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

[Hobgoblin]

You missed another really good reason for using coasters. They are readily available around the house. If you need lots, a visit to the local charity shop should yield a handful for a few pennies.

Yes, indeed - so long as they're the same size!

A few more thoughts on the game:

The weapon designations really do suffer from excessive RPGishness. Blowpipes are as long-ranged and deadly as short bows, which seems wildly off (imagine a group of armoured men-at-arms being peppered with blowpipes darts ...). Two-handed weapons suffer from the typical RPG "initiative penalty" - you need an extra command point to get their benefits. This has always struck me as absurd: a poleaxe or a two-handed sword is no heavier than the combination of sword and shield - and typically lighter and more wieldy. For reasons of game balance, RPGs have tended to penalise double-handed weapons, when - historically - they were typically the supreme weapons of the battlefield by dint of reach and ease of use. This was especially the case when armour improved and shields dwindled in importance. The elevation of swords - a "soft counter" against infantry - and the power of axes (ignoring shields) seem greatly overdone, as does the "ignore armour" effect of blunt weapons. Much of this reminds me of the Dragon Warriors RPG - another outstanding game whose weapon rules are distinctly dodgy.

But all that said, the weapons rules could work well if their designations are ignored. The swords rule, for example, could cover two-handed weapons like poleaxes or Danish axes. "Blunt" might work well for huge weapons wielded by ogres and other oversized infantry - where the weapons are so big that armour makes little difference. Or they could simply be used as generic upgrades with model-specific explanations. In short, they don't impair the game at all, but need a little work on the rationalisation.

[Nord]

Actually, reading this I thought - elves! The elves could easily have these weapon upgrades, while others could not. Need to think about it of course. As always, rules are there to be adapted, not slavishly followed.

[Hobgoblin]

Actually, reading this I thought - elves! The elves could easily have these weapon upgrades, while others could not. Need to think about it of course. As always, rules are there to be adapted, not slavishly followed.

Couldn't agree more.

Yes, if you wanted Tolkien-style superhuman elves, something like "swords" would give you an infantry unit that was just that little bit better against other infantry units. And if you started to stack up the psychology-related rules, you could get an expensive but genuinely elite unit that would give ground to no one. 

Thinking a bit more about it, I reckon the "great weapons" rule would work quite well for any kind of exceptionally aggressive infantry who need a bit of psyching up first - berserkers (could be easily combined with the "berserk" rule), religious fanatics, druids or dervishes ("First say your prayers!") and tribal warriors of whatever species (maybe they have to do a war-dance or utter unspeakable war-cries first!). The extra command point would thus be justified by the "psyching up" and would produce a particularly fierce onslaught.

[Vermis]

I have to say, you've almost convinced me to try 10cm bases too.

So although the effects are identical, the difference is that some units interact differently with each rule. If you made your dwarfs disciplined, they'd refuse to be driven back by volley fire or cavalry charges, but could be pushed back by behemoths. That could be made clearer in the rules, but it does seem a nice distinction.

I think Mayhem has the potential to be the opposite of a static slugfest. The "beat back" and "drive back" rules can have wildly unpredictable results. For instance, a D8 cavalry unit rolling a 2 against a D12 infantry unit rolling 12 would cause a 10" driveback (and quite possibly a fair bit of chaos along the way). But the distance could be anything between 1" and 10". So there's real potential to have massive disorder - indeed, mayhem - on the tabletop.

I suppose a further clarification is that "drive back" is a cavalry/chariot rule, whereas "beat back" is an infantry rule. The latter will be useful to distinguish largeish infantry

But all that said, the weapons rules could work well if their designations are ignored... In short, they don't impair the game at all, but need a little work on the rationalisation.

Yes, yes and yes.

[squeaky]

And I was only asking coz all my 28mm fantasy troops are on 5cm squares (don't ask, just blame Redzed), so 10cm units would work perfectly for me 😎

[Nord]

How do you guys find the combat resolution? It's always struck me as a little bit too simple. Roll dice, lowest wins, loser is damaged. One more loss and the loser is destroyed. It's a bit cut and dry, though I realise there is a possibility of rallying. I have to say that I might be tempted to extend the damage mechanic to all units, not just the behemoth. Give every unit a "resilience" score (like the behemoth is 13) and then apply the damage rules. It just adds an extra layer that I feel is missing and a little more uncertainty. The way it stands as written, it's tempting to charge a unit, hopefully win, get the loser disordered, then immediately follow up with another attack (admittedly at higher command cost) to potentially destroy the unit  in one turn. Thoughts?

