Why Change Mordheim?

Shadowphx wrote:

House Rules (HR) are fine. My Group uses HR. Use HR as long as it doesn’t change Game Rules. Some examples of HR are: Always using the Optional Crit Chart. Always using the Random Happenings Chart. Using the Optional Black Powder Chart. Or always using the Insanity Chart. Others like Random Weather for the game, is it raining today, or muddy, is it foggy, is it Night time and need torch light? Things like that. Because I could play on you table and agree it rains in Mordheim, or gets dark. And not have to change my Roster.

Well, for starters I think you and most people have a different definition of "house rules." To most of us, I think the term house rules does imply something "home-brewed" or invented on the part of the players, not in the official rules. What you've termed house rules is what I would call either advanced rules or optional rules.

Shadowphx wrote:

I have read many discuss the ideas like: All Armor gets a +1 to its base rating. Making Heavy Armor a 4+ save, and Grom. A 3+ save. And others wanted Shields to add +1 and you have a 3+ and 2+ saves. Followed by, removing the strength bonus against armor making it even harder to wound the opponent. And then the big discussion about penalizing Dual Wielding fighters, making it less of an opportunity to get the hit to even see if there’s wound to save from. You’d have to almost always score high with crits just to make a difference. These Game Mechanics changes alters so much. One, you just told the Undead player, he’ll not longer be competitive, because his Warband doesn’t have much armor to wear. Or as I read somewhere, Only Heroes can use slings. Which will upset the Skaven and Sister’s players. Things like this are Game Mechanics Changes. Which as I said before, I wouldn’t be able to play at your table without having to change my Experienced Warband’s Roster. I read that changes like this are to “Balance the game”. When actually it completely changes the balance into unbalance. Mainly it’s trying to Bonus one type or group and penalizing another.

The problem is that you're assuming the core rules are balance as they are, which clearly is not the case. It is almost unanimously agreed that dual wielding and skipping armor is the strategy with the highest cost/benefit ratio. Lots of people increase the effect of armor and/or decrease the effect of dual-wielding, and by and large they seem to think that it works. Even adding +1 to body armor or to shields makes it very expensive for anyone to get a 3+ save (70 gc, the price of 2 henchmen with weapons). Also, I don't think that many people lower the strength modifier, add to armor, and take away from dual wielding.

However, as others have pointed out in this thread already - were you and I (or any two people from this forum) to meet up and want to play a game, the great thing about house rules is that they can easily be tossed aside and we can play a game with the rules as they're written in the rulebook. Very few people change the game so extensively that they forget the original rules. On top of that, almost all house rules are thought up because people didn't like the way the original rules played out, which means they surely know how the original rules work.

Shadowphx wrote:

I stated about Warhammer 40k, because those players play by the same rules. Yes it has gone through several revisions, and the players get the next rules and keep playing. Why the new revisions? Because GW wants you to buy more stuff. They dropped Mordheim probably because you buy 1 box of each race/specie and that’s it. 40K, is ARMY based. You have to buy a lot of stuff from GW to play it. Mordheim, all you need is the rules, you can use any Figures you want. Not secure money for a The GW Corporation.

40K has its own balance issues. People often complain of a persistent "one-upmanship" syndrome in the codexes - each new release is packed full of nonsense "wow" factor stuff and (supposedly) more powerful than the codex before. So if you want to be competitive, you need to get the "new hotness". However, that shouldn't be the only way to keep a game alive. In fact, I think GW had a great system for Mordheim, releasing the original rulebook and then continueing support for the game through Town Cryer. They had the perfect method for introducing new content to the game, and if they had put a little more into it I think it could have been economically viable. Clearly there are more campaign settings that could be released, and with each comes a host of new warbands, hired swords, dramatis personae, scenarios, etc. etc. And therefore models as well. I think it would have been awesome had GW released Lustria, Khemri, Relics of the Crusades, and Nemesis Crown in supplements the way they did with Empire in Flames.

Other companies manage to get by with skirmish-level games, and how many Mordheim players honestly stop at 1 warband? Whereas a typical 40K or Fantasy player probably collects an army or two (more over a longer period of time), we probably collect the same in numbers across all the warbands we amass.

Shadowphx wrote:

Most of the people I listened to, who want to change a rule, telling me how great it is; has never played against it for very long. And I mean over ten games with the same Warbands. Use your Armor Bonus rules in a campaign with Humans and Dwarves, and you play Undead. See just how competitive you’ll be with your Zombies, Ghouls, and Necromancer being hacked to pieces because they can’t wear Armor. The Necromancer can wear Armor, but not cast spells without a skill for it. If he survives long enough to get it. You’ll be looking to change rules about Zombies and Ghouls not wearing armor and using weapons pretty quick, just for balance. And/or making Dregs better fighters and shooters. How about this idea, I think it’s unfair that Zombies can’t run. So nobody should be able to run. For all you Fluff players, I can even back up that statement with more fluff. In Mordheim, you’re looking for Wyrdstone, if you’re running you won’t see it. So every body walks, because you’re looking. That’ll make the Dwarf player happy. Yes, I’m pointing out the Absurd with Absurdity.

