Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We have learned that Forbidden Power has a lot of new things for AOS. One of which is the ability to take mercenaries outside of your allegiance. So you could decide to be running a Death army with a side of Destruction. We can say "I really want some sweet broken DoK in my already busted FEC army". We have seen something similar with 40k, and those guys call it "soup". It is for many people a plague unto 40k because it brings the min/max and cranks it up past 11 (if you are not familiar with that term, an amplifier has knob with an output value of 1-10, turning it to 11 means going well beyond max).

I'm a bit concerned. This may better belong in the balance thread, but since this is its own topic I decided to make its own thread here.

If they are indeed letting us take units outside of our allegiance, thus allowing us to smash apart the balance issues that already exist... how are you planning to deal? Competitive players I imagine will embrace it as another tool to min max powerlisting. What about beyond that? Try for the social politics to try and curb it? Disallow it?

I realize "wait and see" is the common response to this, but we're pretending that its as has been described: letting us take units from outside our allegiance whereas before our alliances had to stay in the same grand allegiance.

Do we know it is anything? All I saw was a mention of things like Fyreslayers being used. I assumed a specific list of mercenary options rather than a freeform pick.

Also, AoS version of soup already exists in the form of Grand Alliances. Order and Chaos are analogous to Imperium and Chaos respectively. The difference is that in AoS an army actually has to give up better allegiance options in exchange for that flexibility (DO YOU HEAR ME OVER THERE 40K?) which eliminates the problem nicely without similarly preventing people from building what they want.

Stuff from outside the alliance can fill a roll otherwise difficult to find, but since they will be unable to benefit from any allegiance abilities as well as almost all army-specific synergies I imagine that the only problems to crop up will be 'that one unit in that one army' rather than an entire category of balance issues.

I'll have to think about it, but lets say every army could bring in anything else as allies. What broken options would that create? I imagine almost all of them would involve bringing in a unit that is already overpowered on its own, in which case the issue is that unit rather than the concept.

Yes it will always be the units that are busted, but in GW games there are always units that are busted.

We don't know much about it. But if its typicaly GW shennanigans I would expect stuff like throwing in blood thirsters and what not with your army, or bringing in busted FEC elements etc.

I think it will be a non-event. The fact that its an expansion, rather then baked into the rules like how I believe 40k soup is implemented(could be wrong, I'm not into 40K, so correct me if so), means that its entirely optional. And if its truly problematic, it will probably be disavowed in competitive circles. The realm spells are still somewhat controversial, so I think most events will wash their hands of any additional tomfoolery.

From what we know, it seems like it will mostly be a boon to narrative players in my opinion. My original plan for my Fyreslayers was that they were contracted out by a Darkling Coven sorceress and it was a mix of FS and DC stuff. Then armies started getting Allegiance abilities and alliance restrictions, and the Darkling Coven went back to the end of my hobby queue. Depending on how its implemented, it could be fun.

Although I know as much as the next dude, I'm personally getting a WHFB 8th Edition "Storm of Magic" vibe from this "Forbidden Power" expansion. That introduced some fun(ymmv) rules and neat models to the range, but quickly fell out of use, aside from the occasional side game. It was never a consideration in competitive circles, and really wasn't a compulsory buy for most casual gamers.

One thing that Forbidden Power mentioned that I liked was the terms "Line of Sight blocking terrain" and the ability to use the terrain as "chokepoints", which implies a new layer of complexity may be coming to how models and terrain interact on the table.

My guess is that there will be limitations on this and I would be surprised if it weren't a bit thematic for the mercenaries who can. I could see certain Fyreslayer and Daughters of Khaine selling their services, but what has Legion of Nagash skeleton to do with gold? Orruks would maybe allow themselves to be sell-swords.

They call it a "Mercenary System" so it implies it is a system which implies certain limitations and perhaps complexity. I would also like to quote this part:

With Forbidden Power, you’ll be able to recruit renowned sell-swords to your cause regardless of Grand Alliance.

Renowned sell-swords does imply that these are very specific units in certain factions that are going to be available. Perhaps some weird mercenary battalions. Will be at least interesting to see more revealed.

One thing that Forbidden Power mentioned that I liked was the terms "Line of Sight blocking terrain" and the ability to use the terrain as "chokepoints", which implies a new layer of complexity may be coming to how models and terrain interact on the table.

I like those as well. Battlefield management is something that is sorely lacking in AOS.

The ruins shown could definitely block line of sight between man-sized units by virtue of the size & height of the platforms. This is cool to me because is brings the height of models into the equation; tall models could see over it but also be seen in turn.

Also note it might purely be a "campaign" feature that only appears in Forbidden Powers games. Once the dust settles and its past the few weeks of launch it might well fall into the background of odd games; major events GW organises and the odd casual game.

