The Heist

First the rules:

Quote :

Defending Skaven and Dark Elf warbands with Infiltration must determine one of their Heroes to act as the Thief (see below).

Quote :

When a Skaven or Dark Elf warband is the defender, instead of hiring an incapable human thief, they have the artefact stolen by one of their Heroes instead. The Skaven or Dark Elf player determines one of his Heroes to steal the item. This Hero is not placed at the beginning of the game. When the thief is discovered, that model is placed instead of the normal thief.

What is the rule here? Is the human thief always replaced by a Skaven or Dark Elf hero or is it only replaced when a Skaven or Dark Elf hero has the Infiltation skill?

Quote :

The attacking warband has to search the six buildings/forests in the hope of uncovering the thief’s hideout. If one of their Heroes moves inside one of these buildings/forests and it had been empty before, then the player rolls once on the following table.

What does 'it had been empty before' mean? Empty of enemy models? Not searched before?

For example if an enemy model had moved into the hideout and then left is it no longer empty?

How is the game played?

Supposedly the only way for the attacker to win is to find the thief, but what if the defenders rout voluntarily before the thief is found? Does the attacker lose?

Von Kurst wrote:

First the rules:

Quote :

Defending Skaven and Dark Elf warbands with Infiltration must determine one of their Heroes to act as the Thief (see below).

Quote :

When a Skaven or Dark Elf warband is the defender, instead of hiring an incapable human thief, they have the artefact stolen by one of their Heroes instead. The Skaven or Dark Elf player determines one of his Heroes to steal the item. This Hero is not placed at the beginning of the game. When the thief is discovered, that model is placed instead of the normal thief.

What is the rule here? Is the human thief always replaced by a Skaven or Dark Elf hero or is it only replaced when a Skaven or Dark Elf hero has the Infiltation skill?

I don't know the answer to your question about Skaven and Dark Elves. Oh Cianty!!!!

Von Kurst wrote:

Quote :

The attacking warband has to search the six buildings/forests in the hope of uncovering the thief’s hideout. If one of their Heroes moves inside one of these buildings/forests and it had been empty before, then the player rolls once on the following table.

What does 'it had been empty before' mean? Empty of enemy models? Not searched before?

For example if an enemy model had moved into the hideout and then left is it no longer empty?

Your example is correct. The rules mean that the building needs to be empty of 'attacker' models for an entire 'defender' turn. I believe that this mechanic is to represent the thief sneaking from building to building trying not to get caught. The thief may not be in a building when it is searched the first time but may dart into that same building if all of the 'attacker' models vacate the building and therefore be able to get caught in that building at a later point in time if the building is searched again. To search a building multiple times the sequence would be...

1. Attacker moves model into building and searches the building.
2. Defender turn.
3. Attacker moves model out of building.
4. Defender turn (this provides an opportunity for the thief to enter the building).
5. Attacker moves model into building and searches the building.

As the attacker I believe there is a balance between moving in and out of buildings and maximising the number of building occupied in any 'attacker' turn when a building is searched. I stuffed this up badly on the first time that I played the Heist as the attacker and didn't coordinate the searching of buildings very well.

Von Kurst wrote:

How is the game played?

Supposedly the only way for the attacker to win is to find the thief, but what if the defenders rout voluntarily before the thief is found? Does the attacker lose?

The rules explicitly state that there are no rout tests. Therefore the attacker can only win by finding and then capturing the thief. The defender wins if the thief is not found OR if the thief is found but makes it off the defender's table edge. It is not explicit in the rules but the game ends in a draw with no winner if the thief is found by the attackers and then avoids being caught but was unable to make it off the defender's table edge before the time runs out. (Run thief, run!!)

We missed this last bit about no winner when we first played the Heist and we felt that the game was very badly unbalanced towards the defender winning.

Thank you for the response. However, I am more confused by your answer than I was before.

