Wyldhunt's Mordheim Revision available

I have a solstice present for you all – the next major update of Wyldhunt's Mordheim Revision. It's no longer a Compendium – too much has been changed from the official Mordheim rules to call it that anymore. Here are some of the major components of the update:

1.At the Mouth of Madness (Insanity rules!)
2.Encampments
3.Critical Hits (not Wounds, but Hits)
4.Armor rules updated
5.Parry rule updated
6.First Strike/Last Strike rules updated
7.Many missile weapons have been altered
8.Several scenarios added, with resulting updates to the Scenario charts.
9.Several warbands have been altered
10.Rudimentary credits have been added

There are also several minor updates too numerous to call out here. These are the rules our gaming group will use for at least our next campaign – we'll probably make no change during this campaign itself, instead noting items we'd like to change next time. It should be fun!

Wyldhunt's Mordheim Revision is available at http://sites.google.com/site/wyldhaunt/games-workshop/mordheim.

There are still many, many items I want to add, but that'll have to wait a while. These things are:
1. More underground/sewer scenarios.
2. Campaign warband objectives - gonna steal from be inspired by Nemesis Crown and Border Town Burning, of course!
3. More chosen scenarios.
4. More scenarios suggested by original Mordheim fluff in Town Cryer.
5. A few more warbands.
6. More extensive credits.

Our campaign will be starting up in January, and I hope to get the other participants involved on this forum, uploading especially Battle Reports! If you are in the Atlanta, GA, USA area (particularly Cobb County) and would like to join in, please drop me a PM. We have a very small (three players) but good group.

more fans taking control of the game

and serious about it too

but on design philosophy we will never agree


(13 special rules for ball and chain erquiment and i start thinking that the rules are more important than the gaming itself)

Not bad, though I'm not fond of being forced to pick a particular warband.

Asp wrote:

(13 special rules for ball and chain erquiment and i start thinking that the rules are more important than the gaming itself)

It's actually great that you call out that specific weapon, because that's one I feel should be dropped (both for the inordinate amount of rules and the fact that it really doesn't fit in Mordheim), and likely will next time. Since our rules started out as a compendium, my first objective was to gather all the material we wanted into one place, then streamline/alter as we saw the opportunity and need. Who knows? We might get to the same place in 10 years or so...

@Mortimer, well, not forced to pick a particular warband unless you're in the bad part of the pick order and can't get anyone else to negotiate with you - just forced to pick at least one of the original rulebook's warbands, along with one you want. I've played too many campaigns in past years where there were no Witch Hunters, Middenheimers, nor Sisters. Our group thought the warband pick rules were the best way to ensure the core bands get represented, and allow a player to choose another warband as well.

That's a massive amount of work!
In the next days i plan to read more or less carefully what you suggest
Good job!

Anyways i have noticed a few addition to the CoC, the buyable mutation as advancement and the nurgle's rot now comes with the poison immunity extra, but i have not noticed a transcription of the nurgle's rot itself!

Could you explain me your motivations for those rule changes and where (and if) is your nurgle's rot house rule?

Thank you - of course, most of my work is in the compilation, not the writing, so all the original creators of content should definitely receive their kudos.

Later on in the "Skills and Abilities" section, on page 243, is the listing for Nurgle's Rot. We have settled on a -1T when affected by it.

The listing for Nurgle's Rot in Empire in Flames does state that a model with this Nurgle's Blessing is Immune to Poison - we just called it out more specifically, and made it easier to tell the difference between characters who are "blessed" by Nurgle to be carriers of Nurgle's Rot versus those who have merely contracted it as a disease.

The buyable mutations change come from Werekin's excellent Corrupted Characters article (available at http://cianty.ashtonsanders.com/btb/pdf/Corrupted.pdf), though we have made an alteration: in Corrupted Characters, mutations can be bought on a Hero Advance roll of 2,4,10,12, and we've changed this to 2,3,11,12 - it makes such purchases a little rarer.

The reason we changed Nurgle's Rot itself to only be a one-time -1T per affect was an effort to:
1. Keep it with a permanent Toughness-affecting penalty
2. Keep it communicable (via HtH combat)
3. Keep it in the game in a way that isn't an automatic model-kicker or warband killer.

However, it's still a powerful ability, in fact, more powerful in some ways than the original, since every time a model with Nurgle's Rot rolls a 6 to wound an opponent, the opponent could lose a point of Toughness. We view this as an acceptable trade-off for what was basically the same effect every Campaign Turn.

Even so, I'm looking to excise Carnival of Chaos from Mordheim - the warband makes sense to me in Empire in Flames, but not really in Mordheim itself. The reason is the City of the Damned article in Town Cryer 26 (I love this series of articles!) - the street entertainers described there should really have the carnival niche in Mordheim, and they're not Nurgle-based. So when I get to that revision, I'll use the Carnival of Chaos warband as an inspiration from which to create a Blood Theatre Troupe instead, without the trappings of Nurgle, and be able to remove Nurgle's Rot from our rules.

imo the rot should have no post-game effects

i think you have laid some grown work to getting something great here.

but reading though it, just seems well, wordy.
you could do so much better with tables, diagrams!

I not sure about some of the rule changes, with out play testing them.
but the rules may be clear, but could take extra time to understand, as its so long winded.

Mortimer wrote:

Not bad, though I'm not fond of being forced to pick a particular warband.

i agree with this too. i like the idea of having the one i want!

well its just some things to think about. you obviously have put lots of though and work, into creating a game you love.

Asp wrote:

imo the rot should have no post-game effects

I'd rather get rid of it entirely than conflict the fluff behind Nurgle's Rot by that much.

frog wrote:

i think you have laid some grown work to getting something great here.
but reading though it, just seems well, wordy.
you could do so much better with tables, diagrams!

You're absolutely right on all three points:
1. Yes, this is ground work for an end-goal I have in mind, that may take a couple of years and several campaigns of playtesting to get to. Thank you for the compliement on something great - I hope it can get to that point.

2. Yes, it is wordy - I'm casting my net wide to get all the content in, then streamlining things down. Part of that streamlining is first calling out all the ifs/ands/buts in the rules. As Asp noted, there are 13 bullets for Ball & Chain - 12 of them are merely clearer wording of the original! In order to see clearly must be excised and what can be streamlined while keeping variety, my own game design experience shows this to be a very good step, but not the final format.

3. Towards the end of this long project, I plan to include better formatting, which means tables, diagrams, graphics, photos, examples, and all the trappings to help it be more readable and understandable.