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.

I just got my copy of it today. The box set is beautiful, and I'm looking forward to playing a game... once I finish reading the book anyway.

What does Dakka think of this new expansion?

What I'd like to know is, are there DoG of War rules?

There was a rumor that there was going to be Dog of War rules to play the old all mercenary army.

Don't have it but can't wait to get my copy this weekend. Just some new mechanics to make multiplayer games, particularly 3 player games is awesome unto itself.

Anyone able to give a summary of how the 3 player game works? Would be great for the three of us that play at the office instead of rotating around.

Didn't get a chance to read it carefully, but I scanned it. Essentially each player gets a player card, and each turn those cards are shuffled and drawn to randomize the player order. Each player declares another army as their "enemy" each phase, all others are "neutral". You can't attack neutral armies. Victory Points are awarded for kills, and can be spent to play treachery cards that interfere with other peoples' plans, and can also be spent to bribe other peoples' mercenaries.

It looks like a lot of fun, I can't wait to play a game!

It does sound pretty good, actually. The book is still expensive, but if you're a group looking for a new type of game then splitting the cost would be a great way to do it.

How do mercenaries work then? Like some sort of allies system, like 40k perhaps?

If I remember correctly you get 100 points per 500 points in your army that you can either use on allies or you can keep them to use them on coins for the battle, the allies only need a general if I understood it correctly, otherwise you can take any units you want.

I am very interested in the mercenaries (big surprise I know). I am a little worried about the whole 'bribing' mercs as that could cause some issues (though I am sure it would be rather funny), but I would like to incorporate this stuff in casual play. The free-for-all setup can also be rather enjoyable. I am hoping for a bit more content then the Blood in the Badlands book.

I take it the merc rules are joined together with the cards and the rules within T&T - meaning you can't just pluck the rules out by themselves.

Things I am curious though if it is true that the only requirement is a general for the allies.
- Do mercs count in the same vein as Trusted Allies (can your characters join their units, BSB work on them, etc.) or are they like non-aligned units and are just there doing their own thing?
- Does this mean we don't have core requirements? We can go straight into specials with our hero/lord? Well I guess that means I can run my Ogre Maneaters no problem then.
- I was kind of hoping they were not going to allow war machines as that seems to be a rather sticking point with a lot of people to hear "OMGZ! Cannons everywhere!" - Makes it a little more difficult to try to get people on board to play with this outside of my group of friends.
- I don't have the rulebook on me, but wasn't there an issue with having two different wizards in your army from two different books in an alliance game (wondering if the alliance rules and the mercs rules run similar in this regard).

Ah screw it. I just convinced myself to get this book anyways. The free-for-all stuff will probably be worth it.

 Goldshield wrote:

I take it the merc rules are joined together with the cards and the rules within T&T - meaning you can't just pluck the rules out by themselves.

Actually, I remember reading that you can play T&T without using the mercenaries rules. Whether or not they're modular enough to be plucked out and used in normal WHFB, I couldn't say.

 Goldshield wrote:
I am very interested in the mercenaries (big surprise I know). I am a little worried about the whole 'bribing' mercs as that could cause some issues (though I am sure it would be rather funny), but I would like to incorporate this stuff in casual play. The free-for-all setup can also be rather enjoyable. I am hoping for a bit more content then the Blood in the Badlands book.

I take it the merc rules are joined together with the cards and the rules within T&T - meaning you can't just pluck the rules out by themselves.

Things I am curious though if it is true that the only requirement is a general for the allies.
- Do mercs count in the same vein as Trusted Allies (can your characters join their units, BSB work on them, etc.) or are they like non-aligned units and are just there doing their own thing?
- Does this mean we don't have core requirements? We can go straight into specials with our hero/lord? Well I guess that means I can run my Ogre Maneaters no problem then.
- I was kind of hoping they were not going to allow war machines as that seems to be a rather sticking point with a lot of people to hear "OMGZ! Cannons everywhere!" - Makes it a little more difficult to try to get people on board to play with this outside of my group of friends.
- I don't have the rulebook on me, but wasn't there an issue with having two different wizards in your army from two different books in an alliance game (wondering if the alliance rules and the mercs rules run similar in this regard).

