Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Recently my local gaming group started playing Mordheim and I had my chance to try this fantastic game. For some reason I never got around to play it before. And this was a fantastic surprise, the game is intensively fun. Even if you play against a stronger gang, you can win by some lucky rolls to knock a few models out of action and maybe they fail the leadership test and flee. Or you can lose but still get alot of XP versus higher rated gangs and earn gold, get new skills and find precious loot.

I only had a small selection of models to create my Dwarf Treasure Hunters warband. The only dwarves I own was from the Fantasy starter set Battle of Skull Pass. Most of the models had black powder guns, axe and shield or great weapons. Some conversions were made to get different loadouts like crossbow or two hand weapons like axe and sword. But after playing a few games, I was very disappointed at how unbalanced some of this equipment was. The starting point for this specific gang was of course a bit random. If the models from the starter set had different equipment, I may not have thought about it. Of course I don't expect to win alot of games being a newbie to the game, and I can easily admit to lose just because opponents are plain better at the game. And keep in mind even though I will post my complaints here, I do enjoy the game alot regardless of what I view as some unbalancies. But here it goes, my complaints about some of the equipment available to Dwarves and many other gangs of Mordheim:

1) Shield

Many models look good with shields and without any knowledge about game play, I equiped a couple of gang members with shield and a hand weapon like axe or hammer. But shield is really bad in Mordheim! You practically lose one attack and only gain a 6+ save, something that is negated by any STR 4 attack or weapons like axes with cutting edge rule that adds a -1 modifier to saves. Even a lucky roll of 6 to wound inflict critical wound with high probability of removing all saves alltogether. So what is the result? You'll hardly find any warrior equipped with shield in Mordheim. Losing one attack for a save that is so easily bypassed just isn't worth it. Having the option to use shield is of course better than to remove it all together. As a new player, I think shield and axe looks aesthetically pleasing, so I wanted some models to have this. Looking back, I see I shouldn't have shields at all with a possible exception of the Dwarf Noble who also has Gromril Armour.

2) Black powder handgun
For ranged option, some of the common options are crossbow and handguns. Looking at the price, these should be expected to be about the same level of efficiency. Or handgun should be slightly better, as it costs 10 more than crossbow. But this is not the case at all! I would strongly advice anyone not to take the handgun. Why? Crossbow is cheaper, has same STR of 4, has longer range and fires each turn. Or you could get the handgun with the only benefit of having an additional armour modifier. When would a saving modifer of -2 ever be preferable to firing twice as much? You would have to fight against some really heavy opponents to make your handgun pay back its price. And armour is just so expensive and underpowered in Mordheim that you almost never face that problem.

3) Quantity vs quality
Whenever my dwarves who are farily high in price (but with good stats) face gangs like orcs & goblins or skaven, it becomes quite clear numbers always have the upper hand. For the price of one strong warrior, the enemy could get two cheap grunts and no matter what you do, they just tear you down. You flee faster due to lower gang size and they get alot more attacks. And number of attacks seems to be best game in Mordheim. Of course tactics and skills would mitigate this. But with equally good players, I'd be interested in hearing how the one with the lower size gang wins the game. This is not unbalance of equipment but more generally unbalance of game in my opinion.

If someone know about similar issues I'd be interested to hear it. And also if someone has made some rule modifications to maybe make some of these equipments more balanced. And what are generally the best equipment, what gives most bang for the gold crowns?

Also, here is my newly started gang I call the "Bounty Butchers" (who I enjoy playing with of course no matter the complaints posted here):

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-5209-44223_Mordheim%20Dwarves.html

One of the more common house rules is to halve the price of armour

But yeah, crossbows do the same job as handguns for cheaper. Get an Engineer in your warband (if you haven't already) for that 6" extra range.

Only coming from a Necromunda background - dealing with opponents that out number you - the way I handle it is I play the opposite to them.
If they are more hand 2 hand based, I hang back and pick them off with shooting. If they are more based around long range tactics I use the terrain to my advantage and get in really close. Its tricky, and there really is strength in numbers, but it can be overcome.
(btw, brilliant paintjob.)

