I prefer it when trees are generally grouped on their own base so it's obvious where they 'end' and whether they're giving cover to people.

Not to say you can't put some extra trees on to make stuff look pretty, but they don't count as any form of cover unless they're on a base.

I'm also not a massive fan of people climbing trees. It's a skirmish wargame, not a trip to the park!

That and I don't want to have to start bringing a broom to battles to knock people out of trees with...

Biffing the windows/doors of the house objective - can the band surround the house and attempt to smash in ALL windows doors? -

so a long barn with x7 windows and a door could be assaulted by x7 warriors... odds are you are going to roll a 1 with your weedy str3 band and get in

or is it just one entrance that can be assaulted...

Duncoman wrote:
I prefer it when trees are generally grouped on their own base so it's obvious where they 'end' and whether they're giving cover to people.

Not to say you can't put some extra trees on to make stuff look pretty, but they don't count as any form of cover unless they're on a base.

I'm also not a massive fan of people climbing trees. It's a skirmish wargame, not a trip to the park!

That and I don't want to have to start bringing a broom to battles to knock people out of trees with...

I can appreciate not climbing trees. But a stand alone tree should provide soft cover for at least one model. Certainly not multiple, but definitely one. Most trees hide an entire person's body.

I have had a few days off so have been poring over details..


there is a bit about long thin woods in Empire in Flames so you cant see through them - why not put a low fence around it to provide a bit of cover

vertical cover looks like you can hide behind it but only peek out no shooting spells - doorways/ end of walls

woods themselves dont provide any cover - these would be thin weedy scub or an orchard - put a few pillars or rocks in there! representing big trees to hide behind - or a fence around the edge

a fence/ garden wall/ window opening is under 1" causes no problem to hop over but provide cover - you can even crouch down and hide behind them - this is the height of a model?

high walls are 1" and over and you have to climb them - so you cant see over them - and you cant climb when running so they are a real pest. 2" looks to be standard high wall that you can stand on top of as well

there is also hedge/thicket that you have to push through - this would be the 'bocage' in WW2 - a thick hawthorne hedge or spooky tangled forest - these are just areas to avoid I suppose

lots of low fences or garden walls will provide the cover archers want to stand behind and get a defensive benefit from missiles or chargers

I found some guidance on trees, but it's from the Lustria campaign, and therefore not part of our rule set. Anyway, here's what it says for the record:


Trees and Vines

The ruined buildings of the temple cities are often covered in vines, while still others have trees bursting through their walls. These vines and trees count as ladders for the purpose of moving up and down the buildings. Jungle trees can provide both a haven and a hazard to explorers. A model can climb a tree with a bonus of +1 to their Initiative value, but a 6 is still a failure. In Lustria a model does not have to be placed at the base of a tree before it can attempt to climb. As long as there is sufficient movement left to get to
a safe place within the tree the model can be 1 inch away and still climb 3 inches into the tree provided it passes the required initiative test.

A model placed in a tree can be declared as "hidden" as described on page 29 in the Rulebook. A hidden model that is discovered or gives its position away is no longer hidden but is still afforded cover. If a model is knocked down or stunned while in a tree it has to take an initiative test with a penalty of —1 or fall out of the tree and take fallingdamage as described in the Mordheim Rulebook.

A brief word on trees

Many players will find very creative ways to make trees in Lustria that are both functional from a game standpoint and attractive to put on the table. Our suggestions for such trees are:

1.) If a tree, or similar nasty place, should house a sniper, place the structure that you want him standing on no higher than 4" off the table top. This way the miniature can
climb to it in one movement phase.

2.) Make sure the structure is large enough for a 25mm base. We don't usually see Kroxigors and Rat Ogres climbing trees!

3.) It's a good idea to make the bases so that several trees can be placed together to form a clump or tree stand. Tree bases made in a "jigsaw puzzle pattern" work very well this way. This helps to avoid confusion during the battle.

anything on trees providing cover from the Lustria book? if you can hide then there ought to be something to hide behind!
can you fire/cast when holding on to spindly branches..

I suspect fighting platforms is the way to go or an aerial ewok village - lots of high up walkways you can fall off.

a tree house would be like a tower-top that you could climb up to from anywhere below it. Or the massive Oak would have wide branches you could run along like a wheel with spokes - it would be a fantastic table top setting but pose problems on a 2D map (and if it was a huge model - where to store it!)

jump attacks from high up could pose problems - a target could probably spot you at 2" (Line of Sight in woods) and you could jump attack him.. any higher and you and he could not see each other but may know each other are there from the rustling. Then you could do a charge on a hidden opponent you are aware of..

speaking of which - charging someone 2" up on top of a wall/ tree
climbing is at a walk you start at the base - a considered thoughtful ascent
but charging can be at the run - doubled for height and does not need to be from the base
indicating you can charge from 3" away then use x4" to climb the 2" wall then another inch - is this right?

Probably the reason for exclusion of these rules is that they don't translate well to 2D.

klinktastic wrote:
Probably the reason for exclusion of these rules is that they don't translate well to 2D.

