Maximum Warband Size - House Rules

So I'm currently in my first Mordheim campaign and loving it. When this one finishes my wife and I are hoping to get another one up and running at our local gaming store. The group I play with now uses a couple custom rules and I wanted to get opinions on one of them. The rule quite simply is that all warbands can have 15 members. This means Witch Hunters aren't capped at 12 and skaven can't go over it, I believe giant rats don't count against the total. The reasoning being that the people running the campaign have never understood why the warbands would have different number caps when statwise things aren't *that* different. What do you all think? If I start up a new league should I just make all bands 15 members or go with the book rules?

Did you see any necessity to change the rules so far? E.g. does a withhunter-player suffer from his lack of numbers or does the skaven dominate the games with plenty of cheap troops? If not, leave it for now. We in our group do have house rules, for band size also. But no rules are written "just in case", they all result from certain insufficiencies we experienced with the LRB-rules. And what is insufficient for us, might be perfectly fine for others.

Personally, I would basically leave the number caps as they are, for they do much to balance out the different warbands.

The number -apart from reflecting fluff of either a few elite warriors or a wild crazy mob- makes up for other flaws or strengths.

Warbands that are limited to 12 normally have quite good models (in the long run) with access to heavy armour and good leadership and sometimes other defensive special rules, whereas warbands with a limit of 20 usually have some flaws like the animosity rule of the orks, or the low leadership of the skaven. also both can only use light armour etc...

there are several factors like range of accessible weapons/armour/equipment, speed, closecombat or range-oriented, strong magic, weak or none at all, how many potential hired swords that a warband might have etc... and one of these factors is of course the members limit. If you change it, all the other factors are at least indirectly affected.

as one might not see too many differences among starting warbands of different kinds, they differ a lot more when the campaign goes on, as each race has different racial stat limits. Orcs can reach T5 whereas Men can only reach T4 etc.

so as has been said, I would leave the number cap be until you see actual need for a change. (which seems to be a good rule about house-rules in general )

but of course the most important rule is that your group should have fun. and if you all prefer to stick to that houserule of yours, just go for it...

I believe the thinking behind the Caps is balance. Since you are only playing with a 12 to 20 models price isn't as much of a factor like it is when you are purchasing 100 guys. Also as the games go on you get more and more money so models with Superior States will always beat-out models with Interferer Stats. So to balance it they made the Maximums.

If you look at it there are 3 different Maximums 12, 15 and 20.

12 are models that are Surperor, like Elves, High, Wood and Dark.

15 are average like Human Mercs, Sisters of Sigmar

20 are flawed models like Orcs, Skinks, and Skaven.

The argument I think that most people have is that Skaven really aren't that flawed. Yeah their low Leadership is a flaw, but the bonus movement, and Initiative some people think balance the flaw out to make them an Average Model. You could make the Argument for Orcs, and Lizardmen as well. Does Animosity Flaw make-up for the toughness bump? And does the free armor make-up for the lower toughness?

In my experience, the official Mordheim warbands are very nicely balanced. Changing the caps will upset that balance.

Good to hear that you're already planning your next campaign. Our gaming group has not tweaked any of the warband sizes. We find the official warbands to be nicely balanced (including warband size) when all factors are considered.

I would recommend not changing any rules without first playing the affected warbands in several campaigns and having bad experiences each time. If things seem unbalanced after your first campaign ask whether you are playing all of the rules correctly or if a particular warband just had a lot of good/bad luck in the campaign. Luck happens in campaigns due to the high dependence on dice rolls and doesn't necessarily represent an imbalance. An example of misinterpretting the rules is that many people don't realise that it is necessary to roll for injury when shooting and wounding a warrior that is knocked down or stunned (I made this particular mistake for many years). Some people then call shooting in Mordheim too powerful as a result of this mistake and put house rules in place (Asp the creator of the Coreheim game is another example of someone making this very mistake about shooting and he has created an entirely new game due to perceived imbalances in Mordheim - Coreheim is probably quite fun to play but it is no longer the Mordheim that we all love and is an example of what can happen when house rule after house rule are added to the game).

