Hinterlands: Skirmish Campaigns in the Mortal Realms

[Guest]

I've actually started tentatively working on a character creation system, more as an intellectual exercise than anything else. I don't know if it will ever be completed or see the light of day, but my basic idea was to reverse-engineer the points costs for existing units to work out a rough cost for each attribute and ability that a character could potentially have. So increasing wounds by 1 costs X points, reducing rend by 1 costs X points, the ability to fly costs X points, etc. It's pretty tough since I think the way GW points things is more art than science, and quite a lot of fudging is required, but I think there's the potential to develop a satisfying system. It would need a fair bit of play-testing though.

[Taffin]

On 8.05.2017 at 1:12 PM, Jamie the Jasper said:

I've actually started tentatively working on a character creation system, more as an intellectual exercise than anything else. I don't know if it will ever be completed or see the light of day, but my basic idea was to reverse-engineer the points costs for existing units to work out a rough cost for each attribute and ability that a character could potentially have. So increasing wounds by 1 costs X points, reducing rend by 1 costs X points, the ability to fly costs X points, etc. It's pretty tough since I think the way GW points things is more art than science, and quite a lot of fudging is required, but I think there's the potential to develop a satisfying system. It would need a fair bit of play-testing though.

If you have a method and you're willing to share it Ill be more than happy to help. Or I can try to distil my own method and we could compare notes. I know I'll be starting with Ironjawz models.

[Guest]

Just now, Taffin said:

If you have a method and you're willing to share it Ill be more than happy to help. Or I can try to distil my own method and we could compare notes. I know I'll be starting with Ironjawz models.

Yeah, having more eyes on it can't hurt. What's your method for determining how many points each stat/attribute/ability should cost?

Mine is broadly inspired by simultaneous linear equations. The idea is to compare the most basic units in the game - units whose stat line are almost identical but not quite, and look at the points difference between them. Theoretically any difference in the value of their stats should be accounted for by this points difference.

So if units A and B have the same stats except that unit A has 1 more wound than unit B, and unit A costs 1 more point than unit B, then theoretically 1 wound should cost 1 point. The problem is that individual stat increments (+1 wound, +1 bravery, +1 attack, etc) can't be accounted for by whole point differences. By which I mean that, for example, a single Crypt Ghoul has (depending on how you look at it) around 27 individual stat increments across the board, but only costs 10 points. This means that each individual stat increment costs 0.37 points, which is obviously too fiddly for a user-friendly character creation system - and that's before you even factor in that each of those stats should be weighted differently.

And then this is even further compounded by the fact that a stat increment that might have little value for a character with an already low stat line might exponentially improve the strength of a character with a high stat line. For example, improving the save of a character with the same stats as a Crypt Horror from 5+ to 4+ isn't going to have a huge impact on their power and usefulness in-game - but doing the same for a character with the same stats as a Varghulf Courtier is going to tip the balance a lot more. That stats increment shouldn't be costed the same way for both. So there needs to be some kind of multiplier involved I think.

And somehow all of this needs to be distilled down into a simple, satisfying, user-friendly system. You don't want people to feel like they're completing a tax return!

So yeah, any thoughts you have would be appreciated.

[Taffin]

2 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Mine is broadly inspired by simultaneous linear equations. The idea is to compare the most basic units in the game - units whose stat line are almost identical but not quite, and look at the points difference between them. Theoretically any difference in the value of their stats should be accounted for by this points difference.

My method is still in testing but its more calculating the average damage output of a unit and how much effort it takes to wipe it out. Do it for couple different units against one type of foe and see if any patterns emerge. That will help estimate what portion of the units cost are base stats, weapon stats and abilities.

2 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

And then this is even further compounded by the fact that a stat increment that might have little value for a character with an already low stat line might exponentially improve the strength of a character with a high stat line. For example, improving the save of a character with the same stats as a Crypt Horror from 5+ to 4+ isn't going to have a huge impact on their power and usefulness in-game - but doing the same for a character with the same stats as a Varghulf Courtier is going to tip the balance a lot more. That stats increment shouldn't be costed the same way for both. So there needs to be some kind of multiplier involved I think.

I think the design team at GW has a system to estimate units power level based on stats alone and then they add abilities. What I'm trying to say is that an ability to re-roll Save is far more valuable on a unit with 3+Sv than on a unit with 6+Sv. So just like you said there must be a multiplier.

