Tell me about Mayhem! (first steps into 15s)

[Hobgoblin]

Surveying my Shelves of Shame (as my wife calls them), I realise that I've painted up several hundred miniatures since my return to gaming 18 months ago. While the kids and I (and some semi-regular adult opponents) have been enjoying SBH, OGAM and Dragon Rampant, it occurs to me that we have plenty of troops for a massed-battle game.

The question that raises is "what game?". I used to like Hordes of the Things, which was a revelation after the turgidities of Warhammer. But the basing was always a bit tight, and I want to use our skirmish miniatures on movement trays (ones with round holes for the bases).

I also want something where there's complete freedom to design units as you see fit. So Kings of War holds few attractions. But Mayhem looks intriguing. I gather it can also be played in a relatively tight space.

Does anyone have much experience of it? Does it work as an SBH/DRish mass-battle game? Any other pointers - or alternatives?

Thanks in advance!

[Luddite]

Warband

http://www.pendraken.co.uk/Warband-Fantasy-NEW-c36/
http://www.wargamevault.com/product_info.php?products_id=144517&site=&currency=GBP&products_id=144517

A review by Dan Mersey:  http://s1096.photobucket.com/user/MattofMunslow/media/warband%20review_zpswhic8hzn.jpeg.html

[Hobgoblin]

Thanks for the links. How does Warband work in terms of base sizes (for 28mm) and profiles? Apologies if that info is in the review you linked to - I'm confined to my phone at the moment and can't read it properly on that.

[Luddite]

There's a FAQ over at Pendraken.

http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11265.0.html

If its 28mm you're planning this might inspire you...a recent Warband tournament in 28mm with 120mm x 60mm bases.

http://stenicplus.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/paw-2016-warband-tournament.html



 

[Vermis]

I also want something where there's complete freedom to design units as you see fit. So Kings of War holds few attractions. But Mayhem looks intriguing. I gather it can also be played in a relatively tight space.

Does anyone have much experience of it? Does it work as an SBH/DRish mass-battle game? Any other pointers - or alternatives?

I've often waxed lyrical about it, but to be honest I only got my first game of it fairly recently. See a quick write-up here:

http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=86858.0

Good thing it lived up to my expectations, and then unveiled a few more subtle wrinkles. And that was only the small intro game!

First question first: in a way I'd say it's a little more SBHish, in that you create a minimal statline (Mayhem units have three stats: Movement, CQ [Combat Quality], and BAR [Ballistic Armour/Avoidance Rating]) and bolster it with a range of different unit types, traits, weapons and so on. Compared to Dragon Rampant's generic profiles and fewer additional abilities.

What else? 'Traditional' RPG polyhedral dice, from d4 to d20, are an integral part of the game in some of it's mechanics. For example, each of those three starting stats is a polydie type/value, and you have to juggle risk vs. reward in each die roll by choosing whether to actually roll it (a 'danger roll', gaining a result from 1 to potentially 20) or to use the default value of the stat. (half of the die type's total) IMO this can be especially prominent in opposed rolls for combat and shooting damage, where a unit with a better die value obviously has a better chance of rolling a better result. Does the other side risk the roll, or take the default and hope the stronger unit rolls worse than that?
There are also situations, mostly in combat, where the dice can be modified - turned into a better die, have one or more dice added to the roll, or both. These are brought about by different unit types, traits, weapons unit positioning, supporting units, etc.
I've seen folk almost immediately turned off by the mention of polydice. I'm not sure why. They're not expensive and this isn't a bucket 'o' dice game. In fact the tactical possibilities with them, presented by this game and hinted at above, are why I glommed onto it. Despite already having a bucket 'o' citadel d6s, I ran off and made a few orders at EM4.

There's also Command and Control in the form of Command Points (action points) and the Overdrive mechanic. A pool of the former is generated at the start of your turn, with the type and number of dice rolled dependent on the army's overall leadership stat, number of heroes in the army, and other factors. Then the latter takes it all away from you.    It's not as simple as allocating an action to one unit, then another unit, then another, 'til you're done. You can perform as many actions as you want with any unit, even go back to previously activated units; but there's an increasing penalty for each subsequent action a single unit takes, and that can quickly eat into your CP pool. Not to mention all the other little tolls scattered about.