Quote :

Your example is correct. The rules mean that the building needs to be empty of 'attacker' models for an entire 'defender' turn. I believe that this mechanic is to represent the thief sneaking from building to building trying not to get caught. The thief may not be in a building when it is searched the first time but may dart into that same building if all of the 'attacker' models vacate the building and therefore be able to get caught in that building at a later point in time if the building is searched again. To search a building multiple times the sequence would be...

1. Attacker moves model into building and searches the building.
2. Defender turn.
3. Attacker moves model out of building.
4. Defender turn (this provides an opportunity for the thief to enter the building).
5. Attacker moves model into building and searches the building.

As the attacker I believe there is a balance between moving in and out of buildings and maximising the number of building occupied in any 'attacker' turn when a building is searched. I stuffed this up badly on the first time that I played the Heist as the attacker and didn't coordinate the searching of buildings very well.

Is that what they mean? I can see why you would have a difficulty coordinating the search. I didn't read this enter/re-enter thing at all.

Quote :

The attacking player only gets to roll on the table once during each turn. He also gets a +1 bonus on the result for each of the hideouts after the first that is occupied by at least one attacking Hero.
If more than one Hero moves into a new hideout the player chooses which of them rolls on the table. When an attacking Hero occupies the sixth hideout, the thief is discovered automatically.
As soon as the thief has been discovered he is moved by the defending player like any other member of their warband.

To me it reads that the attacker should search and then OCCUPY a hideout to prevent the thief from 'moving' between them. But the text implies that only a hero counts as occupying a hideout. So if you have 5 heroes you might be screwed.

Quote :

The rules explicitly state that there are no rout tests.

So? The rules do not explicitly state that you may not voluntarily rout. Not taking a test has no bearing on whether a player may voluntarily retreat or not. If a player may not voluntarily rout the scenario rules should say so.

Quote :

Therefore the attacker can only win by finding and then capturing the thief. The defender wins if the thief is not found OR if the thief is found but makes it off the defender's table edge. It is not explicit in the rules but the game ends in a draw with no winner if the thief is found by the attackers and then avoids being caught but was unable to make it off the defender's table edge before the time runs out. (Run thief, run!!)

We missed this last bit about no winner when we first played the Heist and we felt that the game was very badly unbalanced towards the defender winning.

Its pretty easy to miss since it isn't written in the scenario. If this is supposed to be the case, is there an FAQ or errata? Mordheim scenarios are rarely written with a draw in mind.

Mordheim sure makes us skeptics! I cannot answer definitively as you have clearly pointed out so hopefully Cianty comes in soon.

I appreciate your experiences with the scenario. I expect our Silent Threat player to be playing it a lot in the next few weeks so I want to have a handle on how its played.

It is definitely better to have the answers before.

Only Skaven and Dark Elf Heroes with the Infiltration skill is capable of replacing the vailla thief model. I assume a properly skilled warband hero to be far suprieror so I consider the replacement an advantage, so the requirment of the infiltration skill is meant to balance that out again.

'it had been empty before' = There were no models inside the building before the searching Hero entered.

The idea is NOT to have some weird entering and re-entering of the buildings. I thought this sentence would make that clear: "When the sixth hideout becomes occupied by an attacking Hero the thief is discovered automatically." This means: When searching the last of the hideouts, the this is found. So you search them one by one until the last one. Keeping buildings occupied helps because of the +1 bonus on the table that is mentioned in the rules but you might as well search the five houses and then have your entire warband surround the sixth one.

The way we play it is that "no need to take any Rout tests" implies that Routing may NOT be done voluntarily either. I should have borne in mind that this is not the case in other gaming groups.

Did I miss anything?

cianty wrote:

'it had been empty before' = There were no models inside the building before the searching Hero entered.

The idea is NOT to have some weird entering and re-entering of the buildings. I thought this sentence would make that clear: "When the sixth hideout becomes occupied by an attacking Hero the thief is discovered automatically." This means: When searching the last of the hideouts, the this is found. So you search them one by one until the last one. Keeping buildings occupied helps because of the +1 bonus on the table that is mentioned in the rules but you might as well search the five houses and then have your entire warband surround the sixth one.