[Hobgoblin]

And I was only asking coz all my 28mm fantasy troops are on 5cm squares (don't ask, just blame Redzed), so 10cm units would work perfectly for me 😎

You could easily use the 5cm squares as standard units - that's the recommended basing for 15mm, but it would make no difference if the figures were 28s. But if you do go with 10cm, a single 5cm square is a ready-based unit of skirmishers.

[Hobgoblin]

How do you guys find the combat resolution? It's always struck me as a little bit too simple. Roll dice, lowest wins, loser is damaged. One more loss and the loser is destroyed. It's a bit cut and dry, though I realise there is a possibility of rallying. I have to say that I might be tempted to extend the damage mechanic to all units, not just the behemoth. Give every unit a "resilience" score (like the behemoth is 13) and then apply the damage rules. It just adds an extra layer that I feel is missing and a little more uncertainty. The way it stands as written, it's tempting to charge a unit, hopefully win, get the loser disordered, then immediately follow up with another attack (admittedly at higher command cost) to potentially destroy the unit  in one turn. Thoughts?

I think the thing here is that command points are so important that spending them on rallies (when the unit can't do anything else that turn) often seems wasteful. We were playing with D10 a side. Now, with three heroes on one side and three plus a standard on the other, we typically had at least seven points a turn at the start of the game. But that doesn't go far  - especially when you're paying a premium for the fast-moving troops that have got out of command range and are trying to do rapid or aggressive manoeuvres (like attacking twice in a turn!). And as the game wore on and heroes were slain, we were sometimes down to three or four command points a turn. At that point, the decision to rally or not becomes a crucial one: you won't do much more that turn if you do. If all units could soak up more punishment, then I think some of that risk/reward decision-making would be taken out of the game.

And if your opponent is spending lots of his points on aggressive charges by the same units, his formations are going to break up and his flanks and rear are going to be exposed. Plus, there's always the chance that you'll just roll a 1 when he attacks.

The other thing is that it's easy to spend more command points than you realise. We were using draughtsmen to keep track of the points, stacking them by each unit as we spent them. It's easy to think that you've got plenty in reserve when you've still got a handful of them - but equally easy to find that you've just got three left - enough to move a single unit twice or move three singly. With the short move ranges, that cuts down your options pretty quickly. In that context, rallying becomes a real luxury - and that in itself adds a degree of unpredictability to the game.

As an illustration, our last game turned on my decision to rally a hard-hitting heavy cavalry unit rather than a disordered infantry unit close to my general. I was banking on the cavalry's ability to cause chaos in the enemy line and the enemy dragon's inability to get to my general. But some lucky danger-dice moves proved that last gamble very wrong indeed.

[Nord]

Rallying a unit keeps it alive, so though it's true that it cannot do anything, it has saved itself from almost certain death. Keeping it in the game, while inactive for a turn, could be crucial.

Anyway, this is all theorising on my part, I will play a few games first to see how things pan out, before making any house rules. It was just the thought of an elite unit dying to a lucky 1 roll from a crappy enemy unit that had me thinking. I'm not overly keen on games that are too heavily influenced by random dice rolling.

[Vermis]

And if your opponent is spending lots of his points on aggressive charges by the same units, his formations are going to break up and his flanks and rear are going to be exposed. Plus, there's always the chance that you'll just roll a 1 when he attacks.

I'd have to think about it a bit more, so this might sound a bit simplistic, but my initial thought was something vaguely like Hobgoblin's here: what's your unit doing out on it's own, unprotected and at a disadvantage?

Part of what I like about Mayhem is that there seems to be more interplay between units, counters, command points, and other various rules; going a bit further than 'infantry in the middle, cav on the flanks', and what may be described as line-up-and-grind games like Warhammer (I still twitch at the concept of mathhammer and MEQs) or even Kings of War. (As you mentioned earlier, Nord) Which means there are more tactical decisions to make, and I think makes Mayhem one of those 'easy to learn, hard to master' games. Apparent disadvantages may have solutions or workarounds that aren't immediately apparent themselves, or derived from the basic statline.

