Playbalance & Mercenaries

[Curadhan]

I like the idea of adding a troop or two of mercs to a faction army, and I am not opposed philosophically to using mercs to cover deficiencies in your factions troops (why else would you hire outsiders?). I do think there should be some sort of penalty for doing so, but I'm not keen on a point surcharge. It's dry and it adds more math to an already tricky army list building process.

 

I seems to me, based on fluff from the mercenary section of the rulebook, that mercenaries would have a hard time fitting in with the faction forces. Conflicts would crop up, and these conflicts could end badly for the odd merc or two. The Crusaders have fairly strict codes of behavior, the Nefsokar look dimly on tomb robbers, the Reven's idea of recreation can be a little rough, and pity the poor human swordsman who tries to keep up with a dwarf in a drinking contest. This line of thinking leads me to suggest the following rule for mercenary troops in faction armies...

 

Unreliable

For a variety of reasons, mercenary soldiers don't always make it to the battlefield. After army lists have been set, but before deployment, a faction army must roll a d10 for each soldier (grunt and adept) model. On a 1-2, the model has failed to show up for the battle. Leaders, elites and solos do not make this roll. The remaining troop may still be fielded even if the elite/troop size is no longer 1 for 4.

 

I chose a 2 out of ten range because it matches up with the 20-25% surcharge others have suggested. This range could also be shrunk or expanded by faction, if it is felt certain factions gained less or more by using mercenaries. I'm not certain the missing models should count as killed for the opposition or simply taken out of the equation entirely.

 

This may add more randomness than some would like to an already random game, and would discourage taking higher point soldier models (like the ragers) more than perhaps it should. I just though I would throw it out there, as I think it would be more fun than a point surcharge (at least until the day all my crossbowmen play hooky). Debate, disparage or disregard as you will.

[Brushmaster]

Or maybe you could have to make a discipline check for each Merc troop and failure means they are delayed deployment like in the Nekfosar book , like 1 or 2 turns . Fluff wise , they just not to eager to turn up and their leader has to rustle them up .

[Saint Vierzehn]

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 you don't want people going Freelance, improving the viability of faction armies is a logical step. On the one hand, you complain that the playing field between faction and Freelance isn't level, but on the other, you complain both against levelling the field and against those who choose not to intentionally handicap themselves. On the one hand, you're against alloying other factions with Mercs for the ostensible reason of preserving faction purity, and with the other, you push anyone who doesn't agree to play the ultimate mongrel Freelancers. You admit that the inequities exist and are obvious, but you don't want them fixed, and you don't want someone else to take advantage of them because you certainly don't.

 

"All or nothing"? Fine, but "all" isn't an option, and it's really up to you to make your own satisfaction with the outcome. Maybe you'll get your way. But in any case, I already play Freelance. See you at the game table.

 

-StV.

[Soulcatcha]

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 you don't want people going Freelance, improving the viability of faction armies is a logical step. On the one hand, you complain that the playing field between faction and Freelance isn't level, but on the other, you complain both against levelling the field and against those who choose not to intentionally handicap themselves. On the one hand, you're against alloying other factions with Mercs for the ostensible reason of preserving faction purity, and with the other, you push anyone who doesn't agree to play the ultimate mongrel Freelancers. You admit that the inequities exist and are obvious, but you don't want them fixed, and you don't want someone else to take advantage of them because you certainly don't.

 

"All or nothing"? Fine, but "all" isn't an option, and it's really up to you to make your own satisfaction with the outcome. Maybe you'll get your way. But in any case, I already play Freelance. See you at the game table.

 

-StV.

im sorry as said your entitled to your opinion but it seems to me your just trying to push your point of view beyond all logic or reason. u already play freelance as u said(and by what u say ) it seems all u want to do is give mercs all the stuff u cannot get(atrue min/max power gamer if ever i saw 1),my suggestion is play the faction that suits u and oterwise stop trying to mess with a game that obviously works more subtely than u want it too

[cristomeyers]

The field between Freelance and Faction isn't level because Freelance allows a roster of all archers, something that Reaper specifically took steps to not allow. That's the only problem with Freelance. Allowing Faction forces to take Mercenaries isn't going to level the playing field against players that choose to exploit this loophole. No matter which way you analyze it, allowing this rule in non-campaign play is just going to be another way for power gamers to min/max their forces. Fluffwise, it may make perfect sense, but that's not a good enough reason to enact a rule like this.

