Coreheim

i dont think it will change much

are you often prevented from running due to this rule?

hero wrote:

How do you feel about getting rid of "can't run within 8" of enemy"?

IMHO, the above mentioned rule is a good one, as it gives greater importance to your movement. If you are afraid of the minotaur, or some other scary guy, you should manouver accordingly. If you can always run, you can slip out of unfortunate situations that you have created for yourself. Besides, always being able to run would give high movement models even more advantage...

If you use some kind of fleeing rules, like the optional rules in the Mordheim original rule book, then you might reach a suitable compromise. I do not know if fleeing from combat is incorporated in Coreheim, though.

In our games, we regularly use the no running within 8" rule as a tactical move - you get one model close to the main body of the other warband and you essentially cut their maneuverability in half. It's really effective, especially for shooty warbands.

I also take the "no running within 8" of enemy" rule for the important one. From the start of our campaign we canceled this rule, because I like agility of game in general (that's also the reason I don't see the point in derceasing of basic movement value). But we got back to using this rule very soon, as the effect was much in avoiding of HtH combat, running, chasing, hiding, shooting. Shooty warbands profited from this at the expenses of HtH warbands.. That's the way I really don't like.
Yes ther's a point in runnign near the enemy while there is a short basic movement, but I prefer longer movement and no running near the enemy to keep the game more agil but still with Close combat as a main part. Just my point of view on this issue.

IMO something that could really add depth not just to Coreheim but to Mordheim in general would be if there could be skirmishes and not just into one big brawl.

It would be great if there could be points to capture on the board, just like in Dawn of War or Company of Heroes.

Also, it would be very cool if the game featured phased deployment, that is, the possibility of only deploying one hero or henchman on turn 1, then some more on turn 2, etc. - That would make the game far more dynamic than the big ugly brawl that it often is now.

Just my 0.02.

Play more scenarios that require you to spread out. They are there. From experience, players choose the storm the middle scenarios when given the opportunity so the problem is with the players, not the game. Also from my observations is that players like to explore other options on a bigger board. When the first warband is placed, it is dictating where the fight will occur. If players really wanted to spread out the fight, they would.

Quote :

the problem is with the players, not the game

heh, no. a good game gives the player several options that are equally good

rock paper scissors wouldnt be much fun if scissors beat everything

Asp wrote:

Quote :

the problem is with the players, not the game

heh, no. a good game gives the player several options that are equally good

rock paper scissors wouldnt be much fun if scissors beat everything

I agree. However, I also believe the game is much better than people give it credit for. If I deploy first and I spread my warband out, I am dictating where the fight will take place. If my opponent wants to swarm one of my groups, he/she will only get a couple kills max and I can set out a flanking force to deal with it. Tactics are the responsibility of the players, not the game. Missiles become useful when one warband clumps and the other does not follow the same pattern. As long as you are not baited into the clump, you are free to take pot-shots.

It is also ironic, and I am not pointing the finger at anyone specifically, that some players cry that shooting is over-powered in one thread and then cry that combat is over-powered in another thread. All tactics are valid. Players need to take more responsibility for their games.

If the rules said that both warbands started in base contact with each other, I would give your opinion my 100% support. But, they don't.

Quote :

Tactics are the responsibility of the players,
not the game.

wrong again. the player does what is efficient. if the game makes one thing more efficient that others, then the player will do that. no faulting players for doing what is best.

im afraid your reasoning on flaking and so on, while good in other strategy games, is not actually supported in neigther the mordheim nor coreheim game. both games rewards swarms that clumb together, even shooting warbands do well to clumb together this is something id personally like to change in the future.

Necromunda found two rules to balance this issue: when a model goes down (knocked down, stunned, ooa), every friendly model within 2" takes a leadership tests or runs for cover. However, it also pays to stick by each other; when a model is pinned (which is a result of getting hit by missile fire), a friendly model within 2" can help him recover.

Now, these rules won't translate 1-1 to Mordheim or Coreheim, I think, but they may be adapted to reward both spreading out your warband and keeping them close together (or at least making small teams).

Personally, I dislike the 'simple' scenarios that end up in a big brawl in the middle, preferring the ones who give both players multiple goals. These may STILL end up as huge brawls, but the players have a choice what tactic they prefer (which is SilliconSicillian meant, I think).

Hasselt wrote:

Necromunda found two rules to balance this issue: when a model goes down (knocked down, stunned, ooa), every friendly model within 2" takes a leadership tests or runs for cover. However, it also pays to stick by each other; when a model is pinned (which is a result of getting hit by missile fire), a friendly model within 2" can help him recover.

Now, these rules won't translate 1-1 to Mordheim or Coreheim, I think, but they may be adapted to reward both spreading out your warband and keeping them close together (or at least making small teams).

Personally, I dislike the 'simple' scenarios that end up in a big brawl in the middle, preferring the ones who give both players multiple goals. These may STILL end up as huge brawls, but the players have a choice what tactic they prefer (which is SilliconSicillian meant, I think).

Exactly. I have seen many players choose scenarios which reward clumping over those which reward multiple small groups going in different directions. Like you, I also prefer the multi-objective scenarios like Treasure Hunt.

Having friendly models take panic attacks sounds like a good start. However, it would need some modifying as I don't think it would be a true panic...more like ducking for cover over running for cover.

Hello adbot?
Taken care of. -cianty

Anyway, not allowing running within 8" of enemies has definitely come up to prevent quick moving elves from blazing past enemies and contest objectives in our games.

but do any of you actually find yourself enforcing it? that is, bring out the measurement stick "oh no you cant run, you're just within 8")

Asp wrote:

but do any of you actually find yourself enforcing it? that is, bring out the measurement stick "oh no you cant run, you're just within 8")

Most definitely! It's a vital part of my tactics. Push up some cannon fodder goon to hinder your enemy from moving the way he wants, and bring your hard hitters into interesting positions...

Asp wrote:

but do any of you actually find yourself enforcing it? that is, bring out the measurement stick "oh no you cant run, you're just within 8")

We enforce it also. It does add strategic depth to our games.

We use that rule too. We have modified it to allow you to run away from an enemy model though.

Always use that rule. Harassing other players with an infiltrator is loads of fun, and makes you feel like the predator from that one popular series...

"both games rewards swarms that clumb together, even shooting warbands do well to clumb together "

I find that the odd blunderbuss or two does wonders to discourage tight scrums of warriors.

Firebombs anyone?

mweaver wrote:

"both games rewards swarms that clumb together, even shooting warbands do well to clumb together "

I find that the odd blunderbuss or two does wonders to discourage tight scrums of warriors.

I would think so!

My group hasn't really played the "no running within 8" of an enemy" simply because we forget to enforce it. In vanilla mordheim we would try to enforce it, but now that we play coreheim it doesn't matter (because it's not a rule).

you can try it out. if a lot of users like it it will end up in the next version

its user feedback that shapes coreheim (and our own experience of course)

we play coreheim without the rule just fine though

For the record, asp, I don't think rock paper scissors is a very fun game anyway.

you don't like rock-paper-scissors divisions in strategy games eigther?

IMO its one of the best ways to ensure strategy and not just min/maxing