Mercenaries in Other Factions

[vutpakdi]

I know that for a while, there was the unofficial practice of using up to 25% of your force as Mercenaries if they were in 1 troop. In some ways, the rule didn't feel very realistic to me though since I felt that Mercenaries should be more expensive than a faction's troops and some models should be able to be used as individuals as well. So, here are some ideas that came to me last night when I should have been sleeping:

 

 

Mercenaries may make up to 50% of a faction's force for a game. Mercenaries used to fill out a factional force do not benefit from that faction's factional abilities nor do they get the standard Mercenary factional abilities. However, they do get special factional abilities:

 

 

Hire the Specialists

Mercenary leaders, elites, soldiers, and solos may all be hired. Mercenary soldiers may only be lead by a mercenary leader. Mercenary leaders may lead factional soldiers and elites as well as Mercenaries. Mercenary elites may be lead by a factional or a Mercenary leader.

 

 

Pay the Paymaster

Mercenary soldiers use in another faction's force cost 10% more than their normal cost. Leaders, elites, and solos cost 20% more.

 

 

I'm not Getting Paid Enough for This

Mercenaries on their last track will attempt to disengage from B2B and move back to their deployment zone except when in B2B contact with a model with the Undead SA. If they fail their discipline check, they will try again since surrendering may just mean paying a ransom and then getting hired by the opposing side. Against models with the Undead SA, the Mercenary will not automatically attempt disengagement since surrendering to the Undead could mean a fate worse than death.

 

 

What do you think?

 

Ron

[Sergei]

I like it a lot. It means that hiring mercs to fill a needed void in your forces is possible, but expensive. It also makes mercs a little less reliable than normal troops. This is as it should be. They're in it for the money, not the cause.

 

You should also add

 

Even I have my standards

-mercs aligned with good won't work with any evil models, the reverse is true for evil aligned mercs

[Stubbdog]

It also means that unless there is just some uber cool merc, they will never get hired. Yes, the stuff you came up with fits the feel and fluff of a merc, but to a gameplayer, it wont matter. Now that all factions have 35+ models to choose from, they probably wont want to spend +10%-20% just to get a model out of their faction.

[Fruggs]

I think that is a neat way to incorporate them in. I like it

[vejlin]

I don't see anyone actually bringing them under those rules. I mean they're priced higher AND penalized on their last DT.

[Qwyksilver]

If you want to field more models than your Faction, play Freelance. Otherwise, you're having your cake and eating it too, especially now that all the factions have been filled out.

 

Besides, I don't want to see there be fixed rules for Mercs playing with other Factions. I never really liked the 25% rule personally. Other than in scenario play, where both sides are required to field equal numbers of mercenaries. There it would make for some interesting battles I think.

 

But mostly because I am still pushing for Bladesisters to be considered part of a Crusader Ivy Crown sublist

 

And lets be honest. We're only going to see Merc Adepts being fielded using this. Armies have enough Adepts as it is. It gets boring seeing nothing but Adepts on the field. I'd rather see something like only Merc Grunts, Sgts and Solos can be fielded if Mercs are going to be allowed at all to mix with Factions.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Qwyksilver

[Saint Vierzehn]

Pay the Paymaster

Mercenary soldiers use in another faction's force cost 10% more than their normal cost. Leaders, elites, and solos cost 20% more.

 

 

I'm not Getting Paid Enough for This

Mercenaries on their last track will attempt to disengage from B2B and move back to their deployment zone except when in B2B contact with a model with the Undead SA. If they fail their discipline check, they will try again since surrendering may just mean paying a ransom and then getting hired by the opposing side. Against models with the Undead SA, the Mercenary will not automatically attempt disengagement since surrendering to the Undead could mean a fate worse than death.

 

 

What do you think?

 

I think it is completely and utterly pointless, as well as unreasonable, and founded upon a view biased against mercs, just like it was the last time those thoughts were touted in this forum.

 

On the upside, since the game has been adjusted all factions can field well-rounded and adequate armies, there's no playbalance issue to correct, which was the primary impetus to propose the idea in the first place in the prior edition.

 

-StV.

[vutpakdi]

Thank you for the comments and suggestion.

 

I agree that it's unlikely that, if something like these ideas were included, we would see many mercenaries fielded. The point wasn't to make it attractive to field mercenaries as part of a factional force: just to provide some sort of structure to make it possible to do so if someone wanted to hire an elite or for thematic reasons.

 

Ron

[Deguello]

Thank you for the comments and suggestion.

 

I agree that it's unlikely that, if something like these ideas were included, we would see many mercenaries fielded. The point wasn't to make it attractive to field mercenaries as part of a factional force: just to provide some sort of structure to make it possible to do so if someone wanted to hire an elite or for thematic reasons.

 

Ron

 

I liked the ideas...

 

I thought the Pay the paymaster was a bit egregious at 20% I think 10% is more in line, and should cover all troops. Also solo's cannot be taken without a fleshed out unit of mercs for control

 

Other than that. I like your ideas and thought that anything less than 50% to be viable for a faction...that is both in points and number of troops..

[shakhak]

I like the idea of having some rules wrapped around the inclusion of Mercs.

 

I would change a few things though.

 

Drop the % increase to the models cost. I really don't want to multiply percentages when making a list and as someone who orginizes events locally, I don't want to look over 15 armies checking other peoples multiplication on each and every Merc model they include.

 

I do think the player needs to be limited, but it should be equal to how many Mercs he fits into their army.

 

If less than 1/10 of the game decided point value is Mercenary:

No penalty for the player with Mercenarys

 

If 1/10 to 1/4 of the game decided point value is Mercenary:

Mercenary Models lose -2 DIS,

 

If 1/4 to 1/2 of the game decided point value is Mercenary:

Mercenary Models lose -2 DIS,

Mercenary Models are always concidered out of cohesion for all game purposes.

 

 

I think a sliding scale rule like that will keep people from hording armies of Elites. It allows them to take up to 50% mercs for an insane amount of diversity, but adds alot of risk.

 

It's also important to keep a general game mechanic like this as simple as possible.

[Saint Vierzehn]

If less than 1/10 of the game decided point value is Mercenary:

No penalty for the player with Mercenarys

 

Something like this, I like.

 

If 1/10 to 1/4 of the game decided point value is Mercenary:

Mercenary Models lose -2 DIS,

 

If 1/4 to 1/2 of the game decided point value is Mercenary:

Mercenary Models lose -2 DIS,

Mercenary Models are always concidered out of cohesion for all game purposes.

 

This, however, is poor playbalance. If you're going to reduce the utility of a model, you should reduce its point cost accordingly.

 

-StV.

[shakhak]

If less than 1/10 of the game decided point value is Mercenary:

No penalty for the player with Mercenarys

 

Something like this, I like.

 

If 1/10 to 1/4 of the game decided point value is Mercenary:

Mercenary Models lose -2 DIS,

 

If 1/4 to 1/2 of the game decided point value is Mercenary:

Mercenary Models lose -2 DIS,

Mercenary Models are always concidered out of cohesion for all game purposes.

 

This, however, is poor playbalance. If you're going to reduce the utility of a model, you should reduce its point cost accordingly.

 

-StV.

 

 

I think that by adding Mercs you are giving yourself an advantage to begin with. Filling the gaps that your faction may be missing with things far superior to what you would normally recieve.

 

Also the only way to get extra Adepts normally is through a few faction abilities, but by combining Mercs with your own force, you can potentially play an army of nothing but Adepts. Which I think is a big advantage.

 

Now I could be wrong and maybe playtesting reveals that, but for nowI think that including a large number of mercs needs some kind of penalty. Just not a penalty so large that nobody uses them.

[Saint Vierzehn]

I think that by adding Mercs you are giving yourself an advantage to begin with. Filling the gaps that your faction may be missing with things far superior to what you would normally recieve.

 

"Far superior" is not a descriptor that I would apply to Merc troops. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

But for the sake of discussion, let's take it for granted that I'm not going to be able to persuade you on that point. Fine. You think they're "far superior". If so, then the rules you propose should enforce that assumption. +10% mercs with no additional point cost doesn't do that. In fact, that proposal runs counter to all your arguments. If merc troops are actually "far superior", then you should apply a large point penalty on the first batch included, and then (if anything) reduce it for larger numbers of merc troops included due to diminishing marginal utility.

 

 

Also the only way to get extra Adepts normally is through a few faction abilities, but by combining Mercs with your own force, you can potentially play an army of nothing but Adepts. Which I think is a big advantage.

