Differences in First Rulebook and the Living Rulebook.

Just curious: What were the rules that were changed or altered from the first book in the boxed set and the Mordheim Living rules that you can download.

Thanks!

spears and strike first and a whole lot of wording issues that made the rules clearer.

This is hard to tell because it has been nowhere written down clearly. The most important changes can be found in the Rules Review but there have been more things changed that are not mentioned in the Rules Review.

Cianty should be correct as the only changes I have noticed were from the last RR .

Excellent. My gaming group is finally convinced to start some warbands and include Mordheim as part of our regular game playing if they like it. I just wanted to know what changes were made. Clarity is always good.

How many versions of rules are out there?

JackhammerJohn wrote:

How many versions of rules are out there?

Actually there's only one out: The digital Living Rulebook PDF that is hosted by GW. This file includes the errata from the Rules Review document, which lists "all" the changes that were made from the original printed rulebook. So if you want to count in the printed book, that makes two versions, of course. Also, there were several Rules Review and thus several versions of the Living Rulebook. Each one was updated and the latest one replaces all older versions. The old versions are not even available but technically there are like 3 or 4 versions of the rulebook PDF (I have most of them I think on my harddrive). I don't know if this the answer you were looking for...

Ones I know about:

1. Spears: May only be used with shield, the 'strike first' between the charger and the spear wielder cancel each other out, giving the first strike to intiative.

2. Steel Whips: No longer have 4" range, but whipcrack.

3. Winning a game gives you +1 Exp dice, not a reroll.

And there was something involving one of the Shooting skills, but I can't remember what.

StyrofoamKing wrote:

Ones I know about:

1. Spears: May only be used with shield, the 'strike first' between the charger and the spear wielder cancel each other out, giving the first strike to intiative.

2. Steel Whips: No longer have 4" range, but whipcrack.

These (and many more) are detailed in the Rules Review PDF.

StyrofoamKing wrote:

3. Winning a game gives you +1 Exp dice, not a reroll.

It's always been like that, isn't it?

StyrofoamKing wrote:

And there was something involving one of the Shooting skills, but I can't remember what.

You probably mean Quick Shot, which previously could only be used when not moving that turn.

Quickshot, hunter and pistolier don't stack. No more standing still and unleashing 4 shots a turn every turn (though we've house ruled it to allow such shananigans because it is just epic and makes for a tense game).

Lucky Charms don't automatically ignore the first hit, they ignore the first hit on a 4+.

Likely covered in the RR but just what I can remember.

The RR presented in one of the last issues of Fanatic Magazine is that the final RR that was released? Just clarriffying as am pretty sure it was.

Furthermore, did the last RR include the many FAQ's floating around that covered alot of niggling little issues?

Cheers,

Luke.

P.S. Styrofoamking, go read your copy of the published rulebook again, both cianty and I have just clarrified you've been playing it wrong all this time. That or get an exact page number and the sentence or two you are referencing.

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:

The RR presented in one of the last issues of Fanatic Magazine is that the final RR that was released? Just clarriffying as am pretty sure it was.

Furthermore, did the last RR include the many FAQ's floating around that covered alot of niggling little issues?

Why don't you just download the RR and have a look for yourself?

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:

P.S. Styrofoamking, go read your copy of the published rulebook again, both cianty and I have just clarrified you've been playing it wrong all this time. That or get an exact page number and the sentence or two you are referencing.

And at best provide a scan of the page

[quote="cianty"]

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:

The RR presented in one of the last issues of Fanatic Magazine is that the final RR that was released? Just clarriffying as am pretty sure it was.

Furthermore, did the last RR include the many FAQ's floating around that covered alot of niggling little issues?

Why don't you just download the RR and have a look for yourself?

You know cianty, a simple yes/no would be damned useful, I'm happy accepting that it is as I am pretty damned sure it is the final RR.

Failing that direct me to a linkey for dl.

Luke.

If I knew, I had answered you with a yes/no.

Check this out (see Edit 2)

I looked through half the thread cianty and well to be honest that requires a level of committment I'm not willing to partake of at just this moment in time. :p

However I did just read through the BTB Cathayan Monk warband and they do look quite enjoyable to play, a bit broken here and there but likely balanced to the rest of the warbands in the supplement but it is most definitely well presented. I think you should all do a Badlands Supplement next, then we can finally fit the Snotling Warband in.

