Scenario Reviews-An Irregular Commentary

Nuno M wrote:

However, making the lycanthropy happen *ever* so slightly more often would be quite cool...because with the bonus of possibly transforming into a Balewolf during battle (GOOD ) is the risk of the transformation being permanent, he runs away and you lose a possibly well-leveled Hero (BAD ). So it balances out gaining all that power because u can lose it just as easily.
If so, do you think one would run the risk of creating the situation where too many Heroes become balewolves too early in the campaign?

Truly in all the years, I only remember one were-creature being created by the scenario.  This includes games in Lustria, where I made the Balewolf a Were-vampirebat.  On the other hand, making it more likely might be a bit much.  There is a way to find out of course...

EDIT (12/20/15: So this year it was a skink were-vampirebat that never saw a game because the player moved out of town after the game that created the were-bat-skink.

The Bodyguards
Author: Kurtis Burdau
Published in Town Cryer #23, pp. 28-30
Original version appeared as "Now Keep Me Safe, You Hear?"
Published on the web with the Yahoo Mordheim eGroup.  Currently hosted at Mordheimer.

The plot of the scenario is that the highest rated warband is guarding a renegade merchant who has upset two powerful crime lords who have each hired a warband to act for them.  Each crime lord wants the merchant, but one is content with only his head, the other wants the man taken alive.  

The scenario therefore is written for three players or three teams, with the highest rated warband always acting as the bodyguards (a team of one).

Mordheimer wrote a commentary comparing the original scenario to the TC version.  He is of the opinion that the original version is better than the edited version published by GW.  As far as I can tell the difference between the two is mainly that the original included 3 possible rewards depending on which player won.  The merchant will reward his bodyguards if he evades death or capture; the boss who wants him alive offered another reward and the one who wanted the merchant's head offered a third.  The Town Cryer version only had two reward tables one for the merchant and one for the crime lords.  Thus if you served a crime lord it doesn't matter in the TC version of the scenario if you kill the merchant or capture him, your warband gains the same reward either way.

My group has been playing the scenario since it was published in TC.  I have tried adapting it as a two player game with the lowest rated warband defending the merchant, but the scenario works best as a three player game. We have never played it as a team game.

Generally the scenario is a loss for the poor highest rated warband as defending against two attackers is difficult.  My group has made a loss for the Defender more likely, however, by ignoring the scenario set up rules which state that the Defender gets to pick the building to be defended AND set up last. (We tend to set up a table and then roll for scenario after... A habit that seems impossible to break.)

I don't believe that any Attacker in our games has ever won by carrying a living merchant off the board, which is a result that seems very unlikely.  If you have gotten control of the merchant, then the Defender is guaranteed to be out of the game unless his strategy was giving up the merchant... Your rival warband is also likely to be breathing down your neck, much too close to allow an escape. Our most likely outcome is someone kills the merchant and then breaks the other warband, or is broken themselves.  

I like the scenario because it fits nicely into almost any urban setting that Mordheim can be played in.  We play it regularly in Araby, Sartosa and the Karribean.  I think the original does offer more nuance than the TC version, as the TC version offers no reason not to chose any option but kill the merchant for an Attacker.  I do think that the author missed an opportunity to spell out the possibility of a draw as both a Defender and an Attacker could fight on to deny an Attacker that has killed the merchant victory by breaking the murderer's warband. I also was surprised when I read the scenario for this review (which will be little surprise for you readers) and realized that there is no reason for an Attacker to declare which objective they are pursuing before the game as they can just decide by whether the merchant is alive or dead at the end of the game.  I had thought that declaring which crime lord you supported had more import.

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.

The Watchtower
Published in Fanatic #4, The Province of Reikland by Nick Kyme, pp. 72-3.
Formerly hosted by Specialist Games although I am not sure where to find it nowadays.  I have a PDF copy if anyone is interested.

The premise of the scenario is that one warband has been hired to garrison a watchtower in a disputed area.  The other warband is attempting to capture the strong point.  The complication is that half of the garrison is goofing off when the attack begins and are not at their post...

I like a number of things about this scenario.  The setup gives a much better tactical situation than the popular Defend the Find template of the defender in the center surrounded by attackers.  The mechanic for the attackers attempt to approach unseen works really well as well.  

My group has had many a fun evening playing the scenario (which is for two players by the way).  The scenario offers a tactical challenge which is enhanced by the randomness of the defender spotting the attacker.