The armor fix is almost as old as Mordheim is, so if it seriously underpowered Undead then we would know by now. And the fact of the matter is, Undead henchmen are fodder by late campaign anyways, armor or no. That's the nature of the warband - powerful heroes supported by swarms of weaklings.

As for the "fluff" argument against running - even the treasure seekers in Mordheim are more preoccupied with the mutant that's trying to kill them than shiny rocks.

Shadowphx wrote:

I mentioned before in another post about when I tried to play at Game Store where a local group tried to run a campaign with the Armor Bonus rules and the Dual Weapon Penalties. And Only Heroes could have slings. It started out with about 8 players (I think) after Game 3, Half the players dropped out. The Undead player the most vocal against it. I joined in Game 4 or 5. There were 3 players left and now me. I started Sister’s for the Steel Whip rules of strike first and +1 attack. I played against the Dwarf player. He had everybody in Heavy and Grom. Armor, shields (add +1 Armor Save), Helmets, Dwarf Axes, and Crossbows or pistols. My sisters could hit but it was REALLY hard to wound because of the 2+ and 3+ Armor Saves. I decided next game I would play my Amazons, if this group could cheese the rules then the Amazons should be welcome too. The Sun Staves, Sun Gauntlets, and Claws of the Old Ones; all have no armor saves. “Dwaves! BRING IT ON!” The campaign was dead before the next game. Nobody wanted to play those rules anymore. 1 point changed everything. The store wanted me to run a Campaign because they knew I was an Official Rules player. I’ve played every Warband in the Core book, Annual, and Town Cryer, and knew all their Bonuses and Penalties.

If the dwarf player had heavy or gromril armor on everyone by game 4 or 5, then either he cheated or he had about 3 warband members. For starters, there should have been slayers, who can't wear armor, meaning either he didn't recruit them or they died. Either case is a serious loss of money for the dwarf player, and wouldn't leave him with the money to heavily equip more than a small handful of warriors. So then you either gang up on one guy, or pincushion the ones that aren't wearing armor and force the heavies to flee. Ignoring a dwarf isn't too hard, since they're so easily outmanuevered.

Shadowphx wrote:

When I was younger in playing this Game, I too, tried rules changes and Homemade Warbands. But could never balance them. The Game is Balanced. But most choose not to see it because they don’t look at the whole game and all the Warbands. Most just compare one Band to another Band. Every Warband has Bonuses and penalties over another Band. Example: Compare Sister’s to Undead. The Sister’s overpower the Undead, with the Sig Hammer bonus, slings, Movement, and Armor availability. Does this mean the Sister’s shouldn’t be allowed to play, because it’s unfair to Undead?

The purpose of most house rules isn't to temper one warband or another, it's to prevent one strategy from being the only winning strategy. The armor/dual-wield thing is just because people want to be able to use armor, and still play competitively.

Shadowphx wrote:

The point I was making before was there’s a bunch here that play by different rules. How do we have a forum to discuss rules when several here have stated they don’t play those rules. How does someone come here and ask “RULES” questions? How would I post a question here about my Merc Captain using Sword, Mace, and bow as a combination when you use rules like “No Dual Weapons without penalty”, “Heavy Armor has a 4+ save (or better), No movement penalty”, “Armor is required”, “And his Strength 4 has no bonus against Armor.” You’d suggest how to work him in your game, i.e. no need for Mace, and buy Heavy Armor. But he’d get killed in a Core Rules Game, because he’s hindered by not having the Mace as a second weapon, and his armor is weaker because its only a 5+ save, and he move slower.

I've never once heard anyone advise against dual-wielding and taking more armor instead. Even people who play by the house rules assume, when someone asks a rules question, that it's with regards to the original rules. We all know that the other people here play with different groups, so unless they say otherwise it's just common sense to discuss rules with regard to the one ruleset that we all know - and that's without house rules.

Incidentally, your example of how to equip the Mecenary Captain perfectly illustrates why many people think armor and dual-wielding should be fixed - armor's not worth it and two weapons are better than one and a shield (even though it often costs less).

Shadowphx wrote:

[color=white][font=Times New Roman]
I’m saying Rule Changes, change Game Mechanics. I know Soccer, or Futball, is popular around the world. What if you were discussing the sport and a group of people started discussing changes the game? Things like: “The defense can only hop on one foot”, “The ball must be 1 yard (meter) in diameter”, and the Goal Posts. Would it still be the same game, or now is it different?