Ah screw it. I just convinced myself to get this book anyways. The free-for-all stuff will probably be worth it.

I've not actually got the book, so don't hold me on this, but from what I gather:

- All the mercenaries need is a character to lead them. There's no requirements/limits outside of that, i.e. no 25% core tax.

- I think (though I'm not sure) that they count as friendly units for all intents and purposes. What I do know is that, should a mercenary unit flee, then rally, on a 1-4 they switch allegiances. I think this means they then go up for bribery, where essentially all the random players, in a randomized order, get to try and bribe the mercs. Essentially you have to "bid" on them (controlling player can bid too). Fittingly, the mercenaries go to the highest bidder. It's not an open bid though, it's just controlling player vs 1 neutral player, the order of that neutral player being randomized, as I said. I'm not sure if you can only bribe after they've fled and rallied though, or whether you can do it at any time, or whether you need a special card.

Going to be playing a 3 way game this afternoon, will try and take a few notes to share once I get back. Friend has the book, so no clue on details yet.

 Goldshield wrote:
I am very interested in the mercenaries (big surprise I know). I am a little worried about the whole 'bribing' mercs as that could cause some issues (though I am sure it would be rather funny), but I would like to incorporate this stuff in casual play. The free-for-all setup can also be rather enjoyable. I am hoping for a bit more content then the Blood in the Badlands book.

I take it the merc rules are joined together with the cards and the rules within T&T - meaning you can't just pluck the rules out by themselves.

Things I am curious though if it is true that the only requirement is a general for the allies.
- Do mercs count in the same vein as Trusted Allies (can your characters join their units, BSB work on them, etc.) or are they like non-aligned units and are just there doing their own thing?
- Does this mean we don't have core requirements? We can go straight into specials with our hero/lord? Well I guess that means I can run my Ogre Maneaters no problem then.
- I was kind of hoping they were not going to allow war machines as that seems to be a rather sticking point with a lot of people to hear "OMGZ! Cannons everywhere!" - Makes it a little more difficult to try to get people on board to play with this outside of my group of friends.
- I don't have the rulebook on me, but wasn't there an issue with having two different wizards in your army from two different books in an alliance game (wondering if the alliance rules and the mercs rules run similar in this regard).

Ah screw it. I just convinced myself to get this book anyways. The free-for-all stuff will probably be worth it.

Mercs are treated as suspicious allies and as a previous poster mentioned, they can change allegiance during the battle and suffer a -1 leadership at all times. This to me should allay your fears "OMGZ cannons everywhere" since unlike in 40k, allies in this expansion suffer reduced leadership, and should they break have a chance to betray you. There's also no restrictions in what armies can take which allies, so Chaos Demons and Lizardmen could team up, which means everyone is on equal footing as well.

The only requirement for your mercenaries is that you have a hero level or above. For every 500 points in a game, you get 100 points for mercenaries. So in a 2500 point game you can either take 500 points in mercs or collect extra VP tokens. If you only spend 250 points on mercs, say a dwarf army buying an empire wizard lord, you would get 250 points in VP tokens. The person with the most tokens in the end wins. This too should limit too much cheese since you would have to be playing a really high cost game to take anything super nasty.

I've already played 2 games with the full expansion rules and absolutely love it. In my first game I played as Ogres with a detachment of Bretonnian knights and a paladin, and in the course of the game my knights changed hands between players twice. I can see players taking armies immune to psychology or unbreakable units to reduce the risk of losing their allies. In my second game I took no allies and was able to used the extra VP tokens to bribe my opponents into limiting damage against me, and to bid on a runaway High Elf Mage that stayed with me for the rest of the game.

I've only just skimmed the surface of this book, but I have a question about the rules that seem a bit strange to me when in reference to Trust no One.

