Return to Mordheim, Part 2: Modernising the Rules

Mordheim is a wonderful game. It is perhaps more popular today than it was a quarter of a century ago when it was initally released and supported. The world and the rules create a grim and gritty play experience, where actions have real consequences and support a narrative style of play.

For myself, and probably many in the community, it also has a powerful nostalgic pull. It not only takes me back to a time where I was young and free enough to spend all my pocket money and weekends at Games Workshop creating, painting, and playing. But also for a time in Games Workshop's past where they hadn't perfected the profit-making machine that GW has become; where a 13-year-old could legitimately engage with the hobby with just their pocket money and a train ticket.¹

But say what you will about Games Workshop, they do write good games. Their contemporary games like Age of Sigmar, Necromunda, Kill Team and Warcry have smart and fun rules. Going back and exploring the Mordheim rules today, they do feel dated. Many of the new common rules that create exciting gameplay, such as alternate activation, are just not there. It very much feels like a game from the late 90s.

And due to the swinginess of the game, where a roll of a 6 to wound (a whopping 16.7% chance) pretty much guarantees a kill, it lends itself towards a certain type of optimisation. Namely, wielding two weapons for an extra attack.

Combine this with armour being prohibitively expensive, a lack of variation between two-handed weapons which makes them less appealing, and underperforming ranged weapons, and you have a game that encourages players who want to do well to give their characters two close combat weapons and rarely waste money on armour. This fitout optimisation is a distraction from the tone and beautiful narrative elements of the game.

There will always be those who say that there is no need to modify this stuff, that if you have a good group, you wont see 20 sling wielding Skaven with dual clubs. But why entice players who are playing for wins with that kind of setup, when we can very easily design it out and create more interesting alternatives? 

To create a game where all weapon and armour fit outs are balanced and fun to play with, I've sought the following approach:

• Make armour more desirable, affordable, and protective, thus;

• Increasing the need for armour-penetrating weapons (two-handed, axes, and blackpowder),

• Make two-handed weapons more interesting and differentiated, 

• Reduce the desire for dual-wielding by introducing penalties and lowering the chance of scoring critical hits, and

• Improve the performance and differentiation of ranged weapons.

In subsequent posts I will go through each of the arms and armour and give reasons why these changes have been made.

*    *    *

1. I will return to my thoughts on the damage Games Workshop's model has done on the hobby in general, and the inescapability of this tendency in capitalism.