Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=24867 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Kealios [ Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:39 am ] |
Post subject: | Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
I managed to get my first Mayhem game played today! http://kealios.blogspot.com/2013/03/mayhem-10mm-fantasy-battle-report.html One question: Push Back: What happens if the unit that is being pushed back bumps into something else, destroying it? Where does the chasing unit go? Is it just moved the same distance that the fleeing unit moved, and if this brings it into contact with another enemy unit, so be it? |
Author: | Markconz [ Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:39 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
Very nice looking armies and table ![]() |
Author: | bombshell games [ Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
Great report!! ![]() I really enjoyed the write-up. You made some great tactical observations and assessments that were quite impressive seeing how this was your first game. Nicely done! The combat with the Griffin was epic! On turn 2, I do think you shorted the wolves a die for being on the flank of the crossbowmen. You nailed it everywhere else. Your choice to square-up on the flank based on you angle of approach was the perfect choice. Quote: Push Back: What happens if the unit that is being pushed back bumps into something else, destroying it? Where does the chasing unit go? Is it just moved the same distance that the fleeing unit moved, and if this brings it into contact with another enemy unit, so be it? In this case, you would move the unit being pushed back until it comes in contact with a unit. Next, you would place the unit doing the pushing in direct base contact with the unit it was shoving. Finally, remove the eliminated unit. The thought here is that even though the unit is routed/eliminated, there would be some last bits of combat so the space really isn't vacant at that moment. Obviously, you could spend some more Cp and slam into the next unit after that! ![]() I'm sure you already realize this, but remember that you only need the final compared results of a roll to be a tie for a Deadlock ability to trigger. So, in your combat between the Orc spears and the Griffin, if the roll had resulted in a 2, 3, and 4 by the Orcs and a 2 by the Griffin, then a Deadlock ability would be triggered [assuming that one of the units had a Deadlock AND the Orcs chose the 2 for the combat result]. Tactical note: sometimes it may be to your advantage to force a tie and trigger a Deadlock instead of winning a combat roll. This can be done by using an ability [like the Shield's default feature] or choosing a die that matches your opponent's. As always, the initiator must choose first! Thanks for the sharing! |
Author: | Kealios [ Sun Mar 31, 2013 8:31 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
bombshell games wrote: You made some great tactical observations and assessments that were quite impressive seeing how this was your first game. Nicely done! Thanks ![]() ![]() Quote: On turn 2, I do think you shorted the wolves a die for being on the flank of the crossbowmen. I totally did...and I also Pushed Back the Elite Orc Swords, I think...and rereading the rules, Elites get Fearless and so shouldnt have been lost...but oh well, it is what it is ![]() Quote: Quote: Push Back: What happens if the unit that is being pushed back bumps into something else, destroying it? Where does the chasing unit go? Is it just moved the same distance that the fleeing unit moved, and if this brings it into contact with another enemy unit, so be it? In this case, you would move the unit being pushed back until it comes in contact with a unit. Next, you would place the unit doing the pushing in direct base contact with the unit it was shoving. Finally, remove the eliminated unit. Makes sense. Write it up in the next version of the rules or FAQ! Quote: I'm sure you already realize this, but remember that you only need the final compared results of a roll to be a tie for a Deadlock ability to trigger. So, in your combat between the Orc spears and the Griffin, if the roll had resulted in a 2, 3, and 4 by the Orcs and a 2 by the Griffin, then a Deadlock ability would be triggered [assuming that one of the units had a Deadlock AND the Orcs chose the 2 for the combat result]. Yup, got it. The battle with the Griffon was fun because all four dice were 2's...it was Deadlock or Bust at that point! |
Author: | bombshell games [ Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
Quote: I totally did...and I also Pushed Back the Elite Orc Swords, I think...and rereading the rules, Elites get Fearless and so shouldnt have been lost...but oh well, it is what it is ![]() You got the Orcs being eliminated right. Fearless only keeps them from being Driven or Beat Back. Quote: Yup, got it. The battle with the Griffon was fun because all four dice were 2's...it was Deadlock or Bust at that point! I love it when that stuff happens! Sometimes the dice have plans of their own no matter the odds. |
Author: | Kealios [ Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:58 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
