Mordheim Redux - 4-page AoS Skirmish Campaign

[bottle]

Hi everyone,

I am a massive fan of the simplicity of Age of Sigmar and wondered if Mordhiem could be reduced down to 4 pages of additional rules to work alongside the core Age of Sigmar rules. Please see below what I have been working on - I would really like to hear your feedback on what you think works and doesn't (are the revised Battleshock rules fun or fiddly?).

There are 4 pages to the rules, the first is for skirmish gaming, the second and third detail a campaign system and the fourth outlines three basic scenarios.

Thanks for commenting!

Edit - This is now Version 2 following the discussion on the first two pages:

 

 

Archive

Version 1

Spoiler

 

[Dez]

I like the idea of it, but I think there is a lot of little itty bitty fiddly rules to keep track of...I'd make things a bit simpler on the rules and focus more on the RPG aspect. Introduce more special rules characters can get and some special weapons.

I'd keep cover the same as in the 4 page rules. I'd also remove most of the battleshock extra rules...it just seems like too much, particularly with all the modifiers and having to remember how far they can move dependent on a dice roll. Have Battleshock work the same, but introduce a Panic rule.

Panic: "If a model fails it's Battleshock test, all friendly models within 6" have to take a Battleshock test if they haven't already that round. Models do not take a battleshock test more than once in a round. If a model fails a Battleshock test, they immediately go their move distance towards the nearest board edge. In the hero phase, they can attempt to pass their Battleshock test to act as normal. They gain +1 if near the General" This can create some new strategy...who do you roll for Battleshock first? Should I keep my guys so close to the edges?

As an overall rule, 1's always fail and a 6 always succeeds.

Another couple items (I'm just reading through this fast and giving first impressions) it seems too easy for a model to die...and not enough gold to replace them. For instance, my Skaven Clan Rat gets KO'd. If I roll a 1 or a 2 (33% chance) my model is gone. Chances are if I'm playing Skaven I'll lose much more than that, and I won't be able to replenish my fallen warband. I'd make it have to be a 1 followed by a 1 to lose a character. Instead of -1 wound on a 2, maybe -1 save? Seems like a better way to reflect a loss in toughness.

[bottle]

Thanks for the feedback Dez! Yes, the Battleshock rule gave me the biggest headache. I wanted it to be similar to a break test from older GW games - but getting it succinct was a big problem. If I could condense it into a paragraph it frees up that page for extra attention to other rules (for example a ban on summoning is probably needed).

Anmy more thoughts or ideas on it will be greatly appreciated. I don't 100% understand your suggestion for amendment but the biggest problems with Battleshock is that single models never take it for starters, and even using it as a "leadership" style stat, many models are Bravery 7 or above and would never fail.

-1 to save on the injury roll of a 2 is a great addition. I must have just been thinking of characters when I wrote that in originally and didn't realise it would kill off your grunts!

I think the 1 in 6 chance of permanent death is a fair chance. The injury chart is a redux of the Necromunda injury D66 Chart (and I think Mordhiem used a very similar chart).

[Dez]

Ah I'd forgotten single models never make the test, I'd instill that single models do take it and suffer a modifier based on how many wounds they've taken. I'd also upon thinking about it that a Panic (battleshock) test is also taken if a model dies within 6" of a friendly model. 

If you are keeping Death on the roll of a 1 on a D6, I'd introduce some sort of ability or treasure than can be found to help cheat death. Perhaps a 'Medic' ability that grants a reroll on the injury chart, but you must always accept the second roll even if it is worse. 'Impossible to kill' which gives a +1 on the damage chart. You could also introduce 'Healing Salve', which removes a negative modifier...or 'Potion' which give you a +1 on the healing chart.

I love Mordheim myself, but I'd lean more towards making this an Age of Sigmar simple campaign system if you can  Age of Mordheim...

[mhsellwood]

Looks pretty good, I would make the following suggestions:

- As Dez suggests probably bring the cover save mechanic back in line with core rules - given the treatment of each model as a separate unit it will be more common so no need to have different rules.

- For battle shock. How about testing based on models within 6" lost, and a +1 to roll for each beyond model lost beyond the first, and the outcome is remove the model? Gets rid of a lot of fiddly book keeping and again keeps it in line with the basic rules.

- I would suggest making a commitment to a points system. Wounds are alright but if I can field a dwarf warrior for 10 gc or a Hearthguard Berzerker for 10 gc which am I likely to go for?

- As a thought for an improvement how about taking the Mordheim idea of multiple tables? You choose, for the sake of argument, from 1 of three different tables and that gives you a bit of individual flavour. Maybe a split between the basic lads and the heros?

[Gaz Taylor]

Looks good but as already mentioned, I would stick to core rules as much as possible. Also I would be tempted to tweak your battle shock rules and change it to a bottle test. So something like you loose a third of your models and have to test using highest bravery (usually general but if not available next highest). Add plus one for each turn you have to test on (so first turn normal, next turn +1, etc). 