It will be great if we manage to make a "Character Creator" for Hinterlands. @someone2040 Your ideas are also cool and maybe I'll borrow some of them.

[Taffin]

I just had an idea regarding full health Heroes being OP. These simple changes will make fielding Heroes more challenging. This is just a first draft and I'm open for constructive criticism.

Heroes are made, not born

Warband leader must have the HERO keyword. If the model chosen to be the leader doesn't have it, he gains it. Normal limitations to number of Hero units apply.

Warlords pride

Heroes are proud individuals eager to prove themselves. When choosing a Hero to attack from distance be it magic or shooting or any other ability he must target enemy Hero(s) if in range. Normal rules for dividing attack apply and the First Rule of Three.

In the charge phase if a Hero is declaring a charge and has at least one enemy Hero within 12", he must try to engage into hand to hand combat. If the charge roll was insufficient it can't engage other targets as they don't represent a proper challenge. Heroes must attempt to charge other Heroes even when within 3" of non-hero enemy models (standard restriction does not apply).

In the combat phase a Hero must pile-in towards and use all of it's attack against enemy Hero (ignoring the rule for piling-in to the closest model). When at least two Heroes engage in hand-to-hand combat they fight a challenge which is always resolved at the end of combat phase - proceed activating other model possibly bringing more Heroes to the challenge. Other models can't attack or be attacked by models in a challenge.

Challenges

When two or more Heroes get within melee range of each other they engage in a challenge. When more than two Heroes fight each must divide their attacks amongst engaged enemy models before rolling the dice. Challenges are resolved just like normal fights but all attacks are made simultaneously. So even when a Hero is reduced to 0 Wounds he gets to attack, possibly dragging other models with him. If a model has an ability allowing it to move out of combat it can be used to avoid a challenge but that model forfeits all of its attacks (I'm looking at you Sakven Warlord). Models can retreat from a challenge using standard rules.

To sum up. I think this tweak will add a bit flavour to the game and preserve little guys by forcing Heroes to fight each other whenever possible. Now players must rely on grunts to hold objectives as Heroes can run away head-hunting. This also opens up some possibilities for rewards based on winning challenges. I think that Warlords Pride rule can also be applied to MONSTER keyword and models with high Wound characteristic as they pose a threat for the Hero. What do you think?

I know there are unit specific rules that will be not compatible with these changes but I believe players will figure out how to deal with them.

[Guest]

@Taffin I like your challenge rule a lot and would be very happy to see it added to the main Hinterlands rules. The one change I'd possibly make is to make challenges optional, with a forfeit if your opponent refuses the challenge.

Not too sure about the rest - I'm generally quite wary of rules that take decisions out of the player's hands.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Guest

[Taffin]

Few posts earlier I suggested to have full health Heroes at full price (and why I think it is a good idea) and had that in mind when writing these changes.

6 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Not too sure about the rest - what's your rationale for restricting the models that a hero can target? I'm generally quite wary of rules that take decisions out of the player's hands.

Your right, forcing a player to cast spells and shoot at a enemy Heroes first makes no sense. Having Heroes at full health makes them a priority target and players will throw everything at them without the rules telling them to.

As for charging the reasoning was to give the little guys a fighting chance. They can still be attacked in the combat phase when they get to close but can't be charged if there is a more juicy target in range. Maybe I overdid it with charging out of 3" range of an enemy model.

17 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I like your challenge rule a lot and would be very happy to see it added to the main Hinterlands rules. The one change I'd possibly make is to make challenges optional, with a forfeit if your opponent refuses the challenge.

That might work.

When writing those rules I was focusing on dragging the might of Heroes away from little guys and towards other Heroes to have a less "hero-hammer" effect. I admit that I got carried away in some points.

[hellalugosi]

I think the challenge a hero mechanic would make a great battleplan instead of a rule! That way you can go over the top with how it works.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[Kramer]

On 5/7/2017 at 11:00 PM, Taffin said:

Yes that sounds scary and you are probably right nerfing Heroes. On the other hand if I take a Hero for 140g and three other dudes I'm fielding a warband that can be outmanoeuvred by more numerous foe and lose the mission. And when the aim of the mission is to kill the Hero, conditions can be adjusted to make it  fair fight.

My reasoning behind this was as follows: point value of a single model i calculated with regard to all its stats and abilities; halving the wounds does not necessary mean that the model should be half price; all other models keep theirs stats and point/gold cost in balance as designed; halving wounds an cost for heroes distorts balance making some non-hero models more efficient.

