Scenario Reviews-An Irregular Commentary

I've been playing Mordheim since the beginning but have only recently ventured on line.  Thus I have missed any previous discussion of the development and play testing of Mordheim scenarios.

I've always wondered whether others have had issues with a particular scenario or if there are update versions of published scenarios.  So far I haven't noticed any, but if someone knows of such things I would be glad of a heads up.

Our experience with a couple of older scenarios has touched off my current interest. A couple months ago I decided to expand on Styrfoamking's Sartosa list so I wrote up some location specific scenario lists to add even more variety to the type of games played.  I included a bunch of TC scenarios, some EiF, Nemesis Crown and a bunch of other scenarios I've written for campaigns over the years.

We've been playing for 6 weeks now and I have a few reactions to my choices:

DOWN AT THE DOCKS. [edited 5/3/2015]
Published in Town Cryer #25.  No author is specifically credited but it is in an article written by Space McQuirk and Nick Jakos.
We have played this scenario several times in the past.  So I felt reasonably secure including it in all port scenario lists.  It has NPCs and lots of extra treasure, what's not to like?
There are some minor omissions that haven't seemed serious in the past, but with the right personalities can become game breakers.

Terrain.  The set up of terrain is as vague as is the case with most scenarios.  A river or area of water is called for on one table edge, docks and then a land area with buildings.  Aside from the instruction to place the ship in the center of the river area but touching "the landward edge" there is no recommendation on the size of the playing area beyond the 4x4 table.  Since the game will end when the ship leaves the table this is a bit of an oversight.

Setup.  The placement of the defending warband for multi-player games is described as is the placement of the ship's crew.  Although the ships crew are said to "never leave the ship" in the set up notes for multi-player games, when on the next page they may not "stray more than 6 inches from their ship". (?)
For both multiplayer and two player the only set up recommendations or restrictions are that the warbands be placed at the "edges of the board farthest from the ship." (?)

Crew.  The crew and their equipment and special skills are described with the above confusion about moving from the ship.  The crew are "allies" of the defender and add to his warband rating but take a separate rout check and will "surrender" if they fail. (?) Also the ship's crew may rout (voluntarily?) and sail off the table if they suffer 25% casualties (again in a multiplayer or 2 player game).

Swivel Guns.  There are 2 swivel guns.  They must be placed in a specific way on the ship and the rules for using swivel guns are included in the scenario, but there is no mention of whom may fire them or what ammunition they have on board for the game. Nor is there mention of whether you can capture the guns after the game.

We've had several fun games using the scenario and a couple of frustrating evenings.  The frustration could have been lessened by not having to negotiate so much of the set up and play.

FEEDBACK
Has anyone else encountered these problems or has this been addressed anywhere besides on a game by game basis?

EDIT
Coreheim has a (completely) revised version of the scenario.
http://www.indadvendt.dk/wordpress/wp-content/coreheim_scenarios12.pdf

ANOTHER EDIT [1/10/2016]
The original version of the scenario is titled "The River Pirates" and is hosted on Mordheimer.  In many ways the original is clearer than the edited version that appears in TC.  For example I was pleasantly surprised to see that the way my group has handled warband set up is actually the recommended way to set up in the original.  Why this was edited out by TC is anyone's guess.

Next installment--The Cry of the Banshee.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Here are some other threads that relate to scenarios:

https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t2700-favourite-multi-player-scenarios

https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t4023-scenarios-for-one-player

https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t4715-narrative-scenarios

https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t15-my-coolest-scenario
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Brohiem is the current go to for scenarios
http://broheim.net/scenarios.html

The CRY OF THE BANSHEE is listed in the contents page as The Call of the Banshee, TC#18, pp. 22-23.
Written by Michael Reuvers.
I included this scenario because of the undead guardian and the treasure trove. These elements often feature in pirate lore. So far it has fit in quite well in the campaign. (Especially since we placed the treasure in the abandoned church...)