 

It's a trade-off: lose Faction abilities and gain ultimate flexibility in troop types or "intentionally handicap" yourself and gain tactical options that Freelance forces do not have. I'm willing to go out on a limb and guess that most of the players here would say that that's a fair trade for every faction except the Reptus.

[mooseyjoe]

I always play faction pure reptus and I do fine. I've won 7 out of my last 8 games. As uncool as our FA is, I think we can get by, at least until the faction book.

 

BUt that is off topic. I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument discussion.

[smokingwreckage]

Yes.... yes, smokingwreckage WAS being sarcastic.

 

Just so you know, in real life, I very, very rarely say what I mean. Here on the net, without my haughty sneer and tilted nose to give subtle cues to my opposition (and more importantly, audience) I am usually quite literal, but I got irritated and reverted to type.

[vejlin]

I'd say archers are not the only way freelancers can circumvent reapers attempts to balance the game. Also many factions warriors have been adeptified. This means little in a freelance army where you can simply field the adept warriors from different armies if you want many units of these.

 

Haven't played against frelance though so I don't know if this is an actual problem, but I do think it's obvious that freelance in many cases can circumvent the blancing enforced through adept status. Be that archers or warrior adepts.

[Qwyksilver]

[MOD] You can argue a point, but attacking the poster is not acceptable. Please keep this a civil discussion or the discussion will be ended. There are some valid points being made and I would truly hate to have to lock this thread down. It's clear people feel strongly about their opinion. Please remember that although you may disagree, they have the right to their differing opinion.[/MOD]

[Soulcatcha]

[MOD] You can argue a point, but attacking the poster is not acceptable. Please keep this a civil discussion or the discussion will be ended. There are some valid points being made and I would truly hate to have to lock this thread down. It's clear people feel strongly about their opinion. Please remember that although you may disagree, they have the right to their differing opinion.[/MOD]

Apologies to Qwyk and to any1 i offended, my bad Oh and Smoking wreckage thank god you were being sarcastic!!!! nice way to make a point, have to remember that!Back to topic i like the discipline check idea but how about if you fail it you either lose an amount(instead of all)of your mercs or they take some time to arrive. this could be based on how much you miss the roll by?

[spiritual_exorcist]

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 you don't want people going Freelance, improving the viability of faction armies is a logical step. On the one hand, you complain that the playing field between faction and Freelance isn't level, but on the other, you complain both against levelling the field and against those who choose not to intentionally handicap themselves. On the one hand, you're against alloying other factions with Mercs for the ostensible reason of preserving faction purity, and with the other, you push anyone who doesn't agree to play the ultimate mongrel Freelancers. You admit that the inequities exist and are obvious, but you don't want them fixed, and you don't want someone else to take advantage of them because you certainly don't.

 

"All or nothing"? Fine, but "all" isn't an option, and it's really up to you to make your own satisfaction with the outcome. Maybe you'll get your way. But in any case, I already play Freelance. See you at the game table.

 

-StV.

 

Freelance is 'broken' mainly for a single reason, Archer Heavy forces. Reaper has gone out of their way to eliminate such forces fromt he game, yet has left Freelance with that ability to take as many as they want. Faction abilities in general are pretty good, but they arn't good enough to offset a ranged attack freelance force in most cases. One doesn't need to allow Mercs to make Freelance forces less broken, one simply needs to put a limit on Freelance forces themselves. Leveling the field by allowing Mercs to fill holes isn't the way to go; at least not with some sort of penalty or surcharge. Reaper has decided that numerous Ranged attack units are detrimental to their game, yet Freelance forces still retain this ability. Allowing Faction forces to take Mercs, and therefore head directly back in the direction of 'detrimental' to game play will only cause the game the same problems that it had in it's initial release (utter dominance by ranged attack units).

 

I have no problems with Freelance forces beyond the ability to take large numbers of archers. They might be able to take large numbers of adept soldiers, but the playing field is generally leveled by a lack of Faction abilities. Tomb Guards+Overlord Warriors+Bull Orc Fighters+Crimson Knights all in the same force should be enough of a faction ability for anyone to be happy.