 

You can play an army that consists entirely of adepts as the rules stand now anyway. I've faced such armies. And I don't think that an all-adepts force is advantageous, either. The ones I've faced I've defeated quite handily. They would have been better off with some basic grunts instead. Adepts are great for supporting a mass of grunts, but as the main line themselves, they're not so hot.

 

But if merc adepts really are your hang-up point, it would be easily fixed by simply saying that merc adepts aren't for hire by other factions. Then nobody would have any particular advantage in availability of adepts.

 

-StV.

[Stubbdog]

Personally, I would just like to chnge the scope in thinking a bit. Instead of argue related to the 25% rule that for the most part is no longer needed since all the factions have been loaded with more datacards and options, I would like ot discuss more along the lines of the faction to faction synergies, a concept that was discussed a little back when the 2007 changes were first being announced.

 

An Elven-Reptus sublist both being of spiritual background with nature...

 

An Overlord-evil Mercs sublist as the slavers unite...

 

Darkspawn-Necropolis - all things underworld....

 

etc...

 

It will be a while before the current lists get stagnant and need to grow since they are still so fresh and still have a ton of options that come with them, but this is one way that I think could refresh things when that time does come.

[shakhak]

I think that by adding Mercs you are giving yourself an advantage to begin with. Filling the gaps that your faction may be missing with things far superior to what you would normally recieve.

 

"Far superior" is not a descriptor that I would apply to Merc troops. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

But for the sake of discussion, let's take it for granted that I'm not going to be able to persuade you on that point. Fine. You think they're "far superior". If so, then the rules you propose should enforce that assumption. +10% mercs with no additional point cost doesn't do that. In fact, that proposal runs counter to all your arguments. If merc troops are actually "far superior", then you should apply a large point penalty on the first batch included, and then (if anything) reduce it for larger numbers of merc troops included due to diminishing marginal utility.

There are several mercs that are more valuable than the models a faction would normally get. The local elves love Blade Sisters for their high armor at a lower price than they would normally get out of their own models.

Crusaders here also enjoy the Bowsisters because they don't like how their archers perform.

Armies with expensive archers sometimes complement their faction with crossbowmen to offer extra range support of a slightly different type.

It's that kind of diversity, that can give a leg up to a player who utilizes it. It goes back to why all the factions were equally expanded in the Chronicles, so they are now on an equal playing field in model selection.

 

I wouldn't want a hard fast rule to stop people from using Mercs, but something needs to be in place so that they don't become a "must have" for every one that plays.

That's why it's my opinion that 10% of your army isn't enough to plug a hole, but it may slow an annoying leak. (150 points in a 1500 point game equals about 3 to 5 models... adding flavor, but hardly anything to write home about)

 

Once a player introduces More models to "plug the hole" it's been my experience, that if built correctly, his army becomes stronger.

 

Also the only way to get extra Adepts normally is through a few faction abilities, but by combining Mercs with your own force, you can potentially play an army of nothing but Adepts. Which I think is a big advantage.

 

You can play an army that consists entirely of adepts as the rules stand now anyway. I've faced such armies. And I don't think that an all-adepts force is advantageous, either. The ones I've faced I've defeated quite handily. They would have been better off with some basic grunts instead. Adepts are great for supporting a mass of grunts, but as the main line themselves, they're not so hot.

 

But if merc adepts really are your hang-up point, it would be easily fixed by simply saying that merc adepts aren't for hire by other factions. Then nobody would have any particular advantage in availability of adepts.

 

-StV.

 

The type of model he uses to plug what that faction is missing is irrelevent, I was using adept as kind of a catch all because usually they are the better choice. What is important are the stats or abilities that the extra Merc models posess to make the persons army more diverse than someone strictly playing with models from their faction.

 

I don't think that blocking off models is a good way to go, since we're trying to encourage Mercenaries being used in armies.

I was trying to come up with a fluff based limitation without flat out blocking something a player wants to do. DIS checks are fairly limited in the game, and lowering that as an army is "Bought" makes sense fluff wise to me, and game wise it takes very little work. So it shouldn't slow gameplay and it should be fairly easy to figure out what bracket(10%,25%,50%) the player is in.

 

Of course as anything Fan made, it's only my opinion, but it's something I'd like to see and I may even play test it with just my local group and see what happens.