Roleplay and Gameplay

How often do you combine the two? When your leader is a knight/slayer, does he charge bravely in? Do your Skaven hang back, avoiding fair fights and sending in henchmen to die for them? Will your dwarf warband ally with orcs in a multi-player game?

Personally, I try to keep it in mind whenever possible, but all too often the time when the major decision happens is for rout tests. Given what the warbands are fighting over, at what point does the leader (or acting leader) say "enough is enough"? For my current warband (Knight's Retinue), my rule of thumb is that if the Ld test is being taken by the knight or squire, then honor and pride are paramount (in the game that is playing right now, I'm down to 4/10 warriors, and I am facing 4/8 dwarfs. The dwarfs are about to coup-de-grace a stunned warrior, and all of the fights are currently in their favor. As long as the knight is around, I won't flee until I fail a break test). On the other hand, if a commoner is all that is left, and the battle looks unwinnable (or just too costly), then I'll flee.

Does anyone else make determinations like this?

It really depends on the people I play with...

Some people are too much ''power players'' to act without taking care of what you do. If you play a campaign, they end up dominating if you try to play ''cool''. Its a bit sad.

However, I'd never accept that dwarves ally with orcs... its too stupid and that would be enough for me to stop playing with the one that want to do that. I think its more an overview the warbands designer forgot to include in the warband rules.

Remember, volontary rout is more a strategic retreat than cowardice, in your exemple, the knights would see that their comrades are in trouble and they would not risk their lives uselessly... Better to live to fight another day than to die without meaning because of a misplaced bravado. Remember, your knights are courageous but not stupid enough to sacrifice their friends for their pride.

If you want my advice, dont ''roleplay'' too much or you'll end up on the loser side too often and you'll lose interest in the game...

Gogutin is right IMHO on the volontary rout. You know your down and your chosing to pull out and save lives. just sware revenge and your good.
Remember also "who" your up against. Dwarves are not the enemy to Bretonian Kights so would you really want to kill every last one of them? probably not but if it was Chaos or O&G then ya I can see it.
on the flip I know your more the "evil" Bretonian knights so I see them as a little less honroable over all.

Last I think Objectives with in BtB helps fix that with "who" you can ally with. It probably was not an oversite in game desighn as they probably didn't want to exclued options for people or you may face a game just on forced alliances of 3 vs 1 and thats no fun ether.

I understand your concerns and also share your point of view. Playing by background is very cool and such players are much more interesting. I hate when people are not involved with their warbands and see them as only M,WS,BS etc. with different skins. Unfortunately it strategy game and it's difficult to always follow background way. There are different kind of knights. Jerks that charge straight into imperial gunnery line in the open field (cause brettonian knight is worth 100 peasents with boomstics) and knights withot "I can beat all" attitude, that actually use strategy and are able to say "stop" when things are going awry.

I play Witch Hunters. I love their background and would glady put it into practice. Witch hunters would never, ever ally themselves with any non human warband (exc dwarves who are "friends" by sigmarite creed) and especially evil ones. Even human warbands (middenheimers) would not be allies for WH. Witch hunters will certainly kill any non human they capture and if it's spellcaster who's captured, he would be burned at the stake without question.
In following campaign I made it clear that if I capture spellcaster there's no talk of ransoms - he/she goes straight into fire (with all their equipment). I now it's no profit way (rather a point of honour) and mayby someone will say it's unfair but I don't give a feth - they are witch hunters and witch killing is their trade. No excuses.

Catachanfrog, That makes perfect sense to me and I would think thats a perfectly lagit house rule to impose allowing also that your leader gets a +1 exp as other warbands get for "sacrifice".

I'm more a numbers guy who enjoys the fluff... I don't play most the "evil" warbands as I don't enjoy there fluff though I plan to build up many of those warbands and do play them now and again to understand the rules. A big part is the modeling though

Pervavita wrote:

Catachanfrog, That makes perfect sense to me and I would think thats a perfectly lagit house rule to impose allowing also that your leader gets a +1 exp as other warbands get for "sacrifice".

I'm more a numbers guy who enjoys the fluff... I don't play most the "evil" warbands as I don't enjoy there fluff though I plan to build up many of those warbands and do play them now and again to understand the rules. A big part is the modeling though

I was going to post the same thing, about the leader getting +1xp. It is this kind of thinking that I applaud!

As for me, I'm a fluff guy. The 'no fleeing' is a guideline. It all comes down to circumstance, and acting like the leader would. With my current warband, the leader is searching for Maldred's Grail, and holds himself up the same way that a questing knight would. He cares for his men in the way that any noble would (he won't get them killed for no reason, but they are here to serve him). So if there is glory to be had, then go for it! But if it means charging alone into fifteen crossbows? Eh...no. It's all about context.

But at the end of the day, much of the fun for me is having a good story be told. And part of that is thinking like my character would. And yes...I'm sure it'll get me in trouble soon (the only reason I 'won' the last game was that the dwarfs failed their rout test. We both know that he was about to curbstomp me...). But hey, it's better to lose with a good story being told, than to win by the numbers.

There can be downsides to fluff too.

A skaven warband with lots of warriors avoiding combat and instead using slings is probably fluffy. However, most players would not enjoy playing against this style of fighting within a battle or not time and time again.

Using skaven again (just because they are on my mind and not because I have a problem with them)... if a skaven warband sends in a few verminkin and they get killed then skaven may quickly rout according to fluff. A lot of players don't like the idea of their opponent voluntarily routing at the earliest convenience.

