fatbat wrote:
Reading the scenario - if the attacker has more standing within 6" of the building than the defender at the end of the (defender's) turn then attacker wins..

Will not the bigger band win?

This modified version of the scenario does reduce the defender's advantage a bit, but not too much. The goal is to get give everyone a chance to explore the building rules in Empire in Flames. In the situation where you are outnumbered, you will have to select a strategy that allows you to take out a few of their units to prevent their victory. Also, it is so the defenders don't just place all of their units in the building and never come out. It basically forces you to decide, hunker down for the treasure or win.

====

I notice the example used to roll dice is to roll x7 then allocate as you wish - wouldnt it be fairer to declare your sequence then randomly roll to generate the to hit, to wound and effect
- your opponent can reply with parries and armour saves which could negate all of your hard work but we have time!

In some regard yes, but it would nearly double the duration of a game to have each player's turn go back and forth multiple times to conclude. Typically, we don't roll nearly that many dice at once and it's up to the defending player to review the dicelog to ensure the appropriate rolls were made. A more realistic example might be:

OB1 vs S1, needs 4 to hit, 4 to wound

1d6 >= 4
rolls 2

Results = 5, 2 then its a hit, but no wound.
You would then progress through crit, parry, armor save, injury roll, special saves, etc.

For instance, last week, I hit one of Ash's guys, but forgot the wound roll and sent straight into the injury rolls. Once I passed the file and the results back to him, he quickly identified that I need to roll to wound, so we resolved that on case by case basis.

====

And.. there is info on wagons in 'Empire in Flames' about only being able to hit a defender behind a defended obstacle on a '6' - does this count for windows and low walls ?
maybe a minus 1 ?
Doorways you can have x2 fighting on each side

cheers

this is true under the premise that you and your opponent decide the door is small. As stated, you could agree that it is a larger door, maybe 2-3 inches in which you would be able to fit many more units in a grand melee.

klinktastic wrote:
How do you get the rules on the board?

They're in the 'counters' section of the sidebar on BC, at the bottom left.

fatbat wrote:
Reading the scenario - if the attacker has more standing within 6" of the building than the defender at the end of the (defender's) turn then attacker wins..

Will not the bigger band win?
The way I understood this part is that OBJECTIVE is actually the treasure itself, not the building. So attacking side wins if they have more units within 6" of the treasure marker (which is inside the building), not within 6" of the building itself.

This line of reasoning aligns well with the scenario bonuses which are given only to the heroes inside the building:
An additional one piece of treasure for each Hero of either warband who is inside the objective building at the end of the game
The way I understand Duncan's proposed modification of the scenario (defender can't deploy within the building) is that its intended to reduce the shooting advantage for the defender warbands - the defenders need to spend some time to enter the building and get into the positions to shoot.

I'd leave it up to Duncan to clarify

fatbat wrote:

And.. there is info on wagons in 'Empire in Flames' about only being able to hit a defender behind a defended obstacle on a '6' - does this count for windows and low walls ?
maybe a minus 1 ?
Doorways you can have x2 fighting on each side

cheers

I read that bit on defending obstacles in the wagon rules a while ago but couldn't seem to find any other mention of defending obstacles in any rules. The rulebook does mention that a combat can occur over a low wall or similar terrain feature but this seems to be more to highlight that strict base to base contact is not always necessary. It doesn't mention anything about penalties to hit. Has anyone else seen anymore information on this?

I haven't. The wagon thing makes some sense though. Not only is there a bit of a wall, but you are also higher up. For a low wall, I can't imagine it making too much of a difference. In normal warhammer though, I think if an opponent is dug in on a wall, it's 6s to hit, but that seems a bit high to me. Maybe some + to the AS?

klinktastic wrote:
In normal warhammer though, I think if an opponent is dug in on a wall, it's 6s to hit, but that seems a bit high to me

Normal Warhammer rules:
- fences and similar: -1 to hit in CC, -1 to hit in shooting (soft cover)
- walls and similar: -1 to hit in CC, -2 to hit in shooting (hard cover)

So a -1 to hit in CC for models behind a "defended obstacle" makes sense here too, IMO.

Ahhhhh this is turning into a fine mess of my own making!