Heroes play a further part in C&C by their proximity to activating units, and their ability to join units. That's what made me originally think it had impressions of Warmaster in it, along with HoTT; but after playing it the next thing I usually added became truer: "it is it's own game, though".

And all that's the other big chunk of tacticality and resource management that made me stick to it.

It's IGOUGO, which is less fashionable these days, and I can see why. But to be frank, Command Point pools in Mayhem can be small enough that one decent Overdrive could snuff out most of your turn*, and bring it reasonably closer to alternate activation anyway. IIRC, at least your turn isn't knackered by one bad initiative roll or command blunder.

*In fact, going back to the rulebook just now made me realise that, in the example of 'too much Overdrive' I wanted to use (Rat Ogres vs. Phoenix Guard in my writeup), we were playing with CP pools that were far too large, anyway! I think it still applies though: the rat ogres were charged so far ahead of the rest of the skaven army, that if they'd survived the initial round of combat, there wouldn't be enough CPs left in the turn to move the clanrats up in support.

Basing is on squares. Suggestions are 40mm squares for 10mm minis (two Warmaster bases, suits me) 50mm for 15mm, and 60mm for 28mm. Horde units can be the same, double, or quadruple the size. Skirmishers are half. Heroes and generals are on circles.
That 28mm suggestion bothered me right from the start, though mostly for aesthetic reasons. Nine infantry on a base sounded more like a HoTT idea of a unit, to say nothing of how many cavalry or 'monstrous infantry' you could squeeze on there. I thought of bumping it up a little - 16 figures on an 80mm base isn't huge either, but more like an older Warhammer unit, or a KoW regiment, for which plenty of folk use movement trays. Me, I'm almost off the idea of 28mm mass battles, but I may base some 12-strong DR units on 40mm squares, and it wouldn't be very difficult to bunch those up with one other...
The other problem was 28mm units that wouldn't fit on a 60mm base - the likes of larger war machines and chariots. Though I have it from Brent himself that multiples of the base size (e.g. 60x120mm, similar to a doubled Horde unit) would be fine. I'd just have to dig through the LAF archives to find it.

But TL;DR: I think the rule of thumb is 'whatever base size you want, as long as they're squares and all the same size'.

I think I'm done for now. Not too sure what to add, except that those high elves all arrayed for Warband look flippin' brilliant.

[Hobgoblin]

Many thanks, Vermis - and thanks, Luddite, for the Warband info.

The SBHish aspect sounds right up my street. I can see an advantage in greater differentiation than DR allows in a game with many more units (although I think the DR possibilities are ample for most games).

Polyhedral dice are also an attraction! I have unearthed a great many from where they were buried deep aeons ago. I like the sound of the danger/default decisions.

I don't really mind HOTT-style units; I'll probably experiment with card squares and blue tack first before ordering a batch of fancy bases that will allow round-based figures to slot in. There might even be some mathematical masterstroke that would facilitate basing for DR, Mayhem AND Dragon Rampant ...

[Hobgoblin]

Well, I bought and downloaded the Mayhem PDF and gave it a quick read-through this lunchtime.

It look good. The thing that struck me first of all is that it passes the "Isengard Uruk-hai" test. Can you have fast-moving, heavily armoured, undersized infantry armed with short swords, shields and longbows? Yes, you can. Hooray! So that's a plus to start with.

At first glance, I wasn't entirely convinced by some of the weapon categories. It seems odd to group armour-piercing weapons such as warhammers with blunt weapons like wooden clubs and have them all ignore heavy armour. But that's easily fixed by just using the category for armour-piercing weapons (warhammers, poleaxes and the like). It also seems a bit RPGish in privileging swords over polearms (historically, swords tended to be a sidearm for use when the main weapon was lost), but that's a minor quibble.

I'm still getting my head around the total command points for a side, but that should come into focus soon enough!

For unit bases, I suspect I'll start off with blue tack and a batch of plain wooden coasters to start with, with an eye on some specialist movement trays for later.

