Removing advancement randomization

Theres been some talk amongst my group of either totally removing the randomization of stat/skill advancement, or lessening it to a degree. The idea would be either that when a hero gets an advancement, the player could simply choose what stat they want increased or to take a new skill, or they could choose the family of advancement they want and roll for which of the two they get, like how it is now where after you roll anything 6-9 you have to roll again to see which you get. Under the latter you could also instead opt to just take a new skill.

I'm currently of two minds on this.

On the one hand, this is a game based largely on the will of the dice, and random happenings have always been a part of the allure, not to mention that we've been playing this way for years with no change. Also, i'm not crazy about the idea of being able to choose to stock up on wounds.

On the other hand, the more games I play that feature role playing elements for characters, the more irksome I find it that you have such little control over the direction your heroes take in Mordheim. Many a time i've yearned to play a super shooty Witch Hunter warband, but never seemed to roll that +1 BS/WS on any of them, or wanted to have an awesome shell-cracker character, but none of the advancements ever lined up to have one guy with more than one attack and Strongman. The one time it did, it was with a Youngblood, and he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn to begin with, and then promptly went on to lose an arm. So, I definitely see the appeal in having greater control over where your heroes go.

One thing we have already agreed on is that regardless of whether or not we adopted this for heroes, henchmen would still have to roll for their advancements, because otherwise how would you work out TLGT?

So anyways, what do you guys think?

I've been having some thoughts along similar lines. On one hand, it would make sense since a hero with missile weapons would obviously try to get himself trained in that art. On the other hand, a sword-wielding youngblood could have a dear wish to become stronger, but since he's 17 and weighs only 50 kilos, thats not going to happen any time soon.

Maybe you could agree on paying a certain amount of GC to enable you to choose a skill or increase, rather than letting the dice gods decide. Or make it experience-related, where a more experienced warrior has a higher chance of getting the increase or skill he desires.

You could keep it simple and still have what your wanting/thinking of and just roll for both heroes AND henchmen on there normal charts.
On a roll of "New Skill" or "LGT" and use those rolls as simply "your choice" For henchmen obviously LGT would be first till all hero slots are full but all future LGT rolls would lead to new advancements, just make sure to lock this in as only advancements that are already open to henchmen (no wounds or toughness for example).

Although I find the random advancement occasionally frustrating, the cookie-cutterness of being able to choose would open up a whole new realm of power gaming and best practice that I don't find alluring.

My suggestion would be to allow a player to replace one stat increase per hero or henchman group.

For example, I have a henchman group of two empire bowmen. I decide to swap strength for ballistic skill. Every time I roll a strength increase, my henchman groups ballistic skill increases instead. This does make it impossible for my henchmen to get a strength higher than their starting level.

Echoing Von Kurst about the powergaming aspect. I like the randomizing of an advancement. Really, anything you get is gonna be good. The only way I see it being less useful is on a Henchmen roll giving a shooter a WS or Strength increase, but hey, at least they won't be helpless in close combat!

I'm definitely not crazy about the idea of paying to choose an advancement, mostly just because in world wise it doesn't really make sense, and it puts warbands that already have an advantage in the money gathering aspects (witch hunters, skaven, etc) even farther up.

@Von Kurst: I can certainly see that being a very valid concern for most groups, and i wouldn't even be entertaining the idea at all if that were a concern with mine. Thankfully, we've weeded out notions of power playing through the years and have a very relaxed, story and progression centered group. Obviously, i know this isn't the case for most.

I'm mostly with VK, in that I worry about powergaming and everyone's warband ending up the same. But I would not object to the idea of choosing just the first advancement for each Hero or Henchman group, and going back to random advances from then on. I would say you can't choose LGT though.

Im with warboss and VK on this one. Although my gaming is non existent I can see how certain individuals gonna aim for making the best bands, and not the funniest.

So the uncertainness of the roll to advance is something that i tend to like.

With all that said, i havent played Mordheim more than once so im not that in to the game´s mechanic other than purely what i´ve read.