The problem with these arguments is that although you might loose a few battles your hero will kill and will grow so much stronger that it will become even more unstoppable. And, as you say yourself, some scenarios don't really compensate for that. 
While I understand the wish to make things balanced... everything is designed for larger battles and thus prised that way. It will never really scale down. Every model you field with an ability that needs X+ models should also be factored in the point cost. But it doesn't apply to Hinterlands. 

All in all I agree with keeping the rules a bit fluid but don't expect to create a perfectly balanced system.  

[Taffin]

Hey! Check this out! Found this info on BOLS:

AoS Games 2 – 18:00 (BST) – Ben Johnson vs Sam “Bottle” Pearson: “The guys will be playing through a couple of scenarios from the new book (AoS Skirmish Supplement) with Ben commanding Flesh-eater Courts against Sam’s Order army…”

Link to the Twitch Channel https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer

I know I'll be tuning in.

[Taffin]

Ok so for those of you who didn't mange to watch the live show with AOS Skirmish here are some facts:

- only selected models are included in the game
- models keep all their abilities
- models have re worked point system now called Renown
- warbands start with 50 Renown
- Abhorant Ghoul King is 26 Renown and Glade Guard is 2 or 12 Renown (not sure didn't hear that clearly)
- Warbands consist of 5 to 20 models, must have a Hero (I think you can have more than one), all models must be from one Grand Alliance
-there are new spells, new traits and artefacts for Heroes
- Battleshok tests are taken for the whole Warband using the leaders Bravery. if the D6+ number of models slain is higher than B of the leader you must pick that many models to leg it. That also means that some warbands will be almost immune to Battleshok
- the winner gets 10 Renown and gets 3 dice to roll on Reward Table and picks any two dice; loser gets 6 renown and 2 dice for Rewards

Rulebook will include renown cost, spells all all new stuff and 6 new Battleplans and campaign guide, it will cost somewhere around 6BP and will go for pre-order this weekend.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Taffin

[Kramer]

44 minutes ago, Taffin said:

Ok so for those of you who didn't mange to watch the live show with AOS Skirmish here are some facts:

- only selected models are included in the game
- models keep all their abilities
- models have re worked point system now called Renown
- warbands start with 50 Renown
- Abhorant Ghoul King is 26 Renown and Glade Guard is 2 or 12 Renown (not sure didn't hear that clearly)
- Warbands consist of 5 to 20 models, must have a Hero (I think you can have more than one), all models must be from one Grand Alliance
-there are new spells, new traits and artefacts for Heroes
- Battleshok tests are taken for the whole Warband using the leaders Bravery. if the D6+ number of models slain is higher than B of the leader you must pick that many models to leg it. That also means that some warbands will be almost immune to Battleshok
- the winner gets 10 Renown and gets 3 dice to roll on Reward Table and picks any two dice; loser gets 6 renown and 2 dice for Rewards

Rulebook will include renown cost, spells all all new stuff and 6 new Battleplans and campaign guide, it will cost somewhere around 6BP and will go for pre-order this weekend.

thanks so much for the highlights! On thing is missing though... Did it look fun?!  

In your eyes did it see like a fun way to play the game without to much clutter (something that regularly happend with the whfb supplements)

[Taffin]

1 hour ago, Kramer said:

thanks so much for the highlights! On thing is missing though... Did it look fun?!  

In your eyes did it see like a fun way to play the game without to much clutter (something that regularly happend with the whfb supplements)

It looked super fun. They played through two scenarios from the new book but I only managed to see one. Game was played on a 4x4 board. In one corner there was 12"x12" temple or sacred ground with two entrances, one facing each players corner of the map. In the middle of that sacred ground of sorts there was a relic to be plundered. Warbands rushed to the artefact because the player with most models within 6" at the end of 5th round wins. BUT after each turn there is a warp-storm closing on the warbands. After the second round all models that were more than 24" away from the sacred ground got D3 mortal wounds and that distance shortened with every turn. Few models did not make it and where swallowed by the storm. Only the sacred ground was truly safe and it could only be entered via those entrances I mentioned.

It was truly epic when one warbands last model alive barely made it before the storm and killed the only two models left from opposing warband. Guys from GW mentioned several times that this system is mostly for narrative play. They encouraged people to take existing battleplans and adapt them to skirmish games. But for those who like a challenge there will be some guidelines for more competitive play.