Keeps it as close to core rules as possible

[RossMHoward]

As a Mordheim player I really enjoyed reading this and I really like the experience table and the recruiting format. 

I was thinking about Mordheim in the AOS format and wondering how best to balance it, but with To Hit and To Wound replace WS, S and T it suddenly becomes incredibly hard to balance if you level up and suddenly get +1 to wound. It seems like you've overcome that though, as the EXP table more often than not gives you +1 Wound, making the whole thing more balanced based on models becoming more survivable. 

It'd be nice to have a Skill tables thrown in there too though as rolling NEW SKILL as an advancement is always such a buzz in Mordheim. 

Likewise on the Injury Table, It'd be great if in time it could become as diverse as the current Mordheim table which is also great fun to Roll on. A few weeks back my friend and I played two games. In Game one, my Leader lost an eye. In Game two, he lost the other one. I feel like the chance of these things happening creates a great narrative in the game and it'd be a shame not to have it. 

As far as Battleshock goes, I think that's slightly complicating things. Mordheim the only big issues are Fear (Which under these rules could make you -2 to hit), All Alone (this could be roll a D6, +1 to the roll for every enemy within 6" of you, and if you don't roll lower than your bravery you flee). And finally the Rout Test, which gives you a great fail safe way of winning if you've lost the objective. This could be similar, Leaders Bravery, +1 for every friendly model that has been slain. 

On the skills tables you could have really interesting break downs, like Rolling extra dice on the charge, leadership bonuses that buff and help with moral, or maybe damage and re roll bonuses for combat too. 

The scenarios sound proper fun!

 

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

You could have a Battleshock rule something like this:

Roll one dice for each model at the end of the phase for Battleshock if any casualties have been taken by the Warband. Add the total number of wounds taken from friendly models within 6", if the result is higher than the model's bravery it flees and is removed from the battle.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dez]

3 minutes ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

You could have a Battleshock rule something like this:

Roll one dice for each model at the end of the phase for Battleshock if any casualties have been taken by the Warband. Add the total number of wounds taken from friendly models within 6", if the result is higher than the model's bravery it flees and is removed from the battle.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what I was getting at, but you've done it in less words

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

That's what I was getting at, but you've done it in less words [emoji4]

Great minds think alike. Although this rule might need a positive modifier to stop some armies just running off after one kill.

Maybe "models have +1 bravery for each friendly model within 6""

Similar to the existing rule for each 10 models in a unit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RossMHoward]

2 minutes ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

 Although this rule might need a positive modifier to stop some armies just running off after one kill.

I was going to say, it could feel a little punitive for certain warbands. Maybe having +1 bravery as a level up stat + not removing the model as Bottle suggested, just having it Fall Back as @bottle set out

[bottle]

Thanks ever so much for all your feedback everyone. I have been thinking about the Battleshock and decided to follow Gaz's advice of mapping it to the AoS rules as much as possible. My solution actually comes close to Jabber's solution. Let me know if you think this is better:

Battleshock

In the battleshock phase, both players must take a battleshock tests if they have had models slain during the turn. The player whose turn it is tests first.

To make a battleshock test, roll a dice and add the number of the player's models that have been slain this turn. For each point by which the total exceeds the General's Bravery characteristic, one model must flee and is removed from play as if it had been slain. 

You must choose which models flee from the battle. If playing a campaign these models do not roll on the Serious Injury table.

If the General is no longer on the battlefield the player can nominate a different model's Bravery characteristic to test against.

--

So it's essentially a Battleshock test for the Warband as if it was a single unit in AoS.

This no doubt makes higher Bravery models better and so I wanted to factor this into the points costs of the model.

I am aware that "wounds" is a terrible points mechanic. Ideally would be to make pools costs for every unit, however I want to keep this 4 pages and so have leant towards a formula instead. This is the one I am currently working with:

(it might be too long-winded)

Warband Recruitment

At the start of the campaign each player must recruit a Warband. Players begin with 120 gold coins from which they can choose models to be part of their Warband.

Each model costs a certain amount of gold coins to recruit based upon the following formula:

5 gold coins plus an additional 5 for each wound the model has, plus the model's Bravery characteristic halved (decimals rounding up), minus the Save characteristic (deduct 7 for a Save of '-').

For example a Battlemage would cost 27 gold coins (5+25+3-6), a Clanrat would cost 6 gold coins (5+5+2-6).

---

I feel like this formula at least gives a nice costing for units. I have thought about perhaps limiting the models with the Hero keyword, perhaps disallowing Monsters too.

I would also like to do a suppliment to go alongside these 4 pages (perhaps a 4 page suppliment) that gives extra rules for magic items and things like that (as Dez suggested). But I think it is important to keep the redux strictly 4 pages for impact.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

Sounds okay, I did think of the bravery being the whole warband but I'm not keen on the choosing who flees thing. Doesn't feel right!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bottle]

I worry with individual tests you'll really cripple things like Clanrats especially when compared to say Zombies (4 vs 10), and at the same time adding in other rules can quickly become convoluted (as my first idea shows). Choosing the models was taken from the way it currently works for units in AoS. I am open to suggestions on how it could be changed (hopefully in a sentence or less!) :-)

[Dez]

I think choosing the order you take the test for each individual model works.