Thank you. That only works if the attacker has six heroes participating or not out of action. If the attacker has less than six heros then weird entering and re-entering is the only way for the attacker to find the thief.

The other thing that you need to clarify is whether the scenario can end in a draw. From our experience this is the only way to balance the scenario from being hugely biased in the favour of the defender.

Yes thank you for the response and explanations.

I'm afraid a bit more explaning may be in order. 'Empty before' is still a problem for me since this isn't a solo adventure. If the hideout must have never been entered then all the defender has to do is enter as many hideouts as possible and hope that the attacker doesn't get lucky searching those the defender can't reach in time.

Even if the idea is that each hideout may only be searched once--I'm getting the impression that this is the intention--then all the defenders have to do is fort up around a couple of hideouts to win the game.

How is searching done?
Can there be enemy models in the hideout while the hero searches? Can the hero be in combat and search?
(Both of these questions anticipate that 'empty before' means something other than unoccupied since I don't understand how the defender would leave hideouts within his reach empty.)

No voluntary routing is really scary against Skaven or Dark Elf warbands. I lost 6 warriors in 2 rounds last Thursday and had 3 or 4 still knocked down the turn I routed.

Why did you chose Dark elves and Skaven for the special treatment if they have the skill "Infiltration" and not all warbands with this skill?

Shadow Warriors could have this skill too...

Hmmm.... "When the sixth hideout becomes occupied by an attacking Hero the thief is discovered automatically." should read "When the sixth hideout is searched by an attacking Hero the thief is discovered automatically." At least that's how we always played it. I remember having some discussions regarding the wording and I think this was edited without me noticing the change in meaning.

As for everything else: God, I can't remember! It's been years since I played this scenario. Adjust as you see fit.

Saranor: Skaven and Dark Elves fit the flavour. I think it is because of the unfairness of Shadow Warriors that the warband isn't mentioned. It's simply not on my radar. It's basically banned from my mental pool of warbands.

@Saranor--Shadow Elves--The warband is not included because the scenario is written for a specific campaign with specific objectives. Shadow Elves can not choose the Silent Threat objective, thus they can not be the defender in the scenario.

Actually no. They are not listed because of what I explained above. The Silent Threat objective does make additional use of the Heist scenario, but the scenario is available to all warbands and there are ways in the BTB campaign that allow playing it, or let's say, forcing an opponent to play it against you (see the 3 3 3 event).

OOPs! Sorry for the confusion. I'm mainly concerned with the objective rules so I haven't delved too much farther into the setting.

Now if only you could remember more specifics about the Heist...

Von Kurst wrote:

Now if only you could remember more specifics about the Heist...

You definitely are an optomist! (Not that I want to imply that Cianty has a bad memory!)

Cianty wrote:

Hmmm.... "When the sixth hideout becomes occupied by an attacking Hero the thief is discovered automatically." should read "When the sixth hideout is searched by an attacking Hero the thief is discovered automatically." At least that's how we always played it. I remember having some discussions regarding the wording and I think this was edited without me noticing the change in meaning.

This change to the rules from "occupied" to "searched" introduces the "Hidden Treasure scenario" effect where the attacker chooses not to search a building that is far away from the defender in order to search that building last to guarantee finding the thief in an optimal location. We enjoyed the "occupied" wording rather than the "searched" wording and I guess we introduced fluff for it to make sense (the thief moving undetected from unoccupied building to unoccupied building in the defender's turn).

Cianty wrote:

'it had been empty before' = There were no models inside the building before the searching Hero entered.

The "searched" wording sounds easier for the attacker but any defender worth their salt will choose to occupy a single building with the majority of their warband. This will require the attacker to take ALL of the defenders within the building OOA before searching/occupying can be done (because there must be no models inside the building when the searching Hero enters to search) and this will be very hard to achieve in a scenario with a time limit meaning that this method of finding the thief is essentially eliminated as an option.