Heck from Malign Sorcery lets not forget that only Endless Spells have seen near universal acceptance whilst Realm Rules are very hit and miss (some clubs use all, some parts, some none, some vary a lot).

Be nice to be able to field some living in the service of their vampire lords and ladies

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Do we know it is anything? All I saw was a mention of things like Fyreslayers being used. I assumed a specific list of mercenary options rather than a freeform pick.

Also, AoS version of soup already exists in the form of Grand Alliances. Order and Chaos are analogous to Imperium and Chaos respectively. The difference is that in AoS an army actually has to give up better allegiance options in exchange for that flexibility (DO YOU HEAR ME OVER THERE 40K?) which eliminates the problem nicely without similarly preventing people from building what they want.

40k has a lot of ways to neuter those issues...the problem is that tournaments don't exercise them and GW has built in too many workarounds.

For example: did you know that Auxiliary Detachments exist? They subtract Command Points and are 1 unit per slot...but since you can just take a full Detachment instead, nobody bothers with them.

Stuff from outside the alliance can fill a roll otherwise difficult to find, but since they will be unable to benefit from any allegiance abilities as well as almost all army-specific synergies I imagine that the only problems to crop up will be 'that one unit in that one army' rather than an entire category of balance issues.

I'll have to think about it, but lets say every army could bring in anything else as allies. What broken options would that create? I imagine almost all of them would involve bringing in a unit that is already overpowered on its own, in which case the issue is that unit rather than the concept.

My hope is that "mercenaries" will be limited to:
-Fyreslayers
-Freeguild(they're a guild! they want loots damnit! )
-Ogres
-Kharadron Overlords

One problem with story crafting which armies can and can't hire is that in the Realms there's so much faction diversity most can be seen to be hirable under the right argument.


It would actually be shorter to list armies that would NEVER EVER ally with anything else and that would probably boil down to stormcast and chaos.

I could almost see Greenskinz as a mercenary force, they'd just have to bring them back into production...

Its my hope that the mercenary rules are not official matched play rules and that they can be plugged in and out as needed without inciting holy rapture for excluding them.

I'm pretty confident it won't be a problem. It says 'renowned' sell swords, not allies of convenience. The allies system is already pretty flexible but it is not used much because the allies miss out on allegiance abilities. Now there is also the danger of being hurt by your own faction specific endless spells.
Dok could already ally in 4 ballista, but nobody does it.
Even a gkot becomes a lot less scary when it loses feeding frenzy.
I have been trying to think of a unit that would be game breaks ng if allied into another army, but I can't think of any.
Witch Aelves are still dangerous in another army, but a lot more fragile. Hearthguard lose a lot of their defensive buffs. Eels can't strike first.
A grey seer with warp lightning vortex is probably the most dangerous option, but even that is better in a Skaven army.

Hopefully this mercenaries thing will be like the Firestrom campaign and subsequent FAQ that just gave everyone an extra allegiance ability.. where the community rejects/ignores it and the tournament scene bans them at events. OR it just stays out of matched play completely.

Thats why i think it will be mostly workable in the prime game. They dont seem keen on rules people just ignore.

Soup in 40k is mostly a problem because of how detachments and CP work; detachments are based on number of units rather than cost of units so the Mechanicum or the Guard can get an entire Battalion (+5 CP) for under 200pts. AoS awards CP much more uniformly and defines allies by percentage of points rather than number of units, so what you're allowed to take is a lot less flexible and you don't get disproportionately rewarded for taking a few small units anyway.

AoS is also much more heavily reliant on having a support stack to make your units do their jobs; as far as I know there aren't any single powerful giant death machines that can wreck armies without any in-faction support the way a Knight-Castellan can in 40k.

Picture if you will a faction that mostly is a tanky faction and now they have a bunch of points they can spend on daughters of khaine.

Or FEC broken units that do shed loads of mortal wounds.

How about a stormcast army that can now bring in a chaos war mammoth. Because lulz.

Are there workarounds? Sure. If everyone has access to the same bent stuff, that could be their way of "balancing" the game by removing the grand allegiance requirements for allies.

I wouldn't be surprised if your synergy keywords suddenly bleed into these units as well.

Slaanesh keyword giving you extra attacks... and now you bring in some FEC ghouls with extra pile in or a mortal wound popping gristlegore suddenly able to get bonus attacks. That would seem like a bent thing that would fit the design paradigm.

Of course - at the end of the day we know jack and squat about what their intentions or design will be.

But based on a largely failed in terms of balance track record, I am pretty scared to see what this is going to do in regards to casual and narrative games sharing tablespace with adepticon jockeys.

I am going to be super chill about this until we actually have some concrete information and hopefully some data.

