Starting new campaign, with house rules

My mates and I are starting a new campagin, we're adding some house rules that we hope might make things a little more fun. Lemme know what you think.

We are:

-removing involentary routing. All routing is voluntary now, but cannot be done until the warband has reached 25% casuaties. Death squads made this move, I've played a death squads campagin and think it works. Their best argument for it in my mind is that we play the game for fun, and nobody wants to loose to a single dice roll.

-no splitting up henchmen groups in the hopes of rolling LGT sooner. While technically legal it just feels wrong. so equally equiped and experienced henchmen must be in the same group.

-as for improving armor we are reducing all armor costs by 20% across the board, as well as reducing the -1 save modifier from starting at str 4 to str 5. So str 5 is -1 armor save, str 6 is -2 we feel that not only does it make armor more accessable cost wise, it makes it tempting to take as a viable option instead of dual weilding. Also this means that very few warbands start with a str 5 model so armor isn't instantly useless.

-to try and balance parry and make it more fun at the same time we are changing the parry rule so if a model is attacked and has the parry rule, him and his opponent have a roll off, adding their weapon skill to the parry. the attacked model must still beat his opponent by 1. If he has a reroll he may use a reroll.

that's the only major ones we've come up with for how.

what do you guys think?

-

Our group just started our 2nd campaign 2 days ago. We also have a few house rules we have adopted, some we started last season with, some from discussions that arose during and after last season.

The rout test is important to us. The idea that a warband may lose its nerve after losing 1 in 4 combatants is a reasonable mechanic to me. A leader with the ability to rally his band (through charisma or maybe threats) makes the leadership characteristic an important aspect. Starting new with no money, gear, and few models can be daunting (it was for me), and the tactic of sticking it out long enough to see the other team lose its nerve was very exciting and rewarding.

I can see your point on splitting henchmen groups, and lean towards what you say personally. But I encouraged it in our gaming group this season. Some split what would be 1 normal group into 4 and it didnt really help with LGT, but will enable them to hire new henchmen into the bowman group with +1 BS, instead of the +1 WS. Funny thing is I took normal hench groups and 2nd game filled my dwarf hero slots with 2 LGT rolls, 1 from each hench group.

We have adjusted armor this season as well. We bumped shields up to +2 sv, +1 to ranged. It can already be seen as having an effect without making anything useless really. Armor has a use, weapons that cut armor actually matter now. Along the lines of adjusting armor saves we have modified the basic crit table. 1-4 is 2 wounds, 5 is 2w no save, 6 is 2w, no save, +2 on injury table. The shooty warbands were dominating some games where it became nothing but a ranged battle every time. We also found it necessary to increase the rarity of hunting arrows. Ouch!

We have found parry to work well as it is, our only real problem is to remember to take the parry rolls!

I like Mike's idea of incentivizing shields; I'd suggest the save on 5+, with an immitigable save on 6 from attacks on the front only. It's a good idea to make the shields useful, to prevent the OMG TWO ATTACK ASSAULT USING AXE AND FREE DAGGER.

On that note, what are you doing about dual-wielding, since it's likely to come up?

I also like the Death Squads climbing rule. If a model is in B2B contact at the beginning of their turn, they can climb no problem. If they aren't, they'd have to make a I test as normal.

Quote :

The rout test is important to us. The idea that a warband may lose its nerve after losing 1 in 4 combatants is a reasonable mechanic to me. A leader with the ability to rally his band (through charisma or maybe threats) makes the leadership characteristic an important aspect. Starting new with no money, gear, and few models can be daunting (it was for me), and the tactic of sticking it out long enough to see the other team lose its nerve was very exciting and rewarding.

I agree with you on some points about the route test. But sometimes its a little too limiting. Take skaven for instance. I take giant rats to be a meat shiled/ speed bump so i can get coutner charges. If I have a warband of 12 members 4 or which are giant rats and i throw them in first to set up counter charges, if they all die i'm taking route tests. But why would the skaven care about the giant rats? I'm using the giant rats for what they're meant for, to be throw away units. That's the tactic i've chosen so i shouldn't be penalized for it.