There are other factors that affect warband balance and why particular warband caps exist (such as access to Hired Swords, flaws, etc) that have been mentioned by others already. If you are currently playing your first campaign then I'm glad that you are really enjoying it but it would be worthwhile getting several campaigns completed before you start tweaking rules or else you may continually find this element or that element of the game becomes imbalanced due to previously implemented house rules that didn't take into full account the existing depth of the rules in Mordheim.

Dahag wrote:

as one might not see too many differences among starting warbands of different kinds, they differ a lot more when the campaign goes on, as each race has different racial stat limits. Orcs can reach T5 whereas Men can only reach T4 etc

Bad example... the orcs can have up to 20

Like any experiment, take careful notes, and change it up next campaign to compare. On a point by point note:

Witch Hunters: yeah, have no idea why they have 15. Go for it.

Skaven: I definitely agree with letting them have extra rats. compared to Wardogs, they stink, so a small bonus makes sense. You should probably cap it at some number, though... maybe 5? 7? Or maybe each hero can take a single rat as "equipment"... still adds a rating of +5, but doesn't count towards limit. As a penalty, though, if the hero dies or is robbed, he loses his "equipment" rat too.

Dwarves & Elves: This might be one place where you have to keep at 12 (or fail that, watch carefully.) Unlike Witch Hunters, these guys CAN be strong. OR, as a balancer, limit the number of "elite" henchmen they can get... Shadow Warriors can only get 0-8 Warriors, Dwarves can only get 0-8 Clansmen. This forces them to take more "average" stated units, like Novices and Beardlings. Just a thought.
OR, maybe they have to pay a fine... any unit over 12 costs an extra +10 to hire. Therefore, they can still match the numbers of the other groups, but they suffer for it.
Or make them roll rarity to find 13+ units: Rarity = to cost / 5. (So, a 25 Beardling is rarity 5, etc.)

Orcs are allowed to have up to 20 because the more you have the more likely they are are to beat each other up.

I think Witch-hunters are only allowed 12 because they have access to super-cheap wardogs, broad access to academic skills, and access to the crossbow pistol.

On the subject of tweaking, I too would recommend getting another two or three campaigns under your belt before changing things like the warband amount.

Orcs Beating each other up: True, but on the flip side, the more they will get an extra move to the enemy. They are statistically the same.

Witch Hunters: Perhaps, but compared to some of the other 12 size warbands they are not super strong. I'm not suggesting it MUST be changed, but for them, I doubt 15 will break them.

Changing: Well, I think he said that it was HIS first campaign, but his GROUP had the house rule. They may have many campaigns under their belts.

The beating each other up is always a bad thing. The extra movement is sometimes a good thing and mostly a bad thing as it stretches your warband out. Personally, I don't think they are equal at all. I mean, on one hand you have sometimes convenient movement, sometimes inconvenient movement vs a good chance at having a model go out of action.

StyrofoamKing wrote:

Bad example... the orcs can have up to 20

It seems that you did not get the point I was making, maybe I wasn't clear enough on that. I stated that there is an overall picture and a lot of factors are involved. One of them is racial limits, another is member size cap. If you simply compare what toughness they can achieve and the member cap they may have, the overall picture gets distorted...

Besides, Animosity can be a real pain and the extra movement towards the enemy happens not only rarely (1/36 chance per model) but also can even be a disadvantage if the main mob needs/wants to stay back or doesnt want to push forward in that direction...

Thanks for the feedback all. Just to clarify something. When I start up this 2nd campaign it will be with a totally different group which is why I'm thinking of any changes that might be made to the base rules. I think from what I'm seeing here it's probably best to go ahead and just keep things as they are in the book and adapt from there depending how it goes.

"An example of misinterpretting the rules is that many people don't realise that it is necessary to roll for injury when shooting and wounding a warrior that is knocked down or stunned"

Yeah that changes things a bit, I've always rolled to hit in this scenario but considered it an auto OOA.

That error with shooting is a common one. We had that one right from the first game, but made plenty of others to compensate!

Good luck with the new campaign!

I’m one of those who love the game as is. My main focus is the strategy of it all. That being said my group also plays an unending campaign, with warbands years old.

With a set number of games it changes your strategy. Will there be enough games to get my warband to it most powerful level. So the Warband I choose for that campaign will reflect that. With say 10 games, my Possessed my not finish high enough awards or bragging rights. But when you start messing band sizes, armor ratings, or dual wielding; will change the strategy necessary to compete. Most players love the game as is and know pretty strongly the rules. And not everybody plays “Balls to the Wall! I Gotta Win at All Costs!” I say, don’t mess with it. Instead have fun writing a campaign. Meaning, come up with new scenarios, some goofy ideas, odd one-use magic items hidden on the table. You’ll find a lot of players just want to have a good time, win or loose. Make people laugh with some stuff. Or even add some sniper action from NPCs in a tower. You know, small packs of kids left behind to fend for themselves in the shadows. Sounds odd until your guys hiding start getting hit with stones from who knows where because he/she didn’t move this round. Different Chaotic random happenings, not all evil, just odd stuff.

I had an event as the Side-Object was to find a duck. You had to search buildings, just like Treasure Hunt, but could only be found on 12 on 2D6. This kept going for a few games. The Duck was worth 100 gold to your band. The Wealthy owner wanted his Duck alive. You had to get the duck off the table and an extra 2 XP points to the member who did it. If you were attacked or shot, you could lose your duck and it would fly away again. For 100 gold, every building and floor had to be searched. And when you rolled to search you had to call for the Duck. Nothing like a group of guys saying, “Quack Quack” for each member in the building on each floor. The more searches the more Quacks. No Quack, No Duck.

Good Luck with your new Campaign.

Shadowphx wrote:

I had an event as the Side-Object was to find a duck. You had to search buildings, just like Treasure Hunt, but could only be found on 12 on 2D6. This kept going for a few games. The Duck was worth 100 gold to your band. The Wealthy owner wanted his Duck alive. You had to get the duck off the table and an extra 2 XP points to the member who did it. If you were attacked or shot, you could lose your duck and it would fly away again. For 100 gold, every building and floor had to be searched. And when you rolled to search you had to call for the Duck. Nothing like a group of guys saying, “Quack Quack” for each member in the building on each floor. The more searches the more Quacks. No Quack, No Duck.

Oh lord. I am SO stealing this for Wee War. Do you mind?

Go for it! It was a blast. It was inspired by “Munchkin” and the “Duck of Doom”. Never pick up a Duck in a Dungeon.

An awesome game! Now I'm tempted to have a tunnel adventure for the campaign, just so there can be a dungeon where the duck can be picked up.

Might make it a scenario too... a dungeon crawl, but with several cursed or booby trapped ducks... hmm

Shadowphx wrote:

I had an event as the Side-Object was to find a duck. You had to search buildings, just like Treasure Hunt, but could only be found on 12 on 2D6. This kept going for a few games. The Duck was worth 100 gold to your band. The Wealthy owner wanted his Duck alive. You had to get the duck off the table and an extra 2 XP points to the member who did it. If you were attacked or shot, you could lose your duck and it would fly away again. For 100 gold, every building and floor had to be searched. And when you rolled to search you had to call for the Duck. Nothing like a group of guys saying, “Quack Quack” for each member in the building on each floor. The more searches the more Quacks. No Quack, No Duck.

Good Luck with your new Campaign.

Now this is the spirit! I really enjoyed reading this, and its absolutely all in the line of what we are doing here. Narrator/GM controled games with a story will allways win the day in my book.

@Shadowphx... I couldn't have said it better myself. When I play I want to play to have fun no matter what. Win or lose. I hope that the others in my gaming group (and in every gaming group) are playing in the spirit of the game for fun and not simply just to win at all cost. I love the game as it is and it is perfectly good enough as it is to have plenty of fun.