This is our main problem- using Battle Chronicler is great, but it does have its drawbacks. The 2D nature of it means a lot of stuff for Mordheim (true LOS, being able to climb anything that looks cool, leaping off buildings) often has to either go completely or be imaginatively agreed upon by players.

If you want to use tree climbing in your games you're welcome to, but only if your opponent agrees before the game starts- it won't be something I advise people to do or will add to the campaign rules.

Similarly, if you want to agree with your opponent that individual trees provide cover then you're welcome to use that rule in your games - but it won't be something I'll add to the campaign rules.

With BC I find basing stuff so you know exactly where the cover/terrain ends means that when your opponent is not online 'live', but doing stuff once every two days or so, there are no problems with having to redo moves because someone didn't realise where the terrain ended or having to re-roll dice because they did/didn't include that lone tree in their 'to hit' roll.

It eases the passage of play. Were we playing this in 3D or IRL I would obviously be open to such stuff. I do appreciate the input though everyone, if nothing else I've got people with rulebooks out looking stuff up instead of being reliant on being told it!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

klinktastic also raised a valid issue (another one...) with the scenario - whether or not the fact the building is locked prevents an attacking warband from winning the scenario - obviously if a building is locked/boared you can't see or get at the objective! Whilst it is within the letter of the rules to allow this, I would personally feel that such a thing is against the spirit of them.

As such, I'm going to say that if the attacking warband can't get into the building housing the objective they can't win the game. As an attacker, you've got to break in, have at least one model inside the building, and more models than the defender within 6" of the objective to win.

Note that I'm not getting rid of the 6" rule as in some cases it may well be the attacking warband are inside the building but more than 6" away from the objective.

On a side note, I'd like to apologise for the confusion and generally rubbish nature of my GM'ing this week. It shan't happen again.

No worries, I think the modifications to the scenario make it more interesting and require a more tactical defense required by the defender. It requires a more offensive strategy as the defender.

Something has just sprung to mind during our multiplayer test game. In a previous campaign I've played we had a few player having problems with getting skill upgrades every time. This is OK for the first few, while you take up all the good skills, but can get tedious after getting loads. It also makes remembering like ten skills difficult. So we implemented a house rule where any hero who has 3 or more skills may chose to reroll a skill upgrade on the advancement chart and if a skill upgrade is rolled again you may choose an attribute advance instead. What do you think?

Ashjwest wrote:
Something has just sprung to mind during our multiplayer test game. In a previous campaign I've played we had a few player having problems with getting skill upgrades every time. This is OK for the first few, while you take up all the good skills, but can get tedious after getting loads. It also makes remembering like ten skills difficult. So we implemented a house rule where any hero who has 3 or more skills may chose to reroll a skill upgrade on the advancement chart and if a skill upgrade is rolled again you may choose an attribute advance instead. What do you think?

+1. Maybe they can elect to roll a stat, and just roll a dX, where X is all available non-Maxed stats?

Sounds like a good idea also. I think the logic behind the method is that is follows the same method of the other parts of the advancement table. So if you roll a stat advance which is at maximum you can then choose a different stat upgrade.

TEN upgrades ! Whoot whoot! will we still be alive?

for extra rolls - maybe have an exploration roll instead? just a thought.

just been playing the scenario - defender diddnt get near opening the door just a big bloodbath.. a couple of turns left rout-permitting.


AND - a nice point the vile posessed with a great claw ought to have x2 attacks only so x2 claw attacks and you drop the feeble unarmed punch.. trying to balance itself?

If they get another claw will this create x4 claw attacks?

for further attacks they would need an extra arm then tentacles or other swiss army monstrosities

There is a mutations table in one of the supplements ..Seeker of Stones? which looks less cut and dry than the Rewards of the Shadowlord.

fatbat wrote:
TEN upgrades ! Whoot whoot! will we still be alive?

for extra rolls - maybe have an exploration roll instead? just a thought.


The +1 is just another way of saying I agree. You wouldn't actually get 2 advancement rolls. Anyway, Ash is right, after about 3 skills, there aren't usually many that you want. IF there are, you can select another one. However, if you want we are proposing a potential re-roll or a +1 to stat roll to be randomized based off of non-maxed stats. So if you WS/BS/S/T/W/I/A/LD weren't max'ed, you'd roll a d8 and that's the stat you'd get. Either re-roll advancement or random stat basically does the same thing, just different ways.

To Serve Man had found the place but a team of Brigands led by Red were rapidly making toes towards them.. signalling their intent by shooting the three-armed mutant Edward in the head killing him stone dead.

the possessed lurched forward taking cover from the flurry of shots - Crank steamrollered through three brigands sent to delay him knocking all to the floor

another well aimed arrow slew Xavier but the damage had been done to the brigands. Latchkey shrugged at the casualties with a double 1 and the outlaws voluntarily faded back into the trees

x4 pronounced dead at the end of the very bloody encounter - the smell of long pig wafted into the night air. Yum!

a narrow win for To Serve Man x2 CP