Ethereal. This scenario is I believe the first to try to feature such creatures in Mordheim. A summary of the rule is that normal weapons do not harm the creature but the iron in them causes it to flee automatically if a successful to hit roll is made. We ruled that clubs and whips did not contain iron, but there is no rule within the scenario that clarifies this. The auto flee combined with the fact that the Banshee flees in a direction chosen by the player who scored the hit means that the game becomes Banshee "ping pong".

The scenario "A Night in the Graveyard" was published in the next issue of TC. (TC#19, p. 5. Written by Jason Kahler.) The ethereal rules in that scenario are almost word for word the same as "Cry..." except that the ethereal Wraith now takes a Lead test for every successful hit and flees "immediately away" from the model that scored the hit if it fails the Lead test. We interpreted "immediately" to mean directly away which reduces if not eliminates the "ping pong" and introduces some strategy in maneuvering to charge the ethereal.

I was younger when these scenarios came out, so I carefully read them and then concluded that the second scenario's rules were more interesting. Sadly in my dotage I forgot that the rules in "Cry..." were not identical to the ones given in "A Night..." So I was playing by a different scenario's rules, which led to some confusion on the part of other players in our recent game. "What are you talking about?"

I do think that if silly fun is your goal Banshee "ping pong" fits the bill. The rules from "A Night..." make for a more challenging game.

My second quibble with "Cry..." is that the Banshee is activated by any warband member within 2 feet of her! Since the treasure chest is in the center of the board that is nearly every model in ALL warbands after setup. So you set up and determine who goes first and then the Banshee charges the closest model with her 16 inch charge move! Or she moves 8 inches toward the closest model if none is within charge range and the ping pong begins...

FEEDBACK REQUEST
I have the usual questions. 1. Has anyone read any commentary on this scenario since it was published. 2. Does anyone have any 'house rules' or know of any revisions for this scenario?

Thanks!
Next installment--Wolf Hunt

WOLF HUNT!
Specialist Games web site. Author: Nick Kyme.
I've included this scenario in a couple of campaigns but I hadn't played it until this cycle of Sartosa. I included it in the Osso Hills scenarios without too much thought. Pirates encounter local wildlife, what's the harm? (Aside from the dead wolves and ecological disaster from upsetting the local balance of nature...)

As a scenario in EiF or a similar campaign the Wolf Hunt is a nice change of pace and it has significant income potential. Wolf pelts are worth 10 gc each!

The scenario is designed as a free experience fest for most warbands. The wolves go OOA if wounded. This means that players don't have to deal with sudden rubber swords when trying to dispatch a knocked down wolf and wolves can't save each other by defending a stunned pack-mate. My shooty leader got 4 wolves in HtH! (Out of the 8 the Privateer's dispatched.) My players love this scenario.

The hunters also receive their choice of a Kislev Ranger or an Elven Ranger to help track the wolves. Both rangers will serve only good or human Mercenary warbands normally and nothing is mentioned in the rules to address this fact. Since most of the warbands in the Sartosa campaign are outlaws or just plain evil we have either ignored the rangers or included them as evil members of the ranger fraternity, which is a less than satisfactory solution for me.

FEEDBACK.
Comments on the above or your experiences with these scenarios or other scenarios is welcomed.
Next installment: The Frenzied Mob

THE FRENZIED MOB
TC#27, pp. 16-17. There is no specific author credited but it appears in an article written by Nick Kyme and Stephanus Harburgh (?).

I really like this scenario. Its very versatile. I've included it the Nemesis Crown campaign setting, it appears in the RotC setting and it makes a good village raid scenario for Sartosa as well.

Its especially useful in Sartosa because it adds another group of NPCs that warbands can press as swabbies. Always looking for da swabs! We are using the Darkness rules from RotC as well, so the fact that the mob is armed with torches makes a nice touch for night raids.

Specialist Games added a group of unrelated scenarios that use the frenzied mob models. They look interesting, but are a bit more complicated. Has anyone ever played any of them?

FEEDBACK.
Comments on the above or your experiences with these scenarios or other scenarios is welcomed.
Next installment--Last Orders!