If the attacker has more models standing (i.e. not stunned, knocked down, hiding or crawling) within 6" of the OBJECTIVE (which I used a 40mm size base for in my example) than the defender by the End of the Defender's Turn, then the attacker wins. Not the building it is housed within, the OBJECTIVE itself (6" being measured from the center of the base you use to represent it)

If either force has a hero within the confines of the building by the end of the game, then they get the appropriate additional pieces of treasure. Note this has nothing to do with who wins the game, it is simply a post-game bonus and incentive to get your guys inside instead of the attackers just hovering outside.

The Objective marker here is the pile of stuff being defended/looked for. Being within the building that contains it at the end of the game gives your heroes a chance to grab something before running/chasing off the opponents. Whilst I would have liked to change that 6" away from the objective to be a simple 'inside the building', there are several foibles with it, and so the 6" distance has proven more effective when I've playtested it.

I have, as vladamex says, attempted to reduce the advantages inherent in such a defensive game for the shootier warbands amongst us, but not by so much that they cannot possibly win the game. Having played the original scenario with my gaming group before, it generally devolves into the defenders bunkered, hiding inside a house waiting for someone to come through the door before dog-piling them. That, to me, is not fun.

Attacking defended obstacles - I can't find any particular section of the rules that talks about them, but would say that a -1 to hit would be sensible. For an obstacle to count as 'defended', I would say a model has to have moved into base contact with it before being charged. The 'attacker' receives the -1 to hit penalty.

This would include walls/fences/hedges/windows/doors etc.

Think that's everything, but I've probably missed something, it's just been that kind of day...

vladamex wrote:
klinktastic wrote:
In normal warhammer though, I think if an opponent is dug in on a wall, it's 6s to hit, but that seems a bit high to me

Normal Warhammer rules:
- fences and similar: -1 to hit in CC, -1 to hit in shooting (soft cover)
- walls and similar: -1 to hit in CC, -2 to hit in shooting (hard cover)

So a -1 to hit in CC for models behind a "defended obstacle" makes sense here too, IMO.

For normal warhammer that makes sense because of the volume of attacks and the need to simplify overly complicated rules in a large scale game. But when considered, it doesn't provide much logic. Meanwhile, a bonus to armor save makes more logical sense. If you are behind a wooden fence, but a troll swings a big club at a unit, it doesn't seem realistic or logical that it would make much, if any impact? However, if it was a Str 3 man swinging a sword, there would be more much greater chance of an impact by the fence/obstacle. Adding something to an armor save reflects the scalability of strength to negate potential obstacles from impeding an attack. This would indicate that while a hit and would might have been successful, the obstacle provided enough additional impediment to deflect the attack. Thoughts?

is there a 6" radius circle template in the map generator? good to represent the aura/ smell/ singing coming from the prize!

I drew out a keep with a path 6" all around it - huge!



Mordheim does not seem to need positional bonusses you would expect for big battlefield assaults - I imagine the combattants are springing around like the three musketeers so you get a bit of a plus to start but rely on the characters themselves to sway the day rather than holding that superior battlefield position

fatbat wrote:
is there a 6" radius circle template in the map generator? good to represent the aura/ smell/ singing coming from the prize!

I drew out a keep with a path 6" all around it - huge!


If you choose a bullseye (from the 'markers' section of 'Counters' in the bottom left), centre it on the middle of your objective, and make it 12" by 12", the radius of the largest circle should be 6". You will have to redo it every turn, however, as I haven't found a way to make battle chronicler leave it on the field.

you could tiny-size some trees and use them as markers at the edge of the bullseye template - a fairy ring -

Can the posessed use the Rewards of the Shadowlord instead of an advance?

fatbat wrote:
Mordheim does not seem to need positional bonusses you would expect for big battlefield assaults - I imagine the combattants are springing around like the three musketeers so you get a bit of a plus to start but rely on the characters themselves to sway the day rather than holding that superior battlefield position

/agree

Random questions. Can you climb stand-alone trees and, if so, do they count as 2" terrain?

I believe trees are there for cover and are difficult terrain

- but if you were up a tree you would be out of reach for a while ? - you couldnt do anything except hang on - someone could design tree platforms to squirrel around on.

jumping out of a tree could be useful?

it was suggested that woods should be put onto a template so you can see exactly where they are - rather than individual stand-alone trees