Why bother to group henchmen

One of the things that always made little sense to me was the grouping henchmen rule. There are very few scenarios where a whole henchman group gains experience for the acions of one henchman, and groups of 1 henchman will get more rolls for skills (thus increasing variety in your warband and the chance of getting a 'lads got talent' result).
What reason is there to put henchmen in groups?

That's right, but when an experianced henchman dies, you can't get him back, he's lost.
If you have a group and at least one of them survives, you can add warriors with the same experiance and advances.

Well, Etienne, for the exact reasons you posted I have never used henchmen groups larger than one single model. All my non-animal warband members are separate models with their own names. No groups for me, and more LGT, too.

Erkwin, I'm not doubting you, but can you give me page reference for buying replacement henchmen with experience. I can't find the reference in my rulebook.

Thanks.

p.102 of the rulebook in the Trading section of the Campaigns chapter. New recruits and existing henchmen groups.

If your dice rolls are adequate and you get new recruits with "enough XP" to be allowed to join your experienced henchmen group, these new recruits will have the same stats as the their peers. That is, be as advanced in the same stats as them.

Hope that helps!

Thanks Tom.

Admin Tom wrote:

p.102 of the rulebook in the Trading section of the Campaigns chapter. New recruits and existing henchmen groups.

Yep that's it.

I usually use groups of two, so I still have enough chances for "Lad's got talent" with three groups of two henchmen, and you don't have to worry that you're super experianced henchman dies with no chance of replacing him if you keep one of both alive.

Erkwin wrote:

I usually use groups of two, so I still have enough chances for "Lad's got talent" with three groups of two henchmen, and you don't have to worry that you're super experianced henchman dies with no chance of replacing him if you keep one of both alive.

100% right. Same here.

I am pretty new to the Mordheim thing, having just printed off the rules and purchased a bunch of figures on eBay. I was curious about Henchman grouping, as from my initial reading of the rulebook I wasn't sure if it was mandatory to group henchmen as much as possible or if it was just a matter of choice. My specific issue involved Zealots from the Witch Hunters list. I've only got four figures, and most of them are armed in different ways, so I couldn't group them together without significant conversions taking place in order to give them all the same weaponry. I wasn't sure if I could just make two or three single-figure henchman groups to fit the miniatures I have on hand. It appears that I can do that, but I have to wieght the benefits of losing an experienced henchman against the benefits of having a more varied equipment list.

First, welcome to the forum chonk!

As you already said, you are allowed to take single-figure henchmen groups.

But what specific equipment do the models have? Maybe you can still use them in one group, as they don't have to have exactly the same equipment shown on a model.
For example, if you have a model with a fish in his hand and one with a club, most people woudn't mind you using the fish as a club.
Sounds funny, but you don't have to be that exact about your models.

Oh... right... if you have 4 henchmen in a group, and they all kill one person, the entire doesn't get any experience cause only heros get XP for putting enemies out of action....

I don't know why I never realized that....

so in most cases, the only way henchmen get experience is by surviving a battle... crazy...

Another reason for grouping Henchmen is to avoid confusion. When I see someone with five ghouls, and he tells me they are all individual henchie groups, my first instinct is to punch him in the face; I think it's beardy to have nothing but single groups of henchmen to increase your LGT chances. Further on that point, who's to say that ghoul "A" who has the Attack increase can be told from ghoul "B" who has the Ld increase... it just leads to arguments of "No no, you said that this ghoul had the "X" stat increase last round, and now his Toughness is higher?" and some such...

I'll group my Henchmen because it's easier and if I get a LGT roll, I'm happy. If you have individual groups and you get a LGT roll, it's just statistics. I've actually enforced a rule in my league stating that you can have no more than one roster sheet for your warband; once your slots are filled, you can't hire anything else. This, of course, has led to the creation of "bigger" roster sheets than the traditional ones (See LOD#3) but that is acceptable since Hired Swords occupy Henchmen slots as well.

Regardless, grouping Henchmen is just normal; if you've a bunch of guys armed the same way, they may as well be in the same group. Ghouls are a great example. Archers (from the Reiklanders for example) should be split if you want some bowmen and some crossbowmen; of course there should be two groups. However, seeing eight different henchmen groups for four bowmen and four crossbowmen just gets my goat. As mentioned above, grouping also protects your experience, as should you lose an experienced henchman you cannot replace him. The bigger the group, the better the chance you'll protect your group.