Quote :

ending the game
The attacking warband has to find the thief and take him out of action in order to win the game. There is no need to take any Rout tests as the game lasts for a maximum of eight rounds. If the attackers fail to find the thief in this time or if the thief reaches the defending player’s table edge, the defender wins the game.

I still believe regardless of wording that the possibility of a draw is required to maintain the balance of the scenario or else the scenario becomes a near guaranteed win for the defender especially when the attacker has less than 6 heroes and is unable to continue occupying additional buildings. The rules from the scenario are quoted above with the attacker winning conditions highlighted in orange and the defender winning conditions highlighted in blue. I believe that it is clear that the defender must meet certain criteria to win just like the attacker and so a draw is possible from the wording of the rules even if a draw was unintended.

Anyway ignore me if it doesn't suit type group. I can be stubborn at times even when I'm probably wrong. You mentioned an island and boat version anyway which would have to be a bit different (e.g. more turns before end of game). I look forward to seeing battle reports and how you end up playing.

I can't figure out a islands and boats version in time. I think I will limit the Silent Threat player to playing this in the Jungle, Port or the Lost City. But ideas are bubbling about so maybe islands and boats will be back.

Still I'd have liked to figure out HOW to play the game. I know I don't like the idea of no rout tests since with some of our warbands its very likely that one side or the other could be wiped out in 3 or 4 turns. Add jungle hazards to the mix...shudder!

And the similarity to Hidden Treasure lessens the appeal of playing, since I can see attackers not searching a hideout near their deployment zone in hopes of making it the last searched and I can see the defender forting up around hideouts to deny the attacker any chance of searching.

And back to searching; how did you handle it? Could an attacking hero search a hideout that contained enemy models? Could the hero search while in combat?
(I'm just going to keep asking these questions.)

My edited version of the Heist for the Pirates of the Karibbean.

Quote :

Scenario: The Heist
Rumours have spread that a warband has obtained a magical artifact. A thief has been hired to steal the powerful item! Now everyone is chasing after him – the warband that were robbed is hunting him down while his employers are trying to organise his escape.
[b]terrain
Each player takes it in turn to place a piece of terrain. We suggest that the terrain is set up within an area roughly 4’ x 4’. The first six pieces should be buildings or sections of wood (jungle) in which the thief seeks to hide out. There can be more than six buildings and forests (jungle), of course, but six of them must be marked as hideouts for the thief.
warbands
The warband who chose to play this scenario is automatically the defender. The attacking warband is deployed first within 8“ of a table edge of the player’s choice. The defender sets up within 8“ of the opposite edge. Defending Skaven and Dark Elf warbands must determine one of their Heroes with Infiltration to act as the Thief (see below).

starting the game
The attacking warband takes the first turn.
special rules
The attacking warband has to search the six buildings/forests in the hope of uncovering the thief’s hideout. If one of their Heroes moves inside one of these buildings/forests and there are no defending models in the building/forest, then the player rolls once on the following table.
2D6 Result
2-6 Nothing! There seems to be nobody around.
7-8 Coins. The thief lost a part of his loot on his hasty flight. The Hero finds D6 gc.
9 A trace. The Hero finds some traces leading to the thief. The next time the player rolls on this table he gets a +1 bonus.
10- 11 Zing!! A knife is thrown at the Hero and causes a S3 hit unless he passes an Initiative test. You’re closing in! If the Hero survives, the next time the player rolls on this table he gets a +1 bonus.
12 Discovered! The Hero has found the thief. The defending player places the thief inside or within 1” of this building/forest.

The attacking player only gets to roll on the table once during each turn. He also gets a +1 bonus
on the result for each of the hideouts after the first that is occupied by at least one attacking
warrior (not animals).
If more than one Hero moves into a new hideout the player chooses which of them rolls on the
table. When an attacking Hero searches the sixth hideout, the thief is discovered automatically.
As soon as the thief has been discovered he is moved by the defending player like any other member of their warband.