A rule I wasn't entirely happy with was the unit support rule, which ties into your concern about quick combat resolution. At a glance I imagined it to be like Hail Caesar's support rule, where friendly units only have to be in contact with your unit to provide a boost. Instead, supporting units have to be fully in contact with the opposing unit. Meaning you have to wait until your turn to move up supporting units, in response to one of your units being charged, which leaves the charged unit a little vulnerable for a while.
But there are ways the enemy charge can be blunted. Maybe your unit has a suitable counter against it. Maybe your unit's readied. Maybe you can use missile fire to soften or drive back the enemy unit. Your units that are ready to support are still a threat that can deter the charge, and maybe they have suitable counters too. They'll have to be dealt with too, maybe simultaneously, which could mean a bit of shuffling around to arrange several charges, using up vital command points, even ending their turn before it can happen, or as it happens (don't forget that - if I read it correctly - most units still have to pay to initiate melee after charging*), possibly giving you a chance to shuffle around and enact your own plans for assault or defence. The practicalities might differ from the theory, but it's all very cat-and-mouse, IMO. Not just as simple as one unit giving another a one-two punch.

* Gets me wondering if there are situations where you might want to charge or engage but not initiate melee right away. Apart from use of the swarm rule, that is. Maybe a weaker unit charging into a flank or rear arc? The charged unit can get a bonus for initiating melee itself, but will need to spend extra to attack towards that arc - while the charger retains the flank bonus, or perhaps supports a stronger frontal assault - or to reform and then attack - which could disrupt it's advance and expose a flank or rear to another angle and a potentially stronger attack. Is that enough to outweigh the obvious flank + initiate double-whammy?

It was just the thought of an elite unit dying to a lucky 1 roll from a crappy enemy unit that had me thinking. I'm not overly keen on games that are too heavily influenced by random dice rolling.

I thought about something like that myself, but realised that this is where the polydice mechanic kicks in to affect that random factor: it's more difficult for a crappy CQ d12 unit to roll a 1 than a buffed up CQ d6 or d8 unit. Certainly not impossible, but less likely.
I mentioned the first melee in my first game - rat ogres vs. phoenix guard, mutually wiped out by rolls of 1. But apart from the sheer entertainment value, I didn't mind so much because I had the idea that elite units (or the sudden disappearance thereof) weren't as critical as in, say, Warhammer. (A game where certain elite units became so powerful, they had to tack 'horde' and 'steadfast' rules onto the blocks of basic infantry just to let them stick around) Useful, certainly, but within the wider game of manoeuvre, denial and focus.
Ditto for lucky 1 rolls, which I feel are just that - lucky. Randomness that can send a chunk of your favourite models for an early bath, but that isn't inherently important to winning the game; especially when you can reduce it by focusing your counters and accumulators (more, better dice = more 1s, natch) and trying to deny your opponent theirs.

(Sounds nice anyway, don'it?)

[Hobgoblin]

Rallying a unit keeps it alive, so though it's true that it cannot do anything, it has saved itself from almost certain death. Keeping it in the game, while inactive for a turn, could be crucial.

Yes, absolutely. But rallying costs at least 2 Cp (unless you have a musician), and if you have more than one disordered unit - or a severely disordered unit with more than one counter - you're going to be spending quite a chunk of your Cps for that turn. So it's often worth the risk ("just one more turn ...").

Anyway, this is all theorising on my part, I will play a few games first to see how things pan out, before making any house rules. It was just the thought of an elite unit dying to a lucky 1 roll from a crappy enemy unit that had me thinking. I'm not overly keen on games that are too heavily influenced by random dice rolling.

I do quite like the idea that an elite unit could succumb to terrible luck now and then. One way to model an elite unit with real staying power, though, would be to use the horde rule. You wouldn't get weapon upgrades, but you could balance that by using a very strong starting profile. That gives you a relentless unit that has to be cut to pieces before it can be defeated. You could easily use that to represent fanatical warrior-monks or a fearless elven warband, if you used sufficiently strong stats.

[Hobgoblin]

A rule I wasn't entirely happy with was the unit support rule, which ties into your concern about quick combat resolution. At a glance I imagined it to be like Hail Caesar's support rule, where friendly units only have to be in contact with your unit to provide a boost. Instead, supporting units have to be fully in contact with the opposing unit. Meaning you have to wait until your turn to move up supporting units, in response to one of your units being charged, which leaves the charged unit a little vulnerable for a while.