My quibble with the scenario is the defenders' extra equipment, which is appropriate to defending a tower, but there is no specific provision in the rules for how to handle warbands that may not USE the equipment normally.  Since there is already a scenario which allows a warband access to a long rifle even if they are not normally allowed one, it seems Mr. Kyme could have included similar rules here.  As written my group generally negotiates who can use what for the scenario on a game by game basis.

Winning the scenario as the Attacker is very popular with my group as the attacker may capture the weapons that the Defender did not use...  This makes the negotiations about who is allowed to use what somewhat tense you see.

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.

The PDF is available in the files hosted on the Mordheim Yahoo group also but you need to sign up to get access.

Thanks RL.

I'm going to do a run of Fanatic scenarios for the next few installments:
______________________________________________________________________________
Brigands in the Pasturelands
Published in Fanatic #4, The Province of Reikland by Nick Kyme, pp. 70-71.

I get this scenario confused with Blood on the Pasturelands because of the similar titles and because Blood on the Pasturelands actually involves brigands or at least thieves.  The scenarios are nothing alike.  For one thing, Brigands is not set in a pastureland.  It is set in the Great Forest...  One warband is hiding out in the forest from the local Baron.  The other warband has been hired by the Baron to track down the criminals/rebels/whatever.

As a scenario I don't think much of this offering.  The title is missleading. The plot as presented has nothing to do with how the author recommends warbands be assigned the roles of Attacker or Defender.  The Defender is the warband with the lowest numbers.  So the important thing about outlaws is that there aren't many of them.  In our campaigns this meant that Skaven, orcs and Undead warbands frequently hunted for Witch Hunters, Dwarfs and the human mercenary warbands...

These 'good' warbands were allied with Highwaymen, warlocks and pit fighters while the Skaven, etc. were aided by Road Wardens (2!), a Freelancer and a Bounty Hunter.  I assume the scenario was written with mainly mercenary warbands in mind, but a campaign with only human warbands is fairly rare for us...

Moving on, my other issue with the scenario is that of balance.  A scenario does not HAVE to be balanced, but this one falls heavily to one side and stays there.  The warband with the highest body count gains 4 fairly competent killers and gains 3 free warhounds for the scenario.  That's  +7 models to a warband that already outnumbers its opponent...

The Defender gains 3 Hired Swords, two of whom may be of little use, aside from providing cannon fodder to speed up routing.  The Defender also gains three special rules.  Defenders are immune to All Alone tests for the scenario and start Hidden. The Attacker will not run until a Defender is spotted...

The special rules have no purpose unless the Defender is a shooting warband with sneaky rules like elfes got. Yes the defender can start hidden and the attacker moves slowly until he can spot the outlaws... well so what?  The game doesn't end until a warband is broken, so the Defender can not evade the Attacker and win.

Our Defenders rarely did well.  Players that got to be Attackers loved this scenario for the rewards, Defenders hated it to the point that most players would feed the Attacker the Brigand Hired Swords to speed up routing.  

When I see most players choosing to voluntary rout from a scenario, I know its time to stop bothering with playing it. I haven't included the scenario in our Empire In Flames outings for awhile because I don't find the scenario idea interesting enough to bother with a re-written version.

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.

Blood on the Pasturelands
Published in Fanatic #3, The Province of Averland by Nick Kyme, pp. 72-73.
Now hosted online by the Yahoo Mordheim group (membership necessary for access).  You may also PM me to arrange a copy via e-mail.

This scenario is about stealing horses.  Even if a warband can not ride horses, it can gain income from selling the stolen mounts.  Thus, its is a favorite with our group when playing Empire in Flames games.  The scenario has simple rules for its NPC Outriders who are guarding the horses.  It also has simple mechanics for capturing horses.  If you add the rules for riding from the article Blazing Saddles, we have found it to be a fun game.  (It is probably still fun, but less lethal to horse thieves, if you do not add the Blazing Saddles rules.)

Quibbles I have withe the scenario are mainly do to the constraints of including NPCs in games without a Games Master.  The poor outriders are generally shot or stabbed to death before they can react, although we always hope to stun a rider so that we may steal his horse as well. The Outriders are rarely a threat past the first couple games of a campaign.

