Playbalance & Mercenaries

[Gus Landt]

You guys are gonna get this thread locked by attacking each other!

 

So, back on topic. Allow me to sum up where we're at:

 

The only reason I can see for allowing 25% of a faction pure army to be composed of Mercs is to patch weaknesses in that faction.

 

Reaper, by suggesting this rule, seems to think some of the faction needs patching, and are looking at the 25% merc rule as a way of patching them.

 

Side A: Some people feel very strongly that faction deficiencies are very important to the game, and help give each faction their individuality. The primary concern here also seems to be with too many archers on the field.

 

Side B: Other people feel very strongly that patching the faction weaknesses would make the game better/more balanced.

 

The simple fact that Reaper is looking at ways to patch faction weaknesses suggests that Reaper sides with Side B - patching the faction weaknesses would make the game better. If Reaper did not feel that way, they wouldn't be looking at ways to patch factions with Mercs.

 

There is obviously some opposition to this, and I honestly don't think Reaper was expecting that strong of opposition. I do know that 'the powers that be behind Warlord' appreciate us letting them know how we feel. They are, after all, very interested in giving the fans a game they love.

 

My thoughts

I'm riding the fence between the two sides. I see both have valid arguments. I HATE the fact that Crusaders and Nefsokar have crappy archers compared to other factions.

 

I wonder if there isn't a way to make both sides happy. Perhaps allow the 25% Merc rule, with no penalties for doing so, but ALSO make an archer limit for ALL armies. Something like 'no more than X percent/number of your army can be composed of ranged models'. That would fix the All Ranged Freelance, and it would prevent the 25% Merc rule from adding too many ranged attacks to current armies.

This of course would still allow Crusaders and Nefsokar to take some ranged attackers who don't suck so much. I'm not sure how many people here want Crusaders and Nefsokar to remain completely range poor.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think that the real problem is that there are so many bad models in the game. Models that, because of their stats, almost no one plays with. Perhaps the real 'solution' is to make EVERY model viable. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that no one wants sucky models in the game.

[Brushmaster]

Perhaps the real 'solution' is to make EVERY model viable. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that no one wants sucky models in the game.

And believe you me , there are a few out there .

[Soulcatcha]

As i do not wish to get this thread locked i am going to refrain from replyin to certain posts. So back to the issue itself.Gus i have no problem with fixing a percieved weakness in the game. I feel as you do that some models are not very good value which causes a problem for those who play that faction if it is a basic troop type ie: IC archers. As you say it would be nice if all models were more useful but in any point based system some models are always gonna be worse than others. If you fix one then the next worse value becomes the (in some1s opinion anyways)now unusable model! More important i feel is that overall balance is maintained and just using mercs as a catch all band aid seems to me to be solving 1problem at the expense of a whole load more! I would like to see some alternative way of dealing with it.Some good possible ideas have been expressed on this thread. Your idea of a max point limit 4 archers seems reasonable and would solve other issues, prehaps the reaper peeps will take notice, i truly hope so

[cristomeyers]

Reaper, by suggesting this rule, seems to think some of the faction needs patching, and are looking at the 25% merc rule as a way of patching them.

 

But EE already told us why they were kicking this rule around:

 

As for why this rule is even being kicked around, is because up till now the Mercs have just been a faction like any other, that just happens to be called Mercenary. The idea is to come up with a way for Mercenaries to act like mercenaries (ie be taken in an army without losing SAs like a free lance).

 

Perhaps the real 'solution' is to make EVERY model viable. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that no one wants sucky models in the game.

 

But who determines what is viable? To me, the Khamsin Rangers are plenty viable in certain situations. Just because they can't pincushin a troop of Templar Knights like the Elves can doesn't make them non-viable.

 

Also, what's to keep another thread like this popping up about the non-viablity of another unit, say, Bondslave Survivors, for example?