Yea, critical hit is the most powerful weapon in the game, and cheap too. With a price of one hammer, you double your chances getting one. And more cheap warriors you have, more likly you are going to get lucky with the dice. I don't have any advice how to throw your dice, but I recommend to throw your cheapest warrior in front to soak most of the shots and then rush in with the heros. Or hire a pit fighter to be your "tank", they are cheap and it doesnt hurt that much if they die.

For armour saves, my gaming group used a house rule that a hand weapon and a shiled gives the model an extra +1 to armpur save in hand to hand combat. So model with just a shiled and an axe would get 5+ save against melee attacks. We also agreed that model would need a str of 5 to get -1 for opponents save.

As for blackpowder weapons, one gaming group had an house rule that their str was one higher then in the rulebook for more cost effectivnes. They also used the blackpowder misfire rules to balance the increased str. Worked like a charm what I heared.

for the panitcraft.

Its awesome to know new people are still discovering this fine fine game.

As the others say, a few house rule tweaks solve these problems.

I once had an Ostlander warband and their special rule "Noveau Riche" meant you had to spend half of your loot post game on a single item. This combined with their fluff meant I ended up with a fair few handguns. I was dominating the campaign, the handguns negating the increasing armour of the enemy heroes - and then we all realised the reloading time rule... a lot of unhappy bunnies and egg on my face I can tell you.

Lovely figures and the camera angle makes it look like they're posing, ha.

We added a houserule where you always get that save of a 6 for a shield - strength can reduce the armour save accordingly or punch through, but if you have a shield, you'll always get that 6.

I like that idea. Just having a 1/6 chance of saving can mean a lot.

Some very good ideas here! I'll try to convince the others to apply house rules next time we start this up.

I love the ideas to improve shields.

Minimum 6+ save helps out.

+2 save for shield is also a really good motivation to take shields. Maybe a bit too much for Dwarves who might get a bit too much out of it with Gromril armor. 2+ save can be rough in the start when many players have strength 3. But still not too overpowered. And axes, blackpowder, S4 or higher and critical wound still breaks it.

Strength 5 black powder weapons sounds just perfect. And then it would be justifiable to add the misfire rules. To add misfire rules with standard rules is just tossing salt in the wound. Maybe not so much for pistols, but certainly for the overpriced and inefficient handgun.

So many good suggestions here, I really want to try all of them.

Thx for the paint comments, the effort put into them is really a result of how fun this game is.

There are plenty of "room for improvement" in the Mordheim rules.

A very good attempt to fix the major flaws and balance (and also quicken the game a little bit) is Coreheim. http://www.coreheim.com/ As a rules geek I really like it, because the feeling is very much like Mordheim but better :-)

Baxx wrote:
+2 save for shield is also a really good motivation to take shields. Maybe a bit too much for Dwarves who might get a bit too much out of it with Gromril armor. 2+ save can be rough in the start when many players have strength 3. But still not too overpowered. And axes, blackpowder, S4 or higher and critical wound still breaks it.

A frined of mine actully decided to take dwarfs as his warband just because of that house rule. The leader had it all, gromril, helmet, shiled, axe with a parry and maybe a pistol. On his first fight a handful of verminkin pummeld the leader out of action with a hail of sling stones, rats just needed a critical hit and that they got. No worries tho, the leader didnt die, he just got robbed. Morale of the story is, five 2 gold slings can beat 75 gold gromril armour

But still not too overpowered. And axes, blackpowder, S4 or higher and critical wound still breaks it. +1

I have more questions about some unadvantageous equipment available to Dwarves and other warbands in Mordheim. Since most of my warband is based off the Battle of Skull Pass miniatures, I really wanted to utilize the mule that came with it. And what would be more epic than a Dwarf Noble leading his warband into epic street battles while riding a mule?

After converting the model and putting a dwarf on it, looking at the rules, it is quite clear mules are meant to be completely rubbish. I have a hard time seeing what they may ever be used for.