One thing on the Quarterstaff and the other weeapons that are unique or new to the game with the supplement: If you've not added in which critical table they belong to then I suggest you do it now. To the Quarter staff I suggest you either make it bludgeoning or thrusting and bludgeoning. A proper wielded quarterstaff can split a fully armoured man from head to groin in half. It's true, weapons testing and test cuts with medieval re-enactments and watermelons inside helmets shows how truely awesome a quarterstaff can be. Messy as. Bludgeoning had the crit roll of 6 is auto-out of action so this would be the obvious choice for it. However, you can also thrust with it so maybe have the option of declaring which style of fighting you are using each round of combat for the purposes of any potential critical hits (but announce before to hit dice are rolled so you can't decide ona whim which is better). Thoughts?

Cheers,

Luke.

P.S. And post in the Create the Mordheimers Warband above you game, the forum needs something randomly wacky and forum games are always fun. Hee.

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:

I looked through half the thread cianty and well to be honest that requires a level of committment I'm not willing to partake of at just this moment in time. :p

You're unwilling to go to the GW website to download the PDF as I described in the first post? Wow...

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:

However I did just read through the BTB Cathayan Monk warband and they do look quite enjoyable to play, a bit broken here and there but likely balanced to the rest of the warbands in the supplement but it is most definitely well presented.

I take this as a rude insult. However, considering that you have zero experience with the warbands and having played with and/or against them for some years I am not taking it to heart.

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:

One thing on the Quarterstaff and the other weeapons that are unique or new to the game with the supplement: If you've not added in which critical table they belong to then I suggest you do it now.

This has already been taken care of. If you want to make further suggestions (or blatant complains of brokeness) I suggest you go to the BTB thread instead of derailing this one.

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:

P.S. And post in the Create the Mordheimers Warband above you game, the forum needs something randomly wacky and forum games are always fun. Hee.

Thanks. I most definately will not.

Quote :

Quote :

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:
However I did just read through the BTB Cathayan Monk warband and they do look quite enjoyable to play, a bit broken here and there but likely balanced to the rest of the warbands in the supplement but it is most definitely well presented.

I take this as a rude insult. However, considering that you have zero experience with the warbands and having played with and/or against them for some years I am not taking it to heart.

Quote :

If you want to make further suggestions (or blatant complains of brokeness)...

Someone got offended.

Cianty, my apologies if I offended you with my words. Looking through the list of the Monks I saw the Human Shield special skill and it is a little bit confusing in how you've worded it (can you use your own warband members or your opponents warband members only or what? It's not clearly defined in that skill listing) but it just screams broken to me. Like I said in my post above, I glanced through the rules and haven't looked through them in depth and as you've acknowledged and as I posted I've not had the experience with the warbands first hand.

Quote :

cianty Tue 16 Dec 2008 - 13:55

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote :

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:
I looked through half the thread cianty and well to be honest that requires a level of committment I'm not willing to partake of at just this moment in time. :p

You're unwilling to go to the GW website to download the PDF as I described in the first post? Wow...

To the comment on going to the GW website and downloading the PDF first hand, 1, the computer for some reason at home is dl'ing everything incredibly slowly, and 2, once downloaded, I would have to sit through reading that RR there and compare it to the entirety of the RR printed in Fanatic Magazine as per my original query in the posts above. The fact that you don't have an answer to me in a yes/no answer also screams that you aren't willing to do what I have just highlighted, so trying to make it seem like I can't be arsed to do such a small thing when you can't be arsed to do it yourself is just...Wow.

Quote :

Quote :

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:
One thing on the Quarterstaff and the other weeapons that are unique or new to the game with the supplement: If you've not added in which critical table they belong to then I suggest you do it now.

This has already been taken care of. If you want to make further suggestions (or blatant complains of brokeness) I suggest you go to the BTB thread instead of derailing this one.

Cheers for the link - still new, still working my way around and so far there have been a massive wealth of links both on the forums and off the forums to elsewhere that are going to chew up alot of time to catch up on. But thanks for the linkey, again it was just a query/suggestion off the end of the last post as it occured to me, and I'll follow it up in due time, it being 12:23am right now and me needing to head off soon.

Cheers, and have a good day,

Luke.

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:

Looking through the list of the Monks I saw the Human Shield special skill and it is a little bit confusing in how you've worded it (can you use your own warband members or your opponents warband members only or what? It's not clearly defined in that skill listing) but it just screams broken to me.

Again, keep this discussion to the BTB thread, please. (Answer is: enemies only).

