groups Experience

NO these comments are for any an everyone. I lost my digital mordheim rules in my computer, so I've forgoten how they read in Mordheim.

The other comments are simply some observations on what we've done in play. We had only one warband with a single henchmen in a group and that was a direwolf, which can't advance per the lad's got talent. Our players tried to max out the number heroes at warband creation. I'd be interested to know how successful the one henchmen groups have been for people.

Rob

magokiron wrote:

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.

I set up this thread to answer your question.

Rob
https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/historical-wargames-f17/legends-of-the-high-seas-how-does-it-compare-to-mordheim-t3295.htm#48601

Alright, so here's some thoughts on restricting additional henchmen to groups.

1. The basic reason to have larger groups is to keep from losing the group's advances when certain henchmen die.

2. The basic reason to have small groups is to maximum the possibility of getting "Lads' Got Talent."

3. The perceived "good" reason to add to henchmen groups is to replace losses.

4. The perceived "bad" reason to add to henchmen groups is to wait and see which group gets good advances, and expand that group.

5. Another reason to add to existing henchmen groups is to allow warbands which don't receive high profit to gradually expand existing groups.

Thinking of the "internally consistent, game-fluff-realistic" process of adding to existing henchmen groups, a leader would have to find available people of the same race, with the same very-basic skills, and willing to follow that leader. Really, given the assumed constant death among the assumed additional NPC warbands in Mordheim, doing so wouldn't be too hard for humans and some relatively plentiful other races. It would be next to impossible to do the same for the rare and long-travelled types, like Amazons and Chaos Dwarfs.

If we accept that we should get rid of the bad reason to add to existing henchmen groups, we have the following possibilities:

1. Disallow adds, period.

2. Only allow adds to replace dead henchmen from the same group.

3. Make available XP for new henchmen 1D6 rather than 2D6.

4. Make the gc/XP cost higher than 2.

At this point, I'm still not convinced that the adding henchmen to existing groups should be nixed. We've seen that a disparity in the number of warband heroes between players makes a great difference in income, and I'd rather not make Lad's Got Talent more random than we have currently. However, I do like the idea of limiting being able to add henchmen to highly-experienced groups, and having to pay more for their hire.

So what I will propose to our own gaming group is make available XP for new henchmen 1D6, and increase the gc/XP cost to 5. There are still Exploration Chart results to add henchmen (at least for some warbands), and we are using global events, one of which adds 1D6 XP for available henchmen.

The effect I see from this is that the initial henchmen groups will still be 1 to maximum Lad's Got Talent, and then a rush to fill out one (or two) of those groups, with later henchmen recruitment done in larger groups.

what if you keep 2d6 as the experience pool and added a grades cost increase? For example experince level 1-4 henchmen cost 2 crowns per expereince point, 5-8 4 crowns per point and 10-12 8 crowns per point.

Rob

kidterminal wrote:

what if you keep 2d6 as the experience pool and added a grades cost increase? For example experince level 1-4 henchmen cost 2 crowns per expereince point, 5-8 4 crowns per point and 10-12 8 crowns per point.

Rob

IMO, less is more, and making things comcplicated (having to count the xp to see what price you get etc) will make most ppl just go with the normal rules instead of trying out the new ones. I do think a 1d6 xp pool is good, and 5gc/xp is also a good idea. In combination with the idea of not adding new members to a group, just replacing them (thoiugh it IS kinda hard to see the fluff reason as to why...) I think we can eliminate any powergaming.

OR

Just stop powergame and it will all balance out in the end.

OR: you could have heroes "search for experienced new members": each hero you send searching adds 1D3 to the pool of xp available?

All in all I don't find the current rulings that bad. To me it makes sense and is fluffy, not just powerplay, to add new members to existing henchmen groups. It makes sense that the more powerfull your warband gets, the more powerfull new henchmen are it attracts. An experienced independent mercenary would never join a new, fresh, inexperienced warband. He wants to fight amongst thougher dudes of his own strength and skill, so thay don't get him killed n battle by their inexperience. So the better your henchmen are, the better the quality of new warriors that want to join them.

On the other hand: it somehow doesn't make sense that a very powerful warband with tough and experienced guys would hire fresh noobs: they wouldn't be able to hold their ground and would impose a danger on the other warband members. "I'm not fighting alongside this "green-behind-the-ears rookies!!", would be the reaction of your warband members...