I've been thinking about Ranged weapons lately. Actually Ive been thinking about them before I played my first game, specifically their Range. First, let me say that I love how Ranged weapons have their own stats. I think it is unique and fits the system nicely. However, I think that for their range and ability to "reach out and touch someone", they are overpriced. Look at the Crossbows in my batrep. They cost 11 points, 2 more than the Heavy Foot...but have 1 less CQ die, and lack the substantial staying power of Shields and Heavy Armor. A d12 range means they can reliably hit 6" away...which is basically melee range. I dont want to have to move a ranged unit to within countercharge range to use their weapons, and as the Danger roll system has proven already, taking anything but the default is a HUGE risk for anything over that Default value. I have two ideas for possible solutions, and by "solutions" I am not implying that Range is broken...it just isnt working how I envision a Fantasy ranged army to operate. 1. Effectively double the distance allowed by dividing Range in half. So...using a Long Bow, I count 14" to my target. Dividing this in half, I need 7+. OR You could count anything over Default by 1/2...so 14" range could be 12+, and an 18" range is 14+. Now bows have real range. You can adjust the values of the weapons in game to reflect this, but now "Stand and Deliver" can cross the battlefield a bit more effectively. 2. Keep the measuring/to-hit values the same, but add the Default value of the weapon to the roll (and therefore not allowing a "Default". This way, using a Long Bow, I can reach guaranteed 11" (default of 10, +1d20 roll) and can reasonably hit out to 20"...and in extreme situations, hit out to 30". I am already rolling a d20 for damage, so odds of damaging at this range are tiny...but at least I can park my archers in the back on a hill and again, keep in protection and not be exposed to counter-charges (but still being wary of Flyers, fast cavalry, etc). WFB did this really well, I felt. I could have rows of archers in the back of my lines, and if the enemy wanted to get to them, he'd need to either break one of my flanks to get through, or use a fast flier or cavalry around and get them...and if they were exposed to a melee unit like this, they were in TROUBLE. They dont have to be in trouble in this game, as I can pay a few more points for a more better (like that? heh) CQ value... That leads me to my second thought of the evening: Gaminess. "Create-Your-Own" is a really, REALLY good thing...and is subjected to exploitation by everyone but Grandma. Having even a modicum of restrictions isnt bad...such as no more than 1 Ranged unit for every Foot unit, etc. I've been toying with the idea of Doctrines in my 6mm Sci-Fi game. The idea is, there are ultra-basic restrictions on unit type selection in the game (Default could be: 1 Ranged unit per 1 Foot melee Infantry 1 "Heavy" Horse or Chariot per 2 Foot melee 1 "Fast" Cavalry per 1 Foot troop 1 Behemoth or Monstrous Creature per Hero/General Then you introduce Doctrines... "Scouting Force" lets you buy an all-Fast Cavalry force, with each Fast-type counting for buying Heavy Horse, etc. "Brute Squad" lets you buy Behemoths as if they were Infantry slots, and encourages larger-pointed units etc... Each Doctrine costs Crowns. Maybe you pay 10 Crowns just to have the Brute Squad doctrine...and that's on top of the expensive cost they are already... Sorry, Im in rules development mode...thinking away. ![]() |
Author: | bombshell games [ Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:14 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
Quote: I've been thinking about Ranged weapons lately. Actually Ive been thinking about them before I played my first game, specifically their Range. First, let me say that I love how Ranged weapons have their own stats. I think it is unique and fits the system nicely. However, I think that for their range and ability to "reach out and touch someone", they are overpriced. For ranged weapons in MAYHEM, I think it's important to discuss their roles when looking at both range and cost. I'll start with long bows, short bows, and blow guns. These weapons [especially the long bow] are not primarily intended for the direct elimination of enemy units. Instead, these weapons shine when using the Volley Fire ability to Drive Back units. Driving units back can yield a variety of bonuses: 1. Enemy formations set for use of an Advance activation can be broken up making for inefficient Command point use 2. Enemy units that have been Driven Back will have to spend multiple activations just to get back to baseline 3. Drive Back can be used to expose an enemy formation's backside for a rear charge 4. Enemy units may be Driven Back into other formations causing them to be routed That's just a few examples. ![]() These weapons can kill, but it's usually from using Overdrive to allow you to roll repeatedly in an attempt to get that one good roll, or when used to take down some pesky fliers! ![]() Quote: WFB did this really well, I felt. I could have rows of archers in the back of my lines, and if the enemy wanted to get to them, he'd need to either break one of my flanks to get through, or use a fast flier or cavalry around and get them...and if they were exposed to a melee unit like this, they were in TROUBLE. They dont have to be in trouble in this game, as I can pay a few more points for a more better (like that? heh) CQ value... I think you can get this feeling by using the bows on your back lines especially since they don't require direct LOS to use Volley Fire. Your giant would have made a great spotter for this. Quote: Look at the Crossbows in my batrep. They cost 11 points, 2 more than the Heavy Foot...but have 1 less CQ die, and lack the substantial staying power of Shields and Heavy Armor. A d12 range means they can reliably hit 