Let's sum it up:

Pros:

-Easy to find (rare 7)
-Cheap (30 gold crowns)
-Improves movement with Movement 6 (at least for dwarves)
-Gives increased armor save of +1
-Skills can be aquired which gives bonuses while riding (harder to be hit by ranged, always strikes first in melee, increased leadership range for leader, run and shoot, additional trample attack when charging, faster mounting, faster dismounting with leap charge, better attacks vs other mounts)

Cons:

-Slower than all other mountable animals
-Requires Riding skill to be used (applies to all mounts)
-Cumbersome to mount or dismount without skills (applies to all mounts)
-Cannot move indoors (applies to all mounts)
-wanders randomly without a warrior on it or base to base with it
-Stubborn, must pass leadership each round or be stationary
-Non-combatant, cannot fight in combat or be used to charge into combat. If charged, warrior must roll on Whoa boy table (a worse alternative to injury table) which normally only is used when warrior is taking a wound
-Very deadly to be wounded while mounted, taking possibly additional serious injury, takes additional wound if stunned
-Large target, easier hit by ranged weapons

With such severe limitations, what would a mule ever be used for in a Dwarf Warband or any other warband for that matter? If I have understood the rules correctly, it can't be used to charge with and if being charged the effectively takes a wound automaticly by rolling on the Whoa Boy! table.

Also Dwarves normally have better injury table than others because they only go out on a 6. But Whoa Boy! table for mounts (equivalent to injury table) have out of action on a 5 and 6. And with the additional threat of being crushed under the mount and taking additional serious injuries.

As far as I can see riding a mule is nothing but suicide for a dwarf. Unless for some hero working as a ranged scout.

Do you think I could talk the other players into allowing to modify some rules for the mule? So to at least let it charge 6" into combat or not taking auto-wound if charged.

Anyone have experience with this ridiculous animal?

First- MH has got to be one of the best games GW has ever released.

Second- I would give you a word of caution on house rules for MH. Having played it since its release, collected the supplementary Town Cryers and laughed my way through campaigns I can tell you this game, unlike (cough) WHFantasy and WH40k was never intended to be finely balanced. It was only ever supposed to be close enough that people would pick different bands. The true heart of MH is watching the dice gods allow your out numbered and cornered henchmen fight off 2-3 enemies in a dark corner. Or watching your best fighter take an arrow, get knocked down then fail his INT test and fall off the roof of a building ultimately killing himself. Or having a justified rivialry between warbands as one leader lost his eye and the other leader his hand. Those strange events, heroic deeds and pure chaotic randomness is what makes MH the gem it is.

So all that said: Be careful about house rules. I'm not saying don't use them. One I saw a lot was NO VAMPIRES, mostly because, let's be honest, vampires break the game. But the one day you actually kill that damned thing life is glorious.

If you are looking for further info on the game and want a one stop shop for new scenerios or copies of the proposed "unofficial" or "experimental" rules as released from GW I recommend visiting the www.mordheimer.com site. Kinda older look to it and loads slow but a great resource.

Lastly a better change for handguns/black powder: allow the upgrades heavy bullet and umpoved black powder to function like fire arrows and hunting arrows for bows: ignore the "only 1 game". This maintains original game intent for the weapons and allows the handguns to shine(for the price) as the only way to get a s5 or s6 ranged weapon, making them rather impressive.

I play MH a lot, if you have further questions or want to talk about campaigns feel free to PM me. Regardless, have fun and good luck!

Avoid Coreheim like the plague, IMO, it's a far less interesting game.

Most of the problems surrounding equipment in Mordheim come down to two things; armour is too expensive for what it does and is too easily circumvented, and dual-wielding is demonstrably superior to all other melee options for the vast majority of models.

It's not that hard to fix though;

Reduce the price of armour by 1/3 to 1/2(personal choice, I prefer 1/3 because you still don't want every random chump walking about in full plate and the changes below also help armour by adding value).

