beginning, otherwise there is no way to prevent both players from taking advantage of the rules (as they are no longer competing with each other, only against "the rules of the scenario").Another important point about Scenarios is "winner-takes-all" types of scenario, especially multiplayer ones. Sometimes only one winner is intended and the reward is meant to be large (these scenarios should be used more seldomly, more relegated to Special scenarios). Other times, multiplayer scenarios where 3 or more warbands should have secured objective items around the table end with many of these items still unclaimed (and thus the winner takes them all): these scenarios seem harmless at first but many force the losing warbands to drop every objective item they are carrying, while the winner gets to earn all other unclaimed items. This can lead to large imbalances, so either make sure losers still get to carry something home (if they are not within charge distance of an enemy when they Rout) and don't put down too many of these objectives per scenario.
We also optimized a way to generate matches and determine scenarios, so that it could accommodate several players meeting for games separately instead of having to meet all together in one day to decide opponents.We are still tweaking it as we go: for a long time the system favoured the underdog, which was not a problem, until it became clear that the warbands further ahead in CPs simply could not choose beneficial scenarios for them because they never go to pick one.
Now there is a chance that the challenged warband gets to instead pick the scenario.
The balance to strike is between fairness on a game-by-game basis, overall game balance and just players having fun each round.
But perhaps the most important thing we found about Mordheim Narrative Campaigns is: how long should they be?
Our own was running at the speed of a game turn every two weeks (give or take a few holiday periods), and we got 20 turns done so far. We are all either professionals or graduate students, so our schedules are pretty full to arrange a game every week.
 |
| Belandysh the Cursed Champion of Tchar, riding his mutant steed Tol'Agath |
The thing to be careful of is how long people are willing to invest. Wargamers generally are interested in shorter, few-months long campaigns, while they paint up their warband and any other accessories they might acquire, before joining a different campaign (of the same game or another). Roleplayers might be interested in campaigns lasting a year or two, where there are more stories unfolding with each game. Of course most people fall somewhere between these two extremes, and the frequency of game turns will also make a lot of difference.It is possible that a bit of liberal and careful boosts to everyone's CPs now and again, or throwing in campaign Items (like Chaos artefacts) at a set turn number, may help propel things forward.
Hope we have helped, and possibly inspired someone else to organize their own campaign, or just pick up Border Town Burning and run it from there.
Stay tuned for more developments!
Roll high and prosper!
Friday, December 25, 2015
Freeform Movement for 8th Edition: further playtesting
Here is the latest testing and tinkering with the Freeform Movement rules. Some things work well, others not so much...and I'll give my opinions on how to best make it smoother.
It's time to come back to this, as I've played some more games testing these experimental rules (when I've not been playing Mordheim).
Above you can see examples of how the Pile In move, which is performed on each model's turn in initiative, before attacking, can be used to maneuver a unit around the enemy, and ultimately surround it.
We noticed that it blended in very well with all existing rules, without interfering with anything else. And because it is optional, a player can forego using it to surround the enemy, and instead simply perform a mild reform of the unit's ranks.
Because Piling In with all models ultimately leads to reduction of ranks, there is a strategic decision to be made in terms of how to advance your models: more ranks for increased ranks bonus, or the chance of extra attacks and possibly make the unit slowly shift into flanking position.
Flexible Unit Shape is... clunky and time-consuming.
This rule made it so that models in the same unit could move independently from one another, but must still maintain unit cohesion and facing.
The major benefit of this experimental rule was that it allowed units to better "squeeze" through scenery and terrain, and made it more realistic. Models away from the front rank could still be brought to bear against an enemy unit when engaged, because of Pile In.
But in practice, using this type of movement was time-consuming, and complicated a few rules interactions. We felt that, while it looked good, and it worked well for small units, doing this with large units made it too complex and clunky for a game of this size.
Interestingly, reaching that conclusion meant that for smaller units, or smaller games, this type of movement would fit well. This immediately reminded me that the "Loose Formation" rule can be used for smaller units (up to 10 models, or 3 models for Monstrous units). Furthermore, using this rule for most units in games of Warhammer Warbands (where almost every unit is small) can make full use of flexible unit shape.
Flexible Movement looks... odd for large units.
The experimental rules for freeform movement allow models in a unit to move independently from each other, and also allow a 180degree range of movement, thus allowing even large units to move and turn sideways without hindrance (even when marching).
However, we found this too strange-looking, as large units seemed to "slide" sideways without penalty (which seems weird, in addition to reducing the penalties involved with movement).