I was also looking for a HOTT-style rule here.

But there are ways the enemy charge can be blunted. Maybe your unit has a suitable counter against it. Maybe your unit's readied. Maybe you can use missile fire to soften or drive back the enemy unit. Your units that are ready to support are still a threat that can deter the charge, and maybe they have suitable counters too. They'll have to be dealt with too, maybe simultaneously, which could mean a bit of shuffling around to arrange several charges, using up vital command points, even ending their turn before it can happen, or as it happens (don't forget that - if I read it correctly - most units still have to pay to initiate melee after charging*), possibly giving you a chance to shuffle around and enact your own plans for assault or defence. The practicalities might differ from the theory, but it's all very cat-and-mouse, IMO. Not just as simple as one unit giving another a one-two punch.

* Gets me wondering if there are situations where you might want to charge or engage but not initiate melee right away. Apart from use of the swarm rule, that is. Maybe a weaker unit charging into a flank or rear arc? The charged unit can get a bonus for initiating melee itself, but will need to spend extra to attack towards that arc - while the charger retains the flank bonus, or perhaps supports a stronger frontal assault - or to reform and then attack - which could disrupt it's advance and expose a flank or rear to another angle and a potentially stronger attack. Is that enough to outweigh the obvious flank + initiate double-whammy?

As I read it, you do get a free attack ("impact") when you charge a unit. Units with the impact rule (e.g. cavalry) get a free attack whether or not they charge (so they can default into combat and still benefit from it). Infantry and other units have to take a gamble (unless they're very close), as they could still roll snake eyes and be left stranded to get the benefit. So, even if you're just 2.5" from the enemy, a roll of 1,1 or 1,2 will rob you of your attack when you could have defaulted in (assuming D6 infantry movement) and then paid for an attack. If that happens, you can't charge again that turn and would have to pay 2 Cp to engage and 3 Cp to attack - thus spending 6 Cp on a single unit. So the risk/reward balance is still there.

I thought about something like that myself, but realised that this is where the polydice mechanic kicks in to affect that random factor: it's more difficult for a crappy CQ d12 unit to roll a 1 than a buffed up CQ d6 or d8 unit. Certainly not impossible, but less likely.
I mentioned the first melee in my first game - rat ogres vs. phoenix guard, mutually wiped out by rolls of 1. But apart from the sheer entertainment value, I didn't mind so much because I had the idea that elite units (or the sudden disappearance thereof) weren't as critical as in, say, Warhammer. (A game where certain elite units became so powerful, they had to tack 'horde' and 'steadfast' rules onto the blocks of basic infantry just to let them stick around) Useful, certainly, but within the wider game of manoeuvre, denial and focus.
Ditto for lucky 1 rolls, which I feel are just that - lucky. Randomness that can send a chunk of your favourite models for an early bath, but that isn't inherently important to winning the game; especially when you can reduce it by focusing your counters and accumulators (more, better dice = more 1s, natch) and trying to deny your opponent theirs.

(Sounds nice anyway, don'it?)

I think that's right. Mayhem allows something that Warhammer seldom did - for your humble archers to throw down their bows and snatch up their cudgels and power in for an unlikely but   tide-turning attack. That sort of thing did happen in real battles, so I like a game that allows the possibility of such things.

By the way, my enjoyment of Mayhem has got me thinking about Havoc. Does anyone have any experience of that game?

[Vermis]

I'm not surprised if I got impact wrong. I have trouble figuring out some of the wording. Under the description of charges it says a unit may attempt a charge even if it doesn't have the impact ability. It almost implies (or, I infer) that charges don't necessarily lead to impacts.
And it's not helped by having to look at unit designations for the full impact rule, and the fact it's listed as a sub-heading under the cavalry designation, because only cavalry has the basic impact ability, which makes the charge+impact rule look like the result of heavy cavalry's momentum, with no explicit note that this is actually the cavalry-specific version of impact (engagement needed but no charge)...



TL;DR: I'd prefer if the impact rule was described in full under the charge heading - or under it's own heading, with notes in the charge and cavalry headings describing their individual impact situations.