LAST ORDERS.
The Nemesis Crown supplement, re-printed in Sartosa and BTB. Authors: the Nemesis Crown Development Team.

This scenario is fun to play. We have used it in the Nemesis setting, Relics of the Crusades and Sartosa. We have never gotten around to including all the options or even any of the options for other patrons, an ogre bartender or whatever due to time constraints. However we have the best intentions of doing so.

Of course we play it so often because Playtable built a 3 story bar to fight in, but there are several floor plans available for down load or for sale by role playing companies. Having a bar to bust up makes it all the more enjoyable though!

The Warhammer Historical supplement Legends of the High Seas includes counters for bottles and other improvised weapons which make keeping track of who has found a weapon easier.

The scenario is a leveler between warbands due to the complete absence of shooting weapons and the random nature of the set up. Highest rated warbands often lose and lowly beginning warbands sometimes win! The presence of a magic user with an offensive spell or a Troll or Ogre will tilt things a bit...

FEEDBACK.
Comments on the above or your experiences with these scenarios or other scenarios is welcomed.
Next installment--The Lost Mines.

I too really enjoy the Last Orders! scenario every time we play it. Of course, I prefer the revised BTB version because I think it runs more smoothly. Which version is in Sartosa? Is it an adjusted version?

Personally I wouldn't call this a "leveler scenario" (unless I am misunderstanding the meaning), because, although all warbands are sort of equal by not using weapons, this only stresses their differences. Very often it is the armament that balances the warbands (like Mercenaries who shine with their weapon options) and when using bare hands or improvised weapons only, warbands such as Orcs, Beastmen and Dwarf clearly outclass humans. The loss of crossbows or other dirty tricks is a severe loss. At least Battle Monks who don't suffer any penalties really like to play this scenario.

But with the reduced chances of serious injuries, jump attacks and all that stuff, the scenario is big fun most of the time without leaving any player depressed, demotivated or, let alone, destroyed.

Thanks for the taking the time to go through all these scenarios Kurst! While I haven't been posting before I did read all your reviews and I am sure way more people do than the number of replies here indicates.

You are welcome.

The Sartosa version looks a lot like the BTB version. I'm not sure if there are any changes aside from the necessary fluff, but I don't have it handy. Brief pause... Yes, first line under the scenario title credits the Nemesis Crown and BTB.

Perhaps instead of leveler I should have said revenge since its when the close combat warbands hope to make the shooters pay.

Hey, I somehow missed this thread until now.
Scenario reviews is an awesome initiative!
Personally I don't think I've played any scenarios outside the books published by GW. That Wolf Hunt sounds like fun.. though I can't seem to find it anywhere online. Is my google-fu weak, or am I shafted?

Yes the force is weak in this one.
I got it from Specialist Games, but the Mordheimer's site has it as well. Oops sorry didn't copy the link...
Edit--nah your google-fu is just fine. I can't get any of my Specialist Games links to work right now today, including the link on Mordheimer's site.
Fooey.

No other sources/links for Wolf Hunt? Specialist Games?

THE LOST MINES OF KHRAZI DRUDD.
The Nemesis Crown supplement. Authors: the Nemesis Crown Development Team.

The Lost Mines is an underground scenario.  As such there are more rules and hints on terrain than actual scenario.  This volume is necessary, but it is off putting.  A simple set of underground or darkness rules would be most welcome.  As presented the rules for fighting underground  (4 paragraphs) are kind of lost in the pages devoted to approaches to terrain and other possible adaptations of existing scenarios.  The article presented is from TC #17 and is itself a paraphrase of the Underground rules originally published with the Khemri, Land of the Dead campaign setting.

Our group has played the scenario several times.  As usual I liked it in the Nemesis Crown campaign so I brought it along to Relics and eventually Sartosa, where it is one of the possible scenarios in the Caves of the Damned.  We have tried the Warhammer Quest tile approach.  (Playtable made 3D versions of the tiles.)  For Sartosa we made free form cave walls and tried those.


Either way we have a good time.

My reactions to the scenario itself are kind of colored by what it is not.  It is not a find the treasure scenario.  Warriors may stumble upon some gold coins as a Lucky Find, but that's it.  It is not a fight the monster scenario although a warrior may encounter a Troll


Or an orc or a goblin or giant rat.


Mostly your warriors will move along toward the center of the table where they will encounter the enemy warriors and fight.  Along the way warriors may fall down, get stuck in a web or find some gold or nothing at all may startle them for a moment or longer.

My biggest beef with the scenario is that the scenario's terrain set up section does not relate to the player deployment section.  The terrain set up is kind of generic and from the description of possible ways to build terrain, one is left with the idea that a series of small rooms and corridors with one possibly more entrances touching the board edge is what is needed for the scenario.  In the deployment section one learns that models will be placed one by one in the "entrance corridors".  So if in set up you took the author at his word and only included one entrance corridor (whatever that is) you will be doing what we always do and just setting up warriors in spaces along the table edge that are obviously separate from each other, whether they are rooms or corridors. If you eliminate the unnecessary "terrain" set up from the rules and replace it with the starting paragraphs of the "deployment" section you will have a better table to fight the scenario on.

The deployment is unique and offers many tactical options that we rarely take advantage of.  Deployment is done by placing one warrior at a time in turns.  No warrior may be placed in a corridor (space) that contains another warrior until all possible entrances have at least one warrior placed in them.  You may not place a warrior in a enemy occupied corridor. Since you place in turns, your warband may be separated from itself by enemy occupied corridors or rooms.

Once you get through the deployment the scenario plays well and is really entertaining.  We have added a trapped treasure in the center of the table as an objective and other tweaks like multi-player games.

FEEDBACK.
Comments on the above or your experiences with these scenarios or other scenarios is welcomed.
Next installment--I'm not sure yet.

Hi. This is my first time seeing this thread, but I have the .pdf document that includes the scenario Wolf Hunt. I have never played the scenario, but it can be located in the same article as the Kislev Ranger hired sword. The article is titled "From Across the Steppes" by Nick Kyme. If someone wants to contact me privately with an e-mail address, I will send the .pdf to them as an attachment and they can host it. IIRC, GW hosted the article on their old website up until about a year ago, so no copyright issues by e-mailing the document. Hope this helps.

I have really enjoyed reading through this thread, looks like a very useful resource.

Good thread! How could I miss that?

Thanks for the effort, Von Kurst.

You are welcome!

Since the campaign is shifting to Lustria, I'll probably have more to say in the next few weeks. In the mean time please don't hesitate to add your own reviews.

I've been spending time revisiting the Lustria, Cities of Gold supplement.  Even though we have yet to play a game in this campaign cycle, just reading the scenarios has brought back many memories.  When Mordheim came out I was very disappointed that it was not a 'universal' skirmish system for WHFB.  Then I discovered the Lustria supplement and did not play a game in the city of Mordheim again for 2 years!  Great fun.
In the years since the Lustria supplement was published in Town Cryer my gaming group spent at least one campaign cycle a year (14 weeks or so) in Lustria.  One thing I noticed was that no updates were ever done of the scenarios.  The Amazons got a Mordheim update for their warband, and the Jungle Rules became the basis for Empire In Flames' Wilderness Rules but none of the other warbands or special rules got any update or attention to speak of.  When the BTB supplement came to my attention I noticed a link to Lustria, Cities of Gold.  There I found a forum, but not much actual activity or interest, either.  So I thought I'd make the Lustrian supplement's scenarios my next project.