[vejlin]

Well that's where Reapers datacards are brilliant. Via reapergames rebalancing of datacards can be done within months (allowing time to playtest) rather than years like GW games.

 

And in the unfortunate event of Khamsin rangers, IC archers or Bondslaves fix turns out to be a bad thing, it can be changed equally fast. I really thing the datacard format and availability through reapergames is a stroke of genius. Only downside is for people with no internet connection (do such people exist these days?)

 

So I'd say it's a good thing when threads like this pop up. It's an ongoing effort to make the game better. And reaper has set up a very good infrastructure to support the errata'ing and distribution of datacards cheaply and quickly

[spiritual_exorcist]

I have to say the recent change in the 1.2 datacards moving many DV 10-11+deflect Grunts into the Adept category does wonders for the viability of Ivy Crown or Khamsin Archers.

 

These units have reasonable shots (and two of them at that) with 20%-30%+ chance of success at gunning down what are now primary units:

 

Ivy Skirmishers

Lesser Warriors

Skeletons

Awakened

Bondslaves

Goblins

Clutchlings

Vale Warriors

 

Likewise they have the same ok shots at Breaker models, and even better shots at most of the games two-attack adepts (which usually carry a premium points cost). The changes have improves their usefulness, but havn't done anything about making them cost effective (and as for Bond Slave Survivors...I'd like to defend them in some manner, but I just can't rationalise any reason you would pay for one of them when you've got Overlord Warriors to play with, or when you can buy a regular Bondslave for 16 points. Give me DV 9 and they would make an appearance in my upcoming Overlord Force, but I'll pass with DV 8).

 

I don't want to see Khamsi and Ivy Crown Archer become 'Better', I just want to see them become more cost effective. Even if this requires the removal of the Ranger ability (an ability I would likely rarely use anyway, even if I ever fielded these ungodly expensive adepts), they should be more in line with the cost of a Bull Orc archer or Overlord X-Bowman, I would consider them more reasonalbe if they were brought down to around the 35 point level.

 

THat being said Reaper has never been concerned about making viable units, there are numerous units in every force that are getting little or no gameplay (for example: few people are using the CP 3-4 Casters out there, why risk putting spells on such a unit, or sinking even greater points cost in with a familiar if your chances of casting are abysmal? A spells points cost should correspond to the CP of a caster, or CP 3-4 Casters should get a bump in Casting Power). People arn't fielding 'Ian' in their Crusader armies, if Reaper is selling any of these minis it is force those who want completeness in their Crusader miniature collection, or to those that intend to use 'Ian' as an RPG miniature. Reaper seems to use their magic point formula a little too exclusively, just a formula is never perfect, And truthfully playtesting should ultimately decide how effective a model is, and therefore what it's points cost should be (I don't know whether Reaper deviates from it's formula on occassion, or adheres to it strictly, but I would guess the latter).

 

Back on topic:

I have to agree, I'm not so sure the Mercs are being introduced into other factions to fix holes in other armies, but rather to make them feel like Mercs should, and to help support their fluff (which is of coarse that they are guns for hire). In doing so, without imposing some sort of penalty, there is a risk of giving the entire game a very bland feel, that removes the flavour from many existing armies.

 

I like the idea of being able to have ranged attacks in my Crusader force, but I'd rather keep my mediocre Ivy Crown archers, and have their points cost go down to a more reasonable level, than bring Merc X-Bowmen to the board in every single game. That way my Crusaders are still a crappy shooting army, but even so, my armies might be using those crappy shooters.

[cristomeyers]

I don't want to see Khamsi and Ivy Crown Archer become 'Better', I just want to see them become more cost effective.

 

Exactly, and introducing the Merc rule isn't going to fix this. Although I would agrue that the introduction of the Khamsin Mounted Archers negates a lot of the concern about the Rangers.

[Brushmaster]

I don't want to see Khamsi and Ivy Crown Archer become 'Better', I just want to see them become more cost effective.

