MAYHEM expanded!

[VoodooInk]

Finally read through the whole thing. I think hordes and great hordes might satisfy my itch for diorama bases. Most of it, anyway.  

I'm starting to convert stats from the skaven army book, but to make it just a touch smoother and more concrete: Brent, what are your suggestions for a bog-standard unit of human troops? What would be, in the warhammer statline, threes across the board (except A, W, and Ld), with light armour. I'm thinking Mov d6, CQ d12, BAR d12 - what say you? Also, what kind of leadership for a standard human army?

I thinks that's a good baseline for a standard human troop. As far as leadership goes, for an empire army I would probably use a d10 or d12 depending on what sort of general I was using [ie battle wizard vs captain vs elector count vs engineer].

Also, your idea for using the standard human as a design base is a excellent one. For one of our playtest leagues, we actually set down together as a group and created an 'army book' for each of the factions that we would be playing with. It made sure that the armies, races, and units fit together well and were felt consistent with the fantasy world we were emulating.  

I'm a bit confused about the proper application of Heavy Armo(u)r and Shields. Do you have to take them into account and adjust the CQ & BAR downwards? Or just stick on a high CQ & BAR and whack HA and Sh on top of them?

For heavy armor, you could do either. It's really more a question of preference, interpretation, and what you're trying to model. It also depends on how your unit profiles relate to one another in your army fluff.

For example, let's say that I created a core profile that I labeled 'empire infantry'. If I equipped this unit with heavy armor and upgraded them to 'empire heavy infantry', then I only would improve the BAR by a single step. In my mind this unit wouldn't necessarily be any better at fighting, but it would be more durable in melee and better able to avoid harm at range. This would achieve that effect.

On the other hand, if I had a base profile for 'chaos marauders' and wanted to create a profile for 'chaos warriors', then I would make sure that the chaos warrior units had both a better CQ and BAR in addition to giving them heavy armor.

I would not change the CQ for shields. I would only change the BAR for shields if it fits with the way you see the unit fighting and/or using the shields in battle. Orcs probably aren't advancing carefully behind raised shields- it would definitely be more of a melee thing for them.

Capthugeca's angels are a perfect example of how you can use the abstraction that are inherent to hordes designation to model a wide variety of units that you don't normally think of as a 'horde'.

Is it more appropriate to use the regular unit's core profile for the horde, or can you bump the horde's C&B up a notch to represent the shields on the models?

I tend to bump it up a notch to represent the mass of troops and various arms and armor within the unit [since you don't get the benefits from arms and armor]. For a great horde, you could even put a rat ogre [or two!] in the middle of the unit and bump the stats even more. The unit would still be treated as an infantry horde, but the models would convey why the characteristics were enhanced.  

Lastly, what weapon do you suggest to represent halberds?  

My stock answer would be to use spears; they work well for most mass battle applications.

However, since you are going to use the Warhammer universe, then I'm going to give you another option. Combine spear, axe, and great to create a halberd. A unit armed with halberds [stormvermin perhaps?] could only benefit from one of the traits on a given melee exchange and would need to declare which was being used before determining and rolling dice. Enjoy!

[Vermis]

Thanks guys!

Thanks for all the explanation, Brent. It made me realise I haven't begun to scratch the surface of the depth of the rules!
I think the marauder/warrior comparison is the closest to the clanrat/stormvermin conversion I was thinking about. Also, nice idea about the multiple weapons for 'em.

[VoodooInk]

Thanks for all the explanation, Brent. It made me realise I haven't begun to scratch the surface of the depth of the rules!

No worries! As far as depth goes, just wait until you have a couple of games under your belt. That's when things really open up.

I think the marauder/warrior comparison is the closest to the clanrat/stormvermin conversion I was thinking about. Also, nice idea about the multiple weapons for 'em. 

Definitely don't hesitate to hit me up for some brainstorming if you're getting stuck on how to build a particular unit. You should be able to represent any model or unit in your force no matter how unique. Not only that, but there are almost always multiple ways of doing it. 

[Barbarian]

I just bought the rules.
Going to print them Monday.
I already loved The Battlefield.

You may want to release "official" lists for Non-warhammer armies and/or non-War of the Rings armies ; it could drag more people into these rules.

[capthugeca]

You may want to release "official" lists for Non-warhammer armies and/or non-War of the Rings armies ; it could drag more people into these rules.

