Coreheim

Coreheim might just have to many changes for my liking. Also I wonder, why you even line up each edition with "changes". I mean, there's so many changes, why not just right a Coreheim-rulebook? This way you don't have to go back and forth between vanilla and coreheim!
O and I have great typography skills if you need help! ^_^

–––
Sorry I just found it! Still needs some neater typography though

yes it as too many changes for most people's liking, unfortunately.

we have been too idealistic for many peoples taste in modding the rules. our aim was as good a game as possible, not a balanced game that is as close to original rules as possible. in our radicality we have lost out on some players who wont give it a proper chance, though the rationalists in the audience seem to love it

what do you mean by typography? if you spot any typos ill be sure to correct them if you pm them to me. if you mean design, we sure could use a rooster sheet with henchman experience running from 1-7 rather than from 1-14

and regarding your inquiry, it already is a continuously updated rulebook, but we list changes to make it easier to see what has been changed each time. no one wants to gloss over 65 pages each time

Well, since it is quite radically different, one would feel slightly intimidated by all the changes; I at least get the feeling that it is quite the different game, (though I haven't actually tried it, so I can't state it as a fact).
I'm not really appealed by the total balance, I don't find Mordheim as such a game. a game like WFB is more dependent (though in many manners unsuccessful) of a fair game system. For me aspects like the progress of ones Warband are more important aspects. Surely, thinks like DW is a problem, and slightly fixes is preferred to alter these.

Oh, not the typos... I meant, text typography, you know, typefaces and margins and stuff. But never mind, it wasn't really serious critique, just me getting all winded up around my (other) interests.

And it is neat to show the changes actually (reminds me of blizzard update info and such).

I don't understand why you switched hitting in close combat to a one-sided table like the shooting table. Doesn't this just mean that as weapon skill increases striking first and striking hard becomes more and more important?

re: hero: yes it means that combat is much more speedy and bloody

in any great strategy game, units are vulnerable. if warriors can take a lot of punishment and survive the game as a whole becomes more forgiving of mistakes and differences in strategic ability will even themselves out. to us, thats not a preferable outcome

I guess what bothers me is that they become more and more vulnerable as heroes advance and get higher weapon skill. I know you've said you want to make close combat more deadly, but if that was all you wanted you could have just lowered the roll needed to hit across the board on the original table. You've definitely made weapon skill a much more valuable stat.

upped the unique spells as requested. not entirely done. will be playtested in spring

http://www.indadvendt.dk/mordheim/files/uniquespells.pdfhttp://www.indadvendt.dk/mordheim/files/uniquespells.pdf




re: hero: yes and the thing is that once you remove WS-comparison combat also becomes faster as players can simply roll rather than having to pause and look up values. this is the reason most modern skirmish games use universal to hit. it also means that you have to be more careful with your heroes as noted above

Wouldn't it be better if both rolled and you add the value to your WS? If you score higher you hit.

You could take it further, both roll, the one who roles highest gets the hit, if both roll equal no one hits that turn. If one has more than one attack any higher roll gets through, and negates any lower.
I.e Player A scores with 2A the hits 5(on roll) + 4 WS = 9 and 3 (roll) + 4 WS = 7. Player 2 rolls 3 + 3WS = 6. So Player B scores two hits, and proceeds to roll to wound!

This would of course have quite a chain reaction on thinks like initativ and such... Well. It's an idea.

I agree the chart was a little strange, although for the most part it was easy. If you have higher weapon skill you need a 3+, the same or less you need a 4+. Things got a little weird when attacking someone with a much higher weapon skill because as defender weapon skill went up the increase in dice roll to hit them became staggered. I would probably change it to attacking a model 3 WS higher requires a 5+. Actually I almost want to say 2 WS higher just because WS isn't as powerful as most stats.

I guess preventing heroes from being able to defeat entire henchmen groups alone is a noble cause though, so kudos,

Just got back into Mordheim after almost a decade break. I had found the "vanilla" rules to be unclear, unbalanced, and not as fun as they could be. Recently found the rules to Coreheim and decided to try them out. My group agrees that this is an excellent re-write. Just wanted to thank all those involved with developing Coreheim.
We did add some additional "fluff" but overall, enjoyed playing.

nice

what fluff did you add?

We added black powder miss fire rules, rock throwing rules which were mentioned somewhere else on this forum, and random happening rules. There might have been some other stuff that I can't remember at the moment.
We are thinking of modifying some existing warbands to fit with the Coreheim rules.

cool

i added new pictures today:

http://coreheim.blogspot.com/

hero wrote:

Things got a little weird when attacking someone with a much higher weapon skill because as defender weapon skill went up the increase in dice roll to hit them became staggered.

The trick to remembering what you need to hit an opponent with much higher WS is this:

- If you're opponent's WS is more than double your own WS, you need a 5+ (i.e. 2vs5, 3vs7, 4vs9).
- Anything else (on down to equal WS) is a 4+.
- As you mentioned, you hit opponents with lower WS on a 3+.