So, you are suppose to select a player to be an enemy every turn. So lets say that there are three players, you have chosen to attack Player #2 (assuming you are #1) the first turn. So they are your enemy. However lets say player #3 attacks you and you want to retaliate your following turn. So you choose player #3 to be your enemy. Can you still attack Player#2 in the same manner as before? Or are you simply just assuming that in the time of one turn you and player #2 are buds now?

SOOOOOO much fracking fluff.

I love stories and all but I can't justify to my better half why i need to spend 85 bucks to get my hands on a book, some cards, some cardboard tokens (the vps aren't even plastic) and a sweet box.

Especially since the book only has about 6 pages of rules.

thelordcal wrote:
SOOOOOO much fracking fluff.

I love stories and all but I can't justify to my better half why i need to spend 85 bucks to get my hands on a book, some cards, some cardboard tokens (the vps aren't even plastic) and a sweet box.

Especially since the book only has about 6 pages of rules.

I cannot begin to tell you how worth it it was.

Though to be perfectly honest, you can probably pick up the rules from reading this thread or playing a game with your group. It's just the cards that are the issue then, but you could fairly easily invent your own.

 Avrik_Shasla wrote:
I've only just skimmed the surface of this book, but I have a question about the rules that seem a bit strange to me when in reference to Trust no One.

So, you are suppose to select a player to be an enemy every turn. So lets say that there are three players, you have chosen to attack Player #2 (assuming you are #1) the first turn. So they are your enemy. However lets say player #3 attacks you and you want to retaliate your following turn. So you choose player #3 to be your enemy. Can you still attack Player#2 in the same manner as before? Or are you simply just assuming that in the time of one turn you and player #2 are buds now?

So just to clarify, you choose an enemy each PHASE. Also any player that is not your chosen enemy is neutral and is immune to everything in the game that you could do (magic, scatter from artillery, etc). Using your example above, If you are engaged by player #2 from previous turn, and you charged player #3 during the movement phase, you'd have to choose which player is the enemy during the CC phase. Whichever player you don't choose as the enemy, is now the neutral player to you for the phase. So when engaged with a neutral player you must unengage from combat and move 1" away if possible. If you can't move away then you and the neutral player simple do not throw any attacks at each other.



I do feel this game can be a great way to spend an afternoon hanging out with some friends. But the mercenary rules can come back to haunt the game design. I play High Elves and having the ability to take a Casket of Souls, or Dwarf Canons with dispel scroll runes is too powerful.

riburn3 wrote:
Mercs are treated as suspicious allies and as a previous poster mentioned, they can change allegiance during the battle and suffer a -1 leadership at all times. This to me should allay your fears "OMGZ cannons everywhere" since unlike in 40k, allies in this expansion suffer reduced leadership, and should they break have a chance to betray you. There's also no restrictions in what armies can take which allies, so Chaos Demons and Lizardmen could team up, which means everyone is on equal footing as well.

The only requirement for your mercenaries is that you have a hero level or above. For every 500 points in a game, you get 100 points for mercenaries. So in a 2500 point game you can either take 500 points in mercs or collect extra VP tokens. If you only spend 250 points on mercs, say a dwarf army buying an empire wizard lord, you would get 250 points in VP tokens. The person with the most tokens in the end wins. This too should limit too much cheese since you would have to be playing a really high cost game to take anything super nasty.

Thanks for the info as my book is still in transit. The lower leadership is definitely dangerous. I do wonder if Golgfag's trusted allies rule still works in this though. Hopefully GW will faq it.

Avrik_Shasla wrote:I've only just skimmed the surface of this book, but I have a question about the rules that seem a bit strange to me when in reference to Trust no One.

So, you are suppose to select a player to be an enemy every turn. So lets say that there are three players, you have chosen to attack Player #2 (assuming you are #1) the first turn. So they are your enemy. However lets say player #3 attacks you and you want to retaliate your following turn. So you choose player #3 to be your enemy. Can you still attack Player#2 in the same manner as before? Or are you simply just assuming that in the time of one turn you and player #2 are buds now?