The other thing I don't like about the scenario is the 12"x 12" paddock that the horses are kept in.  The horses are supposed to mill about randomly inside the paddock.  Since the area is so small this is mainly a time waster as players roll for each horse, each turn to see if it moves.  The horse can not move through or over the fence, so the point of moving them at all is lost on me.  Usually we don't bother until warbands have entered the paddock, as then the horse can at least shy from a warrior trying to steal it. (Or amble over to see if a warrior has brought sugar...)

On the whole the group enjoys the mayhem.  We've had flying wizards zip past the guards to grab a horse, improbable escapes and murderous battles.  Good times.

We (and the author of the scenario) only allow warbands to capture horses that they have 'under their control' at the end of a game to encourage the combatants to at least attempt to follow the scenario plot rather than just fight around horses.  (Some early games featured warbands fighting beside the paddock in a winner take all version. I do not encourage 'winner take all' if it can be helped, nor do the rules of the scenario. As you know my group and I have issues with reading those...)

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:

The Bodyguards
Author: Kurtis Burdau
Published in Town Cryer #23, pp. 28-30
Original version appeared as "Now Keep Me Safe, You Hear?"
Published on the web with the Yahoo Mordheim eGroup.  Currently hosted at Mordheimer.
...
I also was surprised when I read the scenario for this review (which will be little surprise for you readers) and realized that there is no reason for an Attacker to declare which objective they are pursuing before the game as they can just decide by whether the merchant is alive or dead at the end of the game.  I had thought that declaring which crime lord you supported had more import.

I was just reading through the scenario on Mordheimer tonight. It does require the warband to pick their objective before the game (see below). I agree that the original version is much more interesting than the Town Cryer version due to the three different objectives.

Quote :

Setup
The player with the highest warband rating is automatically persuaded into protecting the merchant. The remaining players must randomly divvy themselves up into groups as evenly as possible. Both groups roll a D6 and the group with the highest number gets to pick whichever statesman they want to work for.

Yes, the scenario does mandate that you pick your objective, but there is no 'in game' effect for doing so (nor is there a rule that says you must honor your commitment), so my lads just ignore that part.

For example if the victory conditions specified that a player that supported Bernardo had lost if the merchant dies, then that player would have a reason to try to ensure his victory condition.  The TC version is so indifferent to the the plot that it doesn't even specify which crime boss wants the Merchant dead and which one wants him alive.

The Bodyguards, p.29 wrote:

It makes no difference which overlord a warband works for...

Shoddy writing, I say!

I love the premise of the scenario because it fits into so many plots. If the defenders are Witch Hunters,for example, the Merchant could be an important witness, or a heretic whose former compatriots fear may give them up.

If Witch Hunters are attackers, they can be rescuing the Merchant, trying to capture him or assassinate him.

Battle For The Farm
Published in Fanatic #1 The League of Ostermark by Nick Kyme, pp. 38-39.
Now hosted online by the Yahoo Mordheim group (membership necessary for access). You may also PM me to arrange a copy via e-mail.

This scenario is a variation of The Frenzied Mob scenario published in TC #27. The size of the settlement is increased from D3+1 buildings to "around five or six farm buildings". The terrain description is more focused on a settlement than the original. (The Frenzied Mob terrain description is a cut and paste from the earlier Empire in Flames scenarios.) There are more buildings, but fewer occupants (D3 instead of D3+1). Finally the occupants are weaker than those found in The Mob. (S2 and T2 instead of S3, T3)

The Battle for the Farm also adds arson to the crimes of armed robbery and murder that a warband may commit over the course of the scenario. The occupants of The Frenzied Mob settlement carry torches, in Battle... it is the warbands who have the torches. (The farmers are armed with 'counts as' spears in Battle..., so they have only one attack, rather than the 3 of the frenzied mob. These farmers are pushovers.) Starting a fire that destroys a building is worth +1 Experience to a hero or henchman arsonist.

This scenario was the one we played the most often during an Empire in Flames campaign I ran a few years ago. As a campaign organizer I kind of regretted that because it is an experience cow. The farmers are squishier than zombies, plus the experience gained from destroying buildings. Players, of course, loved it. (Most of them forgot all about burning buildings or even looting them as they gleefully pursued the poor farmers.)

Another difference from the original scenario is that the special rules for buildings published in the Empire in Flames supplement are not mentioned at all in Battle... (The Frenzied Mob lists the rules that apply to that scenario. According to the author of Mob, not all of them do...) I suppose one could infer that the rules for buildings from Empire in Flames obviously apply to Battle.... But out of sight, out of mind is my experience.