6" away...which is basically melee range. I dont want to have to move a ranged unit to within countercharge range to use their weapons, and as the Danger roll system has proven already, taking anything but the default is a HUGE risk for anything over that Default value. You hit on some good points here. I agree that getting the most out of the 'other' ranged units like the crossbow, when used by infantry, is not an easy thing. Probably the easiest way, using a WFB example, is to take a Detachment styled approach. Pair these units with strong support units that can clog charge lanes and counter charge if needed. This does means using some Overdrive to saturate your target with fire, BUT it can really frustrate an opponent and will many times eliminate softer targets. Now, put these weapons on some Cavalry units and it's an entirely different story. A Repeating Crossbow on a quick moving unit of Cavalry can be murder on an enemy's flank [especially if they have a slower moving force. These units are great for hunting down flyers of all sorts as well. Quote: I have two ideas for possible solutions, and by "solutions" I am not implying that Range is broken...it just isnt working how I envision a Fantasy ranged army to operate. I like both your ideas. They're clever in the way that they mesh with the existing mechanic. Without giving too much away, I think you'll be happy with some of the army specific abilities that you'll see soon. Also, war machines definitely have the ability to reach out and touch someone [and hard!]. Their range is impressive. Quote: That leads me to my second thought of the evening: Gaminess. "Create-Your-Own" is a really, REALLY good thing...and is subjected to exploitation by everyone but Grandma. Having even a modicum of restrictions isnt bad...such as no more than 1 Ranged unit for every Foot unit, etc. When you make a game where players can build their own forces from scratch, the goal is always to build it with the highest degree of balance that still affords maximum flexibility and imagination. I think that the counter system goes a long way towards keeping a player 'honest'. A well balanced army is probably the best choice if trying to maximize your build. Commit to any single direction, whether for fun or more devious reasons, and it could go very well [or badly] if your opponent did the same. The doctrine and force composition concepts are alive and well with the optional ready-to-play lists that are being built. Both concepts are there under-the-hood but not strictly enforced or spelled out. It is heavily implied what build directions are intended if using one of these lists, but ultimately it will be up to the player. Quote: Sorry, Im in rules development mode...thinking away. ![]() No worries! I love talking design, and it's always interesting to see how people are using the game and adapting to the system. |
Author: | Kealios [ Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:42 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
ps. You're my new favorite game designer. Your call whether you think this is an April's Fools joke or not ![]() pps. I actually did figure out that Volley Fire was "it" for the bows...which is why I tried it right off in the battle! ![]() |
Author: | bombshell games [ Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:32 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
Quote: ps. You're my new favorite game designer. Your call whether you think this is an April's Fools joke or not ![]() Since I didn't get to read this until April 2nd, I'm going to choose to take you at your word. How do you like that logic!?! ![]() |
Author: | Kealios [ Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:11 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
I'm wrapping this into my previous Battle report because I don't have an actual write up from last night, but I was able to get in not one, but two games of Mayhem against (get this...) an actual opponent! No plan survives an encounter with the enemy intact, and I had to see how my good friend Aron felt about this game. He was playing miniatures games back when I thought Battletech was the End-All-Be-All of wargaming. He has played nearly every 6mm sci-fi game in existence and is one of the guys I am working on my own ruleset with. He plays Napoleonics and could recite Warmaster rules to you in his sleep. In short, he was the perfect sounding board. Our first game was with the same forces I did my playtest with. I had some hot rolls, and after smoking him, he took the time to design a Chaos army ("When you lose, break out the Chaos", he said). The next game was an amazing back-and-forth affair, with some epic battles in it, and in the end his dice turned SMOKING hot (I lost 4 units to him rolling 1's in the last turn!) and he pulled out the victory. Game 1 set up: ![]() Here are some of his/our thoughts, in no particular order: Intent of Movement: Movement is in a Straight Line. Does this mean, "proceed forward directly, with no deviation to left or right", or can units move "in a straight line, to any point within their forward arc, as long as they end with the same facing as they started with (prior to the free spin on their axis)"? Wheeling: His first comment was how unwieldy it was to move large columns of units. The Wheel is a maneuver that is in most fantasy/Napoleonics ruleset, and after game 1, we introduced it. Measuring from the outside corner of the Wheel, and pivoting on the inside corner, we still moved at the default rate, but suddenly, movement felt right. Even if this isnt put into the