Eilif wrote:-They played that characters with a 6 initiative automatically passed checks relating to Jumping, climbing, etc.
This is incorrect. See page 7, "Characteristic Tests": "Often in the game a model will be required to take a test on one of his own characteristics. In order to pass this test, the model has to roll a D6 and obtain a result equal to or lower than the value of the characteristic involved. Note that if you roll a 6, you automatically fail the test regardless of the model’s characteristic value."
So you still roll the test for an I6 character, and a roll of 6 will fail.
Eilif wrote:-They played that a down character is automatically hit by a ranged attack. I think that only applies to melee.
I believe this is also incorrect. See page 21, "Warriors Knocked Down":
"If an enemy is fighting a warrior who is knocked down, he may attack him to put him out of his misery. All attacks against a warrior who is knocked down hit automatically. If any of the attacks wound the knocked down model and he fails his armour save, he is automatically taken out of action as explained previously. A knocked down model may not parry."
While this states "all attacks," it is explicitly in the Close Combat section, and it says that you must be "fighting" the knocked down warrior--so I think it should be correctly interpreted to mean "allclose combat attacks."
The Shooting section states on page 13 under "Closest Target": "You can shoot at models that are fleeing, knocked down or stunned, but you can choose to ignore them, because they do not represent an immediate threat. It is better to shoot the closest standing enemy model instead."
You'd think if shooting attacks automatically hit knocked down opponents, they would state it here. It also just doesn't make sense in terms of what the rules are trying to represent.
So yeah, I think the automatic hits against knocked down characters only applies to close combat attacks.
Eilif wrote:Lastly, one very good suggestion they gave us was to use the alternate critical hit table in the back of the Mordheim rulebook. It's not complicated, just different based on attack types and very flavorful. What do you all think of that?
I'm very much in favor of this. It makes weapon choices much more fun and impactful.
ccprince wrote:OK, I'm trying to nail down my starting warband. I've picked a list, and spent gold for equipment, but I'm not sure how to handle experience. Some of my heroes start with experience -- does that mean I get to start with the appropriate number of advancement rolls?
For instance, my leader, the Assassin Adept starts with 20 experience. Does that mean I get to roll eight advances for him?
Nope, see page 82, "Experience": "When warriors are recruited, some of them already have some experience. The warband lists detail how many Experience points different warriors begin with. Record these on your warband roster sheet by ticking the right number of boxes. No extra advances are gained for this experience. It simply represents the experience the warriors have accumulated before the warband is formed."
It just means that your heroes have to gain more XP than your henchmen before they get their first advance.
ccprince wrote:Henchmen have to be entered individually for the points calculations to work out correctly, but Mordheim really considers them one unit
I can't speak to the Battlescribe UX, but I want to address a possible misconception here. You get to choose how big to make the henchmen groups. So if you have 3 henchmen, you can either make them one group of 3 models (equipped identically), or 3 "groups" of 1 model each, or a group of 2 and a group of 1. The tradeoff is that if a group of 1 dies, then you lose all XP and remove it from the roster; however, if you have 3 units of 1, you have more opportunities to make advancement rolls, and more diverse development. So it's a strategic consideration. Here's a handy video elaborating further (skip to 6:00 for the bit about Henchmen): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOLv-WOFWUM
Hope that helps!