I think the perfect raid and loot scenario is found somewhere in a combination of Mob and Battle... I am not convinced that either of them alone is quite it. (I have grown a bit disillusioned with The Frenzied Mob since my review of it back at the beginning of this thread.)

Similar scenarios:
Defend the Village!, by Mark "Rinku" Dewis
http://www.mordheimer.com/scenarios/001-020/013-defend_the_village.htm

Slavers!, author unknown. This scenario was available as part of The Frenzied Mob collection of scenarios (scenarios that used the frenzied mob models). I have a copy if you are interested.

Raids, by Christian Ellegaard. This scenario used to be hosted by Archive Pestilens. Mordheimer's link is bad.

Home is Where the Heart is, by Tom Bell (?). This scenario is part of the Sylvania campaign.
https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AByFcnV1qMjZdzg&id=2B7C1D22EA7D959%21148&cid=02B7C1D22EA7D959

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.

Hunt the Heretic
By Nick Kyme.  Published in Fanatic #9, p. 98.
Now hosted online by the Yahoo Mordheim group (membership necessary for access). You may also PM me to arrange a copy via e-mail.

This scenario has some similarities to Brigands in the Pasturelands since one warband is defending a heretic Warlock and the other has joined forces with a Witch Hunter to bring him to justice.  Like most 'hunt' scenarios there is no hunt as the quarry is known to be in the central building (a ruined tower).  However, more thought was put into this scenario than the awful Brigands.

Candidates for Attacker and Defender are more clearly (and logically, to my mind) defined. Obviously evil warbands should be the Defender and 'good' warbands the Attacker.  Witch Hunters are ALWAYS the Attacker.  'Good' warbands can be the Defender, if two 'good' warbands are fighting each other. But the author at least defines how and why this should happen (and again, Witch Hunters will NEVER be the Defender.)  

The Defender starts with only four warriors and the heretic in the central tower.  However the rest of the Defenders will arrive on a random table edge beginning on turn 2 on a roll of 4+, 3+ on turn 3, etc.  This mechanic effects a possible ambush by the Defender, so the balance of the game can shift rapidly.  

The scenario is written to be included in an Empire in Flames campaign, but I have used it in Araby (it seems custom written for Relics of the Crusades) and in the Karribean.  It makes a great achievement scenario for a Burn the Witch type campaign objective.   I highly recommend it.

This concludes my experiences with the Fanatic scenarios. Not sure where I will go next...

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.

Finders Keepers
Written by Roger Latham. Published in Town Cryer #14, "Blazing Saddles" pp. 9-10. Also published in The 2002 Annual, pp. 71-72. In both cases the scenario is part of the "Blazing Saddles" article and is not included in the table of contents.

This scenario is one of those that I have been aware of for years, but had never bothered with trying to play. I have included in our current campaign, but I do not think we were missing anything for the years which we did not play it.

The idea behind the scenario is a gold rush in a sense. Warbands race to gather a stash of wyrdstone before others can claim it. So its kind of a race scenario right? In the scenario the warbands start in corners of the board. The stash is in the center of the opposite table edge. So the path of the race is like ^.

The scenario is written to showcase the new rules for mounts introduced by "Blazing Saddles" and Robert Latham is credited as an author of those rules. So why did he write a scenario which points up the weaknesses of those rules? My belief is that a shadowy 'whoever' did not want the Blazing Saddles rules to succeed, so they commissioned horrible rules and threw in a scenario which would make clear how bad they were right off the bat.

Now let me make clear that this scenario rewards the winner, so it is not very frustrating to play if you read the victory conditions. It is kind of frustrating if you just read to the part were the winner must get the stash off the table near the warband's starting corner, because that is not going to happen. I can not conceive of it ever happening unless the table was set up with impassible terrain separating the two warbands or something.

The other possible way to win is to break your opponent and make him rout. So this is a Skirmish with alternate setup and a D3 wyrdstone reward. The scenario works on that level.

There is no reason to move toward the treasure. There is every reason to just fight your opponent. Are mounts an advantage in this? They can be, but they are no advantage in the race for the stash. Why not? They are faster. BUT the wyrdstone is set up in a ruin. Mounts can not enter ruins or buildings (depending on how your group interpret the Not indoors rule or depending on how the ruin is constructed). So you can ride to the ruin and dismount right? Well dismounting takes a WHOLE TURN. Then remounting takes a WHOLE turn. So yes you can dismount, but...if you dismount your mount has to take a Ld test not to bolt if you are not adjacent to it...