official rules, which we really urge you to consider, this is something we will houserule. Layout and Font of the Rulebook: I didnt mention it before, but when my friend grew frustrated with the Calligraphy font in the book, I had to agree. It does make finding the appropriate rules headers a challenge. We also felt there was a lot of page turning to find applicable rules (Cavalry (p. 13) has Drive Back (p.9). Combined with some rules being in the text ("Fight On" and "Rally" are inside the "Disordered" section on p. 6, not in the list of Commands on p.5, and should really have their own header to stand them apart...but Musicians aren't referred to until p.14). I know it might be a bit of a challenge to group the appropriate rules altogether, but it does need a bit of cleaning up. At the very least, put an alphabetical glossary at the back. I know the QRS has a lot of info, but it is missing a fair amount as well, and it jumps around a lot. Things I have hand-written on my QRS: Melee Weapon Counters: I added IMPACT = SC vs Infantry, etc Equipment: I added, under Heavy Armor, that it is negated also by Heavy Crossbows and Rifles Melee Modifiers: I added that Attacking from Above gives +1 dice Beat Back: I wrote that it was applicable to Behemoths and some Infantry Drive Back: I wrote that it was applicable to Ranged, Cavalry/Chariots Ranged Attacks: I added that vs Monstrous Creatures, +1 die to hit Rally: A few times, especially in the second game when we had lots and lots of Heavy Armor units on the board, we had combats get a unit up to 2 Disordered units, but not enough CPs to finish the job. On the next turn, the opponent would spend his 2 or 3 CPs (depending on if he had a Musician or not) and wipe all that work out. We feel that Rallying should be limited to clearing 1 Disordered Token per Turn per Unit. OR make the cost really, really steep, and make Rally only remove up to 1 Token per action, so clearing 2 would require Overdrive...and thus cost more CP: Clearing 2 tokens with no Musician: 3 CP Clearing 2 tokens with 1 Musician: 2 CP Proposed: Clearing 2 tokens with no Musician: 2 Actions, costing (1+1) + (2+1) = 5 CP Clearing 2 tokens with 1 Musician: 2 Actions, costing (1) + (2) = 3 CP Heroes in a Unit: Do you get the Hero's full profile? We were wondering about a Knight with Heavy Army who joins a unit of Swordsmen. Do we need to track hits on the unit and the hero separately? Doesnt seem like it, since if the unit get killed, so does he...but if he takes 2 wounds, the unit itself should perish? We were a tad confused, I admit. Cost of Traits and Combat/Movement: I think I mentioned this in my original write up. Again I felt, and my buddy wholeheartedly agreed, that a greater cost needs to be assessed for buying a unit's stats up. The second battle, when he created a new army, he had nothing less than CQd8, and with the Counters we were using in the game, made a big difference, but these units only cost 1 more than my d10's. Some linear scale is needed, where going from a d10 to a d8 is 2 or 3 points, and to a d6 from a d8 is more like 5 points...this might result in a higher-pointed game, but it will reflect the relative value of one unit when compared to another much better. Also: The more Traits/Designators a unit has, we feel it should cost a bit more as well. Overdrive is a mechanic that increases the CP cost for more actions done by a unit...implementing this during unit creation might make sense a bit too. And we know you're coming out with Disadvantages in the next supplement, right? ![]() Beasts: Beasts cannot get other Designators. This means Giant Eagles cannot be made currently, as that would require a Flying Beast. Sure, we could make them Flying Cavalry, but they arent...until we put a rider on top of them. I'm just sayin'... Ranged Attacks: The same problem came up in our next two games that I experienced in my Demo: ranged combat is just too short. I had to wait until his Giant was almost on top of my Crossbowmen before I could even hope to hit him (and that was with the extra die for attacking a Monstrous Creature). It was also odd that I could Auto-hit out to my Default of the Range Die (d12), but at 9" I had little chance of hitting at all. Since most attacks only ever get 1 die...[I had one melee that got 8 dice for one unit!!] Aron liked my proposal to add the Default range + the Range die roll for range. We also both agreed that Auto Hits don't belong in Ranged combat (because the Hit roll is not opposed like it is in Melee). Something should require the firing unit to still throw his Ranged Dice as normal, even for a 2" distance, and a 1 always misses? As ranged units are so expensive, I will be taking less of them for sure. [As a side note, our next game may include some of these Ranged suggestions I gave above, and I may actually go ranged-heavy to see how it works...maybe] Elite: The rules say you must have "2 other units" of the same type...I take this to mean you must have bought 3 of that unit type for 1 to be upgraded. There was a debate on this ![]() General Comment: I didnt want this to be lost in the mix, as it is being typed into a wall of text, but my friend's summary was simple: "This is not a game of maneuver. Doing so merely puts you out of command and costs a lot of CP's with the short movement distances." This comes from a Warmaster player...but honestly, Warmaster seems to be exactly the main competition to Mayhem. Consider a Cavalry unit in Warmaster that moves 30cm per action (roughly 12"), versus a Default of 5" on a d10 move. How many times did we roll