Playbalance & Mercenaries

[Hellsgate]

In my opinion a models point cost is not solely based upon its own stats, but also in how they are used within the army. That's why, for a point to point bases, some armies archers are that much weaker, because they have more effective malae troops to use as support. While others, like elves, basic melee troops are that much weaker in a point for point bases so there ranged troops are stronger.

[vejlin]

I'm in agreement with Hellsgate.

[Soulcatcha]

I'm in agreement with Hellsgate.

me too. Whilst i agree(with St. V) that many of the core grunts and archers are statisticaly and functionaly similar the clever bit about Warlord IMHO is the subtle differences, apoint + or - on a stat or a functionaly different SA means each faction has too play the game slightly differently. My opponent plays crusaders and as such has said he would take IC archers even if they were made slightly WORSE because some range is better than none. however he does not load out on them because he knows full well they are not his strength! Likewise i play darkspawn and tend to take a full(ish) squad of archers and spend alot more points than an1 i know on mages(often at the expense of my CC troops)because causing early damage is my factions best gambit. I personally have no problem with mercs getting a good well rounded list but feel that the way they are allowed to be added to other factions(and they SHOUD be able too) has to be thought out VERY carefully to avoid changing the subtle and interestin balance that Warlord has. I also disagree(with St. V) that EVERY faction needs quality range options,or quality grunts for that matter. You can make a good force that is CC only/ or is CC poor and if you dont like a factions tactical set up well then prehaps you should have played a faction whose set up you DID like??

[spiritual_exorcist]

I can't believe this is actually still being considered. Rules for using Mercs already exist. If you want to use them, you give up your Faction abilities and become freelance. THis isn't all that terrible a penalty considering you can fill gaping holes in your army roster. Why go further? I don't want to see bastardised forces every time I hit the field, with Mercs being used in every battle, that is what is going to happen if some penalty isn't imposed.

 

We went away from Archers as grunts for the very reason that they were dominating the game, and now we're going to go back to that by letting every army field 2 units of them (Reven with 3), why? Isn't this going to tip things back in the wrong direction? There are plenty of power gamers out there that won't ever field a pure faction army again, and I find that fairly sad.

 

I can list many units that are barely worth taking, and that no-one is fielding regularly because they simply arn't cost effective (which means they are a liability in this game), put in this Merc rule and that list will increase drastically unless some sort of premium points cost is paid.

 

ALof of you are arguing, why should an extra points cost be paid? Because you are buying models that essentially make you a Freelance army, and give you the ability to plug holes in your factions roster, yet you are retaining your faction abilities for 75% of your forces. Losing your faction ability on the Merc portion of your force just isn't penalty enough, for the huge gains you get in being able to take a 2nd troop of ranged soldiers, or in being able to field an adept Merc unit that compliments your army in a way already filled by one of your own units.

 

What if, for example, Orba gets a two-wound ELITE grunt. I could take a unit of these, pair them with a unit of Justicars in my Crusaders army. Essentially you way as well let me take 2 units of Justicars in such a situation, as allowing me to field the Mercs has essentially let me get around the adept rule. They might be two different sets of adepts, but they have the potential to be very similar.

 

Will I be able to hire different units from different Merc Factions in the same game? For Example, if I was playing Reven in a 1000 point game, could I take a small unit of Bone Marines, a small Unit of Merc X-bowmen, a Unit of Bull Orc Archers, and unit of Skeeters?

[Saint Vierzehn]

In my opinion a models point cost is not solely based upon its own stats, but also in how they are used within the army. That's why, for a point to point bases, some armies archers are that much weaker, because they have more effective malae troops to use as support. While others, like elves, basic melee troops are that much weaker in a point for point bases so there ranged troops are stronger.

 

 

Incorrect.

 

Elf warriors, Darkspawn warriors, Crusader skirmishers, and Nefsokar awakened are all basic foot troops, and mechanically speaking are pretty much the same.

 

In contrast, Elf archers and Darkspawn archers are far superior to both Nefsokar rangers and Crusader archers.

 

It is that discrepancy in archers (a basic and fundamental troop type) that needs to be corrected, and good Merc auxilliaries would be a simple and equitable way to do it.

 

-StV.

 

 

I can't believe this is actually still being considered. Rules for using Mercs already exist. If you want to use them, you give up your Faction abilities and become freelance.

 

 

I should think that if you were really interested in preserving the viability of faction armies that you wouldn't impose penalties that encourage people to play freelance instead.

 

-StV.

[ecs05norway]

Actually, what has displaced (mostly) Khamsin Rangers from my Nef list is not Merc Crossbows (which I agree have that range issue to deal with), but Khamsin Mounted Archers. Better RAV, more maneuverability, less vulnerability... all for the price of Marksman.

[spiritual_exorcist]

I should think that if you were really interested in preserving the viability of faction armies that you wouldn't impose penalties that encourage people to play freelance instead.

 

-StV.

 

And what in your mind do you believe I am interested in preserving instead? Freelance armies can be used an abused to the max if they want to be. Most people choose to play a faction, but if you are looking to win, sacrificing your faction abilities and going Freelance is the way to do it. If people are looking to power game at all costs they will already be playing a Freelance army, disallowing Mercs to be used as part of a Faction force or adding a points cost penalty in such a situation, won't increase the number of Freelance players out there. If you arn't a Freelance player already you are unlikely to become one just because an option currently unavailable isn't implemented, or is implemented with a points penalty.