 

Exactly, and introducing the Merc rule isn't going to fix this. Although I would agrue that the introduction of the Khamsin Mounted Archers negates a lot of the concern about the Rangers.

That's not a fix . I would use the Mounted Archers over the Rangers any day , now if the Rangers we a little bit cheaper ...... maybe !

[smokingwreckage]

Sorry if I made my comments too personal. Here is a better post that more clearly articulates my point of view:

 

I stand by the assertion that the only reasons for changing a game should be to make it more fun for most players. With miniatures, changes might be made so armies look better on the table. That helps the brand and also, let's face it, if you don't care how the game looks then why in the name of all that's holy are you wasting your money on miniatures?

 

Like for instance, I can see how including Lupines in your Vampire force could be Very Very Cool aesthetically. And that is one case I can think of for allowing mercs where it works to the advantage of player, game, and brand. But I can conceive of many more where the Mercs rule might only work to the advantage of hardcore statistics guys, and I think that's bad for pretty much everything except that particular group.

 

Where + Mercs allow a novel and surprising tactic, I can see them adding (a bit) to gameplay by adding variety and novelty. But if they become a no-brainer sub-in for every maligned trooper in the game, then they REDUCE variety and erase tactical considerations, and that's a bad thing.

[Soulcatcha]

Sorry if I made my comments too personal. Here is a better post that more clearly articulates my point of view:

 

I stand by the assertion that the only reasons for changing a game should be to make it more fun for most players. With miniatures, changes might be made so armies look better on the table. That helps the brand and also, let's face it, if you don't care how the game looks then why in the name of all that's holy are you wasting your money on miniatures?

 

Like for instance, I can see how including Lupines in your Vampire force could be Very Very Cool aesthetically. And that is one case I can think of for allowing mercs where it works to the advantage of player, game, and brand. But I can conceive of many more where the Mercs rule might only work to the advantage of hardcore statistics guys, and I think that's bad for pretty much everything except that particular group.

 

Where + Mercs allow a novel and surprising tactic, I can see them adding (a bit) to gameplay by adding variety and novelty. But if they become a no-brainer sub-in for every maligned trooper in the game, then they REDUCE variety and erase tactical considerations, and that's a bad thing.

Cheers SW for making so eloquently one of the points I had been trying to make so incoherently Problem is i think the merc+faction thing IS gonna happen in some form(maybe due to the archer thing,maybe fluff ?).What I think needs to happen is a way of dealing with so that it doesnt become the no-brainer choice that you(and I as well as others)are so concerned about. I have faith that reaper peeps are payin attention to ALL the thoughts expressed on this topic, i just hope they have a good way to keep the game interesting, fun and keep (at least) the majority of players happy

[cristomeyers]

Where + Mercs allow a novel and surprising tactic, I can see them adding (a bit) to gameplay by adding variety and novelty. But if they become a no-brainer sub-in for every maligned trooper in the game, then they REDUCE variety and erase tactical considerations, and that's a bad thing.

 

Exactly.

 

That's not a fix . I would use the Mounted Archers over the Rangers any day , now if the Rangers we a little bit cheaper ...... maybe !

 

Never said it was a fix, but if your concern is the Nefsokar not having viable archers, then the Mounted Archers provide a better alternative than the Rangers.

[Brushmaster]

Where + Mercs allow a novel and surprising tactic, I can see them adding (a bit) to gameplay by adding variety and novelty. But if they become a no-brainer sub-in for every maligned trooper in the game, then they REDUCE variety and erase tactical considerations, and that's a bad thing.

 

Exactly.

 

That's not a fix . I would use the Mounted Archers over the Rangers any day , now if the Rangers we a little bit cheaper ...... maybe !

 

Never said it was a fix, but if your concern is the Nefsokar not having viable archers, then the Mounted Archers provide a better alternative than the Rangers.

