My Observations; Mordheim City of the Damned

I've decided to start inflicting my opinions on a blog here. I will mostly cover stuff I don't see already here. I will mostly just discuss games, I don't have any specific objective in mind.

My Observations; of Mordheim City of the Damned

Games Workshop are probably still a bigger industry in the UK than the entire board game industry, bigger than roleplaying too, possibly bigger than both combined. I don't have sales figures, but the have more highstreet store frontage than either of the other two hobbies.

I have a shaky history with GW games, I spent much of my wages and time in my early teens playing Warhammer and 40K, but eventually gave it up due to cost and nerd shame. Despite deciding that both GWs flagship games are really rules learning contests / miniature sales systems rather than games I was convinced to buy in to a smaller skirmish game known as Mordheim City of the Damned. Mordheim is a skirmish game set in the warhammer universe. Its a game of warbands, groups of thugs numbering 3-20 roaming around a evil ruined city, fighting over the valuable and mysterious weird stone. The concept from GW's point of view, and in fact the guys in my gaming group that wanted to run the campaign, is that its a gateway for people in to the more expensive warhammer battle game, as it only requires a handful of models rather than a few hundred.

I went on ebay and spent £30 on models/paints to construct a beastman warband. For the unfamiliar, beastmen are like a bad boi version of Mr Tumnus from the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Most of them have goats horns, and one of my models was a Minotaur. In play they all functioned on the basis of sneak as quickly up to your foes as possible, and then hit them. They have no missile or ranged units par say. All GW games, are based on the bucket o' dice combat resolution system. You throw a tonne of dice, and if you throw well, you might kill something. Since there is a fair slice luck involved (even more in a smaller game with less die throws, due to odds taking longer to work out), so I decided to set up my warband to throw as many dice as possible, to try and level of the odds. This is about as far as the warband design strategy goes for me. The campaign was based around a map of the city, each week, we'd move, perhaps fight another player, gain territory, and roll to see what cash and experience we gained from it and then spend the cash and xp upgrading models.

look the different faces of the clock tower give different times, this truly is a city of madness!

This might all sound fun, and on occasions it was, I enjoyed the three or four way brawl battles quite a lot, but for the most playing this game highlighted its problems, and possibly some problems and observations about miniature gaming in general.

The rules don't really hold up for a competitive game;

In the rules as written, a model can only charge (the only main way to enter melee combat) at the start of the players turn if its target model can be reached in an unobstructed line. A model can target a model in ranged combat if it can see part of that model (line of sight).

Seems simple right? No, these rules suck balls. It is very easy, for a player than doesn't want his models to be charged, to keep them slightly behind a wall or up a ladder or in some way obstructed (the rules do state that terrain less than 1 inch high can be overcome). Even If the charging route would be obvious from a logical or roleplaying view, it is not legal. Secondly it is really easy to shoot a model holding a spear. Because a spear, pokes out above the scenery, and it is, technically part of the model. This is a more extreme case, but they show problems with the game. Almost every game I played (about a dozen or so) had a rules argument at some point. One game consisted of about an hour of rules debate.

The terrain, houses, walkways, ruined buildings don't really add tactical depth to the game, just eye candy;

I was a close combat warband, when ever I fought a ranged shooty warband, the same scenario occurred. They'd all hide on the topfloor of the hardest reach building, and complain about the hiding rules and a snuck towards them. Alternatively I wouldn't able to sneek at them, due to lack of cover so i'd just sit and wait, because why would I go out to get shot at? Theres no time limit on the standard scenario, so an infinite face off is a possiblity. This happened in one game, I eventually realised it we were both being very lame, and just charged in and ended up winning, more by luck than skill. The raised walkways and buildings rarely provided an interesting puzzle. Admittedly this is not their fault, but more a result of the rules and scenario design. Above ground walkways look cool, but using them is too dangerous, you are an easy target for shooting, and if you get hit, your model might fall off and die, so they aren't used. Choke points only matter in scenarios with a specific location objective, and then the faster warband will most often win. Most battles ultimately came down to a fight around one house, the rest of the terrain, just acted as eye candy, with some cover value.

The levels of randomness and the punishments for failure are high;

Mordheim is a dice driven game. You roll for all fighting, magic, etc. And each roll can decide the fate of a model. A model that you spent time painting, glueing, kitting out for the battle and upgrading through the campaign. A model you are emotionally invested in. Roll badly for his saving throw in combat, and he might be dead. After a battle, roll less than 15 on a D66 and he will be permanently dead (mathmatically this isn't that high, but you will roll several times after most battles, so the death rate ends up quite high). Gone, out of the campaign, and all that emotional investment with it. In many respects this is thematic, running a band of scavengers in a cursed ruined city should have a Dungeonquest survival rate, and in this game it does. I'm not against randomness in general, I like many boardgames with it, but I don't think it works well with a game that requires your emotional investment into the characters and story to really engage. There's a reason why characters in games like Mage knight and Descent are immortal (although the fear of death would probably make both games more engaging on a story level). I found with several players in the game, and possibly myself, that fear for the death of your models encouraged cowardly and slightly dull play. It was very rare that big risks were taken or gambits were made.

got one, but they other guy with his javelins is safe from peril.

I could talk about some imbalances in the warband designs, or the persisting problems with knowing rules for specific niche models in your opponents warband, but I think my griping is already done.

So where am I at with this game? I think it actually works much better with a roleplaying rather than competitive mindset. The rules as I have suggested aren't up to competitive play. Unfortunately most GW gamers seem to be competitive types. From a roleplaying angle the rules issues can more easily be dealt with, but cowardly tactics might remain. Is a player going to risk his favourite hero model in a risk attack that may result in his death? I guess it depends on the calibre of the player.

This post may seem that I'm all doom and gloom about this game, but I did enjoy some games of it, the multiplayer brawls were great fun, but they were more chaotic and there was less room for cowardly manoeuvres. The game did also generate some great stories.

I'd be interested to see someone who's more interested in miniature gaming than me, and not an GW fan boy defend the game, or the companies designs in general. I have played Necromunda, which is a slightly better game, but still plagued by similar issues. Part of me would like to try some of Spartan Games games, or Maulifax, or some historical games, but in a country where GW loyalty is so dominant its difficult to find opponents.