I think we could use some of that stuff and blend it with Hinterlands to make an awesome game on par with Mordheim or Necromunda

[Guest]

Finally got to play my first games of Hinterlands last week. I have to say that despite being forced to play on a coffee table using household objects for scenery (urgh, never again!) we had good fun blooding our warbands.

One thing that struck me, which I was surprised at but perhaps should have expected, is how easily heroes can die when duelling with another hero. My Crypt Haunter Courtier fell to my opponent's Wight King in a single round of combat in both of our battles without an opportunity to hit back. My opponent's Necromancer also went down in a single round of combat. So I felt like we potentially missed out on some tense dramatic moments that might have resulted from a more protracted duel. It does make me wonder if halving heroes' wounds is the best way to go.

The games were very fast-paced, which we loved. I do wonder if maybe the gold rewards are a little bit generous though - after one relatively quick session we both had enough to add a hero to our warbands. If, as seems likely, we end up playing around 3-4 games a week we'll hit the size cap in no time, and it also creates pressure to buy, build and paint models. It's a minor thing though and something we could easily tweak ourselves.

What really draws us to Hinterlands is the RPG elements, which the new Skirmish doesn't seem to have. We'll look at Skirmish but without injury tables and XP I can't see us playing it, not in its vanilla form at least. On the other hand it has artifacts and the scenarios sound interesting. We may end up mixing elements of both systems. Deeper RPG expansions for either system would also be very welcome in our group.

Finally, I'd like to say that Hinterlands has brought people back to my gaming group who drifted away from AoS because of the pressure of painting and playing with so many models. Hinterlands and/or Skirmish now looks set to be our main way to play, and everyone's very enthusiastic about it. So thank you @bottle!

Edited May 21, 2017 by Guest

[someone2040]

Likewise, had my first games today. We houseruled my leader a bit, by swapping the Ironfist option for a Pistol on the Mournfang Warscroll (as it'd be a shame that his major weapon is a big huge crossbow that he can't use).

We had an Ogor-off, which I think as expected a bit, was a bit swingy. Once two blows go through, the Ogors go down, and the Grots just prove to be a bit of a distraction as they're just bodies. I won twice, and at the end of the games I had enough gold to buy 2 Grots and a new Ogor (If I had the model for the Ogor anyway). So don't feel that was too much. Definitely interesting playing Ogors, as you'll need to save up over multiple games to get the more interesting Ogor choices (Leadbelcher, Irongut, Man-eater, etc).

Anyway, for those interested I did a narrative write up on my two games in my Painting Blog for the warband.

 

[hellalugosi]

had a playtest night with my club for heroic play hinterlands, and it was a pretty wild night.

My Stormcast took on Deathrattle and I've got a battle report below:

Spoiler

First lets introduce the warbands destined to collide in shyish! 

First up is the Sons of Mallus, a regiment led by Lord Relictor Khesh, the original lineup consisted of:

LEADER: Lord Relictor (Devoted, Azyr, Liberation aspects from the aspect table), FOLLOWERS: Judicator, Retributor, RECRUITS: 2x Liberators. Picture below is from post game 1.

My friend's team was a deathrattle horde led by Wight King Reginald

LEADER: Wight King (Royalty, Shyish, Bounty Hunter), FOLLOWERS: Grave Guard Champion, Black Knight, RECRUITS: 3x Grave Guard. Pic below is from post game 1.

We counted up wounds and advancements to total our levels. I came in at level 15, he came in at level 11, which bumped up to level 12, because he took royalty. He rolled the underdog reward Poison blade! This scared me as i had only a few multiwound models! We rolled for our objectives using the destined encounter table: I rolled Conquest, meaning i had to control the center of the board for 5 rounds,  he rolled rescue mission, allowing to place down a captured banshee off into my territory for him to free from captivity! The game rolled off and quite early we got into a few turns of tense silence, as i didn't want to lose my relictor and give him free bounty especially with his poison blade. 

Luckily, he makes the mistake of using his black knight (carrying the poison blade) to smash into my judicator, slaying him instantly. Should have taken out the relictor or retributor, as they team up to clear house! Protecting my objective point as well as keeping him away from the banshee.