My concern is not the the "Nefsokar" have viable archer , I'd just like to see some less viable figures made more viable . IMHO I never thought Finari was very viable (and commented as such in the past) until she had her points reduced , lost the Breaker SA and gained Deflect SA , not to mention she gained Judgement in the AOJ sublist . That's just one example . I will try some out from time to time but they're not cost effective but fun anyway .

[Saint Vierzehn]

ALL SARCASM ASIDE: Please, can anyone tell me how allowing every force to substitute-in generic troops makes the game more chellenging?

 

I object to Mercs being called generic. I find Reaper's Mercs to be quite colorful, moreso than most of the other factions, in fact. Every fantasy dealer in the phonebook has elves armed with bows and beardy dwarves swinging bladed and/or pointy objects. But New York's Five Corners with shapeshifting gypsies thrown in the mix? That's something you don't see every day.

 

That point aside, I like to face tough opponents because I like the challenge. I think the game I've enjoyed most was against one of those much-maligned "All-Shooter Freelance" lists. I knew my opponent wasn't holding back, and I never do. I think it's discourteous to do otherwise, actually. It cheapens the victory, regardless of who gets it. Some of the armies have rather glaring weaknesses, and I got tired of exploiting them by my second game.

 

If nothing else, +Mercs means everyone gets more options in their army build, and that itself is more challenging. I don't see +Mercs making things more generic. I see it making things more diverse.

 

 

Failing that how does it make the game more fun?

 

Right now, whenever an opponent tells me he's playing a certain faction, I have a pretty good idea what to expect. There's relatively little surprise factor in the game.

 

 

Failing that how does it improve the aesthetic of the game?

 

More werewolves are always an aesthetic improvement. And it would be nice to see models of tall, buxom women with bows the next time I face off against a dwarf army. I have simple tastes.

 

That, and I consider increasing the complexity of all armies to be an attractive thing.

 

 

These really are the only valid arguments in a miniatures game,

 

Nope. You left at least one significant factor out. Playbalance. That is where I started this conversation, remember? And for all the good things I'll say about Reaper, there's fixing that needs to be done on the game's playbalance. +Mercs isn't the only way to do it, but it is an option that, by its very nature, is equitable to all armies. There isn't a more simple or expedient mechanism to globally balance the game in existence at this time.

 

 

Meet these criteria, and I'm on your side.

 

I'll assume you're an honest person.

 

Welcome aboard.

 

-StV.

 

 

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 was referring to my standard 1500 point list.

 

-StV.

[Tannhauser]

I don't see +Mercs making things more generic. I see it making things more diverse.

 

How do you reconcile that statement with the following?

 

+Mercs isn't the only way to do it, but it is an option that, by its very nature, is equitable to all armies. There isn't a more simple or expedient mechanism to globally balance the game in existence at this time.

 

There is no diversity if everyone takes it.

[smokingwreckage]

St V.; you are now talking my language. I'm not yet entirely convinced, but at least I understand what you're saying now.

 

Playbalance to my mind is a subset of "fun", but I do not at all think that every faction needs highly or even marginally effective troops of every type to be "fun" - provided of course that their points cost or position within the overall army structure makes them viable to field.

 

By referring to +Mercs as "generic" I mean that in the 25% case, everyone would have acces to them. I don't love the Mercs grunts but they are quite different to most fantasy fare. It's probably the grunts and archers that I have the most problem with

 

Re: werewolves and buxom blondes; well yes, absolutely, individually, but I think most armies need to have a unifying visual theme, and again, you can make an "everything I like army" using Freelance, so.....

 

Another thought: what if there was a faction-by-faction-by-unit-type provision for Mercs? I mean I can't see human spearmen in Reven, Crypt Legion, or Darkspawn, possibly not Reptus (they want us to eat WHAT?) armies, but certainly in Overlord, Vampire-Necropolis, Crusader armies. I can't see Lupines necessarilly working with Overlords, but maybe with Reptus.