Scenario Reviews-An Irregular Commentary

Breakthrough

Mordheim Rulebook wrote:

by the Mordheim Development Team
When news of a huge deposit of wyrdstone starts circulating, warbands will mount expeditions to unearth the wealth. However, their rivals often try to block them, eager to claim all the wyrdstone for themselves.

Breakthrough is scenario #4.  The object of this game is to break your oppponent or for the attacker to get 2 warriors within 2" of the Defender's table edge.  The scenario features unique set up instructions which can work to the Attackers favor if his warband is fast and deadly.

My problems with this scenario mainly come form the addition of Tactician to the skills list. To reduce the time allocated to arguments or endless shuffling of models, we finally banned the use of most of the skills from Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe, which fixed that.  

The Sartosa setting has a nice variation of Breakthrough:

Quote :

8 - Breakthrough Variation: Sneaking Out/In!
After determining which player is the attacker, roll
1D6: on a 3-6, the Player is Sneaking Into town, and
may have his models leave any place along the
defenders edge. On a roll of 1-2, they have the much
harder task of sneaking OUT of town; place a 12-18”
‘safe zone’ on the defender’s edge of the board (a large
ship works wonderfully!) Attacking models only count
as ‘breaking through’ if they are in the boat/space. The
entire board uses the rules for Night, and the Defender
suffers the rules for Sentry (reprinted last page.)

FEEDBACK
Please feel free to comment on this or any previous review. Also if I have not reviewed a favorite or hated scenario, feel free to post one on this thread yourself.

Von Kurst wrote:

My problems with this scenario mainly come form the addition of Tactician to the skills list. To reduce the time allocated to arguments or endless shuffling of models, we finally banned the use of most of the skills from Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe, which fixed that.

We, too, have had problems with Tactician.

Which Ye Olde Curiousity Shoppe skills did your group keep?

Well to be honest, I misspoke. We just banned them all. Scribe is the only one I thought was sort of a good idea, but combine it with Mind Focus/Sorcery and oh what a mess.

Way back when, only half of our group would spend the money on TC. So the other half were always behind on 'new rules'. And they were stubbornly so, except for the use of Rabbit's Feet, which everyone gladly accepted and memorized the rules for almost immediately.

I have heard of some groups who could have rational discussions of Tactician, but the personalities in my group did not allow for that. So just outright banning was the path taken.

Interesting. I’m coming round to the view that the basic rulebook plus FAQ clarifications in the way to go. I suppose that human nature being what it is meant that it was inevitable that players would want new warbands, skills, scenarios, equipment etc. Much of these were ill thought and poorly play tested out which is why, I think, we are where we are. That said, as we’re still playing after 20 years the smooth obviously still outweighs the rough.

I find it a boon to pick and choose among all the clutter, even though there is a great deal of clutter. I have found some of my favorite ideas for the game amid fan campaign systems that on the whole I do not use as written.

Like Sade, I mostly use the Rulebook with the last official FAQs/Errata. Mostly. But I also want to use (or allow an opponent to use) other factions, like Dwarves or Night Goblins, so I end up 'approving' lots of extra warband lists, &/or creating my own warband lists to meet my demands of any given faction...

Thanks much for the replies gents.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Scenario #5: Street Fight

Mordheim Rulebook wrote:

Often two warbands will come face to face with each other in the narrow streets of Mordheim. Sometimes they pass each other without incident but more often
the meeting ends in bloodshed.

Street fight is another of the five original scenarios that is not just a dressed up skirmish scenario. Mostly this scenario is a really focused skirmish, with an alternate deployment.  But we have found it stimulating nonetheless. As fought by the group I play with it has always been a fairly bloody affair as its special rules can favor shooting warbands, especially if some parts of the rules are ignored...But it also mandates that you can not avoid combat except by routing, just given the deployment and terrain.

We tend to set up the street as a straight road around 12" wide with few obstacles to hide behind.  This is a departure from our usual literal approach to scenarios since the instructions for setting up the terrain do not recommend such a set up, but it started 19 years ago do to a dearth of terrain combined with a glut of players and has continued on to present day as a tradition.