Cheers.

I agree that it makes sense to group the henchmen by type, and that's what I did initially. Then I read the rule that you could only group similarly-armed henchmen together. In my example I have a Zealot with an axe, one with a mace, and one with a sword and shield. With the gold crowns I have left to spend it fits just right to arm them in that way. But while I'd like to group them into one henchman gorup I can't because they are carrying different weapons. I'm not trying to be beardy, I just can't put them together according to the rules. If I had five figures with axes, I would stick them in a group together.

I was just curious to see how other people play the rules. I plan on adding more henchmen to each group as I go along, but I was unsure whether I could group them as-is within the parameters of the rules.

What you are doing is absolutly not beardy, because you can't put them into one group and also, it is simply to say who of them is who, as they are all equipt differently.

chonk34 wrote:

I agree that it makes sense to group the henchmen by type, and that's what I did initially. Then I read the rule that you could only group similarly-armed henchmen together. In my example I have a Zealot with an axe, one with a mace, and one with a sword and shield. With the gold crowns I have left to spend it fits just right to arm them in that way. But while I'd like to group them into one henchman gorup I can't because they are carrying different weapons. I'm not trying to be beardy, I just can't put them together according to the rules. If I had five figures with axes, I would stick them in a group together.

I was just curious to see how other people play the rules. I plan on adding more henchmen to each group as I go along, but I was unsure whether I could group them as-is within the parameters of the rules.

You could also simply arm your Zealots with Daggers and Clubs (all they deserve, really) and just inform your opponent that all of your Zealots are armed with Clubs. Then, should one get promoted, you could pick which one gets it and arm him appropriately!

Cheers.

...I find that it makes it (easier) sense to limit yourself to one HERO sheet and one HENCHMEN / HIREDSWORD sheet ...thus putting a hard limit on the number of hencmen groups available...

I got into an argument with the guys last night about this. When my friend created his warband he split his henchman up in 1 man groups, and ended up not having room for the hired swords he wants. I told him too bad, he has the one roster sheet to manage his guys. Of course he disagreed saying he should be able to hire as many as he wants and have as many henchmen roster sheets as is necessary, and another player agreed with him.

Is there a ruling for this anywhere? Is there just an assumption one way or another? I assume you get the one set of roster sheets. The original may have had 6 slots for henchmen, but the one we use has seven.

LOL! You all need to find fewer things to argue about. I'm sure there are groups with limits, just as there are groups with no limits. The original Hero sheet provided in the rule book only had slots for 5 heroes. Guess that rule about being able to have 6 is wrong...

I have not come across a single table top game (or complex boardgame) whose player's haven't found something to argue about, in my own group or other people's groups that I've observed. It's just the nature of such complex rules.

The 5 slot hero list was an obvious error, i.e. Skaven

What is the diference between being beardy and using sound logic to get that very much needed extra hero?
Until I have all 6 heroes, I usually try to put just 1 henchman per group.
I will try to arm them diferently so there's no confusion, although sometimes confusion happens even to the best of us.

I seriously try NOT to be beardy but I DO use the options given in the rulebook to my advantage if I can. It seems silly not to.

An argument last time almost made me rip the head off my fellow gamers.
He - "For spell of awakening to work the necromancer must kill the hero himself!"
Me - "But why? He raises the hero AFTER the battle? Not IN the battle. In that case I want the dead hero to join my side IMMIDIATELY. That means you must roll on the critical ibnjury table now"
He - "Meh, Im not gonna..."
Me - "Then STFU!"

Anyway, back to the subject, being a powergamer is something bad, at least when you come up against us fluffgamers. Having groups of henchmen, HENCHMEN NOT HEROES, are logical and fluffy. If they are Heroes, they should definately be solo. You might say:

"But Igor, in frankenstein, is a typical henchman, and he is an individual"
Well thats because he is a Hero. A henchman becoming a Hero is marking himself in his group as someone with potential, differentiating him from the rest of the pack.

Being a henchmen means you are an unnamed soldier, meant to die in the ruins of Mordheim. You haven't got fate on your side, and you will probably have the same chance of survival as the black dude in a teen slasher movie.
You probably bring some friends too, as you are all looking for work, and since there is nothing special about you, you think that at least in numbers you should be safe.