[bottle]

I'll put some more thought into it. The other thing I worry about is it being tedious to roll for every model in your Warband every turn (presuming stuff will have died) and for your opponent to have to do the same. Changes the Battleshock phase from being 2 dice rolls to being 20-30 dice rolls.

[Gaz Taylor]

I still think you are over complicating it. In necromunda and mordheim (and regiments of reknown I think), you had a bottle test. You took it when you had lost X percentage of models, and when you failed everybody ran and you lost the game. I think you need something like this.

[RossMHoward]

I'm not sure you even need Battleshock, just a single Warband wide bravery test, adding a modifier for models that have been slain to see if your warband runs off to lick their wounds and for the game to end. 

In fact in Old School Mordheim theres never a penalty to leadership on rout tests, its just when you have lost a certain percentage of your crew you roll unmodified leadership at the beginning of the turn to make sure you don't flee. It keeps the game very snappy. 

It sounds pretty drastic but the silver lining is the living models who have fled aren't having to take an injury roll at the end of the game. 

[RossMHoward]

2 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I still think you are over complicating it. In necromunda and mordheim (and regiments of reknown I think), you had a bottle test. You took it when you had lost X percentage of models, and when you failed everybody ran and you lost the game. I think you need something like this.

You beat me too it by a second! Haha

 

[Lordzombie]

I would have to join in with the others and agree to make the Battle Shock test just the same as the the old Rout/ Bottle test. Testing every turn you lose a guy could drag it out, but taking it at the start of every turn after losing 25% is not so bad. As for making the old system only 4 pages, why not make the core rules 4 pages and then make the campaign another 4 pages? That way you don't lose out anything on the rules or campaign system because you are worried about a 4 page limit. 

[RossMHoward]

I'd be well up for giving this a go next time I have some people over for Mordheim. 

Under the old system, a warband would be chosen from a select group of warriors, rather than the army as a whole which did a lot of balancing too as it accounts for models special rules. I mean if an Executioner costs as much as a Corsair, why take a corsair? It's the same dichotomy used to attack AOS in relation to 8th, but in a Skirmish game a special rule can have a much bigger impact. 

It could be laid out in such a way using Stormcasts as an example. 

Heros

1 Lord Castellant as Leader

1 Relictor as the mage/priest counterpart

2 Elite level troops (retributors & prosecutors)

Henchmen

1-5 Liberators

1-5 Judicators

1-5 Gryph Hounds

[bottle]

Cool, so if a standard bottle test was to be introduced how would you go about it?

The rule was, lose 25% of your starting models and you must pass a leadership test on your leader's value at the start of each turn or forfeit the game.

How would you do the leadership test? 1 dice against the Bravery? It will need some negative modifiers else Bravery 10 models will never fail. Roll on 2D6 and you'll find warband's run away much more quickly as in Mordhiem/Necormunda leaders started with Ld 8, in AoS Bravery 6-7 is much more common.

I am personally in favour of keeping as the AoS Bravery test, but I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

I also put in a new formula for working out gold costs of a unit. A corsair would be 8 gold coins (5+5+3-5) an Executioner would be 10 gold coins (5+5+4-4).

Again, pools costs for all units, or a structure might make balance better but I strongly feel the 4 page limit is needed for impact and won't deviate from it (feel free to do so yourself however).

I would like to add in a limit on Heroes and a ban on Monsters however.

Thanks for your input everyone!

[Gaz Taylor]

47 minutes ago, bottle said:

Cool, so if a standard bottle test was to be introduced how would you go about it?

The rule was, lose 25% of your starting models and you must pass a leadership test on your leader's value at the start of each turn or forfeit the game.

How would you do the leadership test? 1 dice against the Bravery? It will need some negative modifiers else Bravery 10 models will never fail. Roll on 2D6 and you'll find warband's run away much more quickly as in Mordhiem/Necormunda leaders started with Ld 8, in AoS Bravery 6-7 is much more common.

As it's a bottle test, you can test on whatever value you want, so you can keep it really simple and have it as a straight up die roll and first time they run on a six. Next time on a five and so on. Should keep it exciting and not too complicated.

[Dez]

Think about Keywords when working out model cost. I'd think that a model with Monster, Hero or Wizard for example would cost more. I'd leave monsters in, there's something appealing about it...but it should be cost prohibitive. 

I'd also think about making the break test on wounds instead of models lost. Ogres, Ironjawz, etc aren't as likely to lose models...but their colleagues may become distressed after watching old Zogger da Facepuncher lose and eye...and an arm...and another arm...and a nose...nahmean?

[RossMHoward]

 

2 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

As it's a bottle test, you can test on whatever value you want, so you can keep it really simple and have it as a straight up die roll and first time they run on a six. Next time on a five and so on. Should keep it exciting and not too complicated.

That's really elegant as a solution. Maybe a 6+ at first, and then at 50% on a 5+ and at 75% on a 4+