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.

I haven't commented so far because I haven't played most of the scenarios myself. But I definitely enjoy reading about them and will try out some you recommend. So please keep it up!

Pesky Portals
Written by Ross "Pancreas Boy" Franks, as appeared in Pancreas Boy's Wyrdstone Shards (no longer available). Transcribed by Sid Hale. Edited by The Mordheimer. Available in Mordheim's (once upon a time) Master Scenario List at The Mordheimer Information Centre.

This is a scenario that appeals to me a lot possibly because it is a little bit crazy. We've played it quite a few times over the years. Every time I play the scenario though I realise that there are some glaring deficiencies in the rules that prevent it from being played in the spirit of the scenario.

The idea behind the scenario is that under a wizard's mansion there is a secret chamber containing treasure beyond belief (a treasure chest containing D3 random magical items). This chamber can only be entered through magical portals (hence the "portal" part of the scenario's name) and there will be D3+2 portals on the board. Warriors cannot control where the portals will take them (hence the "pesky" part of the scenario's name) and every time a warrior enters a portal they will come out of a random portal, go no where or potentially activate an elemental who will attack the unfortunate warrior. The only victory condition is to make the other warband(s) rout.

Unfortunately the scenario as written greatly discourages players from sending warriors through the portals to retrieve the chest. Every time that I've played, one or more warbands ends up camping outside portals waiting for a trickle of enemy warriors who are unfortunate to be teleported to that portal. It is better to either ignore the treasure and rout the other warband or wait for a player to split up their warband to retrieve the chest and then pounce and take the chest.

I have recently adjusted the rules based on our experiences and these are the rules that we now use. The rules are as per the scenario unless stated otherwise below.

Quote :

Ending the GameWhen one warband gets the chest to safety, or a warband fails a Rout test, the game ends. The victorious warband then gains the treasure chest if it has been successfully retrieved from the chamber.

The Portals: Each portal in the battlefield has a corresponding portal in the chamber. This is easiest to represent by numbering the portals (e.g. portal 1 on the battlefield links to portal 1 in the chamber). Portals can only be entered once per turn for each warrior. Roll on the Portal Chart every time a warrior enters a portal on the battlefield.

Portal Chart
1 - Elemental appears
2 - Random portal
3 - Closest portal
4 - Furthest portal
5 - Same portal (e.g. no effect)
6 - Chamber portal

The Chamber: When a warrior successfully enters the chamber then they emerge from the chamber portal linked to the battlefield portal which they used. Warriors may choose to exit the chamber via the chamber portal of their choice giving the warrior the option of where on the battlefield to return. When attempting to use a chamber portal, a warrior must still roll on the Portal Chart. On a 1 an elemental appears and on a 5-6 the warriors fail to leave. If the warrior is leaving the chamber with the chest then subtract -1 from the roll on the Portal Chart (e.g. 1-2 will be an elemental and only a 6 will be no effect). All other results mean that the warrior successfully exits the chamber and arrives on the battlefield at chosen location.

The Chest: The chest follows the usual rules for carrying a chest (i.e. it can be carried by one or two warriors). Roll on the following table when a warband wins with the chest.
Item / D6 Result Needed
4D6 gc / Automatic
D3 Wyrdstone / 3+
D3 Lucky Charms / 4+
Venom Ring / 4+
Wyrdstone Pendulum / 5+
Dispel Spell / 5+
Tome of Magic / 6+
Magical Item / 6+

The objective of these updated rules is that a warrior in the chamber can choose where on the battlefield they can appear with the chest. This is done to encourage all warbands to use the portals rather than one warband trying the portals and the other warbands waiting for the lone warrior(s) with the chest to exit at a random portal. Essentially warbands must make haste once a warrior successfully enters the chamber as there is potential for the battle to be lost very quickly once a warrior enters the chamber to retrieve the chest.

The revised rules for the chamber Portal Chart is done to give a 50/50 chance (these odds also exists in the current rules) that a warrior can be trapped/delayed in the chamber. If the warrior has the chest then this delay can give the other warbands time to enter the chamber also or assault the other portals on the battlefield.

FEEDBACK
Please feel free to comment on this or any previous review (by VK). I'm interested to know whether any other gaming groups have been willing to give this scenario a try.