Danger rolls last night with a d10 unit and get a 1 or 2, or less than the Default? LOTS. We were really trying to use the Default as a result...which really slows things down. This is why Warmaster plays on a 6'x4' board, and I had zero issues playing 150 Crowns on a 3'x3' board. In the opening turns of our first game, my opponent lunged his Orc Wolf riders out to the flank. He has a Hero with them, but burning 6 CP for 3 clunky advances that allowed no turning, he eventually broke the 2 units apart so they could independently maneuver. It was a valiant attempt at seeing how the game worked, but it left him with a few units that couldnt get back into the fray easily because of the CP required for them to move back in on me. Thus, his attempt at a rapid flank was shot dead before he developed it. If this is the intent of the game design, fine. However, we now know/feel that this is a straight ahead bash than a sweeping game of outmaneuver, and will probably build around that concept (ie no more of those fast archer-type cavalry for now). Breaking up an Advancing block of 3 Units: As we moved our infantry blocks of 3 units forward, both of us at one point want to break a unit away and have it wander off on its own. This required the unit to rotate on its axis prior to walking away...which wasn't technically legal. The rotating made it overlap with its neighboring unit, technically...but we did it anyway because we saw no reason for the end result to not work. What do you think? Action: "Set": I came up with this one on my own, but a 1CP action a unit could take might be "Set", which, if during the next turn an enemy units engages it in melee from the front, whether by actual melee or by Impacts, this unit receives +1 dice as if initiating the melee, and allows weapon counters to work (spears vs cavalry, axes vs infantry, etc). If you know a charge is coming, get those bristly points out and deter the enemy! Impacts: This one was a big stumbling block to my opponent, who kept saying things like, "Damn, I didnt leave enough CP for melee. I keep forgetting that Combat isnt a Phase..." Let me show you a pic: ![]() The bottom 3 Infantry units have been hit by a cavalry unit to their left flank (who lived against those spears!), but to their front is a unit of Chaos Heavy Infantry, who where CQd8, Axes, Frenzy, Heavy Armor...NASTY units. They sat there for a few turns, because even before I was charged in the flank, neither of us wanted to be the one that spent the 1CP to Advance the group, then 6 more CP to start a fight with each unit (2 per unit). We wanted to be the one receiving the charge, then only spend 1 per unit to fight back. Honestly, this is a design flaw. Imagine this scene in Braveheart: ![]() Now someone screams, "HALT! STOP! Don't crash into them, let them hit us first!!!!!" and the whole charge stops? Heh...I'm being silly here, but we feel the solution is simple: Infantry should get Impact vs other Infantry, even if it isnt a Soft Counter. It really is weird charging a unit in and not being able to fight...especially if you're short that extra little bit of CP. I mentioned a combat above, where one unit had 8 dice versus another. It didnt really happen, because the unit in question were Beasts without Impact, and couldnt afford the Overdrive to initiate the melee. Here is the situation: ![]() Here is a unit of my Heavy Cavalry (red and white). They have a unit of enemy Cavalry to their front, and have been hit in the right flank by some Chaos Hounds. The unit of Hounds off to the right rolled its Danger roll to come in from the back and made it... Combat (1) + Initiating (1) + Rear Flank (2) + Supporting units (2) + Disorder Tokens on target (2) = 8 dice, with a Hard Counter (Pack Hunter vs Cavalry) = 8d4 vs 1d10. We concluded that maybe, POSSIBLY, this was why not all units get Impact? However, even if non-Cavalry units didnt get the Impact Soft Counter, this Impact would have still been 8d8 vs 1d10. I think a player could have the OPTION of not Impacting, if he was sending in a lesser unit to support an impending charge by a larger, better unit, but this was another major source of head scratching by my Warmaster-vet opponent. Initiative Range: One thing we also felt that could be implemented is the concept of Initiative Range, where a unit may act if bad guys are close to them. It should have something to do with the Leadership die type of the army, and maybe it could be that if a unit has an enemy unit within the Default of their Command Die, they can do something. It hearkens back to my comments about not having enough CP for the army...and this would be one way, along with some other options we talked about, to get more out of your army. Another could be that Heroes and Banners add +1 CP to the die roll, either in addition to or in place of adding dice to the CP Pool, allowing an army to get more than it could on just the standard die roll alone. I had the idea when I rolled two 10's with my 4d10 Leadership roll and felt like I deserved an extra CP for the bonus ![]() OK, enough of this. ![]() Let me conclude by saying, REGARDLESS of all the above, this was one of the most REWARDING evenings of Miniatures I have had in a LONG TIME. I was happier all evening than a pig in poop. I won the first battle, had a good thing going in the second before his dice turned on me and I got rolled, and I loved it. Maybe I loved the feeling that we were still playtesting? I was taking notes all night like mad...but anyway, I had a blast. Looking forward to more discussion with you! |