I guess this is supposed to prevent the usual thing of two players ganging up on one player and then slugging it out? This is going to take some actual play to see how it does.

mrfantastical wrote:

I do feel this game can be a great way to spend an afternoon hanging out with some friends. But the mercenary rules can come back to haunt the game design. I play High Elves and having the ability to take a Casket of Souls, or Dwarf Canons with dispel scroll runes is too powerful.

Until they decide to fight for your opponent instead...

 The Shadow wrote:

mrfantastical wrote:

I do feel this game can be a great way to spend an afternoon hanging out with some friends. But the mercenary rules can come back to haunt the game design. I play High Elves and having the ability to take a Casket of Souls, or Dwarf Canons with dispel scroll runes is too powerful.

Until they decide to fight for your opponent instead...

Casket of souls is unbreakable, so it'll never make a panic test, so it'll never fight for your opp. However dwarf artillery might (at LD 8) if enemy can force a test.

I also feel things like screaming skull catupult and especially the Hellcannon (which will never fight for your opponent either), will be good mercenary hunters. Mainly because of their leadership debuffs, and forced panic tests.

Played a three way game last night using the new rules. I wouldn't pay $85 for the book and cards on my own, but if you have 4-5 people chipping in I think it's reasonable. Definitely a cool way to play. Deployment on its own is a new adventure when you have different flanks to worry about. I brought a super hard 2500 WoC against my friends' casual Lizardmen and Dwarfs. I won by a long shot despite being essentially ganged up on (voluntarily, given my list was stupid hard). The Treachery cards were a neat touch. Wish some of them were a touch more impactful, and I could see how some worked better with 4-5 players than with 3, but definitely neat.

Looking forward to playing more.

mrfantastical wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:

mrfantastical wrote:

I do feel this game can be a great way to spend an afternoon hanging out with some friends. But the mercenary rules can come back to haunt the game design. I play High Elves and having the ability to take a Casket of Souls, or Dwarf Canons with dispel scroll runes is too powerful.

Until they decide to fight for your opponent instead...

Casket of souls is unbreakable, so it'll never make a panic test, so it'll never fight for your opp. However dwarf artillery might (at LD 8) if enemy can force a test.

I also feel things like screaming skull catupult and especially the Hellcannon (which will never fight for your opponent either), will be good mercenary hunters. Mainly because of their leadership debuffs, and forced panic tests.

Except each and every phase someone can just bribe it to remain neutral. My High Elf friend did exactly this by bringing a casket, and I used my spare VP's to just neutralize the thing, sometimes only costing me a bronze to stop it from doing anything. While I'm sure someone is going to come up with a silly unbreakable mercenary list, there's checks and balances within the system itself, plus, if people are playing typical size matches from 1500-2000 points, the most people can take for mercenaries is only 300-400 pts.

In my games so far where we have played 2500 points, the mercenaries were more of a strategic buffer then anything. Do you waste precious VP in trying to prevent them from harming you? Do you let them attack you then try and break them in hopes of adding them to your collective? Do you just use your own as a threat to force your opponents to waste their VP? Pretty quickly in this game you learn there is a whole new level of intrigue on all sides.

riburn3 wrote:

mrfantastical wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:

mrfantastical wrote:

I do feel this game can be a great way to spend an afternoon hanging out with some friends. But the mercenary rules can come back to haunt the game design. I play High Elves and having the ability to take a Casket of Souls, or Dwarf Canons with dispel scroll runes is too powerful.

Until they decide to fight for your opponent instead...

Casket of souls is unbreakable, so it'll never make a panic test, so it'll never fight for your opp. However dwarf artillery might (at LD 8) if enemy can force a test.

I also feel things like screaming skull catupult and especially the Hellcannon (which will never fight for your opponent either), will be good mercenary hunters. Mainly because of their leadership debuffs, and forced panic tests.

Except each and every phase someone can just bribe it to remain neutral. My High Elf friend did exactly this by bringing a casket, and I used my spare VP's to just neutralize the thing, sometimes only costing me a bronze to stop it from doing anything. While I'm sure someone is going to come up with a silly unbreakable mercenary list, there's checks and balances within the system itself, plus, if people are playing typical size matches from 1500-2000 points, the most people can take for mercenaries is only 300-400 pts.