 

I agree that a surcharge in points cost is somewhat bland, but the net result would probably be the most effective way of dealing with Mercs in terms of game balance. If you want to fill a hole in your army, you have to pay a little more. 20% only means pushing a 20 point model up to 24, that means instead of being able to take 6 of a given model, you'd only be able to take 5. In those terms it doesn't seem like a totaly debilatating penalty to me. While at the same time it lets you retain your faction abilities on the remainder of your forces, and allows you to take a unit that you'd otherwise not be able to field.

[Saint Vierzehn]

Freelance is 'broken' mainly for a single reason, Archer Heavy forces.

 

I'm glad you think so.

 

My current Freelance roster contains 8 shooting models of two different adept types. Of those 8, only three have the marksman SA. I'm chucking a grand total of 11 shots per turn, far less than many pure faction armies.

 

I compete just fine with the "all shooty" Freelance armies, the Elven archer corps armies, and the big range Darkspawn armies.

 

When somebody calls me a powergamer, I take it as a compliment. It's true. I am a powergamer. And I appreciate the irony when my intelligence is insulted with incoherent, run-on sentences.

 

Like it or not, Merc forces integrated into other faction armies are a part of the cannon fluff.

 

Like it or not, viable shooter options in every army makes for better game play. I've played a no-shooter, no-magic army against another heavy-melee opponent who didn't have much more ranged combat than I had. I won (barely), but the game wasn't much fun. We spent quite a lot of time jockeying for a good engagement.

 

Like it or not, decent Merc archers integrated into other factions are an effective way to level the playing field and fit the fluff. If you don't like Mercs, fine. That sentiment is irrational, and I'm tired of fighting against it. But for the good of the game, each faction needs to have an option for viable shooters if they don't have one already. Merc archers are an obvious and equitable solution. But if that solution is not going to be adopted, then an equivalent one needs to be developed within each faction. Otherwise, you'll keep seeing heavy-shooting armies dominating the game table... at least, until my Freelancers show up.

 

-StV.

[cristomeyers]

Like it or not, viable shooter options in every army makes for better game play.

 

I'm glad you think so.

 

Others would say that diverse and interesting army lists and worthwhile, friendly opponents makes for the best gameplay as opposed to armies that have been made into carbon copies of each other in order to add "viable shooter options."

 

My current Freelance roster contains 8 shooting models of two different adept types.

 

Out of how many points? 1000? 2000? 750? Two separate troops of archers in a low point game is going to make a much larger difference than in a high point game.

 

I compete just fine with the "all shooty" Freelance armies, the Elven archer corps armies, and the big range Darkspawn armies.

 

And judging from the other various threads concerning playing against all-ranged Freelancers, you're either the exception or just that good.

 

I've played a no-shooter, no-magic army against another heavy-melee opponent who didn't have much more ranged combat than I had. I won (barely), but the game wasn't much fun. We spent quite a lot of time jockeying for a good engagement.

 

As have I, with the only exception of no-magic, and most likely everyone else involved in this thread has as well. While I won't speak for them this time, I had a blast.

 

Like it or not, Merc forces integrated into other faction armies are a part of the cannon fluff.

 

Which is probably why Freelance was even an option in the first place. Just because it's part of the canon fluff doesn't mean it should be a rule. I'm sure most of us could point to many instances of the canon fluff in other games (particularly 40K) not fitting in with the rules. Just because it "fits the fluff" isn't good enough to make it a rule.

 

If you don't like Mercs, fine. That sentiment is irrational, and I'm tired of fighting against it.

 

You're the only one that keeps bringing it up. I know that I'm personally excited with the new Merc subfactions and my fiancee' is already planning a Sisters army. None of us here has a problem with the Mercenaries, we have a problem with allowing them into the game as "supplements" to faction forces when there are no balances to keep bringing Mercs in from becoming a no-brainer choice.

 

But for the good of the game, each faction needs to have an option for viable shooters if they don't have one already

 

And as pointed out before, the only (sub)faction that doesn't have "viable" shooters is the Army of Justice.

 

Otherwise, you'll keep seeing heavy-shooting armies dominating the game table...

 

That's just it, the only heavy-shooting armies that are dominating the game table are all-ranged Freelancers. Even the Elves and Skeeter-centered Reven get trounced often enough. Allowing some Mercs into Faction forces isn't going to fix the Freelance Archer Loophole, it'll only be a patch at best. Revising the Freelancer rules would be a much better fix.

 

I always play faction pure reptus and I do fine. I've won 7 out of my last 8 games. As uncool as our FA is, I think we can get by, at least until the faction book.