Shift the negative armour modifier from strength table up by one, ie Str 1-4 gives no mod, Str 5 gives -1, Str 6 gives -2 etc. This makes it less likely armour will be worthless even against early-campaign mooks and adds value to weapons like Handguns that come with a built-in negative armour modifier(consider slightly reducing the cost of Crowssbows to compensate, alternatively give Crossbows a built-in -1 to armour and increase the negative mod from Handguns to -3).

There are a range of options for dealing with dual-wield; -1 to hit for the offhand, -2 to hit for the offhand, -1 to hit for both(all variations include a skill a Hero can take to negate the penalty) is one route, or you can make Shields offer 5+ cumulative save in close combat(still 6+ against ranged), or use some combination. One particularly interesting solution I saw which I intend to try out next time I can run a campaign is to create a rock-paper-scissors balance between the three main melee types; shields negate offhand attacks and so beats dual-wield(since he now only has his base attacks as you do, but you have more armour), two-handed weapons reduce armour so beat shields, duel-wielders overwhelm two-handers by striking first with more attacks.

Iokona wrote:First- MH has got to be one of the best games GW has ever released.

Second- I would give you a word of caution on house rules for MH. Having played it since its release, collected the supplementary Town Cryers and laughed my way through campaigns I can tell you this game, unlike (cough) WHFantasy and WH40k was never intended to be finely balanced. It was only ever supposed to be close enough that people would pick different bands. The true heart of MH is watching the dice gods allow your out numbered and cornered henchmen fight off 2-3 enemies in a dark corner. Or watching your best fighter take an arrow, get knocked down then fail his INT test and fall off the roof of a building ultimately killing himself. Or having a justified rivialry between warbands as one leader lost his eye and the other leader his hand. Those strange events, heroic deeds and pure chaotic randomness is what makes MH the gem it is.

So all that said: Be careful about house rules. I'm not saying don't use them. One I saw a lot was NO VAMPIRES, mostly because, let's be honest, vampires break the game. But the one day you actually kill that damned thing life is glorious.

If you are looking for further info on the game and want a one stop shop for new scenerios or copies of the proposed "unofficial" or "experimental" rules as released from GW I recommend visiting the www.mordheimer.com site. Kinda older look to it and loads slow but a great resource.

Lastly a better change for handguns/black powder: allow the upgrades heavy bullet and umpoved black powder to function like fire arrows and hunting arrows for bows: ignore the "only 1 game". This maintains original game intent for the weapons and allows the handguns to shine(for the price) as the only way to get a s5 or s6 ranged weapon, making them rather impressive.

I play MH a lot, if you have further questions or want to talk about campaigns feel free to PM me. Regardless, have fun and good luck!

Ill second this on the mordheimer. It is a phenominal resource for all things mordheim but is no longer active just more an archive at this point. Too many house rules will kill the game and what it is meant to be.

Yodhrin wrote:Avoid Coreheim like the plague, IMO, it's a far less interesting game.

Most of the problems surrounding equipment in Mordheim come down to two things; armour is too expensive for what it does and is too easily circumvented, and dual-wielding is demonstrably superior to all other melee options for the vast majority of models.

It's not that hard to fix though;

Reduce the price of armour by 1/3 to 1/2(personal choice, I prefer 1/3 because you still don't want every random chump walking about in full plate and the changes below also help armour by adding value).

Shift the negative armour modifier from strength table up by one, ie Str 1-4 gives no mod, Str 5 gives -1, Str 6 gives -2 etc. This makes it less likely armour will be worthless even against early-campaign mooks and adds value to weapons like Handguns that come with a built-in negative armour modifier(consider slightly reducing the cost of Crowssbows to compensate, alternatively give Crossbows a built-in -1 to armour and increase the negative mod from Handguns to -3).

There are a range of options for dealing with dual-wield; -1 to hit for the offhand, -2 to hit for the offhand, -1 to hit for both(all variations include a skill a Hero can take to negate the penalty) is one route, or you can make Shields offer 5+ cumulative save in close combat(still 6+ against ranged), or use some combination. One particularly interesting solution I saw which I intend to try out next time I can run a campaign is to create a rock-paper-scissors balance between the three main melee types; shields negate offhand attacks and so beats dual-wield(since he now only has his base attacks as you do, but you have more armour), two-handed weapons reduce armour so beat shields, duel-wielders overwhelm two-handers by striking first with more attacks.