[Luddite]

There's a LotR booklet for Warband you might find useful.

http://luddite1811.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/warband-meets-lord-of-rings.html

[Hobgoblin]

Many thanks for that link, Luddite. I had a good read through. One or two things raised an eyebrow - Orc shamans?!? Uruks and "great orcs"? Non-Uruk orcs making up the bulk of Saruman's armies? - but they look interesting and generally well done. I may well investigate Warband further down the line.

As for Mayhem, I had another read through the rules last night and taught my son the danger/default rule in preparation for a massed battle this weekend (if the weather proves sufficiently foul). I also had a good think about basing. I'm going to order a large batch of 10 x 10 cm square wooden coasters to use as bases and (for now) just place (or perhaps blue-tack) miniatures onto them. It'll look quite abstract, but I don't really mind that in massed-battle games, especially where one miniature is standing for tens if not hundreds.

lso, 10 x 10 cm gives plenty of room for flexibility with units. One coaster would hold 16 round-based infantry, which looks quite good (and removes the 'abstract' visual aspect, as you can't really see the base), but it also looks fine with nine more spaced-out figures. That also gives room for the placement of heroes within units. And I'll be able to get away with fewer largish infantry (lizardmen and so on).

For cavalry, eight gives a nicely jam-packed heavy-cavalry look, whereas six looks fine for light cavalry. For ogres and trolls, I can get four 40mm square or round-based figures on, or three 50mm round-based ones. And almost all of our big monsters will fit on a 10 x 10 base in a pleasing way. I'm going to assemble the units base by base from tomorrow, once the coasters are here.

Given the big base sizes, I'm eyeing the big mat on our study floor as a potential battlefield. Moving the long table we have down the middle of it will demarcate the area and create a physical barrier against unwanted feet. I'm getting a nice RL Stevenson/HG Wells vibe from this ...

[Vermis]

It look good. The thing that struck me first of all is that it passes the "Isengard Uruk-hai" test. Can you have fast-moving, heavily armoured, undersized infantry armed with short swords, shields and longbows? Yes, you can. Hooray! So that's a plus to start with.

  For me it was the ability to have a proper ogre/halfling buddy army, without having to shoehorn goblin stats in.

At first glance, I wasn't entirely convinced by some of the weapon categories. It seems odd to group armour-piercing weapons such as warhammers with blunt weapons like wooden clubs and have them all ignore heavy armour. But that's easily fixed by just using the category for armour-piercing weapons (warhammers, poleaxes and the like). It also seems a bit RPGish in privileging swords over polearms (historically, swords tended to be a sidearm for use when the main weapon was lost), but that's a minor quibble.

Emphasis mine. You hit the nail on the head, IMO - blurb at the Bombshell site and elsewhere indicates that it's for RPG players to get in an occassional mass battle during their campaigns. Meaning no offence to Brent, but some of the weapon categories do need a little 'counts as' shimmying sometimes. My confusion was what to do about halberds, even though I have two fantasy armies that use them.

Given the big base sizes, I'm eyeing the big mat on our study floor as a potential battlefield. Moving the long table we have down the middle of it will demarcate the area and create a physical barrier against unwanted feet. I'm getting a nice RL Stevenson/HG Wells vibe from this ...

Nice.

[affun]

I've been having the excact same quarries about Halberds 

Mayhem is one of those game-systems that, in my opinion, just looks and reads superior, but which I've never gotten around to playing. I have 1 ½ army (in 15mm and 10mm) sitting in my cupboard just waiting for me to get around to.
There's a lot about it to love, from jsut reading the rulebook, but I wont 100% endorse it until I get a chance to actually play it.

When you get around to it, I hope you intend to post some thoughts and/or a battle report.

[Hobgoblin]

Great minds/fools seldom ... Yes, halberds were my immediate concern (I've been steadily assembling some of the old Fantasy Tribe orc halberdiers and now have enough for a full base). "Great weapons" is the obvious starting point (two-handed swords and halberds occupying the same "ecological" niche in Renaissance warfare), but a halberd is a bit different from a Danish axe.