 

The issue of Freelance forces also needs to be addressed, their ability to take large numbers of Archer units allows them a leg up on the competition. Just because Freelance forces can be used and abused, doesn't mean we should let the same occur in Faction specific forces. Game balance is the very reason Archers were made adepts int he first place, and that many standard grunts were changed to adept from Core book to Faction books and in the 1.2Datacard update. Allowing Mercs without some sort of surcharge is counterproductive to that change. I'm not wholey agains the idea of Mercs being incorporated, but I would suggest a 20% bump in points cost wouldn't be out of line considering the holes they can fill. Or I would suggest limiting the Merc units that could be incorporated to non-adept models, or to a small pre-determined set of models, not to every Merc model available.

[Hellsgate]

I stick by what i said earlier on, that I wouldn't support this rule without a surcharge inplace. But here's something i don't think anyone's mentioned yet: What about a variable charge i.e. for every 5% or fraction there of the merc units cost 5% more, so if you wish to feild only that one 60pt sole in a 1000pt army it would cost you 66pt's but if you want to feild a 200pt's worth of archers it would cost you 250pt's. So the further away from the norm of your army you get the more it'll cost you.

[cristomeyers]

In contrast, Elf archers and Darkspawn archers are far superior to both Nefsokar rangers and Crusader archers.

 

Elven archers are almost always superior to human archers in any fantasy setting.

 

What about the difference between their respective melee troops? Templar Knights and Overlord Warriors may have become adept, but they can still become grunts in their respective sublists.

 

It is that discrepancy in archers (a basic and fundamental troop type) that needs to be corrected

 

There can only be a discrepancy if archers for some factions didn't exist. We all have our archers, unfortunately for us, the elves and goblins just have better ones. Similarly, we all have melee troops, unfortunately for the elves, ours are much better.

 

Elf warriors, Darkspawn warriors, Crusader skirmishers, and Nefsokar awakened are all basic foot troops, and mechanically speaking are pretty much the same.

 

Mechanically speaking, yes, they're pretty much the same. Tactically speaking, they're not. Vale Guard are essentially roadbumps. Darkspawn Warriors are quickly become some of the best grunt melee soldiers with most faction's grunts becoming adepts. Nefsokar Awakened and Crusader Skirmishers are support troops for the vastly stronger Templar Knights and Tomb Guard, which is something the Elves don't have.

 

Actually, what has displaced (mostly) Khamsin Rangers from my Nef list is not Merc Crossbows (which I agree have that range issue to deal with), but Khamsin Mounted Archers. Better RAV, more maneuverability, less vulnerability... all for the price of Marksman.

 

Yeah, the reason I left them out was because I was limiting my opponent's ability to Mercy as much as possible (and they are virtually useless against heavy armor).

 

Rules for using Mercs already exist. If you want to use them, you give up your Faction abilities and become freelance.

 

I really couldn't agree more. I don't see any problem with the Merc rules as they are written in the campaign section of the rulebook since that most accurately captures hiring and funding Mercenaries with plenty of reasons to keep it from being a no-brainer, but including them in regular play is just opening a door to min/maxing.

[Soulcatcha]

Rules for using Mercs already exist. If you want to use them, you give up your Faction abilities and become freelance.

 

I really couldn't agree more. I don't see any problem with the Merc rules as they are written in the campaign section of the rulebook since that most accurately captures hiring and funding Mercenaries with plenty of reasons to keep it from being a no-brainer, but including them in regular play is just opening a door to min/maxing.

I also would like to voice my agreement with the above and also with above posts by SE and Hellsgate, would hate to see warlord just become another powergamers min/max exercise, how boring!!

[smokingwreckage]

I have decided to Agree with StV. Every army should be tactically identical. If not, then every troop within every army should be identical to every other troop with the same role. Not only does this get around all issues of balance, it also eliminates arguments over Mercenaries, Freelancers, and indeed the issue of which faction a person is playing at any given point.

 

Anything else is unfair, except if you use arguments regarding history, or fluff, all of which are invalid. Also, almost all arguments regarding gameplay are invalid, excepting those that fit within a "level playing field" paradigm in that they advocate the elimination of the following:

 

Let's get rid of any unnecessary variety, flavour, or tactical challenge, thus making the game far more enjoyable.

[Qwyksilver]

I guess you didn't hear. The new Mercenary Faction SA is called Improved Carbon Copy. It allows you to perfectly duplicate all the benefits of an opponent's army, with none of the penalties.

[rcrosby]

There can only be a discrepancy if archers for some factions didn't exist. We all have our archers, unfortunately for us, the elves and goblins just have better ones.

Army of Justice...

 

Rich

[Soulcatcha]

I have decided to Agree with StV. Every army should be tactically identical. If not, then every troop within every army should be identical to every other troop with the same role. Not only does this get around all issues of balance, it also eliminates arguments over Mercenaries, Freelancers, and indeed the issue of which faction a person is playing at any given point.

 

Anything else is unfair, except if you use arguments regarding history, or fluff, all of which are invalid. Also, almost all arguments regarding gameplay are invalid, excepting those that fit within a "level playing field" paradigm in that they advocate the elimination of the following:

 

Let's get rid of any unnecessary variety, flavour, or tactical challenge, thus making the game far more enjoyable.

WOW, cant believe you think that, you are entitled to your opinion of course but what you suggest sounds very boring indeed, might as well play a historical game, fantasy by definition is supposed to be quirky, the trick (and i admit it aint easy) is keeping it balanced!

[Photodork57]

Lets Just hope that Smokingwreckage is being as sarcastic as he seem to be and that isn't his opinion.