The biggest problem with current movement rules in 8th edition is how unforgiving they are when it comes to moving through tight spaces. Kings of War has dealt with this problem by allowing units to disregard friendly units and terrain while turning or pivoting: allowing for unit corners to pass through them. as long as they are clear of obstacles when they finish moving. Let's call this Flexible Squeezing for now (not very catchy, I know).
Maybe a resolution as simple as that would solve most movement issues in 8th edition... playtesting awaits. But there is more.
As mentioned before, for units of infantry up to 10 models, 5 models if cavalry or 3 if Monstrous, the Loose Formation can be adopted, which allows for skirmisher-like movement (a la 7th edition).
This rule first appeared in an "official manner" in the General's Compendium, allowing for units to maneuver through dense forest. Such models benefit from movement flexibility and do not gain rank bonuses, but unlike proper Skirmishers they do not benefit from the -1 To be Hit by ranged attacks, do not benefit from Standards for Combat Resolution and do not count as Skirmishers for moving through terrain.
Perhaps simply adding Flexible Pivoting and Loose Formation to existing 8th edition rules allows for sufficient movement dynamics, bringing the MSU (Multiple Small Units) style of play to once again feature in Warhammer tactics. However, in order for this to be most effective, and to balance out the huge value that large ranked units present in the game, I recommend adopting the following house rules as well:
- all rank bonuses involved in a combat count (not just the highest)
- a unit has its ranks Disrupted and loses Steadfast if it's charged in the flank or rear by a unit of at least one full rank
It's time to come back to this, as I've played some more games testing these experimental rules (when I've not been playing Mordheim).
Highlights:
The Pile In move is great!
We noticed that it blended in very well with all existing rules, without interfering with anything else. And because it is optional, a player can forego using it to surround the enemy, and instead simply perform a mild reform of the unit's ranks.
Because Piling In with all models ultimately leads to reduction of ranks, there is a strategic decision to be made in terms of how to advance your models: more ranks for increased ranks bonus, or the chance of extra attacks and possibly make the unit slowly shift into flanking position.
Flexible Unit Shape is... clunky and time-consuming.
The major benefit of this experimental rule was that it allowed units to better "squeeze" through scenery and terrain, and made it more realistic. Models away from the front rank could still be brought to bear against an enemy unit when engaged, because of Pile In.
But in practice, using this type of movement was time-consuming, and complicated a few rules interactions. We felt that, while it looked good, and it worked well for small units, doing this with large units made it too complex and clunky for a game of this size.
Flexible Movement looks... odd for large units.
The experimental rules for freeform movement allow models in a unit to move independently from each other, and also allow a 180degree range of movement, thus allowing even large units to move and turn sideways without hindrance (even when marching).
However, we found this too strange-looking, as large units seemed to "slide" sideways without penalty (which seems weird, in addition to reducing the penalties involved with movement).
Conclusions:
What this leaves us is one part of the rules (Pile In) working perfectly, and the other one (flexible unit shape & movement) not very much. Thankfully, the two sets of rules are independent, so Pile In can stay untouched. Now, what to do with the movement?The biggest problem with current movement rules in 8th edition is how unforgiving they are when it comes to moving through tight spaces. Kings of War has dealt with this problem by allowing units to disregard friendly units and terrain while turning or pivoting: allowing for unit corners to pass through them. as long as they are clear of obstacles when they finish moving. Let's call this Flexible Squeezing for now (not very catchy, I know).
Maybe a resolution as simple as that would solve most movement issues in 8th edition... playtesting awaits. But there is more.
As mentioned before, for units of infantry up to 10 models, 5 models if cavalry or 3 if Monstrous, the Loose Formation can be adopted, which allows for skirmisher-like movement (a la 7th edition).
This rule first appeared in an "official manner" in the General's Compendium, allowing for units to maneuver through dense forest. Such models benefit from movement flexibility and do not gain rank bonuses, but unlike proper Skirmishers they do not benefit from the -1 To be Hit by ranged attacks, do not benefit from Standards for Combat Resolution and do not count as Skirmishers for moving through terrain.
Perhaps simply adding Flexible Pivoting and Loose Formation to existing 8th edition rules allows for sufficient movement dynamics, bringing the MSU (Multiple Small Units) style of play to once again feature in Warhammer tactics. However, in order for this to be most effective, and to balance out the huge value that large ranked units present in the game, I recommend adopting the following house rules as well:
- all rank bonuses involved in a combat count (not just the highest)
- a unit has its ranks Disrupted and loses Steadfast if it's charged in the flank or rear by a unit of at least one full rank
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)