Both of these instances are probably playing according to fluff but doesn't lead to a fun game. I think that there needs to be a balance between fluff and between choosing options that lead to fun situations for everyone.

RationalLemming wrote:

There can be downsides to fluff too.

A skaven warband with lots of warriors avoiding combat and instead using slings is probably fluffy. However, most players would not enjoy playing against this style of fighting within a battle or not time and time again.

Using skaven again (just because they are on my mind and not because I have a problem with them)... if a skaven warband sends in a few verminkin and they get killed then skaven may quickly rout according to fluff. A lot of players don't like the idea of their opponent voluntarily routing at the earliest convenience.

Both of these instances are probably playing according to fluff but doesn't lead to a fun game. I think that there needs to be a balance between fluff and between choosing options that lead to fun situations for everyone.

Sounds to me that the way you see skaven being fluffy is the way many players would play anyways. For a Skaven leader, I'd see being fluffy as sticking around as long as the leader isn't in any real danger, but bottling right away if it looks like his skin is on the line. Also, happily throwing underlings to their deaths (as opposed to just slinging) is in character, as is having the leader run like hell away from vampires and possessed (even though an assassin on the charge could do some damage).

Skaven are just easier than most when it comes to RPing.

Guys you forgot one thing! Warhammer world is designed such as everybody can fight with anybody! That's why all the factions are divided by provinces and clans and all. Even Empire against Empire is possible, or Dwarfs VS Dwarfs! Compared to that what is then a fight between two Reikland warbands, or Bretonians and Dwarfs? After all they are all in Mordheim for one thing! Wyrdstones! No?

Goglutin wrote:

Remember, volontary rout is more a strategic retreat than cowardice, in your exemple, the knights would see that their comrades are in trouble and they would not risk their lives uselessly... Better to live to fight another day than to die without meaning because of a misplaced bravado. Remember, your knights are courageous but not stupid enough to sacrifice their friends for their pride.

If you want my advice, dont ''roleplay'' too much or you'll end up on the loser side too often and you'll lose interest in the game...

To quote Chretien de Tours, "Folly is not valor."

"Seeing the armed knight's arrogance and ferocity, Erec realized that he could not have the satisfaction of hitting the Dwarf before his eyes. Folly is not valor, and so Erec, having no alternative, acted prudently by returning to the queen.

'Lady, the situation is worse now,' he said. 'The despicable dwarf has badly hurt me, for he slashed my face. I dare not touch or hit him. But no one should blame me for this, since I was unarmed, and I feared the rude and arrogant knight who was armed. He would not have regarded the matter as a jest. In his conceit he would have killed me at once. Yet I make you a promise: if I can, I will avenge my disgrace or else increase it.'"

That is essentially the initial set-up for the tale of Erec and Enide. With prudence, Erec follows the knight until he can borrow arms and armor and much travails, adventure, and of course romance follows.

Quote :

I play Witch Hunters. I love their background and would glady put it into practice. Witch hunters would never, ever ally themselves with any non human warband (exc dwarves who are "friends" by sigmarite creed) and especially evil ones. Even human warbands (middenheimers) would not be allies for WH.

That's one way of looking at it I suppose.

Where are you getting your information on the Templars from?

Regards,

Werekin

Reminds me of the Flayer from the Ulli and Marquand series. As I recall, around the time of Mordheim, witch hunters were even more fanatical and ruthless than in the 'current.'

Quote :

Where are you getting your information on the Templars from?

BL:
(I can't recall every book I read that featured Temps or related stuff but here it goes:)
- Matthias Thulmann
- Witch Hunter's Handbook
- Luthor Huss (good look on flagelant psychology)
- Warrior Priest (not really about WH)
- Vampire Wars
- Condemned by fire
some short stories, really can't remember. One I read recently was a horrible, stupid and bad written story about ex-pitfighter pseudo witch hunters from reikland allied with marienburgers led by estalian, hunting skaven for stupid artefact
" ill met in Mordheim" was it's title.
WH RPG:
- Realms of sorcery (2ed)
- Career Compendium (2ed)
- Tome of Salvation (2ed)
Some scraps of info from army books:
Dogs of war: wilhelm and johann, 7ed army book, all sigmarite stuff
Mordheim Wh related things of course.

Seriously!!?

Ill Met in Mordheim is one of the best written short stories ever. It was released in Tales of the Old World which is a 'best of' compilation!

It's a detail laden classic. One of my favourites. The author is also a sound bloke.

I've been thinking about picking up a copy of Condemned by Fire because it was scripted by Dan Abnett.

Other recommended reading;

Marks of Chaos (order through print-on-demand) by James Wallis

There is a short story about witch hunters going dark side after drinking from a contaminated water supply. It might be a Robert Earl short. Absolutely wicked if you come across it.

Werkin thanks for "Marks of Chaos" clue. I'll try to find it somehow.

Do you know any Mordheim stuff from BL novels? Not entire books I mean, but short stories or something. What I found so far is:
- Above mentioned :ill met in Mordheim"
- retrospection in Matthias Thullman
- one flagellant-monks order history is connected with Mordheim (in "Zavant" - can't remember the case)
- there was one short story (can't remember the title) starting with dying mercenery after a fight with zombies in Mordheim...
I find it odd that there's no book entirely about Mordheim. I hope that in future, "Time of legends" series will fill that gap.

@Grumbaki
I'm reading Bruner the Bounty Hunter at the moment. What I found a minute ago:

Quote :

Bretonnia did not enjoy the strong ties and shared history with the dwarfs in the way the Empire did, and it had been many centuries since more than a handful of the stout breed had travelled the green lands of the king.

Funny

Brunner rocks!