As a minor corollary, there is also a tradition of NOT hearing/reading that the space beyond the buildings at the side of the street is impassable terrain.  This has resulted in a few games that take place entirely without terrain as the warbands play the game to the left or right of the street, which again, shooters love.

We have never had a member of a warband gain experience from exiting off the opponent's table edge. (I have been thinking of how this might be possible to accomplish, but it seems unlikely.)

We have also had amazing pile ups somewhere along the street, where half a warband tries to overwhelm a troll, a Possessed or a vampire.  

We do play various versions of the scenario:
The Trail of Death--a jungle or mountain trail bordered by impassible terrain.

Sartosa's The Long Pier--a long narrow pier/bridge across a bay or harbor. (This is the only version that a warrior has come close to getting to the opponent's deployment zone as we allow row boats...)



FEEDBACK
Please feel free to comment on this or any previous review. Also if I have not reviewed a favorite or hated scenario, feel free to post one on this thread yourself.

Scenario #6: Chance Encounter

Mordheim Rulebook wrote:

Both warbands have completed their daily search of the ruins and are on their way back to their encampment when they run into each other. Neither side was expecting a fight, and the warband that reacts the quickest has the advantage

Chance Encounter is another of the five non-Skirmish scenarios.  The deployment zones are diagonal 2x2 squares.  Each warband has D3 wyrdstone already in its possession.  These wyrdstone are a reward at the end of the game or a bonus for your opponent if he can take any hero out of action.

One thing that seems to baffle first time players of the scenario is that the wyrdstone is not carried by a specific hero. However if ANY hero is taken out of action by an enemy (or by our interpretation even by a random event), then the enemy warband gains a wyrdstone to its total.

It has been a topic of discussion in our group as to whether this means that if your warband has 3 wyrdstone and your enemy's has one and the enemy takes 3 of your heroes out of action, but your warband manages to take 4 of his out of action, does your warband earn 4 wyrdstone at the end?  This is covered by the wyrdstone section of the rules (you don't, your warband earns 1), but that doesn't mean somebody doesn't bring the possibility up  

Every time...

Anyway, I really enjoy this scenario as it can make a warband make several interesting choices: choices about risking heroes in combat or exposing them to shooting; choices about which deployment zone to take if you pick first; should your warband be aggressive or hold back to trap your enemy's heroes? Good stuff.

We did try assigning the wyrdstone to specific heroes for a couple of games, but even though it feels more 'right' to do this, it rapidly ruined games. Groups of heroes would just hide from their enemies, so no extra wyrdstone could be earned beyond what the warband started with (assuming that both warbands successfully shielded their wyrdstone carrying heroes, which we always did.)

As usual the Sartosa campaign has interesting variations of the scenario:
https://sites.google.com/site/styroheim/sartosa
Guards, Guards! and Fancy Meetin' YOU 'ere!

FEEDBACK
Please feel free to comment on this or any previous review. Also if I have not reviewed a favorite or hated scenario, feel free to post one on this thread yourself.

That's the one where you lose your wyrdstone even if your hero dies from SHOOTING, right? The opponent is 20'' away but the wyrdstone magically moves from your pocket to theirs... Annoying

Yes that is the one. Like I say we tried assigning the wyrdstone to specific heroes for a campaign, but only played half of the campaign that way as it made that scenario a lot less interesting whenever it was rolled.

Nowadays we live with the silliness of having wyrdstone appear and disappear from an imaginary roster or something.

Scenario #8: Occupy

Quote :

This scenario takes place in a part of Mordheim where the buildings are bursting with shards of wyrdstone and other wealth. Taking and holding these buildings means that your warband gains rich pickings. Unfortunately, your opponent has the same idea

Occupy is among my least favorite Mordheim scenarios ever.  It is certainly the least favorite of the rulebook scenarios.  I re-wrote it a few years ago, but to be truthful there are so many Mordheim scenarios that are better written, there is no real reason to include it in a campaign, revised or not.

Anyway, as written Occupy sounds like it could be an interesting scenario.  However if you play the game, it is just a skirmish with a special rule or two.  My group ignores the rules in most scenarios as a matter of course.  With Occupy I do too.  We generally just play a skirmish scenario when this scenario is rolled.