Woot! Thanks for the review RL! I haven't played Pesky Portals, but it seems like a good end of campaign scenario or as an alternate to the Wizard's Mansion (especially with your modifications).

Interestingly, Frostgrave has a similar scenario which I had read a battle report about a couple of weeks ago. At the time I thought well that's kind of cool...

@Grimscull--thank you for the feedback sir.

Defend the Tomb
Author unknown.  Available from the original Khemri website.  Also printed in Town Cryer #17.  

We have been campaigning in Araby and Khemri for the last several months, so I am reminded that I never finished reviewing the Khemri scenarios earlier in this thread.

As originally written, Defend the Tomb is not about defending a tomb.  It is about getting a treasure chest OUT of the tomb.  By the single exit, that the Attacker entered from (the Attacker has followed the Defender into the tomb, thus the Attacking warband starts at the only exit.)  So maybe the scenario is about defending an exit.

Since the Attacker and Defender are determined randomly, the scenario seems like it could play differently each time.  The scenario is written to suggest that the treasure is only recovered if it is carried off the tabletop, which is unlikely to happen as your opponent is sitting on the only way out or starts with the treasure and the only way to get it from him as the attacker is to eliminate the models carrying it.  Since the model(s) carrying the treasure are not likely to LEAD the attack on the exit, its likely that one warband or another is going to rout.

So we award the treasure to the last warband standing (or both warbands go home treasure-less depending on how stubbornly literal the players involved are).  

The original scenario reads like a first draft, so there are some things that need to be decided before you play it. This includes the make up of the treasure itself (decide how to roll a 7 on D6 while also being able to roll a 1-6 for example). We also play the scenario as a race to exits instead of a battle for an exit.  This brings more of the board into play, but also favors fast warbands over slow.  It is definitely more likely to be won by taking the treasure from the board...

We have also added random traps and the rules for darkness from Relics of the Crusades and the original Khemri website.  So the race is in the dark, through traps...

The Town Cryer version is about whatever you want it to be as it is written as BOTH the original scenario AND a underground version of Defend the Find.  This is sort of confusing as there are TWO sets of victory conditions, etc.  With a little work the reader can figure out which version they would like to play, but I recommend READING the whole scenario before you begin to play to avoid discussion later.  (I say this because my players are not likely to do something like read the scenario they are playing before or during play.  They seem to prefer the 'just tell me what to do' approach, which leads to 'I didn't know that!' at some point.)

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.

Dark Ritual
By Sam Sedghi.  Available from the original Khemri website.

Dark Ritual is the re-enactment of a victim sacrifice.  The idea is to stop the necromancer from sacrificing the victim before a number of turns runs out (or for evil warbands, to steal the victim for their own devices).  If the necromancer is not stopped within the set number of turns, the players may no longer gain "extra experience from winning the scenario."

As written the scenario objective is ridiculously easy for a shooting warband.  All a shooting warband has to do is position itself with a clear field of fire and get lucky.  A close combat warband has to actually close with the villain before they can put the inept fool down (he has crappy stats and no weapons in the original version.)

As with all of the original Khemri scenarios a bit of work is necessary to actually play the scenario as the published version is at best a rough draft.  I really enjoy the premise of this scenario, so I re-wrote it to include a sealed barrow that the warriors must breach before they can confront the necromancer and lots of zombies.  My group also uses the Relics of the Crusades rules for Darkness, so the scenario always takes place in a dark graveyard.  Either way warriors gain experience from the zombies.

I find the plot really fits into almost any Mordheim campaign be it in the City of Mordheim or Empire In Flames or even Sartosa.  Those pesky necromancers can pop up anywhere!  Add zombies (or skeletons) to taste and everyone loves it.

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.

About Pesky Portals
So I have played Pesky Portals once now. I noticed that the original scenario does not define the set up zones for the warbands. The author just says "set up as normal" or something. We interpreted that as an 8" deployment zone.

I did have a bit of confusion about how many warriors can enter the same portal in the same player turn. We did one warrior per portal per player turn.

We tried mostly original rules, because I thought it unlikely that my group would catch on to any sneaky strategies in the first test. We did a lot of just run the nearest warrior through the portal and hope for the best kind of moves, which worked out pretty well for the first game. I do think that having an equal number of corresponding numbered portals in the treasure chamber is a good revision after a play test.

I would very much like to find out what you think about the scenarios in the rulebook, as well.

