Mercenaries in Other Factions

[shakhak]

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.

This would be awesome and I really hope it's something Gus and others are looking at doing in the future.

 

I'd love to see some Reptus and Elven war combinations. Spiritual backgrounds and old alliances re-unite and they have sworn to free their homeland dispite laws of their both their people.

 

The Blade Sisters and Crusader combo would fit nicely into the world also.

 

How about an unlikely combo of Nefsokar and Reven... An unreliable alliance of the forgotten gods and reven might... Using each other to push deeper into Taltos and claim what is theirs... be it Land, or Tombs.

[vejlin]

I think sublists is the way to go to keep game balance and still allow mixing in mercs.

 

Great idea and stuff that would be good for Kruger books.

[Qwyksilver]

I've already been pushing hard for Bladesisters to be included as part of an Ivy Crown sublist for Crusaders.

[Saint Vierzehn]

It's that kind of diversity, that can give a leg up to a player who utilizes it.

 

 

If that's your objection, then the only consistent proposal is to disallow +mercs entirely. Players will take best advantage of whatever troop selections are available. If you don't like people "plugging holes" with mercs, then it's best to just keep things simple and disallow the whole thing entirely.

 

 

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.

 

We do not agree on that point, either. Grunts are almost always the better choice - basic warriors, axemen, spearmen, and crossbowmen. Those types of troops are hardly imbalancing, don't overpower the "flavor" of any particular faction, and do the types of things that any good list should be able to do.

 

Most people probably would choose the flashier adepts instead, but they're really not the best choice, and every faction has a good selection of adepts anyway.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

We are not inagreement as to what you consider appropriate fluff, either. And I think it's rather egregarious for you to cast in a poor light a faction that you do not play. But, if you wish to indulge your prejudice that professional warriors must be more poorly disciplined than factioned conscripts, I doubt I will be able to convince you otherwise.

 

-StV.

[shakhak]

It's that kind of diversity, that can give a leg up to a player who utilizes it.

If that's your objection, then the only consistent proposal is to disallow +mercs entirely. Players will take best advantage of whatever troop selections are available. If you don't like people "plugging holes" with mercs, then it's best to just keep things simple and disallow the whole thing entirely.

That's an impractical solution, and one nobody should ever be in support of. Refusing to grow the game because we'll have to work towards a balanced solution is silly, and it will result in the ruining of the game. People want to hire mercs into their army, so the goal of this topic is to come up with ways it would be easy to do so and still keep the game balanced and fun.

 

I also never stated that I didn't like it. Building an army is half the fun of the game, trying to give yourself every advantage possible within the rules, and using that army to the full effect of which you built it is what the game is all about.

If I didn't like trying to create effective armies, I seriously doubt I would be so active in the Factions and Tactics forum.

 

 

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.

We do not agree on that point, either. Grunts are almost always the better choice - basic warriors, axemen, spearmen, and crossbowmen. Those types of troops are hardly imbalancing, don't overpower the "flavor" of any particular faction, and do the types of things that any good list should be able to do.

 

Most people probably would choose the flashier adepts instead, but they're really not the best choice, and every faction has a good selection of adepts anyway.

You took that statement out of context and in doing so I think you missed the point. You do actually agree with my original intent based on your reply to the out of context statement.

I said that the models type(grunt, adept, leader, solo) is not the detirming factor in it's effectiveness. In your reply, you say, "Grunts are almost always the better choice", which means you that usually you prefer grunts, but you realize there are model types that will outshine them. It's the same opinion, you just prefer grunts.

 

I haven't been worried about imbalancing the flavor of a faction. I think allowing mixed Mercs, would increase the flavor of the game, and it's always nice to give a little something to each faction. I just think that when creating such a large change it's important to ease into it, and make sure a balanced, play tested, solution is found.

This is expecially important since we just fixed a number of problems with the game, one of which was the imbalance of models between factions. Which if we introduced mixed mercs with no penalty could quickly become an issue all over again.

 

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.

 

We are not inagreement as to what you consider appropriate fluff, either. And I think it's rather egregarious for you to cast in a poor light a faction that you do not play. But, if you wish to indulge your prejudice that professional warriors must be more poorly disciplined than factioned conscripts, I doubt I will be able to convince you otherwise.

-StV.

If you read the Faction and Tactics threads you would see that I do indeed play Mercs. :) Along with far too many other factions, and on a regular basis. The only faction I hold in a poor light without playing are the Bull Orc Reven, because their dirty, troll stealers.

 

 

 

What it looks like it boils down to is this:

 

Disagrement that Diversity grants an advantage, or disagreement that Merc allowance grants an advantage:

I think that allowing a faction to double their capacity creates an advantage and this should be paired with something that creates a disadvantage.

You believe that grunts posses the true advantage, and that Merc grunts are no better than faction grunts.