In game two, we rolled for our advancements, as the winner, i am awarded d3, as the loser he gains only one. both of us ended up walking away with 1 advancement, which we used to upgrade our followers instead of our leaders. We rolled for objectives and THIS time, i got rescue mission, and he got raiding party. Unfortunately i didn't get much pictures of these last two games as we were having so much fun we forgot! Raiding party benefited him as he had more models. I gave him my gryph hound to place as my rescue mission marker. He got enough gold to hire a dire wolf! He still had the underdog though as I picked up another judicator. Maybe i'd have more luck keeping them alive if I had more? His underdog was secret agent, allowing him to hide his newly acquired dire wolf. a real....underdog. I think i'm at level 17 by now, and he is at level 15.

 

In this battle he took the win after forcing me to split up my warband after taking down a few structures. His dire wolf immediately went for my judicators, a smart move as he has no choice but to run into my range because of his objective. Trashing 8 structures, he ends this battle after 4 rounds. We got our advancements and recruited more models, with him adding a ton of skeleton warriors, clearly looking to overwhelm my warband which only added a single liberator. Funnily enough, we both ended up at level 21 by now. We both rolled conquest this time, meaning that our battle was going to test the durability of our warbands. Fortunately for me, he decides to lead his wight king who was super buffing his entire army at this point at the front. I sacrificed my retributor to the horde, slaying the wight king and getting overrun in the process. This was a key to victory as without his hero, his skeletons no longer posed a threat!

So with 2 heroic victories, i end up winning the heroic play battle, and i think this is a pretty effective way to play a one shot session of hinterlands with friends, cant wait for AOS Skirmish either! 

On a side note, i just saw your post about adding a link to the frontpage, i'd love to!

 

[TheOtherJosh]

[mention=798]@Bottle[/mention] With the release of Skirmish, any thoughts on the "Hinterlands: Skirmish compatible Edition"?

 

 

[bottle]

3 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said:

[mention=798]@Bottle[/mention] With the release of Skirmish, any thoughts on the "Hinterlands: Skirmish compatible Edition"?

 

 

Very much so! In fact it's already well in the works and I have a number of pages fully completed. Hopefully it's going to be something really fun for fans of skirmish - as well as porting over some of the balance tweaks and campaign elements from Hinterlands it's going to have loads of new content especially for Skirmish, mainly: Rules for a variety of Multiplayer Campaigns, down time between campaigns (and rules to link multiple campaigns together), weather rules, potions, scrolls, artefacts, and expanded rules for your General to almost make it feel like an RPG.  

[Rogue Mind]

Anyone done a BatRep video of Hinterlands? 

[Kramer]

On 6-6-2017 at 6:09 AM, Rogue Mind said:

Anyone done a BatRep video of Hinterlands? 

 

Miniwargaming did one but you have to have a free trial or subscription to see it. 

[Old Woden]

Sorry if someone's already asked this but I have an rules question, when it says a hero starts at level 5 does that mean you roll on the advancement table 5 times before the campaign starts and give him those abilities or does it just mean he can only level up 5 times afterwards? @bottle 

[bottle]

4 minutes ago, Old Woden said:

Sorry if someone's already asked this but I have an rules question, when it says a hero starts at level 5 does that mean you roll on the advancement table 5 times before the campaign starts and give him those abilities or does it just mean he can only level up 5 times afterwards? @bottle 

It's the latter, they already start at level 5 but don't gain abilities for those first 5 levels. They gain abilities from levels 6-10  

[Old Woden]

1 minute ago, bottle said:

It's the latter, they already start at level 5 but don't gain abilities for those first 5 levels. They gain abilities from levels 6-10  

Thanks!

[quter]

I'm looking for ways to adapt hinterlands so that I can use the renown values from aos skirmish. While starting amount of gold coins etc. can easily be converted to renown, I find it tricky to decide what the awards for winning battles and campaign scenarios would be (for example "the winner earns 25+D6 gold coins"). Has anyone tried doing that? Or perhaps it is going to be mentioned in hinterlands 3.0? And if so when can we expect it?

[TheOtherJosh]

Very much so! In fact it's already well in the works and I have a number of pages fully completed. Hopefully it's going to be something really fun for fans of skirmish - as well as porting over some of the balance tweaks and campaign elements from Hinterlands it's going to have loads of new content especially for Skirmish, mainly: Rules for a variety of Multiplayer Campaigns, down time between campaigns (and rules to link multiple campaigns together), weather rules, potions, scrolls, artefacts, and expanded rules for your General to almost make it feel like an RPG. [emoji4] 

 

Hey [mention=798]bottle[/mention] any news on the update status?