Author: | bombshell games [ Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:39 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
Quote: Intent of Movement: Movement is in a Straight Line. Does this mean, "proceed forward directly, with no deviation to left or right", or can units move "in a straight line, to any point within their forward arc, as long as they end with the same facing as they started with (prior to the free spin on their axis)"? Rules-as-written, it is in a straight line with no deviation. However, you could use the other method provided that you maintain consistency in the point in which you measure from. As written, it is intended to keep things clean and 'argument free', but the other will work well without compromising game balance. Quote: Wheeling: His first comment was how unwieldy it was to move large columns of units. The Wheel is a maneuver that is in most fantasy/Napoleonics ruleset, and after game 1, we introduced it. Measuring from the outside corner of the Wheel, and pivoting on the inside corner, we still moved at the default rate, but suddenly, movement felt right. Even if this isnt put into the official rules, which we really urge you to consider, this is something we will houserule. Good point- I'm considering it. ![]() Quote: Rally... Try allowing only 1 Disordered token to be removed per activation. This would force a minimum of 2 activations for Overdrive and make a third activation expensive. Quote: Heroes in a Unit: Do you get the Hero's full profile? We were wondering about a Knight with Heavy Army who joins a unit of Swordsmen. Do we need to track hits on the unit and the hero separately? Doesnt seem like it, since if the unit get killed, so does he...but if he takes 2 wounds, the unit itself should perish? We were a tad confused, I admit. If the hero with heavy armor initiated an attack [or was the target of an attack] that caused a second disorder token to be placed, then the hero's armor would allow him to carry the damage. If another attack targeted the swordsman and was successful, then the unit would be eliminated. Make sense? Quote: Cost of Traits and Combat/Movement: I think I mentioned this in my original write up. Again I felt, and my buddy wholeheartedly agreed, that a greater cost needs to be assessed for buying a unit's stats up. The second battle, when he created a new army, he had nothing less than CQd8, and with the Counters we were using in the game, made a big difference, but these units only cost 1 more than my d10's. Some linear scale is needed, where going from a d10 to a d8 is 2 or 3 points, and to a d6 from a d8 is more like 5 points...this might result in a higher-pointed game, but it will reflect the relative value of one unit when compared to another much better. This is a good observation and suggestion. These scores have been weighted in the army lists that are going to be released, and I'm planning on making adjustments to these 'build your own' values in my first update. There are quite a few mathematical factors that come from the existing and unreleased traits/abilities that make working through all the permutations just a little time consuming. Quote: And we know you're coming out with Disadvantages in the next supplement, right? ![]() Yes! There are both unit and 'army' disadvantages that can be used to add flavor to a force and reduce overall costs. Quote: Ranged Attacks... Let me know how your tests go. As far as auto-hits are concerned, the damage roll is opposed on ranged hits which determines just how effective the shooting is. At extremely short ranges, it is highly unlikely that an entire unit's shooting will go wide; the opposing unit will be hit. The real question is: will they be damaged? Quote: Elite: The rules say you must have "2 other units" of the same type...I take this to mean you must have bought 3 of that unit type for 1 to be upgraded. There was a debate on this ![]() You had it right! ![]() Quote: General Comment: I didnt want this to be lost in the mix, as it is being typed into a wall of text, but my friend's summary was simple: "This is not a game of maneuver. Doing so merely puts you out of command and costs a lot of CP's with the short movement distances." This comes from a Warmaster player...but honestly, Warmaster seems to be exactly the main competition to Mayhem. Consider a Cavalry unit in Warmaster that moves 30cm per action (roughly 12"), versus a Default of 5" on a d10 move. How many times did we roll Danger rolls last night with a d10 unit and get a 1 or 2, or less than the Default? LOTS. We were really trying to use the Default as a result...which really slows things down. This is why Warmaster plays on a 6'x4' board, and I had zero issues playing 150 Crowns on a 3'x3' board. I'm going to have to disagree with your friends summary here. ![]() Quote: Breaking up an Advancing block of 3 Units: As we moved our infantry blocks of 3 units forward, both of us at one point want to break a unit away and have it wander off on its own. This required the unit to rotate on its axis prior to walking away...which wasn't technically legal. The rotating made it overlap with its neighboring unit, technically...but we did it anyway because we saw no reason for the end result to not work. What do you think? No harm here at all as long as both players use the same rule. Quote: Action: "Set": I came up with this one on my own, but a 1CP action a unit could take might be "Set", which, if during the next turn an enemy units engages it in melee from the front, whether by actual melee or by Impacts, this unit receives +1 dice as if initiating the