In my group, we often tweak them to make them "better" in our opinion.

Like the following:

TREASURE HUNT

You know the deal, pretty normal set-up, and then search houses for the treasure chest.

We always love this scenario, as it prevents you from grouping up and getting into a situation where all your warband members just cluster in the middle of the board and punch each-other until someone routs.

However, we always had a problem with one of the basic tactics of this scenario, which is to leave one building in your deployment zone, or close to it, unsearched, with a warrior just outside, waiting for it to become the last house with the treasure in it. It feels cheesy and not at all immersive. So, to counter this, we made it so that whenever you search a house, you find the treasure on any DOUBLES, not just a double 6. Making it, according to my estimates, a successfull roll 28% of the time, instead of roughly 4,7% of the time.

This means that since the probability is now quite high, but never guaranteed, the warbands will have to HURRY to search as many buildings as they can, and the cheesing tactic actually becomes a liability.

This scenario was already one of our favourites, and raising the stakes like this made it even better in our opinion.

Hey thanks for the reply.

I love your house rule for Treasure Hunt

Quote :

We always love this scenario, as it prevents you from grouping up and getting into a situation where all your warband members just cluster in the middle of the board and punch each-other until someone routs.

Hmmm, We still have the grouping up and getting into a situation where all your warband members just punch each other until someone routs happen Of course this is because reading the scenario being played is frowned upon by some of the regulars in the group...

I have avoided the rule book scenarios because I figured everyone had played them, and they used to get discussed regularly on the main forum. Nowadays, of course, nothing gets discussed. So I will try to get around to them. (I no longer have access to a PC at home since mine died, so everything is slower...)

Hidden Treasure

Broheim wrote:

By the Mordheim Development Team
There is a rumour that one of the ruined buildings has a concealed cellar with a treasure chest hidden in it. Two rival warbands have heard about the cellar and are now searching the area. Who knows what they will find?

Hidden Treasure is the actual name of the rule book scenario #7.  Treasure Hunt is an entirely different scenario from the Chaos in the Streets article.  I always get them confused, too (especially, since as in most 'hunt' scenarios, there is no hunting in Treasure Hunt as you know exactly where the treasures are...)

As Opheliate says, "you know the deal." So I am going to skip how the scenario works, etc.  

Our fix for the scenario is to use Styrofoamking's X Marks the Spot scenario variant from Sartosa.  There IS a hunt AND a warrior must actually go to the counter to reveal it (as opposed to the just 'enter' the terrain feature.)

Quote :

4 – Hidden Treasure: X Marks the Spot!
Rather than discovering the treasure on a 2D6 roll of 12,
make a marker for every searchable building. Mark the
bottom of one of these markers with an X, and shuffle
them randomly, face down. When a non-animal
warrior gets in contact with a marker, he flips it over at
the end of the Movement phase. The X marker is
replaced with the treasure chest.

This version does not fix a complaint some folks have that the treasure can be found in the first terrain searched, but this is not one of those things that bug my group as we are looking to play a couple of games a night if we can.  If you are looking for a longer, more challenging game, check Jim Weaver's blog linked below.

For more discussion of the Hidden Treasure scenario see also
https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t4763-treasure-hunt

https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t6129-defend-the-find-and-hidden-treasure

https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t5023-the-treasure-chest

Jim Weaver's blog with an option for playing the scenario differently (The Lost Chest):
http://hobbyblog.wargameweaver.com/mordheim

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.

Defend the Find

Broheim wrote:

By the Mordheim Development Team
Often a warband finds a building with a hoard of wyrdstone or other treasure inside, only to be challenged by a rival warband. This usually leads to conflict as it is unlikely that either side will be willing to give up the wealth easily.

I am trying to go in order now.  Defend the Find is Scenario #1.  (Even though it is result #11 if you are rolling on the scenario table.)

This is a fairly simple scenario if you remember to read the rules.  I tend to 'win' because rules reading and memory are not things that occur often in my group.  By win I mean I know that if I'm the defender it is wise to keep 3 heroes minimum in the find.  It is also wise to not engage the attacker in melee, if you can help it.  If you do this, you will gain +3 Wyrdstone at the end of the game.  (I call that winning.)

If I am the Attacker, I remember to mass my warband just 7" away from the 'Find' until I can move a few heroes into the Find along with most of my warband to outnumber the Defender.