 

Disagreement that if imbalance exists a solution should be created:

Going with the flow of this topic, I tried to propose a disadvantage for those that try to fill up on Mercs

 

Total disagreement on my approach to fixing what could be an imbalance:

I think that an army employed by coin is less likely to listen when told to do things that could result in death, especially when their employeer is being slaughtered beside them; as apposed to armies based on militaristic disipline, blind faith, motivation through torture, or national pride.

 

Also, you seem to keep accusing people who want to impose a penalty on mixed Merc play of being biased against Mercs as a faction. I want to note that you are wrong. It's been my experience that almost everyone on this forum is open minded and more than willing to share their views, experiences, and thoughts. Perhaps it's in jest, and I'm being brash, but I think it's uncalled for. We wouldn't be here having this discussion if we didn't think it was something we would enjoy playing with or against.

[Saint Vierzehn]

It's that kind of diversity, that can give a leg up to a player who utilizes it.

If that's your objection, then the only consistent proposal is to disallow +mercs entirely. Players will take best advantage of whatever troop selections are available. If you don't like people "plugging holes" with mercs, then it's best to just keep things simple and disallow the whole thing entirely.

That's an impractical solution, and one nobody should ever be in support of.

 

Half true. It is a perfectly practical solution. I agree that it's not the best solution, but it is certainly practical. It's very simple to implement, in fact. We just leave things as they are now.

 

If you're going to object to people taking +mercs on the basis that they might actually complement their troops and/or compensate for weaknesses that they would otherwise face, then the only logical solution is to disallow +mercs entirely.

 

Refusing to grow the game because we'll have to work towards a balanced solution is silly, and it will result in the ruining of the game.

 

Modifying a model's utility (in the case of your proposition, by arbitrarily lowering its discipline) without concurrently decreasing its point cost is not a balanced solution. Likewise, arbitrarily increasing the point cost of particular models is not a balanced solution either.

 

I agree that a balanced solution is called for. I've not yet seen you propose one.

 

 

Total disagreement on my approach to fixing what could be an imbalance:

 

We've not yet agreed that the imbalance that you propose exists. Nor, apparently, have we yet agreed that descreasing a model's combat utility while increasing its point cost introduces an imbalance.

 

 

I think that an army employed by coin is less likely to listen when told to do things that could result in death, especially when their employeer is being slaughtered beside them; as apposed to armies based on militaristic disipline, blind faith, motivation through torture, or national pride.

 

We have not yet agreed that those other things are necessarily absent in mercs. And apparently you consider coin to be completely absent as a motivating factor in other faction armies. I think that both of your assumptions are implausible.

 

 

Also, you seem to keep accusing people who want to impose a penalty on mixed Merc play of being biased against Mercs as a faction.

 

When people keep proposing that only a particular faction should suffer penalties in the face of command collapse, and when people keep proposing that only a particular faction lacks militaristic discipline, faith, motivation, and/or pride, then the accusation of prejudice justifies itself.

 

-StV.

[Qwyksilver]

[MOD]

 

Folks, let's try to keep this in perspective. It's little metal men.

 

People are brainstorming ways to add additional models to pre-existing lists.

 

For every new strength (ex. increased model flexibility)

There needs to be a new weakness (ex. point increase, changes in discipline, etc)

 

That's why Faction sublists have significant model limits, that's the weakness to balance the increase in new Faction SA and Models losing Adept/Unique status.

 

There's no intent to show prejudice or bias. It just happens that Mercs are the initial focus here because well, the definition of Mercenary is someone who will fight for money. So it's the easiest way to Fluff out a reason for a particular army to include Mercenaries. Everything else is mechanics, and see above for reasons.

 

We could be having this exact same discussion with how Elves could be added to Dwarves (We hate Reven List)

Or Reven and Reptus (Kill all Humans)

Or Crusaders and Elves (Kill all abominations - Necropolis and Darkspawn)

Or Nefsokar and Necropolis (Let's make everyone dead first, then we can fight over their Souls)

 

Feel free to discuss different possibilities for adding new troops to an army, but let's leave the arguements about bias and prejudice to the Beekeepers.

 

We all have our preferences for armies, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss options.

 

[/MOD]

[shakhak]

Refusing to grow the game because we'll have to work towards a balanced solution is silly, and it will result in the ruining of the game.

 

Modifying a model's utility (in the case of your proposition, by arbitrarily lowering its discipline) without concurrently decreasing its point cost is not a balanced solution. Likewise, arbitrarily increasing the point cost of particular models is not a balanced solution either.

 

I agree that a balanced solution is called for. I've not yet seen you propose one.

A key portion of Warlord's design is modifying a model's utility without changing the point cost. Every faction and sublist does this. They limit your selection of models in the game and grant you abilities that increase the effectiveness.

 

The game only offers a single option for bypassing these Faction abilities, and that's by playing free lance army... this is the only way to play the game without something that arbitrarily changes the stats, abilities, or effectiveness.

 

 

I'm sorry that you have not seen a balanced proposal. Fortunatly we're not trying to achieve complete balance, we can save that for the play testers and Reaper Peeps.

 

Our goal here should be to offer fun ideas, and just try to keep playable.