Profile Thief
M4 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 L7

Special: Hide in Shadows. (see Mordheim Annual, page 18). Weapons and armor: Sword, dagger, Throwing Knives.

When a Skaven or Dark Elf warband is the defender, instead of hiring an incapable human thief, they have the artefact stolen by one of their Heroes instead. The Skaven or Dark Elf player determines one of his Heroes with the Infiltration skill to steal the item. This Hero is not placed at the beginning of the game. When the thief is discovered, that model is placed as above instead of the normal thief.

ending the game
The attacking warband has to find the thief and take him out of action in order to win the game. There is no need to take any Rout tests as the game lasts for a maximum of eight rounds. If the attackers fail to find the thief in this time or if the thief reaches the defending player’s table edge, the defender wins the game. If a warband routs voluntarily it has lost. If no warband has fulfilled its victory conditions the game is draw.

experience

+1 Survives. If a Hero or a Henchman group survives the battle they gain +1 Experience.
+1 Winning Leader. The leader of the winning warband gains +1 Experience.
+1 Per Enemy Out of Action. Any Hero earns +1 Experience for each enemy he puts out of action.

the artefact
The winning warband gets the stolen artefact. If the attacking warband had more than one magical artefact, the winning leader takes a Leadership test. If he passes, he may choose which item was stolen. If the test is failed the item is determined at random. If the attacking warband has no artefacts then the defending player can select any other item from the attacker’s
warband roster, excluding animals and vehicles.

We have played this scenario a few times and usually the thief is caught and killed immediately.  This is partially because of incredible luck on the part of Attackers, but also because of the vagueness about where the thief is 'placed'.  

Where is he placed?  Who places him?

I have been placing the thief as far from the discovering hero as I could while remaining in the 'hideout', but I realized tonight that within my group there is a wide difference in opinion about where the thief should or could be paced and by whom.  After all the Attacking hero has 'discovered' the thief...

The Attacker seems to have a huge advantage in this scenario so I see no issues with the defender placing the thief to at least have some, slim chance of escape.

Quote :

The Attacker seems to have a huge advantage in this scenario

Quote :

the scenario becomes a near guaranteed win for the defender especially when the attacker has less than 6 heroes and is unable to continue occupying additional buildings.

I assume the first quote is in response to my revision of the scenario?

Anyway thank you for your continued contribution to the discussion.

As usual when I put a microscope on a scenario, I can discover that we are playing it wrong.  I lost one game because an attacker had rolled the Catacombs exploration result the game before and searched five hideouts in one turn (one in his deployment zone, one hero with sprint, three heroes used catacombs).  Also our defenders rarely think of occupying more than one hideout (or indeed any hideout) and we would rarely be so clever as to just have a model in a building to disrupt searches.

Mainly my group shy from this scenario because no one wants to upset another player by stealing his stuff (except me).  I am the only player to choose the Silent Threat objective and play the scenario.  (Only Chris and I ever chose the Silent Threat and Chris usually stops bothering with his objective after a couple of weeks.)  
Also as I said before our Attackers tend to be incredibly lucky with search rolls.  Even Jim L has rolled a twelve on turn one to catch the thief.  My game Thursday lasted ten minutes because the Attacker had searched and occupied one building and rolled an eleven in the next!

And another question:
How do people that have played this scenario choose the location for the 6 hideouts?  

There is no guideline in the scenario as to where a hideout must be so it is possible to have at least a couple hideouts in deployment zones if not more.

@VK... I got things mixed up in my head. I didn't re-read the scenario nor the rest of the thread before responding!

It has been too long since I have played this scenario so I'll leave the conversation. I remember that I didn't like it when we did play it.

No harm RL. I had noticed that my own minor tweak of the scenario made winning as the attacker much more likely than I had thought it would.

If you drop out that will be it for the vocal Heist players! Not a popular topic.

I really like the idea of the scenario, getting it to work out as a balanced game seems to be more of challenge for me than it is for others.