Multi player route?

So I was playing a 1v1v1, Dwarves, Sisters, ans Reiklanders. And I was playing Sisters and we swarmed and out gunned (go figure, but their thongs/ slings did some damage ). The Sisters were in the middle of a big melee. I routed. I picked up my girls and started my post battle sequence.

The Question: When in a multiplayer game a warband routes (voluntary or not) do you pick them up off the table now, or when (I routed when my Big sister got toa)?

My friend wanted to wipe me clean. I wanted to come back with something later.

What do you guys do?

-Fungo

Normally when we're playing multiplayer games, when a warband routs we have them continue to move the 2d6" toward their nearest board edge. Until they're off the table, they're still fair game (subject to the normal rules concerning a free shot when charged then they get to move again immediately). This continues until there are only 2 warbands left and at that point we go back to normal "i rout and the game's over" rules. Our little group is not fond of games ending quickly due to voluntary routs, and this tends to discourage it somewhat.

That sounds like a good rule! I'll definately suggest it the next time my group get together

That sounds good. How do you play it out, when they want to break from the melee? Can they move "freely?" Do they take hits from everyone in base contact?


s s s
r D s ->
r r s

How many hit does D take trying to flee? All 8?

To answer your questions Fungo...

We diverge a bit from Shadophx's interpretation of it. When routing, we play it as a pell mell flight away from the enemy at all best speed. You're not doing anything other than trying to get the hell away.

In the case of your example of D above, it's played out based on Initiative...those opposing models who have an equal or higher Initiative than the fleeing model get their strikes, while the slower ones are essentially too surprised by the sudden flight of their target to do much other than to stand there in shock.

Quote :

If you route, pick up your models and remove them from the table.

This infuriates us all to no end. Far too many players that several of us have played against utillize this as a crutch for poor strategy and consequently kill the fun for the rest of us. Nothing spoils an epic game quite like "Wow you've outmaneuvered me and actually used TACTICS...I'm not going to allow you to actually capitalize on being the better player. I run away! Ha ha!"

Bah.

We just take the models off the table like normal. We really don't think there is any reason to make a multiplayer game take any longer then it already does.

i'd personally say 3d6 if your wanting to run to represent them putting their heads down and running even quicker than the run move where they'd be looking about while just quickly moving into opsition.

Also means fewer turns to flee the table and harder to be chased down

BossFacePunch wrote:

We just take the models off the table like normal. We really don't think there is any reason to make a multiplayer game take any longer then it already does.

+1! Multiplayer games take forever already. Also that would be following the rules. I like to play multiplayer games but one or two players always get ganged up on anyway. Why make it worse?

im not sure we have this problem that much, - we play at least one multi once a week.
they can take several hour's when you have 4-6 players involved.
as i see it, you can only route when you have lost 25% of your men.
so you will at least have lost 3/4 of your men when you route.

most of us in our group, have a policy of trying to fight on what ever the odds.
more fun that way

( but we also let people roll to see if they route before they decide to voluntary route.)

hi folk, we play a lot of multiplayer games and i have never considered this before, yes its maddening when an opponent voluntarily routs because you have out played them but to be honest any team leaving the table because they involuntarily routed would be massacred in our games. So we always allowe models to be be removed straight away.
Perhaps i might put it to our group that we dont allow voluntery routes whilst more than 2 WB are still on the table. ?

cian Shieldbiter

Not taking the models off immediately can have serious effects on gamebalance as the remaining warbands can wipe out an entire warband for some nearly free xp quite easily. Depending on the post-battle rolls this can potentially finish the warband.
If you follow whispers suggestion it is unfair to the player routing first because only he suffers from it. When only two warbands are left the one routing last gets to take his models off immediatly without any chance of being killed - a huge advantage. If you want to discourage voluntary routs it is better to simply disallow it as a houserule.

I would not agree this is a good way, like some others said its pretty unfair to the unlucky router.

We use a different method, the voluntary rout is on a different table, i with my 15 members start taking rout tests at 25% but can only voluntary rout after losing 6 members if i remember correct. First we used a 25%/33% rule but now we refer to a special voluntary rout table we found.

do you have a copy of this table?

We remove all of the routing warband's models immediately, whether or not the rout is voluntary. Remember you cannot voluntarily rout unless you have lost more than 25% of your models.

We've not seen players just deciding to rout when they've been tactically defeated as a detriment to play - especially since we've expanded our scenario list greatly, often the winner gets a decent return.

In our current campaign, since we've added a Fate Point system, including a Fate Point for not voluntarily routing, we're finding a definite shift in attitude towards trying to stay.

I did rout my Orcs in a 2p scenario the other day, but they had already lost 5/9, and their opponent hadn't lost a single model (damn dice rolls!).

In other words, rather than requiring a routing player to get off the board as per fleeing, we've instead added incentives to stay in the game. It balances, and feels, much better that way.

The last big competitive campaign we played, the winner of the campaign was the warband that accumulated the most fame. Warbands that voluntarily routed lost one fame point. It did seem a little extra incentive for warbands to stick around after 25%+ casualties, as long as sticking around wasn't suicidal.