Sure, it's different. But who cares? To make the analogy more accurate, if me and my friends find that having the defense hop on one foot and using a 1-meter ball improves the game for us, then what's the reason not to do it? Clearly we're aware of the fact that we changed the game, and if someone outside our circle of friends ask us if we want to play soccer we're going to assume he means standard rules, not our own wacky variety.

Absolutely no hostility intended in this post, and I hope it doesn't come across that way. I don't think there's anything overtly wrong with playing by the rules as they're written, and my group plays with only very slightly modified rules. However, I also understand that different groups have a) different playstyles, and b) different experiences with the game, so they may feel the need to make adjustments to the rules to make it better fit they're purposes.

Myntokk my hat is off to your patience!

I think the underlying assumption here is that there is a 'right' way to play Mordheim, and a 'wrong' way. For instance, I've looked at the Coreheim rules and they don't really appeal to me. I've tried the -rather elaborate- rules for campaigns by Wyldhunt and they didn't work for our group; all the moving and taking control of areas and such took too long and took away from why we wanted to play; moving mini's around a ruined city. We've looked at the Shadow Elves and went "ehhhh no" for no better reason than that they felt overpowered.

To be honest, our group will make up the rules that they feel comfortable with. if this means importing stuff from Necromunda or throwing out certain stuff, so be it. I think slings are unbalanced, naked dual-wielders are too prevalent and critical hits are too random. From what I've heard, the guys in my group agree with me. Also, these guys know their games and I trust their judgement when they say Mordheim has serious balance-issues. So we'll change 'em.

Now, if you do ever come to my table, you'll find me a reasonable fellow who is quite willing to try Vanilla Mordheim, or playing against Ninja Assassin warbands, or any other silly stuff that you come up with. As long as we're having fun. And what I've learned is that a game is usually the most fun when people think it's fair. So the 'right' way to play Mordheim, for me, is to tweak it until the people in MY group are happy with it.

@ Shadowphx: regarding football, changes are made the whole time. Even though many rule changes are small, the sport (and many other) have gone through many reforms throughout the years.
The main problem with Mordheim and world coherency is that the rules haven't been updated in what, eight years or so? WHFB and 40K are updated the whole time, and flaws are fixed, this however does not apply to Mordheim.
Still, I like to keep a main connection with the vanilla rules; so for me slight alterations seems like the best idea.
A problem is still that most house rules seem to lead to a slower game; armour being bad and dual wield aviable means that getting persons ooa is easier, and the game ends quicker. In Mordheim, at least I prefere to play many short games, than few long...

... so you trolled us for fun? Um, yeah, I don't think I like you anymore either, even if I was in partial agreement. :3

ban banban ban banbanban ban ban ban ban....

@ shadowphx – well, when the rules didn't work out for the casinos they changed rules for poker and black jack and such. It's a jolly that you work in court, honestly, comparing it with mordheim is slightly frightening.
I think your conclusion (or should we call it closing argument ?) proves some what a disappointment in not achieving the conversion you might have been hoping for.
Don't get me wrong however, I think it was very positive that someone (you in this case) brought the agenda to the light. I think it is quite important that, even if you – as I am doing – choose to use house rules one should consider if they are really necessary, and I think the debate has been both enjoyable and interesting.

@ Asp – I really don't see a point in baning (anyone really). Why, he should clearly have the right to point out the opinion. Even though I can agree on that claiming that you would (even with humorous ambitions) beat someone up because they don't agree with you is slightly uncalled for. If I wish to, I could gladly ignore such provocations, put on a episode of Seinfeld, and forget the whole business. I mean, were on the web right?
Over and out
Popmouth

Shadowphx wrote:

My point has become this; when Gambler asks if you play Poker, you have to ask, “Which game?” Mordheim has become the same thing. Someone asks if you play Mordheim, you have to ask, “Which rules?”

Not so.

There are many officially recognized variations of Poker, so it makes sense that when asked if you play poker, you have to specify which one.

