I feel that while system is important the scenario is more important, which got me thinking in a way I haven't before about the scenarios I enjoy and why. A big influence on what I feel makes a good Oldhammer scenario are the ones I had access to when new to the hobby, shaded by more recent gaming experience. Key factors seem to be size and mood.
In terms of size less than 100 models a side seem right to me. I don't want a true skirmish game of around a handful of models per side, I want the scenery to be something you can make use of rather than manoever around, and (surprising to me) I don't really want the massed ranks of troops. This isn't so much about avoiding all the painting so much as a magpie nature, I'd like to be able to do lots of different forces and setups rathern than build a monolith.
Mood is less easy to define but part of it comes back to the size question. I'm much more interested in a game about a boatload of vikings up to trouble or a raid on a caravan rather than formal battles, which especially in Warhammer seem to quickly tend to the self-important. I can't imagine an old school scenario which involves having to stat up the Emperor Karl Franz, nevermind putting him on a griffon...
Slann raid on Skeggi - a brawl not a battle! |
- The Legend of Kremlo the Slann (1st ed, 1983)
- Young Slann braves attack a Norse village as part of a coming of age ritual. The Norse try to destroy the Slann village in revenge
- Players: GM ("essential") and 2-6 players
- Skeggi - Troops A: 15 warriors, approx. 30 civilians (5d6 villagers, 12 fishwives) = approx. 45
- Skeggi - Troops B: 4d6 braves = approx. 14
- Zapotec - Troops A: 27
- Zapotec - Troops B: approx. 42 to approx. 64*
- The Magnificent Sven (2nd ed, 1984)
- 7 washed-up heroes / personalities are recruited to save a village from Slann raiders
- Players: GM and 2 or more players (up to 14 all with victory schedules!)
- Troops A: 7 heroes, 40 villagers = 47
- Troops B: 77 Slann
- The Dolgan Raiders (2nd ed, 1985)
- A tribe of nomadic humans attack a hobgoblin caravan passing through their lands
- Players: 2-4 players (GM not mentioned)
- Troops A: 45 humans, a centaur, 5 war dogs = 50
- Troops B: 6 lobotomised slave ogres (chained to caravans), 52 hobgoblins and goblins, 20 "civilian" goblins, 10 wolf riders = 88
- The Vengeance of the Lichemaster (2nd ed, 1986)
- A skaven raiding party and the Lichemaster both want the McGuffin hidden at the monastary. The Master of the monastary is an insane Frankinstein-esque wizard
- Players: GM and 3 players
- Troops A: Master, 12 warrior monks, 5 wizard monks = 18
- Troops B: 44 skaven, 4 firethrower crew = 48
- Troops C: Lichemaster, 52 undead (plus any summoned) = 53
- Blood on the Snow (2nd ed, 1987)
- A force of goblinoids have captured a dwarf outpost and occupied a nearby shrine to Sigmar. A force of dwarfs and humans aim to drive them out
- Players: GM and 2+ players
- Troops A: 54 dwarfs, 54 humans = 108
- Troops B: 65 orcs, 86 goblins and 3-man stonethrower = 151
- Forenrond's Last Stand (3rd ed, 1987)
- Famous but inept elven commander gets his troops drawn into an ambush and himself killed. His second in command tries to extracate the survivors
- Players: GM and 2+ players
- Troops A: 20 elven infantry, 32 cavalry = 52
- Troops B: 50 orcs, 73 goblins, 20 wolf riders = 143
- The Valley of Death (3rd ed, 1988)†
- A goblinoid raiding party looking for a fight is confronted by the armies of two dwarf holds, protecting their homeland
- Players: GM and 2-4 players
- Troops A: 128 dwarfs, 5-man stonethrower, organ gun
- Troops B: 64 orcs, 2 trolls, 142 goblins, 2 chariots and 5 bases of snotlings = 215
* It's very hard to count the Slann troops in the Zapotec scenario - the player gets to pick 3 units out of 5, and 3 of those units are a random size, as are the number of defending villagers at points throughout the gauntlet
† When first seeing The Valley of Death my thought was "that's a lot of figures", I've never played it and have no real desire to
Graphing those troop numbers the picture is rather clearer -
Troops for the listed scenarios, significant growth over 5 years but essentially the same ruleset |
- In the first three there are significant numbers of "civilians" who are pressed into combat, the last three are much more traditional Warhammer forces
- The Magnificent Sven has the most "heroic" setup, but the characters' backstories are jaundiced rather than pompous
- Vengeance of the Lichemaster has three conflicting sides, for the first three scenarios and Blood on the Snow there's conflict (or at least competition) within one of the sides
- Large skirmish - figures move as units, but individually (like SAGA or Age of Sigmar)
- Capacity for fine distinctions between troops, especially characters
- Variety between characters: not all leaders are strong fighters and vice versa; a skilled swordsman may be physically weak
- Guidelines for unbalanced sides and complex victory conditions (e.g. an outnumbered force needs to hold out for a certain period, or escape an ambush - how much smaller should they be?)
- Psychology reflecting the fantasy setting and stereotypes (especially fear, animosity and hatred) and other limits on the player's control of their troops
Interesting. We agree about the movement of units. Scenarios are so important. Those are the types of games we should be playing. I want to be able to develop armies as part of a continuing campaign, similar to what you can do with a gang in Necromunda. In fact combining that with a painting support group like the Oldhammer Painting challenge would make a rather compelling exercise. Hmmm. Now you've got me thinking.....
ReplyDeleteDefinitely - more scenarios please! The support group idea is an interesting one, for me this sparks thoughts about some sort of distributed / round-robin GMing / scenario design...
DeleteDisclaimer first - the category of "games I'll happily play" is much broader than "my ideal game", but my suspension of disbelief often struggles against some of the campaign setups I've seen discussed. I feel a topic for another post coming on but briefly Terror of the Lichemaster (focussed around a single force) works for me whereas a setup where several different forces meet again and again (and hence all get a chance to develop their narrative) jars somewhat to my mind.
Interesting stuff, Having been on the opposite side of the table from you a number of times, I appreciate the scenario being all, particular when playing third Ed. I particular enjoyed Meeting by the stones, where I don't think anybody lost, but did anybody actually win? No, OK Weazil walked off with a box, I ended the game pretty much intact (much to my surprise) and the Beastmen saw the wizard killed - not by them admittedly, but was that important.
ReplyDeleteInteresting - I regard that scenario as a bit of a mess (or at least a learning experience from a design point of view) - but if the players enjoyed it then by definition not a failure... :)
DeleteThis brings up a key point of scenario play, the players knowing that they don't know what to expect, which is how a general should feel! That's such a big part of what's killed in the all-to-common line-them-up-and-fight setup, where the opponents know how many points the force they're facing consists of, and which list they were picked from.