It's frustrating indeed when a shooty hero that spent entire battle on shooting, suddenly finds he's better swordsman than before. I had a small discussion quite recently, I was wondering about what would hapen if advancement rolls were based on actions taken during the game. I mean, using certain statistics (such as I and Ld) would allow player to roll for them in post battle seq. Close combat would give a player a possibility of rolling +1S,T,WS,W,I and combat, strenght or speed skills, while shooting +1BS and shooting skills. Or something like that. I find it idiotic that warrior who hasn't fired a single shot in 3 battles after xp roll, has +1BS, quickshot or something alike.
Von Kurst is right of course. CHoosing increases even on theory level smells of unholy powergaming combinations that would make playing not cool.

I read through all of it, though I don't know who made what argument anymore, so I'll just add my two cents. I tend towards rulechanges that make the game more fun to play. Two things that really frustrated me were magic wielders that role a more or less useless spell (and there ARE quite a few) and advancements that a model wouldn't use (BS for Flagellants, Attack for shooters). Depending on the group I play with, sometimes it is decided that a rolled increase of BS can be rerolled for a model that cannot use missile-weapons and with one group we talked about making magic users more expensive (maybe 10%) and allowing them to choose the first spell.
As for the realism: I think it quite realsitic that you cannot level in areas you don't use and also that you could buy certain increases (e.g. hiring a coach for fencing). Quite like the way the Elder Scrolls PC-Games do it. Though it might be hard to keep track off all the actions a mini does during a game, something like "no BS-increases for someone not using a firearm" shouldn't be too hard to put into practice.
Thirdly: powergaming. Some profile-increases would certainly be more popular. But there are already some skills that are more popular than others and also some weapon- and henchmen-choices. Enough things winning-oriented gamers can meddle with. I think the argument "letting people choose profile-increases would support power gaming, so we don't do it" is just one side of the medal. It means that there is no chance for powergaming now. But there certainly is. So people that don't want to allow choosing the stat-increases for fear of powergaming would, ultimately, have to randomize pretty much all the choices a gamer has so far (skills, weapons, warbandmembers), because they can be "abused" for powergaming.
Or to make things short, while allowing to choose stat-increases might make powergaming maybe a tiny bit more easy (though hardly a few MH-players are in it for the win), it would eliminate a huge source of frustration for people like myself.
I hope you can understand me, I feel like I cannot really express myself in english this saturday morning...

Or maybe you can choose what to do on andvancement. Either you roll the random die and you get wahtever the dice says, or, you make a roll to choose. Sort of like the warrior seeking out a trainer in the camp to help him. Lets say this roll is 4+ on a d6. If the roll fails, the warrior may not roll on advencement until after the next battle, as he spent his time searching for a "sensei" or training grounds. This aspect could even be added to the Encampment rules.

In short:

Whenever a warrior gains enough experience points to make a level advancement, you may choose one of the following options:
1- Train alone. Your warrior will meditate on what he or she have learned throughout the battles. Maybe some hidden knowledge will appear, and isights be gained. You may even realize you have become stronger than before! A drawback is that without guidence, these insights can be quite random... Roll on the random advancement table.

2- Find a trainer. Instead of trusting your own judgment, you seek out a trainer in a nearby settlement. To find a trainer, you must roll 4+ on a d6. If the roll passes, you find a trainer of your choice and may choose what statistic to increase, or if you want to obtain a skill instead. If the roll fails, you fail to find a trainer, and may not make another roll for either random advancement or search for a trainer until after the next battle.

How's that sound?

That sounds like something I'd try out. The choice isn't a no-brainer imo and while not hitting the 4+ isn't a terrible desaster, it is just the right amount of annoying if it happens twice or thrice in a row.
What about the idea to make magic users more expensive and allow them to choose their first spell?

Another possibility is rolling for each advancement (if you have multiples) and divvying up the results. For instance, if you have a group of Archers and warriors, and your advancement results are a 4 and a 7 respectively. You could give the archers the 7 (+1 to WS or BS, your choice) and give the warriors the 4 (Initiative). You'd still keep the results, but choose which groups to give them to. Might work, but just a suggestion.

Random advancement help to keep balance. Some warbands that are limited on BS still have to go through BS advance rolls and this avoid too much focusing.

I also hate to think that all characters will have the same advance ''scheme''... usually toughness, then STR or ballistic and Wounds there after... no one would choose to get INIT increases with elves or LD with dwarves...

I just say NO...