What is challenging as a Defender is that the Attacker can set up on any board edge.  In our group that means that if you are fighting against a shooting warband, you are going to get shot up.  We have few ruins that have enough cover to allow a warband to hide from arrows that will be coming from all sides.  So we usually lose a few Defenders on the first turn, especially in later games.

Similar scenarios abound:
Defend the Oasis
Defend the Tomb
Rock the Boat
Ambush
The Wizard's Mansion
Encampment Raid

My pet peeve about this scenario really has nothing to do with playing it.  Mostly I hate how many OTHER scenarios are based on the Defend the Find template for arranging the battle.  As a Defender being stuck in the middle of the board surrounded by Attackers is not so bad if the game ends once the Attacker out numbers the defenders in the Find.  Since the Defender has lower numbers to start with this isn't hard to arrange without too much bleeding.  

However, if the object of the game is breaking the warband stuck in the center, being surrounded makes winning as a Defender much harder. It also true that many scenario authors love the set up restrictions of Defend the Find, but fail to notice the rewards given to the Defender in the scenario.
The Warmachine and Encampment Raid come to mind...

Discussion of Defend the Find scenario can also be found here--
https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t6129-defend-the-find-and-hidden-treasure

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.

Skirmish

Mordheim Rulebook Part III wrote:

By the Mordheim Development Team
In the vastness of the Mordheim ruins there is always the risk of running into a rival warband. While two groups sometimes pass each other without a fight, more often than not there is a vicious battle amongst the ruins. If a warband can drive their rivals away, they will have a larger area in which to search for wyrdstone

Skirmish is the basic Mordheim game. Two warbands fight it out until one routs.  Most other Mordheim scenarios can be seen as merely elaborate skirmishes. As one of my group noted: "So _________ scenario is just a skirmish with special rules."

If you add Random Happenings to a skirmish, you will have a different game every time it is rolled.  You can't ask for better. (But, of course, we do; usually more wyrdstone or treasure for example.)

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.

In a campaign that we will play in our game-group this summer, I have taken a page out of the video game Mordheims' book.

One of the issues of the rulebook scenarios is, as you say Von Kurst, most are basically "skirmish with extra steps"

To counteract this, i want to try out using wyrdstones on the map in EVERY scenario (just like wyrdstone hunt), and skip the post-battle wyrdstone gathering. Like, players take turns to place 1d3 tokens for each participating player, at least 12" from table edge, and 8" bubble apart.

This would also mean that you have to have warriors hunt for stones if you want money, counteract sludgefesting, and add to that some sort of "power in the stones" rule (also presentin the videogame), where picking up a wyrdstone 1oul 5/10 times do nothing, 4/10 times be harmful, and 1/10 times be beneficial (like, restoring lost wounds etc).

Have you or anyone ese trid something like this to modify scenarios? If so, did it work well, or not?

Quote :

Have you or anyone else tried something like this to modify scenarios? If so, did it work well, or not?

I am constantly fiddling with scenarios.  Doing away with the post battle exploration seems a bit extreme, but I am interested to hear how it works out.

Lately, at NunoM's suggestion, I have been messing with experience earned for certain actions to encourage/discourage those actions.  For example, eliminating the +1 experience gained for putting enemy warriors out of action when the goal of the scenario is the warbands doing something else.

I have also been making scenarios more reactive to player actions, like you can choose to roll on a table rather than just attack an NPC/monster.

In my group anything involving reading rules or changes to rules tends to take a bit to catch on because of difficulties some players have with reading and/or change...

Wyrdstone Hunt

Mordheim Rulebook wrote:

by the Mordheim Development Team
Scattered in the ruins of Mordheim are innumerable tiny shards of priceless wyrdstone. It often happens that two warbands come upon the same area and only a battle can determine who will pick the spoils.

And Wyrdstone Hunt is Scenario #3. This scenario is a favorite of fast warbands: skaven, elfs, beasts. If you are playing against Dwarfs, it is usually worth at least 2 extra wyrdstone and some experience to boot.

I really enjoy this scenario, as I can usually gain a bit of extra cash and experience even if I am likely to lose the fight. It is, as noted above, just a skirmish with extra rules (and extra rewards). The only complaints I have heard about this scenario come form Dwarfs, who are always complaining anyway.
Also some groups apparently play that all wyrdstone is dropped if you rout, which is about as silly a house rule as I have heard of. (I expect it was written by Dwarfs.)

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.