Mordheim Redux - 4-page AoS Skirmish Campaign

[bottle]

6 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.

It's a nice solution. 

I do wish we could incorporate a model's bravery somewhere into the game. Maybe we could have a Battleshock and a Bottle test. We could keep the Battleshock something simple like; if a model is slain in a turn all friendly models within 6" must take a Battleshock test at the end of the turn. Roll a D6 and if the result is either a 6 or is higher than the Bravery characteristic of the model it flees from the table and is removed as if slain. If playing a campaign do not roll for injury for models which flee.

This way bravery still has an impact, there is a risk-vs-reward of grouping models together, and the bottle test sits on top to make sure games don't last too long (including this would mean the random turn length could be removed from the scenarios).

[RossMHoward]

That sounds quality! It's the reverse of the all alone tests so it encourages you to branch out and take risks rather than bunkering up. It could use the same criteria as the Bottle test, on a 6 you flee. But modify it based on negatives for enemies around you? Otherwise like people have said earlier, it gives an unfair advantage to Seraphon and Daemons with their ludicrous bravery

[someone2040]

Cover

I understand why you want to change this. Cover is probably one of my niggling issues with AoS, where if you're 'behind' cover you don't get the cover bonus, but if you're on or in cover you do. You could potentially solve a lot of this by saying use the Rules for Walls where suitable (if the shooter is on the other side, you gain cover). Alternatively, you could just use the standard cover rules and most buildings, etc just count as cover.

Battleshock

Agree the original implementation is too clunky and gets bogged down due to the fact that Bravery is a poor substitute for Leadership. It's nor Mordheim after all, it's AoS: Mordheim, so as has been mentioned, better to replace it with something more elegant like the bottle test presented.

I don't think it's worth clunking up the system with stuff like All Alone tests or Panic tests and the like. 

Whats missing

Part of the Mordheim experience is the climng/jumping aspect that is currently missing. Climbing is covered by the regular rules, but jumping over gaps isn't really covered. Jumping I think could be simplified to say a 4+ roll (maybe increasing difficulty for how far you're jumping?). You could give a bonus to this roll based on certain keywords (Such as you could say, any scroll with keyword AELF or SKAVEN gain +1 to Jump Rolls).

[Gaz Taylor]

13 hours ago, bottle said:

It's a nice solution. 

I do wish we could incorporate a model's bravery somewhere into the game. Maybe we could have a Battleshock and a Bottle test. We could keep the Battleshock something simple like; if a model is slain in a turn all friendly models within 6" must take a Battleshock test at the end of the turn. Roll a D6 and if the result is either a 6 or is higher than the Bravery characteristic of the model it flees from the table and is removed as if slain. If playing a campaign do not roll for injury for models which flee.

This way bravery still has an impact, there is a risk-vs-reward of grouping models together, and the bottle test sits on top to make sure games don't last too long (including this would mean the random turn length could be removed from the scenarios).

I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of that. If you want to keep something in the game for battleshock, why not have something like if they want to charge a monster you need to do a battleshock test? Danger is that it could make monsters more powerful but you can simply limit it by the number of monsters you allow in a warband  

 

At the end of the day, it's what you want from this. Do you want it to be a faithful copy of Mordhiem or something inspired by it?

[bottle]

Yep, I want something inspired by it rather than faithful and I want something much more in line with AoS (which is why the "4-pages and no more" brief is a must). For that reason I am going to back track. Although the bottle test was a nice mechanic, due to the random turn length of the scenarios, it doesn't really need it in my opinion (in fact it gets in the way of victory conditions).

I want to keep the rules as close to AoS as possible and so I am going to go forward with my first suggested amendment:

Quote

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.

Reasons I like this:

1. It is virtually identical to the current AoS Battleshock

2. Bravery plays a roll.

3. It gives players some tactics on who to remove. The lowly grunt with low damage output or the wounded Hero to avoid injury?

- the only caveat I might add is; models within 3" of an enemy can only be chosen if there are no models not within 3" of an enemy. (Which would force you to retreat that wounded Hero to safety first).

I appreciate all the really good discussion in here. You are of course free to amend and alter my rules as you see fit, but this is the way I think it should be done.

What do you think about the above caveat? Does it add to the Battleshock rule or over complicate it in your opinion?

[RossMHoward]

At first I thought it would be a bit trivial because you could just take off your worst models, but given the amnesty on rolling for injuries I think it's an interesting mechanic and would have a lot of strategy toward the late game. Which is great because it keeps the drama high. 

Hopefully I'll have an opportunity to play test it when I have some people round for games in a few weeks

 

[bottle]

Hey everyone, I've complied the changes into version 2! Please see below and let me know what you think. There is actually a fair bit of space on page 1 now, so if you think any more rules errata is needed - we can add it in

[mhsellwood]

Hi Bottle.

Was pondering this over the weekend, and have done a little bit of work.

I have taken the latest SCGT points and used the formula from your first draft to cost up all the models. I have then put together a bit of a warband list for Skaven to show what I feel would be a reasonable warband list. I have taken from Mordheim the concept of the leaders and then the units, and some restrictions on what you can field. I have targeted this warband list at around 150 gold, so no monsters really fit into it.

In addition I have done a new advances table, with a couple of different 'archetypes' that you can choose from to slightly differentiate different kinds of characters.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

Proposals.xlsx