 

Never said they didn't, but the general concensus on my end is that the handicap of being a pure Faction force isn't really worth a Faction SA that really only affects campaign play. Though Aura of Jade Thorns does have its uses. I too hope that the Reptus get Faction abilities from their book that are as cool as their models.

 

Haven't played against frelance though so I don't know if this is an actual problem, but I do think it's obvious that freelance in many cases can circumvent the blancing enforced through adept status. Be that archers or warrior adepts.

 

My first opponent was pre-adeptification Crusaders and his army of tin cans really wasn't that much of a problem. I'm of the opinion that making many of each faction's warriors into adepts was more to cut down on game length in order to make the game fit into tournament play better. Even at 1000 points a game between two tin can armies can last quite a while.

[Soulcatcha]

Freelance is 'broken' mainly for a single reason, Archer Heavy forces.

 

I'm glad you think so.

 

My current Freelance roster contains 8 shooting models of two different adept types. Of those 8, only three have the marksman SA. I'm chucking a grand total of 11 shots per turn, far less than many pure faction armies.

 

I compete just fine with the "all shooty" Freelance armies, the Elven archer corps armies, and the big range Darkspawn armies.

 

When somebody calls me a powergamer, I take it as a compliment. It's true. I am a powergamer. And I appreciate the irony when my intelligence is insulted with incoherent, run-on sentences.

 

Like it or not, Merc forces integrated into other faction armies are a part of the cannon fluff.

 

Like it or not, viable shooter options in every army makes for better game play. I've played a no-shooter, no-magic army against another heavy-melee opponent who didn't have much more ranged combat than I had. I won (barely), but the game wasn't much fun. We spent quite a lot of time jockeying for a good engagement.

 

Like it or not, decent Merc archers integrated into other factions are an effective way to level the playing field and fit the fluff. If you don't like Mercs, fine. That sentiment is irrational, and I'm tired of fighting against it. But for the good of the game, each faction needs to have an option for viable shooters if they don't have one already. Merc archers are an obvious and equitable solution. But if that solution is not going to be adopted, then an equivalent one needs to be developed within each faction. Otherwise, you'll keep seeing heavy-shooting armies dominating the game table... at least, until my Freelancers show up.

 

-StV.

Touche. firstly i am sorry for insulting your intelligence incoherently. I will keep my sentences short from now on .The fact you like being called a powergamer to me explains why you seem so set in what you want. I still dont agree with any of your arguments. No one else seems to.No amount of saying "like it or not" makes you right. However you must be a fantastic tactician to find all-range armies "not a problem" so for that and the lively debate i take my hat off to you

[smokingwreckage]

EDIT: I've made a later post that is better, clearer, and less snooty. Move on ahead and read it. I'm leaving this post up (including a couple of spelling miss steaks) as a matter of ettiquette- it's an honesty thing- I don't like it when people go back and sanitise each and every post, it smacks of making one's self look good. Besides, the last paragraph is pretty good. End edit, commence original post:

 

I aplogise for pushing the boundaries of civility throiugh the use of irony.

 

In my defence, I felt it was the simplest way to counter the arguments currently fielded, without attempting a point-by-point refutation of a bundle of arguments which seemed, to my reading, to include the sentiment that miniatures were irrelevant in miniatures games.

 

I understand that to some people miniatures, background, and disparity in the breadth or depth force capabilities are all detrimental to fun, where fun is defined as discovering the most points-efficient way of building a single purpose army, preferably exclusively from a single, underpointed troop type or an overlooked and overpowered synergy between no more than two troop types.

 

I happen to disagree in every particular with that point of view, calling the resulting style of play (and you may not have encountered these terms before in gaming circles) "deathly boring" "ugly" and "tedious" rather than the less-descriptive "powergaming". If Reaper wishes to embrace "deathly boring, ugly and tedious" as a marketing paradigm, intended to attract that very large market share consisting of compulsive mathematical analysers, then I wish them the very, very best of luck in the future.

 

ALL SARCASM ASIDE: Please, can anyone tell me how allowing every force to substitute-in generic troops makes the game more chellenging? Failing that how does it make the game more fun? Failing that how does it improve the aesthetic of the game? These really are the only valid arguments in a miniatures game, and have to apply to THE GAME not to a single person's playstyle or desire to win; in short, if you don't increase the SUM TOTAL of fun between all players in a match, don't bother, and the same for the other points. Meet these criteria, and I'm on your side.