In my games so far where we have played 2500 points, the mercenaries were more of a strategic buffer then anything. Do you waste precious VP in trying to prevent them from harming you? Do you let them attack you then try and break them in hopes of adding them to your collective? Do you just use your own as a threat to force your opponents to waste their VP? Pretty quickly in this game you learn there is a whole new level of intrigue on all sides.

I haven't played yet, but I'm looking forward my first game soon. I forgot about the bribing of mercenaries, but I do agree that the unbreakable merc units are going to see a lot of table time.

Yeah, I think the whole mercenary idea sounds pretty balanced. While you can come up with broken combinations (and minimize the randomness), there's still the chance it'll backfire.

Besides, I think not taking any mercenaries at all and sticking with your several hundred extra VPs is a viable tactic.

 The Shadow wrote:
Yeah, I think the whole mercenary idea sounds pretty balanced. While you can come up with broken combinations (and minimize the randomness), there's still the chance it'll backfire.

Besides, I think not taking any mercenaries at all and sticking with your several hundred extra VPs is a viable tactic.

Very viable. Typically if you just save the VPs, you can usually just limit the ability of your opponents mercenaries right from the start and you dictate the transactions for the first couple of turns. It takes money to make money.

I find it weird to give every army the chance of taking mercenaries, but then not give the stats and rules for the existing mercenary regiments and discontinue their models. When did GW stop being mainly a miniature company?

 Kroothawk wrote:
I find it weird to give every army the chance of taking mercenaries, but then not give the stats and rules for the existing mercenary regiments and discontinue their models. When did GW stop being mainly a miniature company?

Make your own rules and ask your opponent if he can allow you to use them. It's free. But most of the mercenaries can actually be played with units from other army books as "count as" without trouble.

Beside, GW makes rules for the models they sell. Since old mercenaries are out of product, it's quite in their logic.

 Kroothawk wrote:
I find it weird to give every army the chance of taking mercenaries, but then not give the stats and rules for the existing mercenary regiments and discontinue their models. When did GW stop being mainly a miniature company?

As someone that played a massive Dogs of War force back in the day, I really sympathize. That said, there's no sense in making a bunch of rules for models that haven't been in production for some time. Only a very small minority would benefit. I would imagine they have seen tremendous success with the 40k allies rules in terms of sales, and this is just a field test for allies in the next edition of fantasy considering the rules make it possible for a High Elf army to hire some DoC mercenaries.

What's really going on here is the new rules allow players to buy just a few hundred points of some of their favorite models in other armies, without the cost of effort of having to start a new army from scratch, but still being allowed to use those few models with your main forces. I'm sure eventually many players will expand on those small starting units or buy numerous small mercenary detachments. My friend who plays Dwarfs went out and got a goblin shaman and giant as a result of the new rules because he loves the giant model and he likes the irony of taking a goblin in a Dwarf army.

I would guess that it also balances the game that the one who brings too cheesy army will quickly get attention from the rest of the players.

I played a 4 player game last night, and it was a lot of fun. 1000 points per player.

I will say that while the rules felt great and had creative answers to a lot of tricky multi player issues, but the game overall still felt pretty unbalanced just due to the absolute chaos that is inherently part of a 4v4 scramble.

Also note that the treachery cards, can do a huge range of things- I got a front + flank combo charge off with 2 lances of knights into a unit of Saurus- and my opponent played a card forcing me to choose another opponent for the combat phase, meaning I just pushed 1 inch away.

The game was wacky, and it felt more or less fair, but due to the natural imbalances of a 4 player game and getting teamed up on, etc. It just doesn't feel like something that can ever truly be balanced or competitive.

That said, I had a lot f fun, and its definitely a great beer and pretzle activity for 3 players who all want to get a game in at the same time! The game flowed pretty naturally, and everything was a ton of fun!