"coreheim"?? you mean mordheim as the rules are? Mordheim as stated above isnt an overly balanced game but is a very fun game regardless. Mordheim is a game that was designed to be played as a campaign NOT single one off games. I agree armor is way too expensive for what it does but the game overall isnt in bad shape. Their are a few things that can end campaigns quickly namely tooled up vampires and possesed. The last league we played it came down to 3 of us running over all 20+ other players. I had shadow warriors that were impossiable to get to, and our undead and chaos players each had a vampire and possessed that were pure monsters that killed whole warbands singlehandedly. Limiting those things will help so that the games are so unballanced that it becomes unfun are benificial. Mordheim is about great warbands with lots of fluff and huge modeling potential and games with a story to them. Thats all

No I mean Coreheim as in the above-mentioned fan rewrite of the Mordheim rules with a focus on balance - it mostly achieves that, but in so doing sucks out all the flavour IMO.

 Yodhrin wrote:
One particularly interesting solution I saw which I intend to try out next time I can run a campaign is to create a rock-paper-scissors balance between the three main melee types; shields negate offhand attacks and so beats dual-wield(since he now only has his base attacks as you do, but you have more armour), two-handed weapons reduce armour so beat shields, duel-wielders overwhelm two-handers by striking first with more attacks.

That might actully work. You mean shields would drop the number of oppenent's attacks by one (to minium of 1 ofc)? It would make parry much more useful too, as usually an enemy attacking with two weapons rolls at least one high number, making parry marginally effective, but with a shield negating one of the attacks, chances stopping the other with a parrying weapon are even better. I have always felt that swords are over prized, but the new shield rule would balance it out.

 Earth Intruder wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
One particularly interesting solution I saw which I intend to try out next time I can run a campaign is to create a rock-paper-scissors balance between the three main melee types; shields negate offhand attacks and so beats dual-wield(since he now only has his base attacks as you do, but you have more armour), two-handed weapons reduce armour so beat shields, duel-wielders overwhelm two-handers by striking first with more attacks.

That might actully work. You mean shields would drop the number of oppenent's attacks by one (to minium of 1 ofc)? It would make parry much more useful too, as usually an enemy attacking with two weapons rolls at least one high number, making parry marginally effective, but with a shield negating one of the attacks, chances stopping the other with a parrying weapon are even better. I have always felt that swords are over prized, but the new shield rule would balance it out.

Not quite, it negates the offhand attack specifically rather than reducing attacks overall, so it has no effect on someone using sword & board or a two-hander.

Only that? What about if it would affect all attacks and not just offhand ones? It would balance the amount of crit hits too. It could be given the same handicap as parry: does not work against attacks where S is x2 higher then what the shield bearer has.

Or would shield+spear be too OP? At least an ogre merc with 2h would be great way to push thro a shield wall.


EDIT: Braxx, haven't tried mounts in Mordheim like setting, nor have I encountered any, as over all there's more cons then pros. They might work better in Empire in Flames like wilderness setting, where there's more open space to cross. I was thinking running a campaign where every warband gets a free mount at the start, or gold to hire a merc with a mount, which would probably be the only way to get players try horses.

If you decide to go with the mule, please let us know your experinces with it.

I'll be using it in conjunction with the armour-related changes I mention above, so giving shields a flat -1 attack AND 5+ cumulative in CC just swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction IMO.

Ok, but what about without the 5+ in CC? One less attack is also a boost for the armour, as it will cut the amount of criticals too.

Late to the table on this discussion, but I'm fine with the costs as they are. Armor is expensive specifically to prevent armor spam, it's so expensive so that warbands only adopt it progressively as they gain xp and gold. This is also why gun powder weapons are so expensive despite firing every other turn, because players must invest heavily to gain armor so an opponent needs to commit heavily to piercing that armor.

