Mercenaries!!!

[Sharkbelly]

Gargants, too.

[Jetengine]

1 hour ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

My first impression is I hate this, and dont want this ANYWHERE NEAR matched play. If this becomes a thing that could push me back to 40k. If this is strictly narrative then I coulndnt care any less. I'm sure TOs will just nip this right in the bud so I dont have to worry since any game I play is basically tournament prep anyways so I'll just avoid any event that runs this. 

If you dislike Mercenaries then why would you go back to 40k ?

[sal4m4nd3r]

1 minute ago, Jetengine said:

If you dislike Mercenaries then why would you go back to 40k ?

Thats how much I hate this idea. I dislike 40k, but if this mercenary thing is implemented in the manner that it sounded like I'd rather play against soup armies of a similar "Grand Alliance" than a Death army with Greater demons in it. 

Edited May 6, 2019 by sal4m4nd3r

[SlayerFan]

Interested to see what this is, hopefully more fun narrative themed options, as the more options the better IMO as in 19 years of wargaming, I have luckily never encountered one of these gaming scenes completely dominated by hardcore tournament players in which you need to fear every new addition to the game.

Edited May 6, 2019 by SlayerFan

[SwampHeart]

18 minutes ago, Jetengine said:

If you dislike Mercenaries then why would you go back to 40k ?

If I'm going to have to play with and against soup why not go back to 40k? It has a more robust scene both locally and nationally in the US and I already own several fully painted armies for the system. I'm not going to put in the work to continue to develop a local scene for AoS if its just going to be another vessel for soup, I'll just deal with it in the better established game. 

[Jetengine]

Id personally say thats the wrong way to look at it but to be frank I dont think you'd agree 

[sal4m4nd3r]

1 minute ago, SwampHeart said:

If I'm going to have to play with and against soup why not go back to 40k? It has a more robust scene both locally and nationally in the US and I already own several fully painted armies for the system. I'm not going to put in the work to continue to develop a local scene for AoS if its just going to be another vessel for soup, I'll just deal with it in the better established game. 

In my opinion its even worse then 40k, because atleast you play as IMPERIUM or CHAOS. Not DEATH with a side dish of DESTRUCTION  

[SwampHeart]

3 minutes ago, Jetengine said:

Id personally say thats the wrong way to look at it but to be frank I dont think you'd agree 

I'm not tossing my toys out yet. I'm going to wait and see and hope that mercenaries are either extremely limited or simply not available in matched play, or that the matched play community as a whole rejects them as they've done with the realm rules. I love AoS, I'm passionate about it and I want it to be a great game. Driving AoS towards soup does not help the game (competitively, my preferred method of play) in any fashion. As I've said several times I'm going to hope for the best and prepare for the worst with this announcement. 

However if it comes to fruition that it is just literally 'take good units from other grand alliances' then I see no other way to look at it. How is it any different from 40k at that point?

Edited May 6, 2019 by SwampHeart

[Dead Scribe]

Sounds to me like they are going the "soup" route that plagues 40k, only calling it "mercenaries".  Which I have to be honest worries me.

[JPjr]

holy ******, calm down people! I mean we have 1, literally 1 whole paragraph to go, that you would have to stretch beyond belief to come even close to some of the conclusions that people are reaching for here...

"We’ve looked at this expansion in previous seminars, but we’ve got even more to share with you today! First up, we’re excited to unveil the all-new mercenaries system. With Forbidden Power, you’ll be able to recruit renowned sell-swords to your cause regardless of Grand Alliance. So, for example, you could have a Chaos army and enlist some of the notoriously ur-gold hungry warriors of the Greyfyrd lodge…" 

How people can read this and think this means you'll randomly be bringing Greater Daemons into Daughters of Khaine lists staggers me. If you're really desperate to parse the text for hidden meanings (assuming it's not just some bloke writing what they think of as colourful copy rather the Voynich manuscript for toy soldiers) then things like "renowned sell-swords" should give some pause. That, to me, suggest specific named units, or at most it's like a battalion where maybe there's a command unit and then you get to pick from a few options.

Maybe instead of being affected by allegiance abilities they might have their own special abilities that can be used by the 'leader' of the mercenaries. Who know but I very much doubt it's just going to be some big free-for-all.