I would also recommend against making the unfortunate routing warband have to literally flee off the board edge - too rough on a warband that's probably already in bad shape. Furthermore, once they start fleeing the remaining warbands are going to be much more concerned with each other than the guys that are running away, so it is a bit of a cheap manuever for free xp. I say just let 'em pick up their models.

However, if voluntary routing is crippling your games, I would also recommend going BVM's route, and not allowing people to voluntarily flee until they've taken more than 25% casualties.

frog wrote:

do you have a copy of this table?

The table for this is on the first page ("Ye Editor Speaks") of Town Cryer #7.

Coming up with incentives to stay in the game are a good way of getting around this as well.

Like many things this thread is confusing for me. I fight to win. I win by forcing my opponent to rout. What's the issue here?

I guess it would be the "I must crush you utterly! Bwah ah hah!"

Also I'm curious as I've seen several threads about decreasing the deadliness of the injury table, yet here is a thread about increasing the casualties suffered during a game. Must cross reference. So do the 'stay until the last man' crowd also advocate henchmen only dying on a 1 or do you prefer a 1-3?

Heading back to the Group W bench now boss...

I thank you all for your responses, confusing on which to follow and incorporate everything how about:

-25% rout checks (we do this anyway) or leader TOA.

-if rout fails: FLEE 3d6, hits taken by initiative.

-Run 2d6 towards nearest table edge

-Henchmen die on a roll of 1.

I like these ideas. It promotes playing w/o being a total wipe.

Also an enemy HAS to shoot/ attack the closest enemy correct (of course a player in a crows nest can pick its target due to being elevated)? So if you are fleeing a mass melee the others cant always take/ chase you down because the closest enemy may very well beat your brains in.

And lessening the chances of your henchmen dying my lessen the burden of having a running retreat.

Von Kurst- on a 1v1 do you guys play till the other warband is off the table?

Although we do play by a lot of house rules when a warband routs (voluntarily or by failing a test) we simply remove their models. If we are playing 1 v 1 the game ends unless there are non-player enemies that must be destroyed to win.

My group follows the written rules (Living Rulebook) for routing and for henchmen dying. I just mentioned the suggestions for only dying on a 1 because I am so confused as to the point of forcing players to fight beyond 25% if it is not in their interests to. Doing so will increase the number of models OOA and therefore casualties, yet I see posts about what a lethal game Mordheim is because it is so easy to roll a KIA result.

I personally don't see a need or a good result from forcing the threshold for routing higher than 25% or forcing routing players to play out the rout.

Also while you must shoot the closest model you may charge whoever you like. The intercept rule works when playing a 1 v1 but there is no rule that says a player must intercept if an enemy model is charging yet a different enemy model.

Von Kurst wrote:

Also while you must shoot the closest model you may charge whoever you like. The intercept rule works when playing a 1 v1 but there is no rule that says a player must intercept if an enemy model is charging yet a different enemy model.

Good point... But on intercepting you can choose NOT to intercept. Which sometimes is can work in favor for the receiving attacker to have 2 guys defending (tho the 2 man defending would be on the next turn.. so confusing sometimes).

So the question: To help another player of to double team him on your next turn? Is it nobler to watch another warrior get pummeled to death with a fish then to....

I have always played if you route then you leave the board. Otherwise you will get hammered as you run away.

Could you imagine a Dwaf warband having to run off the table. Any fast, or at least not slow warband could get several "free" hits on them as they run away.

I have played in exactly one campaign that enforced the you-have-to-run-off-instead-of-teleporting and I can say this: Never again - it just makes the game too vicious and campaign performance too vulnerable to a single roll of the dice.

Very few people enjoy being forced to play the last 10-20 mins of a
game running 3/4 of their warriors off the table while their opponent
rakes in some easy xp picking them off as they flee, especially when you only have a few hours for playing. Far better to just end the game at the point of the failed rout-check and then both start a new fun game.

Also, why do you have to punish the people again for their bad luck/poor tactics? They are already punished - they lost. I don't think they need to be punished again by having their warband wiped out and their earning capacity eliminated. All that does is make it more likely that the winning warband will just keep winning - the losing warband earns little to nothing for replacement for their casualties let alone for cool toys. The winner collects more xp as they show their skill and tactical superiority slaughtering the fleeing warband and the loser *loses* xp on the models that die/leave the warband.

The whole point of the teleport-off-the-table rule is so that it is not enough to think tactically, you have to think *strategically* as well. You have to evaluate is it more important that I try to win this battle or should I cut my losses and regroup and fight some other time? You have to learn to pick your battles and the winner of the campaign will go to the one that consistently picks the right battles to fight, as opposed to the the warband that got luckiest at the start.

I won the campaign in question, but it was a hollow victory indeed and I never played an any of the others like that. I saw the same thing happen again and again - whoever does the best at the start quickly becomes untouchable and there is little that can be done about it. To me, that just doesn't feel like a proper victory.