To begin--

SECRETS OF THE BEUJUNTE
By Innercircle Games, Published in TC #12, pp. 12-13.
Lustria, Cities of Gold was the first player generated supplement to be published in TC.  While still unofficial, the TC format gave it more exposure (especially to non-internet connected players like myself) and a bit of legitimacy.  Some of the original content from the web site was edited out but on the whole the Lustria supplement was published as originally presented.  The presentation of the scenarios is very informal.  The writing is narrative or conversational in style so separating rules from narrative is challenging.  Some portions of the scenario are carefully outlined but others are fairly vague despite being important.  For example there may be "up to 16 carnivorous plants in play" but this should be "discussed by the players in advance".  Why 16?  Is the intention that there are 4 plants per player?  (The scenario is for 2-4 players.)  Why only 4 players?
My group has included no plants or bunches depending on the players involved.  We have played the scenario with up to 6 players by adding some more artifacts to find.  The scenario itself is fairly (completely) random.  Heroes are randomly possessed by an evil spirit that causes them to attack the nearest "unit" friend or foe.  Whose heroes are possessed is randomly chosen by each player rolling a D6. The low roller is unluckily (or luckily--if you just got charged) possessed.  Possession only happens during the first player turn of a turn.  When in the player turn order the actual effects of possession is acted out is not specified by the rules of the scenario.  This omission may cause discussion among players...
My other issue with the scenario is not in how it is played but in the continuity of the rules.  One of the rewards of the scenario is Stegadon Bone Armor.  There are at least 3 sources for Stegadon Bone Armor in the campaign.  Each is slightly to radically different from the other which can cause problems in the campaign when 2 warriors wearing the same armor find that it has different effects depending on where you found it.  My biggest complaint would be that 2 of the armors are 'heavy armor' which is made for a Lizardman warrior, but that a Lizardman warrior can not wear in the campaign because Lizardmen do not have access to heavy armor...
Despite the issues noted above my group has generally enjoyed the scenario.  We have many legends of improbable defeats and amazing victories generated by the random nature of the possessions. (Including my possessed Plague Priest being taken OOA by one of his own giant rats, and dying... The lethal rat was later promoted to Rat Familiar by the band's Sorcerer,)

FEEDBACK.
Comments on the above or your experiences with this scenario or other scenarios is welcomed.
Next installment--Island Hopping.

Me and my son recently played the Down by the Docks scenario for the first time. This was a recently new warband, my using Norse and him using Skaven, so I was a little apprehensive about the Swivel Guns. We decided to go ahead and use them, and they were not overwhelming at all. For the most part, they missed a lot.

I do have some gripes about it though. Namely, how many crates should be on the docks, and how many on the ship for a 2 player scenario? It says 7 crates, but is that total? Or on each location? How far can the crates be from the ship? Can the NPC pirates move off the ship to attack those trying to steal the crates? It's so inconclusive that we went with the pirates sticking to the boat, and firing at anything within their range.

Also, for exploration of the crates, do you roll the 4d6 PER crate, or once for the complete haul? Also, for the swivel guns, we decided that one gun would shoot every other turn, so that it alternates shots each round. One gun fires on round 1, gun 2 fires on round 2 while gun 1 reloads, etc.. Made for a balanced shooting exercise, as we took turns shooting each other, lol.

Swivel Guns: The way I handled most Swivel Guns in Sartosa (when not owned by a warband-- npcs, hired swords, etc, scenarios, etc...) is that the Swivel Gun has two rounds of each type of shot. That way, you have 6 shots per gun (which, without a skill, is 12 rounds worth of ammo), and it forces the player to save their valuable shots for key moments, not to mention a 'sampler' pack, to see what the other ammo shots can do.

Hope that helps!

Crates--We play 7 crates total for a 2-player game. This makes setting up half of them on the docks and half on the ship challenging, but we usually roll off for the odd crate.

As for distance from the ship we are constrained by our terrain (docks and risers) so we don't put them over 6-8" from the ship (depending on how the ship is set up.)

Post game crates--We roll 4d6 per crate.

NPC pirates--I had the same gripes. We let them charge off the ship. This rarely happens because they are often shot up before anyone gets close.

Swivel guns--we declare 2 pirates to be gunners. Only they can fire the guns. This isn't in the scenario rules and maybe isn't needed since most of the pirates can't hit the broadside of a barn anyway, but it keeps the pirate captain from firing one of them. As for ammunition we used to roll to choose ammunition randomly, but lately the player who gets to fire gets to pick depending on the situation. If its better to fire ball shot, they do that. If there is a clump of models as a target, you can go with grape. In general each gun gets to fire once or twice before its shot out of action.

