groups Experience

It's also in the original rulebook on p144.

Ah, thanks guys. I always found it rather clunky buying huge groups like that...

In this case, I think I'd still do what I've been doing - buying small units of two/three models - because they're more likely to pick up and survive long enough to amass some XP, and yet are still spread out enough that you'll be getting more LGT rolls and you can let groups that are getting less useful growth die out. :3

I always pictured the small henchmen groups to be, like, frinds from before or sumfin'. Like, a group of three zealots are relatives that has lost everything, and then the witch hunter came along and recruited them. In the same way, a group of Swordsmen in a merc warband might have been in the same Soldier Company before they went solo, and was thus hired by a merc captain.

Another aspect of "fluffing" groups, is that it makes sense in a game where strategic warfare takes place. Like modern days miliraty units. You have sseveral warriors group together to perform certain tasks suited for them (Marksmen) and thus they work together, sharing experiences and bonding at the same time. IMO, it is perfectly logical to have larger groups, and thus making it more fluff than single wawrriors. As single warriors, why do they even bother being in a warband (If they are not a person of importance, like the captain, who only has underlings and no real equals). Then they should count as hired swords.

Anyway, thats just me, and I can see the fluff aspect of hiring individuals too! Though, I wont

@Opheliate - what about the guy whose swordsman company was wiped out, so he joined the warband to get the camaraderie and safety-in-numbers that he lost?

I love this about Mordheim though - so often in Warhammer circles playing a rule wrong is labeled "cheating" when (like here) it's just an honest mistake that will be corrected as soon as it's noticed! Feel the Mordheim love!

I like Mordheim a lot for that very reason... it also breeds creativity. You never see a half-finished Mordheim band, sprayed black or proxied... and the terrain people make sometimes is really astounding... whereas in Warhammer, most people I meet don't want to play with any. People are also quite happy to play with invented rules.

I still play Warhammer of course too, but I try to play it with the Mordheim spirit. :3

I have seen tons of half finished and proxied warbands.

WarbossKurgan wrote:

@Opheliate - what about the guy whose swordsman company was wiped out, so he joined the warband to get the camaraderie and safety-in-numbers that he lost?

According to my opinion, that would work too, as he most certainly would look to befriend those in the warband who uses the same way of fighting as himself, and that he can relate to. He might become friends with a marksman, but never bond as much as he would a fellow swordsman. Further, he would probably train with a fellow swordsman and also work in a group with other swordsmen in a unit. To me, it seems pretty clear why groups are more fluffy than individual henchmen.

@Opheliate: Okay, ye got me there.

JAFisher44 wrote:

I have seen tons of half finished and proxied warbands.

Me too, but not nearly as many as Warhammer armies in the same state.

so if you buy a group of warriors do they have to buy played as a group
what i mean is that have to stick together ?

No no, there are absolutely no restrictions to moving your models (henchmen groups or not) on the tabletop ; )

I play Orcs so I do both. It is good to have Orcs get LGT, but if a goblin get LGT the Orcs kill him.

My Goblins are in 2 groups, the first group is the one with the Poker so he can rangle the squips the others are all in the second group because they all have short bows and clubs. Thus minimising the chances rolling Lads got tallent.

My Orcs on the other had are all in groups of 1. The upside is that you have a better chance of rolling LGT, which is really important because I only start with 4 heros. The down side is that they all have different stats so I have to look-up which one it is, and what stats were upped. So I have to figure out is that the WS4 guy, or the A2, or the S4 guy.

Rudeboy wrote:

My Orcs on the other had are all in groups of 1. The upside is that you have a better chance of rolling LGT, which is really important because I only start with 4 heros. The down side is that they all have different stats so I have to look-up which one it is, and what stats were upped. So I have to figure out is that the WS4 guy, or the A2, or the S4 guy.

Yeah, that must surely be a problem as well. Personally, i'll keep my larger groups of henchmen. I usually go with 3 in a group. If I cant afford more than 1 Henchman I wait until I can have at least 2 before I buy one. As I said earler, it might sound stupid, but it feels a lot more fluff and I also loathe powergaming. But that is just in out group, and I can see why others dont play that way, as it is not an optimised style of play.