Why do we do this?  Well the stated object of the game is to occupy more buildings than your opponent.  However the reward for doing this is your leader gains +1 experience.  But if you make your opponent rout, your warband 'counts as' controlling ALL the buildings.  So your leader will gain +1 experience anyway.  AND your heroes will gain +1 experience for every enemy they put out of action while forcing the enemy to rout.  Good times, but as noted already, good times that are the point of Skirmish...

Now, if the scenario rewarded heroes for 'occupying' buildings perhaps we would reconsider.  Or if the fluff for the scenario had some relation to the special rules and victory conditions of the scenario...

Related discussion:
https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t8326-scenarios-that-change-the-style-of-play

Related scenarios:
Island Hopping from the Lustria: Cities of Gold Campaign

FEEDBACK
Please feel free to comment on this or any previous review. Also if I have not reviewed a favorite or hated scenario, feel free to post one on this thread yourself.

Scenario #9: Surprise Attack

Mordheim Rulebook Part III wrote:

One warband is out searching the ruins of Mordheim for loot when it is attacked by an enemy warband. The defenders are spread thinly and must muster a defense quickly to drive off their attackers.

I think Scenario #9 is the most hated scenario in the main rulebook.  Ironically it is also THE scenario that is most definitely NOT a Skirmish.  As a player of mostly human warbands, I tend to cringe when my opponent rolls scenario #9, because I know I am going to be the Defender (the warband rating system tends to penalize Mercenaries and Witch Hunters in my view).  I also know I am in for a challenging game, one where I may to have to wing it at times and hope for the best.

In my group we have many legends of insane rolls and improbable victories or defeats, many of which revolve around scenario #9.  Anything can happen with this scenario, and it usually does.

The scenario is written to favor the Attacker.  It is also written to favor the lowest rated warband.  I know many players that automatically assume they have lost if they are the Defender.  These players are right, since if you begin defeated, you mostly will be defeated in the end.  However, if you spend some time reading the scenario, you should see that the Attacker has to guard his back and the Defender has some (few) things that can be used to advantage.

As the Defender I approach the set up in this way:  I put my heroes down first. Usually starting with my leader or the best shot (if I have a best shot).  I put this model in a tall building toward the center.  If I can get another model in the same building (within the 8" restriction) I do. If I have few models (because sometimes I can not roll a 4+), I keep them all toward the center of the table.  I take advantage of second or third levels whenever I can.  I always set models up so that I have solid cover between the model and the nearest table edge.  If I can not gain height or cover I set up a cheap henchman (if I play a shooting warband, I set this henchman up in the open so I have targets).

If my lads are shooters, I get as many of them as I can elevated, with good fields of fire and dare the Attacker to brave the arrow storm.

The Attacker is coming at you from a random table edge.  So I recommend looking at the table and avoiding set ups on edges that offer little defensible terrain.  Or if you can not avoid setting up in a vulnerable position, do what you can to make that model into bait for a trap or a cheap sacrifice.

If I have lots of models to set up (rarely), I get despondent and expect to lose or at lest to take rout tests. (Unless those models are all killers.)  

I always look for Attackers that stay to close to the table edge, because I hope to get lucky with my reinforcements. (The day my Beasts got ambushed by Dwarfs is a fond memory...)

As the Attacker... Do Attackers need advice? (In my experience they do.) If you are the Attacker you should set up to attack the most enemy models that you can on the first turn.  You have advantages, don't squander them.

Also get away from the edge of the table.  Nothing ruins your attack like losing a shooter or leader or weak hired sword to a lucky charge from the table edge.

Why I enjoy this scenario.
Well if I am the Attacker, duh!  Kill the gitz! Who doesn't enjoy that?  Especially if you get to ambush the cheaty elfs or dwarfs.

If I am the Defender, there are so many challenges! Surprise Attack makes you look at the table much more critically than nearly any other Mordheim scenario.  Scenery is important.  Tactical set up is important and strategic decisions about how much damage is acceptable need to be made early...