The weapon that gets left out of wargames - especially fantasy ones - too often is the poleaxe. Not the same as a halberd - much shorter - but the go-to can-opener for dealing with fully armoured men-at-arms. I'm tempted to class poleaxes (and lucerne hammers) as "blunt weapons" that ignore heavy armour, which would allow two sets of Perry foot knights to have at each other in a reasonably bloody fashion. But then again, the poleaxe is a direct descendant of the Danish axe and would be just as lethal as that was against unarmored foes.

Of course, the game is so admirably flexible that there are lots of workarounds. Halberdiers could be treated as spearmen, for example, but designed so that they use a D10 instead of a D12 to start with (or whatever), which would make them a bit more offensive all round, but still give them a polearmish resistance to cavalry.

And for poleaxes, given that they were the knightly weapon of choice in the 15th century, perhaps their wielders could just be "tooled up" to use a D8 or something to reflect knightly training, better armour and all-round braying confidence.

The other immediate weapon-related problem is that almost all of my orcish hordes are variously armed. I'll eventually have a full stand of halberdiers, but most of the others mix swords, axes, clubs and god knows what else. I'll probably try out most infantry stands as effectively unarmed to start with.

[Hobgoblin]

When you get around to it, I hope you intend to post some thoughts and/or a battle report.

I certainly shall! I hope to post a few shots of assembled units (unapologetically mounted on wooden coasters) tonight.

The plan is to squeeze a game in on Friday evening or over the weekend. Hills will be created in the traditional way - large atlases with books on top, perhaps covered with a green cloth. Perhaps. We might manage felt patches for rough ground.

I've gone so far as to download the Armies of Mayhem/Battle Chest files, more to look at sample profiles than anything else. That might be one thing that the rules are missing. But, on the other hand, I really like the complete freedom to stat up forces so that they reflect the figures.

On the GW thread, Nord made some interesting points about missing the species-specific profiles of Warhammer when playing Dragon Rampant. I don't, really, but I take his point. That was Warhammer's great innovation, even if the miniatures eventually lost touch with the stat-lines (I gather orcs were Strength 3 to the end - even though Citadel orcs have had arms the size of men's waists for well over a decade).

While I think DR has plenty of room for differentiated units for a large-scale skirmish, it's nice to be able to tinker with the profiles more when you might have dozens of units on the table (or floor, in our case). And the horde rules look really nice - a great way to handle large numbers of small orcs or whatever without having to just settle for "really bad infantry".

In fact, the more I think about it, the more the horde rule is what's missing from many games to simulate the "few stood against many" aspect that characterises so many literary fantasy battles.

[Vermis]

Mayhem is one of those game-systems that, in my opinion, just looks and reads superior, but which I've never gotten around to playing. I have 1 ½ army (in 15mm and 10mm) sitting in my cupboard just waiting for me to get around to.

That's alright - that was me a while ago. 

I've been having the excact same quarries about Halberds 

Yes, halberds were my immediate concern (I've been steadily assembling some of the old Fantasy Tribe orc halberdiers and now have enough for a full base). "Great weapons" is the obvious starting point (two-handed swords and halberds occupying the same "ecological" niche in Renaissance warfare), but a halberd is a bit different from a Danish axe.

Again, some time ago I asked Brent about it and he suggested applying both the Great weapon and Spear rules to the unit, using only a single one for each scrap. It's fair enough, though I think the problem in creating that swiss army knife profile is that the points cost starts inflating further than a single, purpose-built weapon rule. Maybe it's worth it? Dunno yet.

The weapon that gets left out of wargames - especially fantasy ones - too often is the poleaxe. Not the same as a halberd - much shorter - but the go-to can-opener for dealing with fully armoured men-at-arms. I'm tempted to class poleaxes (and lucerne hammers) as "blunt weapons" that ignore heavy armour, which would allow two sets of Perry foot knights to have at each other in a reasonably bloody fashion. But then again, the poleaxe is a direct descendant of the Danish axe and would be just as lethal as that was against unarmored foes.

I had to go look up the difference between a poleaxe and a halberd after my last post. I don't know if I was left any the wiser. But I never let that stop me from embarassing myself. In the vein of Brent's halberd suggestion, for effectiveness against both armoured and unarmoured opponents: both Blunt and Sword? I guess it would have some effect against both armoured infantry and cavalry, but more against unarmoured infantry than unarmoured cavalry, as might befit a shorter pokeaxe vs. a longer halberd.

Of course, the game is so admirably flexible that there are lots of workarounds. Halberdiers could be treated as spearmen, for example, but designed so that they use a D10 instead of a D12 to start with (or whatever), which would make them a bit more offensive all round, but still give them a polearmish resistance to cavalry.

And for poleaxes, given that they were the knightly weapon of choice in the 15th century, perhaps their wielders could just be "tooled up" to use a D8 or something to reflect knightly training, better armour and all-round braying confidence.

Emphasis mine. True, true! The weapon rules add interesting wrinkles against certain opponents, but the basic statline can handle a lot itself. Your two examples are pretty much what I did with my Phoenix Guard (elite armoured halberdiers) in my intro game. I can and will use an individual profile, but for that game I treated them as the magic third spearman unit, to receive the free Elite upgrade.

The other immediate weapon-related problem is that almost all of my orcish hordes are variously armed. I'll eventually have a full stand of halberdiers, but most of the others mix swords, axes, clubs and god knows what else. I'll probably try out most infantry stands as effectively unarmed to start with.

Sounds like a job for that Horde rule.

Hills will be created in the traditional way - large atlases

Sounds appropriate!

[Hobgoblin]

That's alright - that was me a while ago. 

Again, some time ago I asked Brent about it and he suggested applying both the Great weapon and Spear rules to the unit, using only a single one for each scrap. It's fair enough, though I think the problem in creating that swiss army knife profile is that the points cost starts inflating further than a single, purpose-built weapon rule. Maybe it's worth it? Dunno yet.

If memory serves, that's exactly how Andrea does halberds in the Tales of Blades and Heroes RPG - you can choose which rule to use in a given round of combat.

I had to go look up the difference between a poleaxe and a halberd after my last post. I don't know if I was left any the wiser. But I never let that stop me from embarassing myself.

As with so many things, the taxonomy is largely retrospectively imposed! Basically, a poleaxe (etymologically, a head-axe) is a long-handled axe that typically has a spike at the end and two out of three head choices: a hammer, an axe blade or a thick, armour punching spike. Quite a few poleaxes don't actually have an axe head, but have a hammer and a spike instead (as with the "Lucerne hammer" or "bec de corbin").

A halberd is typically longer (poleaxes can be as short as four feet), with a hooked blade at the back and an axe head at the front, as well as a long point at the end. The head's usually a single piece of metal, in contrast to the poleaxe's more elaborate construction. And a halberd typically has a much bigger axe blade than a poleaxe - when the latter has an axe blade at all.

The reason for the differences is that a poleaxe was designed to deal with plate armour - hence the punching spike, small axe blade (for concentrating force) and small hammer head. It was a knightly weapon and was also used in duels. Basically, when plate armour becomes sufficiently good that men-at-arms abandon the shield, they start using the poleaxe as their main battlefield weapon. They were widely used during the Wars of the Roses, for example.

Halberds are (typically) a less expensive and more proletarian weapon, and came into vogue when gunpowder had begun to end the dominance of plate armour. They have bigger axe heads for cutting lightly armoured or unarmored foes, and they also have an anti-cavalry function with the hooked fluke at the back.

That said, the distinction between a poleaxe and a halberd is loose and blurry, and there are certainly overlaps. This article is pretty good; the example A927 it shows from the Wallace Collection is also classed as a halberd, I believe. The fighting style of the two weapons was pretty much the same, but they were designed to tackle different sorts of enemy.

The weapon rules add interesting wrinkles against certain opponents, but the basic statline can handle a lot itself. Your two examples are pretty much what I did with my Phoenix Guard (elite armoured halberdiers) in my intro game. I can and will use an individual profile, but for that game I treated them as the magic third spearman unit, to receive the free Elite upgrade.

That's a very neat way of doing it! In fact, that possibly does the job entirely - you get a unit that has the advantages against cavalry and is a bit more all-round aggressive.

Another thing that leapt out from the rules, to my delight, was the Beast designation. Combining that with Fast Cavalry is a really good way of doing wolf riders in the Tolkien vein - they're fast and mobile, and they (literally) startle the horses.