I haven't bought or read Havoc, though I have been meaning to,

[Hobgoblin]

I'm not surprised if I got impact wrong. I have trouble figuring out some of the wording. Under the description of charges it says a unit may attempt a charge even if it doesn't have the impact ability. It almost implies (or, I infer) that charges don't necessarily lead to impacts.
And it's not helped by having to look at unit designations for the full impact rule, and the fact it's listed as a sub-heading under the cavalry designation, because only cavalry has the basic impact ability, which makes the charge+impact rule look like the result of heavy cavalry's momentum, with no explicit note that this is actually the cavalry-specific version of impact (engagement needed but no charge)...

TL;DR: I'd prefer if the impact rule was described in full under the charge heading - or under it's own heading, with notes in the charge and cavalry headings describing their individual impact situations.

Yup, the various special rules are somewhat scattered. I'd say that there are three minor problems with the game as it stands:

1. A lack of ease of reference. It would help if Beat Back, Drive Back and Push Back were all listed and costed in the TAG section, for example. (The Stronghold supplement does add a cost for Beat Back.)

2. The weapon designations, as discussed above (easily fixed: use the traits, ignore the descriptions).

3. "Time to table". This, to me, is a key element of any tabletop game. How quickly can you move from deciding to play to actually playing? That's one of the things that makes SBH such a brilliant game: after a few games, you can put two or more roughly balanced warbands down on the table in a couple of minutes without even bothering to look at the points costs. And if you use the builders, it's almost as quick. Dragon Rampant, with its more limited customisation, is really quick too. In contrast, Mayhem does take a bit of preparation. That said, keeping a list of standard units and their stats helps to overcome this. It would have been nice if the book had a few sample units in the way that SBH does - not restrictive lists, but ideas for possible profiles. The Battlechest and Armies of Mayhem files for the BattleScribe app do offer this (although you have to create an army to view the stats), but it'd be better - and less fiddly - to have all the profiles laid out in PDF or print somewhere.

I haven't bought or read Havoc, though I have been meaning to,

I cracked yesterday and ordered print versions of both Havoc and Rogue Planet. I suspect both fall foul of point 3, but I'm planning to use them in carefully prepared games for a bit of variety.

[Hobgoblin]

Well, Havoc and Rogue Planet arrived at the end of the day yesterday, and I gave both a quick skim last night. Very interesting - but Havoc in particular will take a bit of digestion (the book's about 250 pages long!).

First thoughts:

• Rogue Planet appears much closer to Mayhem in mechanics.
• Rogue Planet (and Mayhem) are much more slickly produced than Havoc, which could have done with a bit of a proofread (for occasional stray or missing apostrophes and some uncertainty with dashes in particular). It's a nice-looking book, with black and white illustrations from out-of-copyright sources, although some files were obviously fairly low resolution. In contrast, Rogue Planet is nicely edited (at first glance).
• That's not to say Havoc isn't well written: it is (never confuse the writing with the editing!), and it wins extra points from me for quoting Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary here and there (sample: "Cannon noun: an instrument employed in the rectification of national boundaries."). It's also quirky and lively, which I like.
• As with Mayhem, there are loud echoes of RPGs in Havoc. The size of the rulebook is one. The troop types - and more specifically the weapon types - are another. So, we get the same "devastating but ponderous" depiction of "great weapons" as in Mayhem. Interestingly, in Havoc all polearms are explicitly classed as spears.
• Minor quibbles aside, one thing that looks interesting about Havoc is that once the rules are mastered, "time to table" looks to be pretty short. Forces are built from a list of 22 standard profiles (spearman, dual wielder, light cavalry, infantryman, behemoth, etc.). Not up Nord's street, I'd imagine! But - and this is a big but - there's plenty of room to flavour war bands through the use of the "named" - non-standard characters. So, an orcish warband could be augmented with named characters such as "the Brutal", "the Butcher" and "the Executioner". An elfin force, on the other hand, might get "the Bard", "the Fencer" and "the Champion". Some profiles also have options, so there's great potential for customisation.
• Where both systems look attractive is in the range of possibilities and the disruption of the conventional turn sequence. In Havoc, the "cut scenes" are intriguing - allowing for extra actions by "named" characters.
• It'll take some reading to get either game going. The turn sequence for both is, at first glance, relatively complicated. But I look forward to getting to grips with both.