Jadex wrote:

OR: you could have heroes "search for experienced new members": each hero you send searching adds 1D3 to the pool of xp available?

All in all I don't find the current rulings that bad. To me it makes sense and is fluffy, not just powerplay, to add new members to existing henchmen groups. It makes sense that the more powerfull your warband gets, the more powerfull new henchmen are it attracts. An experienced independent mercenary would never join a new, fresh, inexperienced warband. He wants to fight amongst thougher dudes of his own strength and skill, so thay don't get him killed n battle by their inexperience. So the better your henchmen are, the better the quality of new warriors that want to join them.

On the other hand: it somehow doesn't make sense that a very powerful warband with tough and experienced guys would hire fresh noobs: they wouldn't be able to hold their ground and would impose a danger on the other warband members. "I'm not fighting alongside this "green-behind-the-ears rookies!!", would be the reaction of your warband members...

I think the fluff is good enough in the standard rules too, it's just that many players seem to not give a rats arse about fluff and will exploit the standard rules to PG. I think the above rules are very good options to PREVENT just that kind of exploiting. But as I said, if you have any self discipline, you can play with the standard rules and just stay away from exploiting the rules. All in all, I am with you all the way on this one Jadex

As we always say in Flame On: if you are a power gamer, Mordheim is not the game for you. If won't be fun for you or your opponents.

WarbossKurgan wrote:

As we always say in Flame On: if you are a power gamer, Mordheim is not the game for you. If won't be fun for you or your opponents.

I think the lessen of this thread is that if you are a Mordheim player someone will label you a power gamer.

For me the major porblem is, sometimes playing power gaming and playing flufwise is the same, and sometimes its not.

For me making a max moddels skaven gang each rat equiped with 2 daggers is hard powergaming in original ruleset, but its also very fluffy having a horde rats wielding weak weapons and look like small assasins (small ok never met a skaven in reallife^^)

Now playing middenheim champions with twohandet weapons is very fluffy for me too, but its stupid it terms of gameplay.

So as i want to play a fair game bringing fluff and fun to all players i try to improve the rules making them fluffy and fair ad once.

Dont know if this can be sucsessfull but iam happy to get inspired for those rule changes in forums like these, and can discuss ideas with more experianced people.

After reading this post i will include the following rule to my playgroup rule suggestions:

- Henchmen has to be bought in groups, u dont need to buy all fighters at once but need to note the total groupsize, no henchmengroup may exceed this size.
- U are not allowed to start a new henchmengroup if u got an existing group of the same henchmen type missing fighters to their total groupsize.
- if a henchmen get talent on advance, u may choose to reduce its groups groupsize by 1.

Thx a lot

Keylan wrote:

For me the major porblem is, sometimes playing power gaming and playing flufwise is the same, and sometimes its not.

So as i want to play a fair game bringing fluff and fun to all players i try to improve the rules making them fluffy and fair ad once.

Noble sentements Keylan.

If we consider lmiting henchmen groups to their original "purchase" size, we should exempt henchmen who don't gain expereince like zombies, giant rats and wardogs.

Rob

Keylan wrote:

For me the major porblem is, sometimes playing power gaming and playing flufwise is the same, and sometimes its not.

Yes, I guess that is true.

Keylan wrote:

- U are not allowed to start a new henchmengroup if u got an existing group of the same henchmen type missing fighters to their total groupsize.

That's pretty harsh - what about when a henchman group gets too much experience to ever be reinforced. You would be adding a limit that seems a bit arbitrary and contrary to what most people in this thread seem to be wanting!

You should always be able to buy new, inexperienced, fighters if you have the space and cash.

I second what warboss said, the henchmen group rule was (as far as I can see and imagine if I would make my own game) put into place to make the post game sequence a bit more manageble. if you want to be fluffy you could concider that end of the roster as a social relations map.
i.e. you get more asskicking if you hang out with people that kick ass.
Playing like you want to kill the enemy and being fluffy is not opposing objectives. If that was the case you wouldnt even get exp for it.
Maybe this feels like a really silly discussion for me as I play undead and only ever get three big herds of expendables with the exception of zombiefied heroes.