Actually it's always been in the rulebook, but I'm with you guys ... I like no more than 2 in a group normally. Unless they're non-xp gaining henchmen of course! LGT is clutch to remain competitive in a long campaign, especially for those warbands that only get 4 heroes to start...

Although the rules allow it, we disabled the option to recruit NEW henchmen to existing groups.

Souds rather silly to find the exact guy with the appropriate skill increments for just a few extra gold coins.

That's why we usually start with group of 3-5 henchmen, so they gain advantages at once (and is more fluffy as Opheliate says).

And when they are killed, there's no replacements!

We need to START another group.

But that's something we do to avoid powergaming, and keep the bands from advancing too quickly ((But that's a metter of taste, of course).

In the end, every gaming group develops it's own dynamics, and, if everybody agrees (and don't break the set of rules you're using), pretty much anything goes.

Best wishes.

magokiron, I'm now going to have to seriously consider this during our next campaign. Since I began to follow Mordheimer's sage advice about henchmen groups and LGT, we routinely exploit this and always start with henchmen in their own group, then add to existing groups as they receive desired advances. That is, we have min-maxed our play around that ruling.

But if we were to adopt what your group does, that would return us to really thinking about (and saving for) groups of henchmen to be bought together.

Hmmmmm.....

Magokiron: Kudos for not power-gaming! Heh.

Also, the fluff reason I see behind recruiting new henchmen to groups with already gathered Xp is this:

The newcomer is fresh, no doubt about that. Howver, the leader, wanting his men to be strong and the units to be able to fulfil their battlefield roles (as swordsmen and marksmen), he sends the probie to join one of the more experienced groups, who teach him a thing or two about fighting in Mordheim, what to watch for and what tactic to use against what enemy warband. At the end of the day, the new guy might be scared out of his life, and regret ever signing that contract, but he'll know more about the dangers, and may even have begun to know how to handle a blade... or bow.

This is, once more, another fluff reason why Henchmen SHOULD be in groups!
Fluff is the hardcore way to go, even if you loose every single game

I don't think the possibility to buy warriors with XP for an existing henchmen group is really thát much powerplay. In the end you pay extra (OK, not thAt much, but still...), but most of all, you're limited to 2d6 xp per game... After a first and second advance you'll be able to buy new guys rather easily, but once henchmen XP goes up, it does get a lot harder... You could always play having only 1D6 XP available instead of 2D6 (or even 2 or 3 D3's). But yeah, in the end it's just about what you like best... : )

How about about having some weeks during a campaign were there are more or less recruits available - by raising or lowering the number of D6 for experience that everyone is allowed to roll for that week?

So in a lean week everyone only gets (like Jadex suggests) 1D6 or 1D3.
In a bountiful week everyone gets to roll 2D6 or 3D6.

I think that would make for an interesting little change occasionally.

Quote :

Although the rules allow it, we disabled the option to recruit NEW henchmen to existing groups.

Souds rather silly to find the exact guy with the appropriate skill increments for just a few extra gold coins.

Personally, I don't see this as all that unrealistic, because "exactly the appropriate skill increments" in game terms, translates to a much broader spectrum in real-life terms. It's not as if real-life skill with a sword, or physical strength, or speed/dexterity, can so easily be broken down into a 1-6 scale (or 1-4 for strength). If you put it in those terms, WS 4 is someone who's better than average, but not exceptional, at close-quarters fighting. I bet you can find mercenaries that fit that bill a dime a dozen in Mordheim. Perhaps some other warband was disbanded, perhaps it's a former member of the city guard, perhaps it's just a sell-sword with some practice or experience.

no reinforcing groups got asp hooked!

1
gets rid of a small hidden exploit in the rules (takes newbies some time to "get it")

2
gets rid og a lot of other rules (rolling for experience), adjusting hire fee etc.