I never use shields in close combat, but they are cheap defense against ranged weapons. And unlike a WFB or 40k battle, that one time when the 6+ works can be huge for turning the battle. So 5 gc ain't bad.

The only real issue that I've seen is that maces/hammers are too cheap. A second dagger is gc and a mace is 3gc despite being way better. Concussion is probably better than axe's pierce or sword's parry, at least in the early game. Maces should probably cost 10 gc. I also think most of the cheapo henchmen are a little undercosted, for my witchhunters it's a no-brainer to spam 15 gc warhounds (M6" S4!) or for my dwarves to spam T4 beardlings.

My group is using the Strength 5 for Save Modifier rule. It seems to sort things out. This means that Crossbows have no armor modifier, but Handguns and Black Powder weapons get their full -2. It seems to have sorted things out nicely.

Hey Dwarf player:
Don't sweat it if you don't win your first few games, just get everyone into helmets and get as many pistols as you can find.
After you make a few experience rolls, and if you get a few shooting skills, your luck will change for the better.

also

No need to sit and snipe, just keep your troops in small fire-teams of 3 models. This will help prevent you from being surrounded, and give you an extra model in reach to take out knocked down enemy models.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Not quite, it negates the offhand attack specifically rather than reducing attacks overall, so it has no effect on someone using sword & board or a two-hander.

My old gaming group had the shield give its save vs ranged and -1 attack to the enemy to a minimum of 1. They discussed offhand and all that and simply thought this was easier to remember and factor in, plus had effect on models with more than one attack for whatever reason.

They experimented with a critical hit sundering the shield in two, but thought that didn't work for all weapons, made it just axes and big heavy weapons, that was more fiddlee so abandoned that idea.

There are better skirmish systems, but for being held back by the warhammer core rules they made a decent stab at it. The thing is to avoid being overwealmed with all the cool tweaks you can make

But none of them are MORDHEIM.

Back in the early 2000s I loved this game to death. I am just now getting back into it since my ex gave me a box of my old mordheim terrain she found in her garage. It's one of the best gw was dumb enough to drop. TBH aside from armor being useless I never had much issue with the rules as they stand. No they're not perfectly balanced, but what gw game IS? I mean 7th ed 40k is so subject to codex creep it's far from balanced.

We also had the discussion in our campaigns about armor. We just took it for granted that you didn't really buy it until later in the game when you were flush with cash.

We found that just by using the advanced criticals helped a bit, since not all of the critical hit effects ignored armor.

The other minor change was to slightly weaken slings (I can't remember exactly what we did, +1 to armor save?, something like that).

We played several campaigns, and the human mercs tended to do the best overall - although no one ever tried skaven for some reason. Usually by the end, there would be several bands running 18-25 members equipped to the hilt, maxed out mercs, etc.

We found that Dwarves were a pita due to their durability and ability to make money, and that if you went pure shooty with shadow elves, no one could touch them. It was ugly.

When we play again, I'm suggesting we go pretty much "pure" rulebook, as those seemed to be the most "balanced" so to speak.

I agree with other posters though, Mordheim was and remains awesome in its basic format.

I find crits to be deciding factor for noone taking armor. Everyone has rending. Besides, when you're playing armies that are tougher like dwarves or orks, it's even less useful cause more wounds that come through ignore your armor completely.
It'd be fine if armor didn't cost THAT much. Or ignore armor wouldn't be so common with crits.

Cruentis and The Silo:

Why would you ever bother buying armour at all? In the default rules, armour is bad in the early campaign, bad in the mid campaign, and bad when you enter the final stretch - in early it's too expensive, in mid it's pointless because of how easy it is to circumvent(crits, crossbows, two-handers, flails, heroes and henchman groups with naturally high strength or a strength advance) and because it's too expensive, and late campaign you add widespread blackpowder use to the list - sure at that point it may be a negligible expense relative to your income, but it's still a terrible value proposition.

It's the same problem that the basic rules have with melee weapons; it is always more optimal to go with quantity(no armour + more bodies, cheap weapons + dual-wielding) than quality, when it should be a matter of theme or situational choice.