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:

To the comment on going to the GW website and downloading the PDF first hand ...

I was just wondering why you didn't want to just download it. It's a 105 KB file...

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:

The fact that you don't have an answer to me in a yes/no answer also screams that you aren't willing to do what I have just highlighted, so trying to make it seem like I can't be arsed to do such a small thing when you can't be arsed to do it yourself is just...Wow.

LOL. First off, you're the one who wants something here and if I have the same effort finding the answer for you, why should I - instead of you - be doing it? Secondly, I figured that if you had the RR you could easily find it out yourself. I was obviously wrong with this assumption. Lastly, I don't know in which issue of FM the RR was and I don't think I even have that.

Maybe someone else can answer your initial question (if they bother reading through these posts).

Quote :

Quote :

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:
Looking through the list of the Monks I saw the Human Shield special skill and it is a little bit confusing in how you've worded it (can you use your own warband members or your opponents warband members only or what? It's not clearly defined in that skill listing) but it just screams broken to me.

Again, keep this discussion to the BTB thread, please. (Answer is: enemies only).

Yes, I could keep it there and shall in the future, but felt that in this case I needed to back up the reason why I had made the original comment in the first place for which you appear to have taken offense.

Quote :

Quote :

Rock Ed First wrote:
To the comment on going to the GW website and downloading the PDF first hand ...

I was just wondering why you didn't want to just download it. It's a 105 KB file...

Fair call.

Quote :

Quote :

Ram Rock Ed First wrote:
The fact that you don't have an answer to me in a yes/no answer also screams that you aren't willing to do what I have just highlighted, so trying to make it seem like I can't be arsed to do such a small thing when you can't be arsed to do it yourself is just...Wow.

LOL. First off, you're the one who wants something here and if I have the same effort finding the answer for you, why should I - instead of you - be doing it? Secondly, I figured that if you had the RR you could easily find it out yourself. I was obviously wrong with this assumption. Lastly, I don't know in which issue of FM the RR was and I don't think I even have that.

Maybe someone else can answer your initial question (if they bother reading through these posts).

But wait lets go back to my original response here:

Quote :

I looked through half the thread cianty and well to be honest that requires a level of committment I'm not willing to partake of at just this moment in time. :p

This of course implies that for whatever reason I was not able to actually go ahead and look for the answer myself. Yes I worded it ina triksey manner but it still stated it fairly clearly anyways.

To why should you look for it, I didn't say you had to. I was responding to the obvious sarcasm your post was imbued with with my own sarcasm. You answered the question the first time and we further clarrified reasons why i couldn't or didn't particularly want to at this time look over the RR as per the PDF on the GW website and my FM issue whatever it is. To why you should be doing it instead of I, maybe so as you can clarrify it for yourself at a later time as I shall have to do also?

Finally we both need to step away from this line of reasoning and argument as it is not becoming of either of us.

Thanks for the feedback and apologies for stooping the trhead into a randomly offtopic ramble.

Ram.

Ram

His "sarcasm" is from your writing approach .

You are very well know for doing this on the SG forum.

Also you are giving advice or whatever to someone that wrote BTB and you have not even playtested.

I would be very annoyed by feedback from someone who has not playtested.

I playtested and told Cianty what I had thought but I kept it private and did not broadcast it on this forum.

Da Bank wrote:

Ram

His "sarcasm" is from your writing approach .

You are very well know for doing this on the SG forum.

Also you are giving advice or whatever to someone that wrote BTB and you have not even playtested.

I would be very annoyed by feedback from someone who has not playtested.

I playtested and told Cianty what I had thought but I kept it private and did not broadcast it on this forum.

How's my writing approach come across?

Like I said above and in the original post it was my initial impression on glancing across the thing, it was a side comment not meant to evoke such a response, in any case I apologised for it. Yes, good that you playtested it and gave feedback on it, but it's a forum afterall and a forum is where one expresses their opinions, if not and we're gonna express everything in private then no one else is able to support any arguments put forth in any way - seems counter-productive to be honest.

Ram.

Ram

Trust me, it is. Your emails seem more about rambling and etc and it really isn't needed.

This is a quiet forum and we like it that way. If the MODs feel different then they can let me know. I think I can speak for most that your posts on myriads of topics are not needed.

This forum is not looking for such things, again, (MODs let me know if I am out of line).

So how do I know if I got the latest download of the rules? I think I have 1.2 version.