My biggest gripe is that you can't just read the scenario and play it, but once you establish how you are going to play it, the basic outline makes for a fun game most of the time.

DEMS MY GUBBINZ!
Author not specifically credited as far as I can tell. (Innercircle Games?) (The Lustrian Development Team?)
Published: the scenario used to be available from the Lustria site, but the site was inactive the last time I looked. I have a downloaded copy if anyone is interested.
The scenario is fairly simple and straightforward. The players are raiding an abandoned Forest Goblin village. There are 6 numbered counters which represent the loot. One randomly determined counter is the Sacred Gubbin. The goal is to possess the Sacred Gubbin at the end of the game. The other gubbins are worth 2D6 gold.
Fast warbands and warbands with access to infiltrators do well with this scenario. We always use the Lustria settings weather rules so the weather conditions can radically change how the scenario plays from game to game.
The scenario lasts 6 turns so if the weather is horrible or a gubbin is particularly exposed to missile fire it is possible for no one to win.
My only quibble is the scenario ends when one warband routs or at the end of 6 turns, but there are no real victory conditions aside from the possession of the Sacred Gubbin after 6 turns. If you have the Sacred Gubbin and you rout, do you lose? This seems simple but some personalities will argue that they have won...
Possession of the Sacred Gubbin is only worth +1 experience to the warrior holding it at the end of the game. Thus I think that even a warband that routs can gain the experience for possessing the gubbin.
We have always included the scenario in our campaigns and have few problems when playing it, aside from re-discovering the little omissions.

FEEDBACK.
Comments on the above or your experiences with this scenario or other scenarios is welcomed.
Next installment--Island Hopping (really).

LOL! "some personalities"

Happy New Year!
Our Lustrian campaign is over without my ever finishing the reviews of the scenarios. Mainly this is because I realized that I can't remember playing many of them in their published form. I like the ideas of the scenarios but 'as is' they never looked very interesting to actually play.

ISLAND HOPPING.
Published in TC#12, p. 14. Author: no one is specifically cited, so the Lustrian Development Team.

If 2 players play the scenario as written they play with a minimum of 3 6" square islands and 2 bridges. On a 4x4 table. Picture this in your mind. Sounds like loads of fun. If you are looking for a quick possibly brutal game the scenario as written provides it.

Setting up. Each player rolls a die to determine set up order. High roller gets to choose which island to set up on. His opponent then chooses to set up on another island. Start fighting.

The Lustrian setting is written with simple rules for fighting in and around water. The scenario (which is the only one written to be set around or on water) does not use or suggest the use of these rules. Instead the scenario declares the river to be impassible terrain. Took care of that. Any model falling in the water for whatever reason takes a strength 3 hit. If it survives it is immediately washed to the nearest island, done.

Victory is determined by making your opponent or opponents rout or by controlling the most islands at the end of 6 turns. If you control your opponents starting island your leader gains +1 experience. There is no further reward for controlling an island.

In our group we added rowboats and/or rafts, crocodiles and swimming to the scenario. A 2 player game will have 5-7 small jungle covered islands and 3 to 5 bridges. More complicated but very fluffy.

FEEDBACK.
Comments on the above or your experiences with this scenario or other scenarios is welcomed.
Next installment--The Fog of War.

Von Kurst, no scenario reviews of my own to add yet, but I do enjoy reading yours. Please keep it up!

Yay another review. I don't have anything constructive to add except to say that I enjoy reading about the scenarios that you play, the issues that you encounter and how you solve those issues.

Thanks gents!  

After reading my reviews over I do want to stress that I have played all of these scenarios over and over and mostly I have enjoyed myself.  So give them a try.  For example, I have included Island Hopping in our version of Khemri (retitled The Mortis Shrines) and I'm thinking that it would fit in Mordheim itself with some tweaks...