This example shows up in several warbands. Undead is another glarin one. Why would the vampire (a selfish and cruel beast) care about zombies, ghouls, or dregs?

In the death squads campaign i played it made the battles more intense. Instead of just trying to get people to route by taking out their crappy models, you actually had to punish your opponent enough that he realizes its time to cut his losses and flee.

Dagger: I love Deathsquad and the whole gang over there, but when they decided to drop involuntary routs, I fought/argued with them tooth and claw. Invol routs add a moment of suspense to every turn, add a hair's chance of victory to even the most boxed in underdog, and save the suicidal player from killing off his whole warband (like an idiotproof failsafe.)

Also, it's sometimes built into the warband's strength - dwarves and elves are so costly, their warband size is small, so they're at rout level quick - but they have high leadership, so they often last longer. Skaven and beastmen, however, are super quick- they have a low Ld, however, so they run before others.

To make things fairer, a few possible "middle of the road" ideas:
-Rout starts at 50%, not 25%
- Ignore rout on any scenario with an objective or timed games - that way, there is ONE way to end any given game (for the others, you use rout.)
- Let zombies and rats count as Half a model for routs, like Goblins. Rats SUCK compared to Wardogs (same cost), and zombies are taken so rarely that it's hardly broken.

Henchmen groups - or, to make things more individualized, why not houserule that henchmen in the same group can equip different items? So long as they're marked clearly, it avoids the whole "TLGT" cheezing without breaking up the individuality. OR opening the door to other cheezy loopholes ("this one is hammer dagger, this one's two daggers- they're in different groups.") This way, all henchmen of the same type and exp are together, even if their weapons differ.

Styro, I feel like removing rout gives underdog warbands a higher chance at victory. Because warbands are able to rout whenever they want (after 25% casualties) it gives a chance for maybe an underdog warband to kill a few valuable enemy models, thus making his opponent think about withdrawing sooner.

We're not really worried about suicide players in our group as we're close enough friends that they would be looked at in scorn. Generally when the chips are down we cash out.

Quote :

- Let zombies and rats count as Half a model for routs, like Goblins. Rats SUCK compared to Wardogs (same cost), and zombies are taken so rarely that it's hardly broken.

We really don't want to have to go through and decided which should be counted as full half or zero of a warband. Also sometimes a model might not suck but don't really matter to a warband fluff wise.

In an ork warband if they loose the troll, why would they care? they know the thing can't die. So how do you take into account things like that?

In the end we feel its best to just allow the players to decide when "they" think they'd rout.

And like i've said it seems to really be working over in death squads so why not here?

As far as your henchmen example if you were to group them into one slot and allow them to take different weapons that would be a less desirable outcome. If oyu have three guys 2 with axes one with a bow and they get +1 WS the guy with the bow is useless, unless you buy him an ax.

Everyone has their own pet peeves with the game. My group uses the 5+ save for shields in Hand to Hand. Otherwise we wouldn't use any of the rules that you have adopted. However we play at a game store and must accept any player that wishes to join, so we sometimes play strangers and folks who have never played the game. We throw darkness, weather, ship battles and swimming at them. That's usually more than enough! Its all about what you are into.

Skaven and undead are not underdog warbands for us. They like the dark! A couple of campaigns ago several players were complaining about how overpowered the undead were. The next campaign those players got out their own undead. Soon they were complaining about how weak the undead were.

Enjoy your games and let us know how the rules turn out.

Rout- you got it the other way around - invol routs help the unerdog. If you're 200 points under, there is no chance in hell that you're going to hurt the other player enough that they will feel the need to run. However, you manage to knock out a mere 25%, you have a small chance of winning. If people can stay till as long as they want, you'll have the stronger player never giving up, and always winning. (If the weaker player stubbornly chooses to stay longer, he has a higher chance of seriously killing his warband, and thus a higher chance of getting frustrated and starting over.)