3
fluff: makes henchmen groups more fun as everyone knows there're the underdogs

Jadex wrote:

You can add extra henchmen to groups: Say you have a henchman group with 3Xp (and they got +1S as advance, which is good ) and you want to add a warrior. First you roll 2D6 to see how much XP is "available" lets say you roll 8. Then you can buy two extra warroirs for the grouop (=6xp < 8xp available). You pay more though: 2gc per XP. So buying these 2 extra models with 3xp would cost 2x3x2gc=12gc MORE (on top off normal cost and on top of equipment). This extra cost represents the experience you "but with them".

I believe that you can "purchase" an experienced replacement for a fallen henchmen in order to bring that henchmen group back up to its original starting size. You can not however increase the size of a henchman group after the intital purchase.

@ Kidterminal: The main problem is that for powergaming, A LOT of people makes 1 henchman "groups" to maximize the odds of obtaining "Lad got talent", AND at the same time increasing the chances of getting the advance they want.

ONCE the single henchman has the desired advance, they will ADD NEW RECRUITS to that group for just a few extra gold coins.

That's why we disabled the option.

Sounds EXTREMELY CHEESY for our tastes.

@ Asp: fell free to use that. We REALLY think is the better option.

Of course, there will be lots of people who disagree...

Best wishes.

magokiron wrote:

@ Kidterminal: The main problem is that for powergaming, A LOT of people makes 1 henchman "groups" to maximize the odds of obtaining "Lad got talent", AND at the same time increasing the chances of getting the advance they want.

ONCE the single henchman has the desired advance, they will ADD NEW RECRUITS to that group for just a few extra gold coins.

That's why we disabled the option.

I am blessed with a group of gamers that wouldn't dream of powergaming, so I think, for now, we play according to the standard rules. HOWEVER, Magokirons ideas are great and if some powergaming anti-fluffer ever dare show his 1337 face in our group, well certainly use these rules. Powergamers FTK!!! (for-the-kill I guess)

magokiron wrote:

@ Kidterminal: The main problem is that for powergaming, A LOT of people makes 1 henchman "groups" to maximize the odds of obtaining "Lad got talent", AND at the same time increasing the chances of getting the advance they want.

ONCE the single henchman has the desired advance, they will ADD NEW RECRUITS to that group for just a few extra gold coins.

That's why we disabled the option.

Sounds EXTREMELY CHEESY for our tastes.

Best wishes.

I haven't played Mordheim in a couple of years. I have been playing Legends of the High Seas, which uses the rules the way I stated. LOTHS relies on henchmen groups more than Mordheim so you'd think this rule would "ruin" henmen groups. But I've found that it really enhances them. You're more invested in getting them experience. We usually had groups of three henchmen, because groups of one and even two can get wiped out quickly with some bad rolls. For me there's nothing worse than loosing all that experience when a henchmen group is wiped out.

Rob

Kidterminal, I hope this is not considered as a personal discussion between you and me.

And believe me, I don't want to start a fight about "my rule is better than yours".

And I must say I agree with your interpretation.

REPLACEMENTS, NOT ADDITIONS.

But as I have explained, most people used to make "one man groups" until the desired advancement was obtained, and THEN will add more henchmen to that "group".

In your option, as the "group" of one will be TOTALLY ERASED with the death of the only member, I will say:

A group has to have AT LEAST one active "alive" member, in order to recruit "replacements". In other words, a "group" of only one, who dies, gets no replacements, no matter how advanced he was.

And there has to be AT LEAST ONE SURVIVOR in a group of 2+ fighters in order to recruit new members.

If this is the way you do it, then I'm sure I will consider that option.

But the NO REPLACEMENTS rule we applied, proved EXTREMELY USEFUL to avoid powergaming, and instantly our henchmen "groups" started to be composed of 3 to 5 members again.

And we think that's the way the designers meant it to be.

Period.

As a side note: I've been thinking about getting into other games, and was considering Victorian SF, Gothic Horror or Pirates.

As you have been playing this, do you REALLY recommend LotHS as a system?

Is it composed EXCLUSIVELY of human pirates or are there other fantasy races as well?

Thanks.

Best wishes.