To continue:

JUNGLE SKIRMISH:  THE FOG OF WAR..
Published in TC#12, p. 14.  Author: no one is specifically cited, so the Lustrian Development Team.

This scenario is a basic skirmish scenario set in a fog shrouded jungle.  There are no special rules except for the rules for fog.  I have to admit that I read the rules for fog given in the scenario, blinked and re-read the rules given in the Campaign Rules for Lustria for "Mist" (under Weather Variables) and wrote a third set of rules that we have used for both since.  

If the two sets of rules had been similar (or 'gasp' the same) I might not have bothered but they are not and that bugged me.  Once that was sorted we have played the scenario dozens of times over a ten year period.  

As written the fog limits visibility (by reducing the range of all missile weapons by -4) and movement, my tweaks limited movement and visibility but made the affect variable turn by turn.  In addition I added the possibility that the fog could lift entirely although it will not necessarily do so.  We have played games entirely shrouded in dense fog (a unbroken series of low rolls) and games where the fog has lifted on the first turn.  Great fun if you like that sort of thing.

I did not understand the mechanic of reducing all ranges by 4 inches because of fog.  It made no sense that a crossbowman could fire 26 inches while a pistol could only fire at something 2 inches away.  In my experience fog limits how far you can see although I have never been foolish enough to hunt in fog so I have no actual experience of what it might do to weapons.  

FEEDBACK.
Comments on the above or your experiences with this scenario or other scenarios is welcomed.

EDIT 5/3/2015
Coreheim has similar scenario:
http://www.indadvendt.dk/wordpress/wp-content/coreheim_scenarios12.pdf

Next installment--The Hunters become the Hunted.

THE HUNTERS BECOME THE HUNTED.
No author is credited. TC#13, pp.10-11.
This scenario is the final one written for the Lustria, Cities of Gold supplement. It is written in a conversational style which makes understanding parts of it a bit difficult. The rules for set up are very specific and are numbered to help understanding. All other rules are found inside of various paragraphs under the usual headings (Terrain, Starting the Game, etc.)
I mangled the rules the first time our group played the scenario and we played it that way for a couple of years without discovering my error because of "this is the way we did it last time" method of playing games.
I was always slightly mystified by the title until I decided to re-do the scenario and read it again years later. Light bulb! Oh that's what it means!
The plot of the scenario is that a warband has been stalking a Skink Beastmaster and his Cold One charges. The Beastmaster becomes aware of the warband and ambushes it. As he does this other warbands 1-5 additional players arrive and attack the Hunter (and each other) as well.
Depending on the relative ratings of the warbands this scenario can be deadly for the Hunter or it can be a piecemeal slaughter of the Hunted and the other warbands. Weather also plays a big role as heavy rain or fog will change the balance of power.
We have found the scenario to be challenging and interesting, however we have rarely played it as written. There are some vague areas in the original scenario such as Starting the Game and the equipment that the Beastmaster carries. I gave the Beastmaster a sword and later after whips lost 'Reach' I added a short bow to give the Skink a ranged attack.
The first sentence of Starting the Game reads "The Attacking Warband(s) starts first..." The final sentence of the same paragraph reads "The Lizardman Beastmaster goes first..." If the Skink doesn't go first the Defender always wins, because he can usually kill or incapacitate the Beastmaster and control the angry Cold Ones.
Other issues include the rule that no warband may voluntarily rout and the 12 turn game. Brutal, if you are being whittled down and have high leadership. We allow a voluntary rout and removed the turn limit since most games do not last that long. Finally we have had an issue with the D6 Carnivorous plants per attacking warband rule. A weak Defender can really benefit from this rule so its a definite game balancer at the beginning of a campaign. Conversely a powerful defender can set up a screen of Carnivorous Plants and destroy weaker opponents as they struggle through the gaps later in the campaign. As usual with Carnivorous plants we have left it up to the people playing the scenario as to wether they want to use them or not.

FEEDBACK.
Comments on the above or your experiences with this scenario or other scenarios is welcomed.
Next installment--The Gauntlet