Previous Discussion
https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t4961-scenario-9-surprise-attack

https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t3482-trouble-with-scenario-9-in-the-rule-book

https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t2797-surprise-attack


Related scenarios:
Ambush from "Chaos in the Streets"

Lost in the Bogs from Empire in Flames

(I think the Beatles also did a song about the scenario...)

FEEDBACK
Please feel free to comment on this or any previous review. Also if I have not reviewed a favorite or hated scenario, feel free to post one on this thread yourself.

Protect the Prince

Published in Town Cryer #19, pp. 18-19, as part of the Khemri setting series of articles.  Author not cited. (Khemri development team?)

We are campaigning in Araby these days.  As part of preparation for the campaign, I have revisited my re-write of this scenario.  In the process I re-read the original to try to get a sense of how the game was intended, thus I was reminded of why I thought in needed a re-write.

First the scenario is probably a published rough draft.  This is true of many Mordheim scenarios.  I've always kind of wondered why this is. Probably because the author was not paid for his time, or just didn't read what he had typed...

The scenario is called Protect the Prince, but then the author mentions a merchant, then a prince again, then the reader is told he is defending a merchant's wagon, then the prince re-appears for the rest of the text.  There are no special rules for the wagon or the merchant...

The size of the table is never referred to but the text does say that the Defender must set up on one long table edge, while the Attacker(s) take the short edges.  So 4x6?

The scenario says it is written for 2-4 players, but there is no explanation of how to set up 4 warbands.  Or how to Defender is supposed to succeed if you do have 4 players, since his job is to run the gauntlet with an uncooperative prince and escape off the opposite table edge.

Since it was published I have added this scenario to most of our campaigns (after re-writing it.)  We play it mainly as a 2 player game, with a standard Skirmish set up, played on a 4x4 table. Lately I have been experimenting with different personalities for the Prince, since as written (and re-written) its hard to win as the Defender.  I will admit that most Defenders view the scenario as a loss, thus we have many dead princes. Dwarfs and elfs tend to win as Defenders, mainly because of the Dwarfs T ad Ld and the Elfs just cheat.  

I can't remember anyone winning because they get the Prince off the table edge.  We are big on breaking the opponent's will to resist.

Why do we keep playing it? Probably because I am often the Defender and my group likes to beat up on me.

Related scenarios:
The Lost Prince from "Chaos in the Streets"

FEEDBACK
Please feel free to comment on this or any previous review. Also if I have not reviewed a favorite or hated scenario, feel free to post one on this thread yourself.

Adding to the list of thank yous already in the thread. After over a decade of no Mordheim, my family will be playing quite a bit of it this fall and winter coming, so I will be able to contribute in time. I do want to solidly agree with the oft-repeated point, though, that most of the published scenarios over the years were or have been "Skirmish with a couple extra conditions," which is very much true. Very few of the scenarios have really changed the objectives in meaningful ways, though a few have.

For those of us writing the occasional scenario, I would recommend having a look through both Necromunda and GorkaMorka scenarios for inspiration and ideas, because they have more often broken that mould.

You are most welcome! Thank you for taking the time to comment.

Back before Mordheim came out, I spent my skirmish game time trying to convert Necromunda to the Warhammer Fantasy setting. I had sort of forgotten all about that until your comment. I do wonder if the different approach to warband income influences the scenario writing...

I think a big part of why so much of the additional Mordheim rules are a mess is the (unspoken) use of a de facto game-master, who would explain/correct/manage the gameplay from roughly laid out scenario lists. Tuomas Pirinen's said that it was always intended as a mostly narrative game, & that he didn't realise how much campaigns needed a GM because he was just doing that job during playtesting...

But yes, also plain sloppy rules-writing by unpaid amateurs, posted in to a small editorial staff who also needed to edit the Warmaster magazine, possibly also the Necromunda one... Fortunately we're able to learn from this, & improve out own rules-writing... right?

Quote :

But yes, also plain sloppy rules-writing by unpaid amateurs, posted in to a small editorial staff who also needed to edit the Warmaster magazine, possibly also the Necromunda one... Fortunately we're able to learn from this, & improve out own rules-writing... right?

Right...as soon as I re-write this bit...

Please note that the English Language is still being playtested, so some mistakes are likely to be found...