I'd say the example they give is also fairly useful as a guide, so you have an 'Order' race joining up with a 'Chaos' faction, narrative/fluff/lore is at the absolute core of this game,  so they've picked what on the one hand is an extreme example but also one which is 'lore' friendly and has a basis in the existing fiction. That should at least give some indication that they're trying to do this in a way that makes sense, and again for that to work there will need to be some hard limits on what can be included and what goes with what.

Hey maybe I'm completely wrong and we can look forward to Morathi, Nagash and Archaon all appearing on the same side but I would be amazed. I mean seeing as it's part of an expansion that features some kind of campaign it could also just be directly tied to that and be more narrative focused. Lets just wait and see.

[Ravinsild]

7 hours ago, Dr Ben said:

Yeah, I wouldn't read much into it until we know more concrete details. When describing new releases they have a tendency to give them a bit of hyperbole and narrative flavour that doesn't necessarily reflect the rules. Remember packs of magmadroths?

Broadly speaking I think the concerns about 40k style soup lists hinge on whether the mercenaries can keep/combine allegiance abilities. If not I don't think it will complicate things much more than allies within allegiances already do for order and chaos. It would probably have a bigger impact on destruction/death who have fewer ally options.

I don't play 40k,so I am probably totally wrong, but it seems from the outside like the soup problem has a lot to do with being able use any stratagems from any detachments you bring. Allegiance and command abilities are the AOS equivalents roughly speaking. Command abilities are relatively limited by key words and availability (for most factions). Mixed allegiance abilities would be extremely complicated to implement. add a keeper of secrets to FEC and summon yourself a whole new army of extra slaanesh allies anybody? 

The power of Soup in 40k is that for a lot of factions, especially the Imperium, you can bring a whole separate detachment and fill it with the cheapest possible chaff that also nets you a ton of command points. This is valueable because you get loads of cheap chaff to screen your more valuable units, you don’t care if they die, they cover the board so you can deny things like deep strike and they can camp objectives. 

Then when you get like 10 command points from that and it’s only like 500 points you can bring actual meaningful stuff that does all the heavy lifting like Knights or Space Marines or Adeptus Mechanicus or whatever (fill in the blank) and then spend all your Command points on the most powerful game changing stratagems (like think the best possible command abilities you can cherry pick from any warscroll) and spam those over and over to make your good units even better. 

Its more an issue of CP farming, stratagems being a thing and cheap as chips guardsmen, cultists, and other forms of “encouraged” chaff and chattel to bloat your army with because there’s literally no penalties and as long as everything is self contained within a detachment you are battle forged. 

[flamingwalnut]

Gonna add some positivity here, looks like this thread needs it.

I am STOKED for this release. There is so much fun narrative potential here! The potential combinations could make for some cool, themed armies. The idea that I could collect just a little of another force to spice up my own is great. Picking up a unit or two of a faction I may otherwise not bother with and theme it to my current list? Sounds fun!

The amount of doomsaying I see here is both funny and a bit depressing. So many people already convinced the worst is happening, as if this one concept suddenly destroys their ability to play AND kicks their dog. All from one paragraph that promises one small thing. (What are Fyreslayers going to do in Chaos? Even with them somehow getting allegiance abilities, you are muddying up your synergies. You are stretching your points and builds in random directions. All for....tough slow guys? Nurgle feels slighted...)

Personally, I like the IDEA of "soup" in 40k, it was just implemented poorly. I like Inquisitors hitching up with Space Marines backed by Guard artillery, it feels close to the lore. And GW has played damage control on soups many times over with FAQs and such, so they understand that the concept is flawed for competitive. 

In the end, this game is built for story and fun in a hobby. I have little doubt that this is exactly what this new rule is bringing, and all this screaming of doomed balance with Greater Demons in DoK are leaping off a cliff that will likely not even be there.

[michu]

I agree with @JPjr and @flamingwalnut. It's too soon to say something more about mercenaries. They could be for Narrative only like rules from Malign Portents book (I know, we got CP later but they're quite different to MP command points - different way to earn them and different way to use them). 

[FlatTooth]

I'm holding out for more information. I *love* that GW encourages various ways to play. I play narrative games and matched play games and am glad that my friends and I can say which we want to do in a given day. I could very much see the mercenaries being a problem but I could also just as easily see it not being an issue at all so I'm basically ignoring it. 

 

Honestly I wish they wouldn't have said anything until they were prepared to say something if you know what I mean haha

[HollowHills]

I will quit AoS if this goes into Matched Play. 

[Xasz]

All of this sounds like what brought 40k down with extra steps.

The convoluted armybuilding of 40k, where you cannot have a faction specific collection anymore, is what brought me to AoS and made me sell my 40k models entirely  (although not the only reason).

I guess we have to play the waiting game.

[Overread]

4 minutes ago, Xasz said:

All of this sounds like what brought 40k down with extra steps.

The convoluted armybuilding of 40k, where you cannot have a faction specific collection anymore, is what brought me to AoS and made me sell my 40k models entirely  (although not the only reason).

I guess we have to play the waiting game.

In fairness the whole "soup" issue with 40K is MOSTLY reserved for the Imperium.

 

Most Xenos are pretty safe from it or are only drawing in sub-armies of the same race. It's really the marines who have the insane number of alliance options without the allies limits that AoS has to keep things in line. Heck Stormcast can ally with anyone in Grand Alliance Order and yet the 1/4 limits prevent us getting the soup issue. 

[Battlefury]

Talking from a competetive perspective, I am absolutely sceptical about this.

If they implement it meaningful, then it shall be ok. But I really doubt, that it will be that good designed, tbh. Recent FAWs and updates brought me to this conclusion.

I can only report my firts impression, when I heared this.
What I think about this in that moment is, whether Battletomes and any subdivision to factions within alliances would make any sense then.
If it wouldn't be restricted, what i really hope it will, makes all these armies kind of redundant, because you could just take, whatever you would like, within the restrictions ( if there are some, we gotta see ).

At the very start of AoS we had to choose, whatever we liked from the Grand Alliances. This seems to go in the same direction again, but without being restricted to any alliance. But that's just my speculation.

A fact, that really bugs me more is, that again rules are added, and we goota buy new material again. How many books are we gonna carry with us then?
Rules are being streched out again.
Some of us might remember, that the absolute complicated situation of rules was one of the reasons, WHFB was shot.

But that might also just be my opinion.

[hughwyeth]

As a TO, if it's similar in it's swinginess to realmscape stuff, i just won't include it. As someone who plays casual/narrative games mostly, it's great. I'd like to make a cool converted unit to ally into one of my armies. 

[hughwyeth]

14 hours ago, HollowHills said:

I will quit AoS if this goes into Matched Play. 

I don't get this attitude. It's so common in nerdy pastimes- just play the game you want, no one is forcing you to play 100% of the rules GW release. We know literally nothing about this release. If it breaks the game, most TOs won't use it. Otherwise it's an interesting change.

I recall how livid people went when fantasy was killed and AoS released. Who now would want to go back to fantasy? Yet if GW did what the fans wanted, AoS would be cancelled and we'd still be using 150 pages of rules for a grossly unbalanced game.

[Gaz Taylor]

Personally, I think this will be a great addition to the game but I think that's because I'm thinking of it as a 'Dogs of War' book rather than an open ended free for all that some people are thinking about. I think we will see more unique units which will have very specific requirements about who can hire them. I think the limit is your imagination! So for example, Fyreslayers are already know to fight for anybody if they have Ur-Gold, but you could have a unit of Skeletons lead by a powerful wright with it's own self will, who refuses to fight for any Death faction as it's family were killed by the forces of Nagash.

It's a cool way to bring cool models to the game. Has me wondering what will happen with the Warcry models....  

Anyway, probably see more this weekend from the Warhammer Fest reveals  

[Overread]

23 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:

I don't get this attitude. It's so common in nerdy pastimes- just play the game you want, no one is forcing you to play 100% of the rules GW release. We know literally nothing about this release. If it breaks the game, most TOs won't use it. Otherwise it's an interesting change.

I recall how livid people went when fantasy was killed and AoS released. Who now would want to go back to fantasy? Yet if GW did what the fans wanted, AoS would be cancelled and we'd still be using 150 pages of rules for a grossly unbalanced game.

If I recall right Old World was always the most balanced of GW's games, mostly because there was no poster-child-army. Besides Gw's issues with balance have nearly always been with regard to the stats of models rather than the actual rules system itself. In fact I'd say some of the earlier rules systems had much more fleshing out in terms of things like terrain and how to handle it. You had rives and lakes and mountains and cliffs and buildings and the like. 

 

Current rules appear to be trying to sort of get rid of regular terrain in favour of making everything have a warscroll and thus be some kind of epic magical terrain. 

 

 

Anyway the reason the attitude becomes stronger is because whilst no one forces you to play a certain way, most people play GW games with the same "core". Ergo most games are matched play using endless spells. Endless Spells are optional, but most gamers use them, in fact to play a game specifically without is the exception rather than the normal

Now when its rules like the Realm Rules its easy to add or remove them because its 100% paperwork. It's words on the army list that you can add and remove easily. Now when its mercenaries it becomes and issue of models as well. Things you buy, build and paint. So if GW makes it a big thing you'll have players who build that chaos with dwarves army who have that as their army and want to play with those models. Against them you've got those who know that the dwarves and chaos allies breaks the game* balance significantly and who want to aim for a more even match withotu the allies system. They come to blows against each other because now its not a question of paperwork but of one player perhaps not actually having a regular army to play for that evening etc...

 

Also note that many are worried it will return AoS to its launch days, when  balance was non-existent in the extreme. Players want fair games where they don't have to worry that their opponent is just going to steam roll them because they've brought all the power-units from 3 armies to win the game with. 

*this is 100% pure example without any evidence. Purely for the context of this post. 

Edited May 7, 2019 by Overread

[MrZakalwe]

Sounds interesting to me - 40k's balance is currently significantly tighter than AoS's and they have far more far reaching systems than this in place for mixed armies. 

Look forward to it. 

[Bufkin]

This is a solution that happens sometimes in skirmish games, they add mercenaries.

When its implemented well, its because they have a concept for a model that does not fit in a faction/team/org/whatever but is essential to the style of the game… Ronins in a oriental style games are an example for this.  

It can also be a question of cost, the skirmish game might have 5-6 factions, they all need to be a bit larger but they cant afford to make 15-20 models, so they make 5 models that everyone share.

Neither of these cases will be true for AoS, so the question is then why?

And even if the reason is good its almost never a good idea, at least for competitive play. There is an enormous risk that you will see less diversity on the field. If a mercenary unit is really good it will suddenly not just be used in one army but in most armies. Imagine if every army in AoS could use a gaunt summoner, or khinerai heartrenders, or skinks… they would be EVERYWHERE. Sure you can find a point cost or something else that will be balanced perfectly, but the problem with competitive games are that if you just slip a little from that perfectly balanced line you will end up in a “almost always” or “almost never” territory… and both are bad…..

and even if they find a perfect implementation for matched play, with perfect points and units that make perfect sense, I would still prefer not to have it because its fundamentally such a shaky concept that every single release of a new unit that could be used as mercenary is a huge risk.

So Im not hopefull at all, best case scenario is that is not part of matched play, second best is that it has no effect at all… but I would love to be proved wrong by GW.

[hughwyeth]

30 minutes ago, Overread said:

[...]

Now when its rules like the Realm Rules its easy to add or remove them because its 100% paperwork. It's words on the army list that you can add and remove easily. Now when its mercenaries it becomes and issue of models as well. Things you buy, build and paint. So if GW makes it a big thing you'll have players who build that chaos with dwarves army who have that as their army and want to play with those models. Against them you've got those who know that the dwarves and chaos allies breaks the game* balance significantly and who want to aim for a more even match withotu the allies system. They come to blows against each other because now its not a question of paperwork but of one player perhaps not actually having a regular army to play for that evening etc...

Also note that many are worried it will return AoS to its launch days, when  balance was non-existent in the extreme. Players want fair games where they don't have to worry that their opponent is just going to steam roll them because they've brought all the power-units from 3 armies to win the game with. 

*this is 100% pure example without any evidence. Purely for the context of this post. 

I agree with what you say mostly. But regarding balance- how's Gristlegore changing the "balanced" aspect of AoS right now? Is it possible mercs will be less unbalanced than Gristlegore? I mean barely anyone uses the allies system right now. Mercs just opens that up more, but i wouldn't be surprised if barely anyone used it. I just think the community is pretty sensible with this stuff. Most tournaments have some aspect of realm rules without the most unbalanced parts even though initially the reaction was "this breaks the game" from a lot of matched play people.