There are not several officially recognized variations of Mordheim - there is only one. Whatever changes and variations are made to the game, are made for the group playing them, and there is no recognition outside of that. Therefore, those who do change the game already know that there is a difference between Mordheim as they play it and Mordheim as any outsider understands it. If one is looking to join an established Mordheim group, then asking if they use house rules would certainly be a pertinent question (and I also think that it is in part the group's responsibility to make their house rules known, if they are advertising to new players), but for chance meetings or "pick-up" games (a rare thing with Mordheim as it is), or with a campaign where no house rules are posted, we stick to the rules in the rulebook.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, we all know the official rules (at least well enough), and when encountering a person that doesn't play within our own gaming group we know to default to those rules first.

just saying,

making a lot of people spend a lot of time responding to nonsense is one thing

trolling is another

Whatever the reason he did spark a debate. No one who responded had to. Its not like he made a hundred threads saying mordheim = teh suxxxors. I don't think we need to ban anyone from this forum that isn't a more serious nuisance than a single annoying thread. Mordheim has a small enough base without whittling it down

Dmig wrote:

Whatever the reason he did spark a debate. No one who responded had to. Its not like he made a hundred threads saying mordheim = teh suxxxors. I don't think we need to ban anyone from this forum that isn't a more serious nuisance than a single annoying thread. Mordheim has a small enough base without whittling it down

Shadowphx wrote:

House Rules (HR) are fine. My Group uses HR. Use HR as long as it doesn’t change Game Rules. Some examples of HR are: Always using the Optional Crit Chart. Always using the Random Happenings Chart. Using the Optional Black Powder Chart. Or always using the Insanity Chart. Others like Random Weather for the game, is it raining today, or muddy, is it foggy, is it Night time and need torch light? Things like that. Because I could play on you table and agree it rains in Mordheim, or gets dark. And not have to change my Roster.

Two issues with this statement:

1. Mordheim is an incomplete game. So you need rules to fill in the blanks in order to play without argument or silly dice rolls to determine which interpretation is correct. By your definition, these are not House Rules, so it would appear you have a problem with them. Tell you what: I'll play vanilla Mordheim LRB with you, so long as you play Middenheimers and I play Skaven. Let's play a whole campaign (15+ turns) that way, then we'll compare a win-loss record, and see whether you found it fun afterwards. By the way, if you don't let me shoot your GW 28mm heroically-posed human of which I can just barely see his 2h-sword-point past my own model from my shooter, than I will call foul on your standpoint that vanilla plays just fine.

2. It's funny that you mention it's fine to use torches, and that house rules are fine so long as you don't have to change your roster - because to use torches, you do have to change your roster...

I don't mind that you want to bring discussion to "why change Mordheim," likely because I already have weighed whether it was better to change the rules to a point where it's fun for our group, or just not pick up the game again (because vanilla is incomplete, vague, maddening, and not fun). I guess I should apologize that I didn't "get heated" during this discussion, but nah - that's a place where I share Asps's view of this discussion. It's hard enough for all us opinionated gamers to share ideas with minimal slams in a forum, and trying to get people "heated" is not something to laud. Get people involved (like my thread on Powergamers and Fluffgamers), yes, but not "heated." I don't go so far as to ask for ban, because I would like your constructive opinions to continue to be shared - to me, any rules change should be well-considered, and should be able to last through constructive criticism.

More generaly regarding TBMF, this is the most open place I've found for discussing optional rules and full rules mods, and I would like to keep it that way. We well recognize that there are many who don't want rules changes, however I would like you to recognize that there are many who do, and let each group have their own fun without trouncing the other.

Speaking as one of the more conservative members of the forum (less inclined to tinker with or especially radically alter the official rules), I have not found this thread remotely annoying; indeed, it has been quite enjoyable and pretty civil.

It's a classic troll; defend a seemingly controversial statement (poorly), accuse others of being unreasonable (pot, meet kettle) while ignoring their arguments, and finally bail out of the thread, claiming moral superiority (changing the rules = criminal behaviour).

That is a fine analysis Hasselt!

Citizen Sade wrote:

Our group play vanilla Mordheim. Vanilla Mordheim with official warbands. Vanilla Mordheim with official warbands and, with the exception of the occasional bit of campaign experimentation, no house rules. We've been playing vanilla Mordheim like this since 1999 so, it came as something of a surprise to me to hear that Mordheim is not playable.

While I think that Mordheim is far from perfect and that it could be improved, it's unlikely that my group could agree on what should be improved and how. Consequently, we play vanilla Mordheim. We think it's playable. Many, if not all of us, also think it's a great game.

Moving on, I'm seeing people here increasingly talk about balance like it's some sort of holy grail. This troubles me somewhat. They seem to think it's important and that we need to strive to balance the game. Why? For the sake of fairness? To stop our tabletops being overrun by tier one warbands? Something else?

Personally, I doubt that any tabletop wargame can ever be truly balanced. It might be that the balance-seekers are questing for a grail that doesn't exist. They are, of course, welcome to continue do so, but I remain to be convinced that this is a quest worth joining them on.

The more and more i real The new living dead rulebook, i too like the old rulebook best. Ok so what you can use two spears or can use 'hunter' with pistols.. any set of rules can be bashed for powerplaying. but its cool so i agree on vanilla mordheim