melee, and allows weapon counters to work (spears vs cavalry, axes vs infantry, etc). If you know a charge is coming, get those bristly points out and deter the enemy! I like this! The thought was to do something like this as a spear specific ability, but it makes sense for units of all types. Well played sir! Quote: Impacts: This one was a big stumbling block to my opponent, who kept saying things like, "Damn, I didnt leave enough CP for melee. I keep forgetting that Combat isnt a Phase..." The bottom 3 Infantry units have been hit by a cavalry unit to their left flank (who lived against those spears!), but to their front is a unit of Chaos Heavy Infantry, who where CQd8, Axes, Frenzy, Heavy Armor...NASTY units. They sat there for a few turns, because even before I was charged in the flank, neither of us wanted to be the one that spent the 1CP to Advance the group, then 6 more CP to start a fight with each unit (2 per unit). We wanted to be the one receiving the charge, then only spend 1 per unit to fight back. Honestly, this is a design flaw. Imagine this scene in Braveheart... Now someone screams, "HALT! STOP! Don't crash into them, let them hit us first!!!!!" and the whole charge stops? Heh...I'm being silly here, but we feel the solution is simple: Infantry should get Impact vs other Infantry, even if it isnt a Soft Counter. It really is weird charging a unit in and not being able to fight...especially if you're short that extra little bit of CP. Let me start by saying that I agree that Infantry should be able to Impact other infantry if they are in an honest-to-goodness full fledged charge. I'll return to that in a moment... Switching from a game that has set phases for movement, combat, etc. can take a little getting used to especially if you have spent a lot of time with games that uses that structure. It takes a couple of games to shift the mental gears, but in the end I think your friend will find the gameplay of MAYHEM has much more organic flow. One thing you'll never have to contend with in MAYHEM: 'Sir, the enemy is in range of our bows- requesting permission to loose arrows.' - 'Hold your fire! This is the movement phase. No one on the battlefield can do anything but maneuver for now. You may move if you like' - 'I guess... err... we'll just wait...' ![]() Charge! The base cost to attempt a Charge! 1 Cp The additional cost to add a die to the Danger roll is 1 Cp for each die After paying the cost to perform the action, the owning player must make a Danger roll for movement using 2 dice [keeping only one as always] and move the unit the full distance. If this movement causes them to contact the enemy, then an Impact Hit is resolved. Any unit may use the Charge action even if they do not normally have the Impact! ability. A unit may only attempt a Charge! if the target enemy unit is within its movement range. A unit may only use the Charge! action once per turn. What do you think? ![]() Quote: Here is a unit of my Heavy Cavalry (red and white). They have a unit of enemy Cavalry to their front, and have been hit in the right flank by some Chaos Hounds. The unit of Hounds off to the right rolled its Danger roll to come in from the back and made it... Combat (1) + Initiating (1) + Rear Flank (2) + Supporting units (2) + Disorder Tokens on target (2) = 8 dice, with a Hard Counter (Pack Hunter vs Cavalry) = 8d4 vs 1d10. We concluded that maybe, POSSIBLY, this was why not all units get Impact? However, even if non-Cavalry units didnt get the Impact Soft Counter, this Impact would have still been 8d8 vs 1d10. I think a player could have the OPTION of not Impacting, if he was sending in a lesser unit to support an impending charge by a larger, better unit, but this was another major source of head scratching by my Warmaster-vet opponent. I think you made a slight miscalculation on your total dice here. Combat[1] + Initiating[1] + Flank[1] + Additional friendly unit [1] + Disorder Tokens on target [2] = 6 dice. This would make it 6 dice versus a single die. Still quite a few dice, but that's a pretty fair representation of the situation IMO. If a unit has gotten itself in a situation where it is completely disordered [x2], engaged to its front, and then gets slammed in the side by a unit of chaos hounds [that just happen to be a hard counter!], then it should be completely routed. For every situation where you have a couple of units rolling only 1 or 2 die with no soft or hard counters in a protracted engagement, you also have the opportunity to gain increased numbers of die [and better die types] for getting the right counters, combinations, and use of Cp. Quote: Let me conclude by saying, REGARDLESS of all the above, this was one of the most REWARDING evenings of Miniatures I have had in a LONG TIME. I was happier all evening than a pig in poop. I won the first battle, had a good thing going in the second before his dice turned on me and I got rolled, and I loved it. Maybe I loved the feeling that we were still playtesting? I was taking notes all night like mad...but anyway, I had a blast. Looking forward to more discussion with you! Glad to hear that you had fun! ![]() |
Author: | Kealios [ Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:39 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