 

 

...snip... everything else...

What you quoted and said we don't agree on, is exactly what I was saying in the post you quoted. That those were the key points that we don't agree on. I was trying to move our discussion past a few of the things we disagree on so we can discuss something more constructive, but still relevent to this topic; and hopefully something others don't mind reading or participating in discussing. Right now we're kind of hogging the topic :)

 

 

@Qwyk

They might be metal men to you, but for some they are precious.

 

 

Something New:

Reaching back to the mixing factions, what if instead of imposing a penalty, each faction had the weakest FAs from both.

There are factions that this doesn't work with, but the alliances would be specifically pointed out so those could be filtered and tested for later.

 

Reptus and Elves: Woodstrider/Aura of Jade

Overlord and Mercs: Fear the Whip/Scoundrals luck

Crusader and Dwarf: Undead Hunters/March of the Pipes

[Qwyksilver]

@Qwyk

They might be metal men to you, but for some they are precious.

 

What is more precious is that my wife never finds out how much I have spent on them

[vejlin]

I still think the best way to incorporate the mercs into other factions is via sublists. That way it can be controlled more precisely, game balance can be retained and we can get some cool new "fluffy" lists that incorporate mercs without nerfing them with increased points costs or crippling rules penalties.

[dedindahed]

I'm just collecting my first warlord army and it strikes me that it we be a good idea to have a different type of company, something that falls in between a single faction and a freelance company.

 

I think it a great number of thematic and varied armies can be created by allowing each troop to come from only a single faction, but allowing a company to contain troops of other factions.

 

A combined elf and dwarf task force hunting down a large reven party, a combined darkspawn and overlord raid seeking slaves and slaughter of a mutual enemy or a tentative crusader and reptus alliance trying to breakthrough from behind enemy lines all seem like great thematic forces.

 

Such an army i also feel would be a great way to collect, a new player could start of with 2-3 different faction starter boxes and mix and match them into a wide variety of different forces before settling for a main faction which can be decided after playing them.

 

As the rules stand there is no reason to build such a force as you lose both the benefit of faction SA and freelance's versatility.

 

Obviously there would need to be some balances to counteract the increased flexibility over a singe faction army.

 

Some possible conditions I've been mulling over include:

One faction must be designated the main faction, troops from that faction benefit from their own SA but troops of other factions do not.

Only 1 other faction can be included after the main faction

Other than the main faction troops may only be led by sergeants (Warlords being unwilling to "lend out" their finest leaders).

No solos allowed except from main faction

Allied factions troops limited to one for every 2 (or 3) troops of main faction.

Taking an allied troop replaces mercenary entitlement

Penalty to dis checks for allied faction

Allied factions troops cost 10-25% more

 

I'm not settled on any of these, just initial thoughts to mix-and match.

 

What do people think? any other ideas?

 

My biggest concern would be overuse of a specific troop, (e.g. if every army suddenly contained a troop of elf archers) though the forces seem balanced enough to prevent this

 

Also I'm sure I've seen in the past a rule allowing a regular company to take a portion of mercenary troops without negating a faction SA but i can't seem to find it... Am i mistaken? if not where is it?

[Saint Vierzehn]

I'm sorry that you have not seen a balanced proposal. Fortunatly we're not trying to achieve complete balance, we can save that for the play testers and Reaper Peeps.

 

Our goal here should be to offer fun ideas, and just try to keep playable.

 

Since you're abandoned all concern for playbalance, then there's really no basis for conversation at all. You've said what you want to have and have no basis upon which to justify it other than your own gut feelings. And, despite your denials, your gut feelings are demonstrably anti-merc. That's too bad, really. Your proposal was halfway decent until you started throwing out arbitrary discipline penalties and point cost increases, along with nonsense arguments to support them.

 

+mercs 10% (with no penalties) is a decent idea. On that much, at least, we can agree. I would like to see that playtested. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing your whole proposal playtested. I think you would discover that nobody competent would go over 10% mercs in order to avoid your arbitrary penalties. Then, once we've settled that your penalty scheme was pointless rubbish, we could begin experimenting with higher percentages of +mercs w/o pentalties.

 

I think +mercs 25% (no penalties) would be worth playtesting.

 

-StV.

[Qwyksilver]

I look forward to seeing the playtest results. Please feel free to post them here St V.

[vejlin]

Here's another idea. Maybe adepts from your own faction are too proud to fight alongside mercs, so you can bring mercs if you want to, but then you can't bring your own faction's adepts. Is that silly? Just a random idea.

[shakhak]

Here's another idea. Maybe adepts from your own faction are too proud to fight alongside mercs, so you can bring mercs if you want to, but then you can't bring your own faction's adepts. Is that silly? Just a random idea.

Interesting... I think I like this idea. It's fresh and leaves the option open to everyone. Sublists with fewer adepts, I'm thinking of Goblins, would work strangely; but that's something that would really shake out later. Maybe sublists aren't allowed to do it?

 

Great Idea!