Losing guys: It's not so much a sentimentality- a master assassin doesn't care that his rats are getting hurt, he worries that there's 3 less rats to shield him from his opponents. The Orc boss isn't afraid of the troll dying, he's afraid that there's a group strong enough to take out a troll, and now they're heading towards HIM!

And even if the leader is fearless, his men might not be- the cowardly henchmen fear they're next, and the leader's fierce threats aren't enough to stop them from turning and running. That's what a rout represents, really.

But, I'll bow out of the argument - as long as people are having fun, that's what matters.

For the first time I completely and totally disagree with Styrofoam King. It is obvious the Orc Boss is not worried about those weaklings. He is chasing after da gits of his who are running off! Obviously!

But I agree, rout tests help and protect underdogs in general more than hurt. Although I am in favor of a bonus to Ld for rout tests or even a reroll if a warband is obviouly winning. Like carrying the chest, standing over the wyrdstone, running off with the merchant's son, etc.

I like Rout Tests for most things, but I highly dislike when a rout test prevents a win that was pretty obvious.

Storytime: Wood Elves had just beat up my Pit Fighters (in melee!) to the point we made a truce (I got paid though), and the Elves had sent the Dwarfs packing. The Orcs had lost 5-6 goblins and 2-3 heroes plus a squig or two. The elves were just at the rout limit and had Pit Fighters holding off the orcs in melee. But of course the WE player rolls a 12... She obviously should have won, but the rout test was an anti-climax to what was one of the best battles I've played.

In that situation I would allow a re-roll at least. Anyone able to refine that idea/rule?

Daggermaw wrote:

Quote :

The rout test is important to us. The idea that a warband may lose its nerve after losing 1 in 4 combatants is a reasonable mechanic to me. A leader with the ability to rally his band (through charisma or maybe threats) makes the leadership characteristic an important aspect. Starting new with no money, gear, and few models can be daunting (it was for me), and the tactic of sticking it out long enough to see the other team lose its nerve was very exciting and rewarding.

I agree with you on some points about the route test. But sometimes its a little too limiting. Take skaven for instance. I take giant rats to be a meat shiled/ speed bump so i can get coutner charges. If I have a warband of 12 members 4 or which are giant rats and i throw them in first to set up counter charges, if they all die i'm taking route tests. But why would the skaven care about the giant rats? I'm using the giant rats for what they're meant for, to be throw away units. That's the tactic i've chosen so i shouldn't be penalized for it.

This example shows up in several warbands. Undead is another glarin one. Why would the vampire (a selfish and cruel beast) care about zombies, ghouls, or dregs?

In the death squads campaign i played it made the battles more intense. Instead of just trying to get people to route by taking out their crappy models, you actually had to punish your opponent enough that he realizes its time to cut his losses and flee.

I agree, this is just like Swabbies for the Pirate Warband. Not really proper pirates, they can be sacrificed at any time, as a whim of the captain, or as a cruel joke from the crew. Its just one of those things on a pirate boat sailing the Sea of Claws.

It's not always the leaders decision to stay and fight or flee though - sometimes he has to exert his leadership skills in order to stop the warband fleeing when they have had enough.

I'm with StyrofoamKing on this one, but I do agree that if your group prefers these house rules then you absolutely should use them!

Well, trying out new rules are good for the spirit and development of Mordheim as a game over all. Personally I prefere RAW rules, but then, I agree that some of the rules really could use a overhaul, Kalles thread about two-handed swords comes to mind.

It is your campaign so use whatever house rules you think will be fun and then HAVE FUN!!

I have hesitations also about your rule for routing. I think that non-voluntary routing is a very good mechanic for helping weaker warbands. However if you all want to try it then definitely do and let us know how you found it.

Your other rules are touch areas that a lot of groups target. I have no reservations with them.