Quote: Quote: Action: "Set": I came up with this one on my own, but a 1CP action a unit could take might be "Set", which, if during the next turn an enemy units engages it in melee from the front, whether by actual melee or by Impacts, this unit receives +1 dice as if initiating the melee, and allows weapon counters to work (spears vs cavalry, axes vs infantry, etc). If you know a charge is coming, get those bristly points out and deter the enemy! I like this! The thought was to do something like this as a spear specific ability, but it makes sense for units of all types. Well played sir! Glad you liked it! Quote: Now, back to our new rule! Charge! The base cost to attempt a Charge! 1 Cp The additional cost to add a die to the Danger roll is 1 Cp for each die After paying the cost to perform the action, the owning player must make a Danger roll for movement using 2 dice [keeping only one as always] and move the unit the full distance. If this movement causes them to contact the enemy, then an Impact Hit is resolved. Any unit may use the Charge action even if they do not normally have the Impact! ability. A unit may only attempt a Charge! if the target enemy unit is within its movement range. A unit may only use the Charge! action once per turn. OK...so for 1 CP I get 2 dice for a Movement Danger dice, and if I reach melee, I get an Impact hit, which by the rules is a Soft Counter vs Infantry, Cavalry and Beasts. I can increase the CP for additional dice on the Danger roll...I dont see a down side to this...except the Danger roll, but it sounds really good. Quote: I think you made a slight miscalculation on your total dice here. Combat[1] + Initiating[1] + Flank[1] + Additional friendly unit [1] + Disorder Tokens on target [2] = 6 dice. This would make it 6 dice versus a single die. I think I had it right. The charge I was describing that didnt happen would have been to the Rear (2 dice, not 1), and there were two supporting units (the charging Beasts would have been the third in contact with the cavalry). It wasnt the Beasts already on the flank that I was describing... All in all, you've discussed a few ideas that I can definitely try. Charge, Set...some different movement (Wheeling), Ranged (adding distance)...Thanks for the replies! |
Author: | bombshell games [ Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
Quote: OK...so for 1 CP I get 2 dice for a Movement Danger dice, and if I reach melee, I get an Impact hit, which by the rules is a Soft Counter vs Infantry, Cavalry and Beasts. I can increase the CP for additional dice on the Danger roll...I dont see a down side to this...except the Danger roll, but it sounds really good. The downside is the risk of the Danger roll [which you already noted] combined with the fact that you can only attempt it once per turn per unit. Using a Charge! action is a no brainer when a Danger roll would be required for you to reach your opponent and reaching them is a necessity for your plans to workout. However, when you are already within your default movement range, but now have the temptation to get the free charge impact that could be key for putting away a difficult enemy or getting a soft counter you wouldn't normally have access to, this choice becomes very interesting. Not only that, but it could become very costly from both a tactical and Cp standpoint if you come up short. Quote: I think I had it right. The charge I was describing that didnt happen would have been to the Rear (2 dice, not 1), and there were two supporting units (the charging Beasts would have been the third in contact with the cavalry). It wasnt the Beasts already on the flank that I was describing... Ha! Sorry about that! I missed the didn't happen part as I was too busy studying the picture. ![]() ![]() |
Author: | Apocolocyntosis [ Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
Great report Kealios, i've got a question about unit representation. Does the number of stands you have in any of the units make any difference at all or have a crown cost, or is it just the aesthetics of having a beefy 3 stand deep spear unit? Number of stands seems to have no effect in the bat rep, which makes sense with the no partial casualty removal – but then some of the units in your armies seem to start with 3 stands, some 2, etc. |
Author: | Kealios [ Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Battle Report for Mayhem / 10mm Fantasy |
In our first game, a beefy Orc Spear unit charged my Griffon rider in the flank. It was 3d6 vs 1d10, and the Griffon rolled a 1, wiping them out. Aron felt he had been baited ![]() Speaking of my buddy, he just called, and we agreed to try Mayhem again soon, using Wheeling, Charge!, increased Range distance...but the question of points balance came up. You say some balancing will come with Stronghold. Do you know when that is coming out? We might artificially inflate our units' cost to get closer to where we think the CQ die should be, just to see... Apoc: "Units" in Mayhem are 40mm x 40mm stands. Number of models ON the stands is irrelevant...and since Warmaster Units come 3 stands of 20mm x 40mm, we just combine two of them to make one Unit in Mayhem. The big thing is conformity. As long as you both use the same basing mechanic, you should be able to get away with anything. I just ordered a few hundred bases from Shogun Miniatures, including a slough of 20mm x 40mm for upcoming fantasy purchases. That way, I can use them for Warmaster OR Mayhem... One thing you might be seeing, Apoc, is that some units are based front to back, and some side to side. The Humans have Spearmen front to back, so the narrow 20mm bases are at the front, as are the cavalry. The halberdiers/swordsmen are side to side, so the 40mm length is the front, and I can place them in rows...in Warmaster this makes a difference. In Mayhem, it does not. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |