Mercenary Companies

[Redmanphill]

For narrative play these are excellent. I have seen a lot of complaints on other social media about these breaking the narrative and I just don't get it. It would seem that people view the four allegiances as totally inviolable and monolithic. I always viewed them as rather nebulous ideas and alliances. I can totally see Morathi using some Chaos Tribesmen. I actually could see those Tribesmen being rather ambivalent towards the chaos gods too. Not everyone is a total fanatical worshipper of chaos/Sigmar or Nagash. This is really apparent in the lore.

I am eager enough to get myself a small 400pt Fyreslayer force to ally in with my Nighthaunt and to paint in a suitably Syhsian scheme. It will look great on the battlefield, give me something interesting to paint and play with and at the same time tell an interesting story for my opponent.

As for matched play... well competitive players get what they deserve I find.

[Mungrun]

Personally I love how they have introduced the mercenaries in the game.

I'm going to add 3 giants to my Kharadron Army, that will give me the melee-focused unit i need.... mwahahahaha.

Now I just want more development in the lore of these units and a few more units (but really JUST A FEW more): Dark Elf corsairs, Daughters of Khaine, Grot Pirates and something like that.

Also, I would love a General to create an army full of mercenaries like the old Dogs of War.

Who knows... maybe someday they will release personalized miniatures of this units.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Mungrun

[Knight Scáthach of Fimm]

If the Freeguild mercs still have the same keywords + mercenary then I'd actually consider taking them alongside my normal Freeguild as the outflank has uses that Freeguild don't have access to atm.

[hughwyeth]

2 hours ago, Redmanphill said:

I have seen a lot of complaints on other social media about these breaking the narrative and I just don't get it. It would seem that people view the four allegiances as totally inviolable and monolithic. I always viewed them as rather nebulous ideas and alliances. I can totally see Morathi using some Chaos Tribesmen. I actually could see those Tribesmen being rather ambivalent towards the chaos gods too. Not everyone is a total fanatical worshipper of chaos/Sigmar or Nagash. This is really apparent in the lore.

Yeah people who think it breaks narrative has never read an AoS novel. Hell even in forbidden power, fyreslayers betray SC for Nighthaunt. 

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, Mungrun said:

I'm going to add 3 giants to my Kharadron Army, that will give me the melee-focused unit i need.... mwahahahaha.

3x160 pts = 480 pts

no you won‘t at least not in matched play 🥺

[Overread]

3 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:

Yeah people who think it breaks narrative has never read an AoS novel. Hell even in forbidden power, fyreslayers betray SC for Nighthaunt. 

I think its important to remember a lot of people are drawn into the game through the artwork and depiction of a single unified army and the stories within that armies codex/battletome. Like it or not the bulk of any armies major engagements are going to be with that army being "pure". Even when they take allies in many of the lore stories the allies are either one or two heroes added in (eg like Gotrek and Felix turning up to a fight) and thus are basically lost in the sea; or they are whole companies/armies of their own so its not like your'e adding a few units its a whole second army appearing. 

There's a niceness to uniform armies that people enjoy. 

 

On the other side there's the issue with too many random allies and the army unity of appearance breaks down layer by layer into a bit of a mess. Sure that's fun sometimes, but not for every army. In addition on the balance side there's always the concern that allowing more free-form unit swapping can result in excessive min-max potential. It's a careful line to walk and sometimes breaks when a game which has core balance based on individual army balance then allows armies to swap units over all the time. You can run a high risk that the "pure" armies become functionally inferior which is a bit of a disaster when pure armies are what often sells an army to many players. 

 

"Oh sure you can collect KO, but honestly you'll want to take 400 points of stormcast allies and 400 points of witch aelf allies and that dragon over there as a random wandering monster to win. So yeah you've got what 300 points to pay for a few KO dwarves and that's it" Otherwise you'll just keep losing against everyone else who is using that combo. 

 

Yes winning isn't everything, but losing all the time isn't fun

 

 

That said GW is doing well with AoS. Keeping mercenaries to specific blocks; keeping allies to blocks and also keeping both to limited point values and even adding in an additional cost of 1 command point to mercenaries. This all helps give the mercs limits and costs which helps keep balance front and foremost and also keeps them from dominating the meta (both casual and competitive). What we ideally want is mercenaries as an optional tool in the bag rather than a near mandated requirement. 

[Kyriakin]

BCR freeguild/barbarian mercenaries = Kislevites out the ******, which is what I wanted anyway.

[Mungrun]

20 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

3x160 pts = 480 pts

no you won‘t at least not in matched play 🥺

True... I guess I get hyped too fast 😅. Maybe a better alternative would be the unit of Skeletons + Necromancer (a mage would be great taking account I play Kharadrons) or the Maneater unit (which also has a Mage)

Edited June 11, 2019 by Mungrun

[Eevika]

10 minutes ago, Mungrun said:

True... I guess I get hyped too fast 😅. Maybe a better alternative would be the unit of Skeletons + Necromancer (a mage would be great taking account I play Kharadrons) or the Maneater unit (which also has a Mage)

Gargants are also nothing to get hyped about as they are absolutely horrible 

[Eevika]

24 minutes ago, Overread said:

"Oh sure you can collect KO, but honestly you'll want to take 400 points of stormcast allies and 400 points of witch aelf allies and that dragon over there as a random wandering monster to win. So yeah you've got what 300 points to pay for a few KO dwarves and that's it" Otherwise you'll just keep losing against everyone else who is using that combo. 

You are still restricted to 400 points of allies or mercenarys you cant take take 400 of both

[JPjr]

2 minutes ago, Mungrun said:

True... I guess I get hyped too fast 😅. Maybe a better alternative would be the unit of Skeletons + Necromancer (a mage would be great taking account I play Kharadrons) or the Maneater unit (which also has a Mage)

The Gargant mercenaries are up to 3 models, nothing stopping you just taking two of the big boys.

It's definitely the excuse I needed to at least add one to my wishlist whilst I try and think of a cool conversion to do with it. A flesh peeling zombie gargant for my necrohorde perhaps or a Rabelaisian Gargantua & Pantagruel to accompany a Slaaneshi procession from the sinful Abbey of Thélème.

So many possibilities, but so little talent! 

[Mungrun]

15 minutes ago, Eevika said:

Gargants are also nothing to get hyped about as they are absolutely horrible 

Remember... you are talking with a Kharadron player that means I would be hyped even with a bat swarm unit.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Mungrun

[Double Misfire]

2 hours ago, Mungrun said:

Also, I would love a General to create an army full of mercenaries like the old Dogs of War.

I agree. My first thought when I saw the Mercenary Companies community article was that I wanted to collect all of them, and would gladly take the -10 command point hit to field them all in a single army. Make it happen GW! 

[JPjr]

 Assuming they haven't already thought of this I also need to figure out some home-brew rules for bribing your opponents mercenaries in narrative games, campaigns and certain battleplans. Obviously very rough and just off the top of my head but thinking something like you make specific mercenary companies available and each player blind bids for their service at the start of a game (either straight up with points or some kind of campaign resources) with the truth of their allegiance is only revealed after set up/mid game.

Would make for an incredible narrative/cinematic turn of events for defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory when at the decisive moment that barbarian horde you've tapped up to help subdue the people of the plains, turns on you and becomes the anvil on which the opposing forces hammer your army.

Edited June 11, 2019 by JPjr

[JackStreicher]

Can anyone tell me what the Flesh Eater and Fyreslayer merc Company consists of? (FeC can‘t take a Dragon or Terrorgheist, but that is all I know about this, any special rules?)

[Kugane]

Finally new skaven slaves.

[Redmanphill]

 

2 hours ago, JPjr said:

 Assuming they haven't already thought of this I also need to figure out some home-brew rules for bribing your opponents mercenaries in narrative games, campaigns and certain battleplans.

Just have a bidding war using Command Points with the hiring player having a starting bonus of two already in the pot.

[zedatkinszed]

3 hours ago, hughwyeth said:

Yeah people who think it breaks narrative has never read an AoS novel. Hell even in forbidden power, fyreslayers betray SC for Nighthaunt. 

 

 

 

 

 

3

3 hours ago, Overread said:

I think its important to remember a lot of people are drawn into the game through the artwork and depiction of a single unified army and the stories within that armies codex/battletome. Like it or not the bulk of any armies major engagements are going to be with that army being "pure". Even when they take allies in many of the lore stories the allies are either one or two heroes added in (eg like Gotrek and Felix turning up to a fight) and thus are basically lost in the sea; or they are whole companies/armies of their own so its not like your'e adding a few units its a whole second army appearing. 

There's a niceness to uniform armies that people enjoy. 

Absolutely & TBH this was the same attitude to Dogs of War back in the day in WHFB. It's a crazy attitude. Who cares if your opponent has Skeletons and Giants in an army of ratmen as long as it's legal. If one wants to have a purist army that's AOK but let other people have fun their way too.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Overread said:

That said GW is doing well with AoS. Keeping mercenaries to specific blocks; keeping allies to blocks and also keeping both to limited point values and even adding in an additional cost of 1 command point to mercenaries. This all helps give the mercs limits and costs which helps keep balance front and foremost and also keeps them from dominating the meta (both casual and competitive). What we ideally want is mercenaries as an optional tool in the bag rather than a near mandated requirement. 

Agreed but I think GW has mishandled the allies system. It feels very arbitrary (especially in Order) and relies on too many World That Was associations that should  no longer apply.

Edited June 11, 2019 by zedatkinszed

[hughwyeth]

6 minutes ago, zedatkinszed said:

Agreed but I think GW has mishandled the allies system. It feels very arbitrary (especially in Order) and relies on too many World That Was associations that should  no longer apply.

That's a good point RE old world associations. I think SC being able to ally with anyone is thematic generally, as Sigmar is the head of the pantheon (sort of). But there's lots that don't make sense, particularly by their absence. 

[Lightbox]

21 minutes ago, zedatkinszed said:

Agreed but I think GW has mishandled the allies system. It feels very arbitrary (especially in Order) and relies on too many World That Was associations that should  no longer apply.

THANK YOU!!

I've been annoyed since the dawn of the allies system that I couldn't take elf allies for a freeguild or vice versa as I loved the idea of the mixed free cities and these races generally working together and I'm not that big a fan of mixed order or a lot of the firestorm free city combinations. Also that even though the horned rat joined the pantheon my chaos warriors couldn't have skaven allies to be stabbed in the back by.

I really like the fact they added in mercenaries because a lot of these armies have been referred to as mercenaries for ages and as the article stated in lore you have things like humans and undead coexisting in shyish so it was a shame to not be able to field death humans etc. I do really like that the companies have their own fluff and mini rule to them to make them feel pretty well integrated into the story of AoS great for inspiration too.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Lightbox

[hughwyeth]

12 minutes ago, Lightbox said:

THANK YOU!!

I've been annoyed since the dawn of the allies system that I couldn't take elf allies for a freeguild or vice versa as I loved the idea of the mixed free cities and these races generally working together and I'm not that big a fan of mixed order or a lot of the firestorm free city combinations. Also that even though the horned rat joined the pantheon my chaos warriors couldn't have skaven allies to be stabbed in the back by.

I really like the fact they added in mercenaries because a lot of these armies have been referred to as mercenaries for ages and as the article stated in lore you have things like humans and undead coexisting in shyish so it was a shame to not be able to field death humans etc. I do really like that the companies have their own fluff and mini rule to them to make them feel pretty well integrated into the story of AoS great for inspiration too.

I think it's worth saying that AoS was just open play previously. In that sense, anyone can play with anyone. They've just been slow to integrate that flexibility into matched play. But they're getting there. And I'm hyped for a necromancer and skellybros with my other armies. 

[Overread]

I think limits on allies is a good thing in general in a game system built around unique armies. In theory it helps prevent abuses of the system and keeps the competitive scene closer to pure armies. This is a good thing because it means that balance filters down into the casual area and makes allies optional rather than mandatory. 

It also helps reduce the chances of insane power curves. Interestingly the way they've done it with AoS and the way that Stormcast are not running motly armies all the time suggest that GW might actually be able to relax some alliance blocks within grand alliances. 

 

 

The other extreme is something like Battle Valor where each army is basically comprised of the same blocks of units and each unit performs the same and where army specialities are at the army level and roll out over the whole army. In such a system basically visual appearance is the only functional difference between teh different races when building an army. So you can swap and mix whatever you want; it will perform the same and then the army wide bonus on top simply gives the same unique flavour for that force. 

Of course such systems have their own drawbacks in less unique playstyles - depending on how powerful and diverse the army wide bonuses are. 

[Rob Hawkins]

4 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

3x160 pts = 480 pts

no you won‘t at least not in matched play 🥺

I wonder if they will be reducing the points of the Gargants in the new GHB.  People complain about gargants falling over when they charge, so a points reduction might "balance" them.  Say, 130 points each would let people include 3 in a 2000 point list. 

OR, maybe it's GW's intention that people can't include all 3 in a "tournament" army, and taking all 3 might be reserved for larger games?

Either way, I'll finally have an excuse to finish my zombie giant. 

[TheCovenLord]

5 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

3x160 pts = 480 pts

no you won‘t at least not in matched play 🥺

Unless they get a points drop in the new GHB 

[Mutton]

All they have to do is get rid of that dumb "falling over/failed charge" rule for Gargants and people would start using them. That's all they have to do!