I think you are overreacting on this one Auticus.

auticus wrote:
Picture if you will a faction that mostly is a tanky faction and now they have a bunch of points they can spend on daughters of khaine.

If said faction is Order they already could do that through allies.

Keep calm.

auticus wrote:
Picture if you will a faction that mostly is a tanky faction and now they have a bunch of points they can spend on daughters of khaine.

Or FEC broken units that do shed loads of mortal wounds.

How about a stormcast army that can now bring in a chaos war mammoth. Because lulz.

Are there workarounds? Sure. If everyone has access to the same bent stuff, that could be their way of "balancing" the game by removing the grand allegiance requirements for allies.

I wouldn't be surprised if your synergy keywords suddenly bleed into these units as well.

Slaanesh keyword giving you extra attacks... and now you bring in some FEC ghouls with extra pile in or a mortal wound popping gristlegore suddenly able to get bonus attacks. That would seem like a bent thing that would fit the design paradigm.

Of course - at the end of the day we know jack and squat about what their intentions or design will be.

But based on a largely failed in terms of balance track record, I am pretty scared to see what this is going to do in regards to casual and narrative games sharing tablespace with adepticon jockeys.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that the new units will follow the current allies rules. That means no synergy bleeding, no allegiance abilities etc. So DoK units would lose their mortal wound save and blood rites. Fec units would lose feeding frenzy. A chaos war mammoth is hardly game breaking. Also the article specifically says that renowned sell swords will become available. I don’t think DoK, war mammoths, fec or Slaanesh daemons fit that bill.

It’ll probably be like Dogs of War from fantasy. Everyone remember those? They had a few units who would work for literally anyone, and some who were faction specific. I expect it’ll be something like that. And I doubt they’ll gain the keywords of the main army. That would be asinine. There is no reason to expect that.

People said they wouldnt let free summoning go unchained either.

I'll make you a deal, auticus. If the new mercenaries system works like you claim it will (Any army can bring in units from any other army as mercenaries, and those mercenaries receive all allegiance abilities of the faction that hired them), I will personally buy you a full, tournament-quality army of your design and paint it to your specifications. I will even pay for a custom Battlefoam case for the whole army and pay for shipping.

I feel confident that I won't have to do this because the way you seem to think the mechanic will work is just stupid. That's not even how soup works in 40k. So when we finally see how mercenaries actually work (my guess is specific units from specific factions can be used as allies by any faction, possibly having to pay a slightly higher points cost for using mercs from a different allegiance, and there is no way mercenaries will receive any benefit from allegiance abilities), all I ask is that you create a thread stating that you jumped the gun on this one and overreacted based on an assumption that makes no sense. Deal?

Edit - Just one qualifier for the deal: No Forgeworld or third-party kits, and I'll be painting with Citadel paints.

Ruglud's Armoured Orks turning up in AoS? Sounds great to me

Im not claiming it will or will not be anything. I am just concerned for what they could be doing with it.

 Kroem wrote:
Ruglud's Armoured Orks turning up in AoS? Sounds great to me

I'll break out my box of Long Drong's Slayer Pirates

 timetowaste85 wrote:
It’ll probably be like Dogs of War from fantasy. Everyone remember those? They had a few units who would work for literally anyone, and some who were faction specific. I expect it’ll be something like that. And I doubt they’ll gain the keywords of the main army. That would be asinine. There is no reason to expect that.

From what's been shown(they showed off a Magmadroth and some Berzerkers), I think it might get rules for making a 'mercenary company' or something like that.

I highly doubt(and really hope) we never see a Dogs of War styled list again. I wouldn't mind some units though--they'd be a great way to do stuff like the Underworlds Warbands in fact!

The main difference is that the Old World Dogs of War army has a few key points to remember

1) Allies in Old World weren't the same. Armies were pretty much mono-faction entities unless you played doubles games (ergo took two full armies). So by default most armies didn't have any allies to draw from.
In AoS we already have allies to draw from. Some forces not so much, some a lot. It's a bit imbalanced to say the least, but the alegance abilities at least keeps a cap on it being abused

2) The Dogs of War army had its entire own roster of models that were unique to it. They appeared as a single army with the entire Dogs of War range, but they were all unique models. So as a mercenary force they already had their own unique visual identity.

3) Dogs of War were limited on what parts could be hired by which factions. So whilst the whole faction was a mercenary force, only some factions could buy some units from it. This meant that the Dogs of War army could have things few or no other army could hire; at the same time it prevented some arimes getting access to certain hired units. Whilst this was mostly an extension of the games lore, it also, again, mean that there were some limits on what could be joined to what.


So the old Dogs of War had limitations built into it and the army itself was built from the ground up as an allied force designed to bolt into other armies.