Then, one day, one of your friends are killed in Mordheim. You think nothing of it, it wasn't like it was a personal friendship. It was more of a business arrangement. These Marienburgers pay good money! But now you are one man short. Shit, that means you will get it the next time around! Next time you are in the tavern, you look for someone who can cover your back in battle. The captain give him the same equipment and same instructions on role in the battle (you are to flank the enemy with arrows. So, this new guy is pretty good with a bow. Good, then you might not have to stick your neck out.

Next battle, you die. You were a lousy fighter and no one gave a damn about you. The new guy, on the other hand, seemed to be quite special. He hit his target from a mile away, through a tiny gap. Too bad he didn't do it before you got shot by the same enemy he was shooting at. Anyway, your vision is getting blurry and you think of how you will haunt this guy, Karl was his name, you suddently remembered. Talented Karl. Why, if you had hung around a little more it would be Talented... talented... oh, thats right, youre a henchman, and a dying one at that. You have no name. And youre friends are dead too. Maybe thats why Karl was chosen. Not because he was any good, but because of you lot being so bad...

Opheliate: Heh heh. Nice one! I'm so bying a henchman group, and naming the hero, who eventually comes out of it, Talented Karl!

Pros and cons on grouping henchmen:

Cons:
Decrease chance of LGT, compared to having single hechmen.
Requires similar equipment within the group (to make it wysiwyg)

Pros:
Decrease confusion (what ghoul had what stat increase?)
If a henchman survives he gets xp. Say you have 4 henchmen, and 3 dies in a battle, but not permanently.
In 4 groups, only one (the surviving) henchman would get xp.
In 1 group, all henchmen would get xp, because the group survived through to the one who didn't die.

I'd say both are allowed, as long as you stay within one roster sheet.
But if anyone played me, and his/hers henchmen, being from individual groups, seemed to switch stat accordingly, I would probably not play that guy again.

I put my ghouls in groups of two to cut down on the rubbish rolls I get affecting many of them, I always get ld and initiative.

But occasionally I get S and A which is awesome.

As for the limited size of the roster sheet it would be very unfair on me as I've got 6 uber zombies and they're all very different.

Louis: "If a henchman survives he gets xp. Say you have 4 henchmen, and 3 dies in a battle, but not permanently.
In 4 groups, only one (the surviving) henchman would get xp.
In 1 group, all henchmen would get xp, because the group survived through to the one who didn't die."

Actually, I think you are playing that wrong. During a fight a model is taken "out of action" (they don't necessarily die). Any model, henchman or hero, who goes out of action but winds up not being dead (what I think you mean by "3 dies in battle, but not permanently") earns an experience point for surviving.

So, in your example, both groupings of henchmen lead to the same result - three henchmen with 1 experience point each, whether they are in one group or three groups.

I don't see anything "beardy" about taking single-warrior henchman groups with starting henchmen. Like the fundamental tactic of always taking the maximum number of heroes you can start with, solo henchman groups are a logical way to organize your warband, given the rules. All warbands can benefit from it. If you want units where everyone is the same, play Warhammer. Mordheim is a skirmish game where one model = one warrior; group where convenient... which basically means after the henchmen earn some experience and you want to "clone" the guys with the better improvement rolls.

You do need to make sure you (and your opponents) can readily tell which henchman is which, though.

Officially, additional warband roster sheets can be printed, and henchmen can be in 1-model groups. Any other interpretation is house rules, regardless of the opinion of the player.

We've considered the supposed fluff reasons for not allowing 1-model henchmen groups, and restrictions against adding henchmen to existing groups, and we find that this unnecessarily limits warband growth and crimps option for play, thus making the game unfun. For that reason, we have decided not to do so.

The largest reason we have decided not to limit such is that we can normally only get 1-2 henchmen after each campaign turn, therefore we find that we cannot purchase henchmen in 5-man groups during the campaign.

I also find the arguments above that WYSIWYG can be waived to allow henchmen to group up strangely contradictory - either you specify WYSIWYG (at least weapons and shield), or you don't. It's much more confusing to say "well, he actually has a club, not an axe" than to say "this one got +1A, this one got +1S."

To alleviate being able to tell which models are used for which, we simply write a singular description of models on the warband sheet. My ghoul models are: 1 carrying a sword (he came that way), 1 with a skull, 1 holding a bone to the side of him, and 2 holding bones above their head (one with a gray loincloth, the other with a brown loincloth). So, in their 1-man henchmen groups, I simply label them in the left margin of the warband sheet.