Personally, I like the fact that there are no lists.
It gives us the freedom (and responsibility) to draw up the different troop types as we understand them and takes me back to those halcyon days before Warhammer when we were encouraged to think for ourselves. 

[Barbarian]

Yep, I like it too, but I have little time for building lists.
Let the ones who want to spend time on it, have a go but I gladly pay (a little) for pre-maid lists.

[Conquistador]

<snip> but I gladly pay (a little) for pre-maid lists.

Yes, maids can be very expensive... 

Couldn't resist....   

I will leave now...   

Gracias,

Glenn

[VoodooInk]

I just bought the rules.
Going to print them Monday.
I already loved The Battlefield.

Awesome! Since you loved The Battlefield, I feel confident that you'll really enjoy MAYHEM. Although the dice mechanics and stat lines are very different, you could think of it as a similar tactical experience with more layers, choices, and options without becoming more complicated.

You may want to release "official" lists for Non-warhammer armies and/or non-War of the Rings armies ; it could drag more people into these rules.

Personally, I like the fact that there are no lists.
It gives us the freedom...

I didn't include any lists initially for the very reasons that capthugeca mentioned. I was worried about stifling players' creativity and making them feel boxed in to my interpretation of the various races and settings. It's also fun to see how people use the tools inside once the game has been 'released into the wild'. That said...

I've had several requests for pre-generated army lists, and I think that your assessment that it will pull more players into the game is spot on.  I do plan to release some 'generic' fantasy lists with the final update to the rules. This will allow me to make the final lists with all the rules in place and paint a more complete picture for gamers. There are also going to be some lists for a couple of existing fantasy miniature lines. As always, these lists will be free of charge.

I've also heard that their are some fan-made lists in the works that may find their way onto the internet.

[Vermis]

I'm still slowly crawling through the Skaven army book, trying to convert it into Mayhem-speak. Man, it's not easy! So many goofy special rules... I can see how it might be fun in small games, skirmish or small warband size; but mass battles? It's a wonder Warhammer players get anything done within a day.

But anyways, with all the close study, I've got another couple of questions.

Going back to putting big GW warmachines on double-depth bases, it occurred to me that a player would probably want to do the same with 28mm chariots?

(It's not an earth-shattering crisis, and not much of a barrier to 28mm; but the more I obssess about basing, the more I feel that I should be looking at the intended 10-15mm minis. Good thing I still have a Warmaster army or two. )

I'm a bit confused about beat back and drive back. I guess the difference is in who's affected by them, particularly with the disciplined and steadfast rules?

Beat back is described as an ability that can be purchased for infantry units, but... it isn't.

Overrun heroes must high-tail it to a nearby friendly unit, but there's no mention of what happens if they don't make it.

[capthugeca]

Beat back is described as an ability that can be purchased for infantry units, but... it isn't.

Overrun heroes must high-tail it to a nearby friendly unit, but there's no mention of what happens if they don't make it.

I asked exactly the same two questions of Brent via PM. Here's his answers:-

"The value isn't in the book yet as it was going to be added with some other content in the final update. The reason it was left out won't be apparent to the vast majority of players [and shouldn't affect your games adversely] so I don't see any harm in giving you early access.
For now, just use a cost of 3 crowns for infantry to get Beat Back."

"If the hero can't reach a friendly unit, then the hero is removed from play. I just checked that section of the rules, and it appears that the line spelling that out was edited during the last update. I'll rectify that to make it clearer with the next release. Thanks."

Hugh

[VoodooInk]

Hugh has given you the right answers on both counts- thanks Hugh!

Going back to putting big GW warmachines on double-depth bases, it occurred to me that a player would probably want to do the same with 28mm chariots?

You would probably want to at 28mm if just to give yourself a little more breathing room and working area for your mini-dioramas. This is especially if you are using the GW chariots as they are pretty large. The benefits and drawbacks of doubling the base depth work themselves out really well and will many times make you use the unit in a more appropriate manner.

Good thing I still have a Warmaster army or two. 

It always nice to have a few of those lying about.

I'm a bit confused about beat back and drive back. I guess the difference is in who's affected by them, particularly with the disciplined and steadfast rules?

You've got it! The effects of the two rules are the same mechanically, but the units that can perform them and the ways to counter them are very different. This reinforces the RTS-style unit roles and counters. The difference seems subtle now, but it will really have and impact on how you attack an enemy battle line and create your own units after you've played a couple of games.