Asp wrote:

and where did I grant that I owed you an answer to that?

but since you insist:

jokes, like dreams, satisfy our unconscious desires. jokes provide pleasure by releasing us from our inhibitions and allowing us to express sexual, aggressive, playful, or cynical instincts that would otherwise have no outlet in civilized society

It's poncy replies like this that keep me well away from coreheim Asp. The sister FAQ turned me completely off this version of the game and i just stopped reading the information on the site after it... Your arsey reply up there just lets me know that i was right in skipping out on your ruleset. Some things you just don't joke about.

On the other hand though, nice idea for such a streamlined ruleset (i like the ideas of having all warbands very similar). Also... some very nice looking conversions on there!

feelingfine69 wrote:

how a thing is presented is more important to me than what the thing actually is

I give you a WARNING for this, Asp. There are times when this "trick" is funny and there are times when it's not. Please either reply properly or just leave it.
- cianty

Asp wrote:

feelingfine69 wrote:

how a thing is presented is more important to me than what the thing actually is

Let's not put words in each others' mouths, now.

After looking over the Coreheim rules, I think it really is starting to read like a new game. At this point, I'm not sure why you're trying to so closely hew to the original Mordheim ideas. However, they definitely look like a streamlined, if generally more lethal set of options.

That being said, I'm confused and saddened by the section on the Sisters for reasons that echo some prior voices. The Sisters are at the center of Mordheim's plot and fluff, and the fact that they were an armed order of women holding their own in the blasted city was rather the point. Add onto this comments in the FAQ, and I'm afraid that I can't bring this rules mod up to my Mordheim; we have a fairly large group of woman playing, and that sort of "humor" wouldn't go over very well, pithy excuse on the nature of jokes aside.

You may not have control over your dreams, sir, but you certainly do over the jokes you choose to tell, and even more over those you choose to publish electronically.

LeSquide wrote:

You may not have control over your dreams, sir, but you certainly do over the jokes you choose to tell, and even more over those you choose to publish electronically.

Gold!

I see it's your first post. I too joined these forums after reading the coreheim website and then this thread right here, which motavated me into signing up here with the intent of making a complaint in this very thread. I supose I should thank Asp or something.. maybe not.

The small group we game with includes two girls as well (theres one other guy and me... only 4 people ) so on that point alone 'coreheim' won't be making it inside our battle bunker (lol) for a long while. I say a long while because i imagine someone will delete it so that others won't be offended and can enjoy this new spin on mordheim.

Well, I don't see whats wrong with it, you can take it the way you like.. if you want to play female characters you can always make conversions or get minis from other providers like Reaper or Kraken, or even converte your nuns or amazons to adapt them to other warbands.

But of course you can choose not to use these rule setting and thats acceptable as well, either way the guys working on Coreheim are doing it for free and it's a great aid for the community in my opinion, they put time and effort on it so they get to decide stuff like that.. with or without bad jokes about the sisters of battle. Now there's another possibility, you can work on your own "house rules" having Coreheim as your base and add the Sisters of battle.. I don't know.. do as you like.

Non the less, I appreciate their work very much.
Just my two cents.

Yeah I have to admit I was annoyed by the whole sister faq, too. It's all well and good not to include them if you want, but to include a section on your website specifically to deride the idea while trying to give everybody a little psychology 101 course is pretty lame.

Nice rules, but I could do without the attitude.

@Myntokk: Ah, more than double, that sets it nicely in my mind, thanks.

Hey I glad to see all the Coreheim threads and I can see your point about the attitude, but I don't understand the puritan mindset you all seem to harbour. So you don't like the joke? Why not just disregard it as stupid?

@feelingfine69: Joining a forum with the sole intent to post something negative is not exactly what we are looking for here as a community, so I wouldn't say that openly.

@Asp: Since you are always trying hard to get other people to play your game I think you should perceive the criticism on your lame joke (yeah, I am not being objective here - so what! - it is lame) as rather constructive if it is an actual reason that keeps people from using your rules.

I believe anyone's opinion of the quality of a rules set should not depend on how they like the attitude of the affiliated people. Like it or don't. I think we can now move on from what we think about that joke to how we like the rules, what we like, what we don't like, suggestions, questions, praise, etc. Asp is now aware that this kind of stuff scares of some people. Leave it to him to decide how he deals with this feedback.

yearh well I have been the first to aknowledge that the joke may not fall into everyone's taste and i have no problem with people calling it lame and so on.

nor do i have a problem with people criticizing my attitude

in fact, this attitute was born out of the really immature criticism by ram first ed rock and other that appeared in the first coreheim thread (started by mordheimer who was cool enough). i will even concede that that attitude may no longer be timely as coreheim appears to have gained more recognition and people have become fairer and more constructive and mature in their criticism of it.

so i dont have a problem with people criticizing the rules
i dont have a problem with people calling my sisters faq lame
i dont have a problem with people constructively criticizing my attitude

i DO have a problem with bad lines of argument however, and if we look at this:

Quote :

The sister FAQ turned me completely off this
version of the game and i just stopped reading the information on the
site after it... Your arsey reply up there just lets me know that i was
right in skipping out on your ruleset.

it is clearly the logical equavalent of saying:

Quote :

how a thing is presented is more important to me than what the thing
actually is

Still, the way one presents any information (be it rules or anything else) does effect the perception of this particular information, even if the main content is good, the experience might be negative, leading to reluctance.