10 hours ago, drkpnthr said:

I think the four factions should be diverse enough to keep us all busy for quite a while. One of the things that bugged me with warmachine was how some of the neutral units became so popular that the have now evolved into independent factions. There shouldn't be a need for a fifth 'mercenary' faction. I could see some cross-faction units just because ffg might sell one to all players later on in the game, but hopefully they will be uniques and there would be limits on how many you could take

Mercenary Faction was a thing pretty early on they even had two battle boxes in MKI

The reason a mercenary faction is appealing is because you can create a standard baseline to represent the strength of a unit and allow a faction to get access to something it normally doesn't have, rather then creating a poor performer for that faction.
Let's say Uthuk has a weaker ranged game then most factions, but for whatever meta reason you need a ranged unit. FFG could release a bad ranged unit for Uthuk that can still fulfill the need, or you can take a mercenary unit that is actually decent at it.
I assure you, having to buy/paint/field models that are not good at something sucks, but sometimes you need to. It also creates buyer remorse for new players who buys something that looks cool in the faction and is then a poor performer.
Now, Mercenary units that are excessively strong in a vacuum are poor design because they limit choices for all factions. Mercenary units that are relatively strong actually open up choices.

You all have good points. I guess I'm biased against them because 1) people on the X-Wing forum say they would be bad for the game, and 2) I felt that the neutral units in BattleLore were wasted development time that could have been spent on interesting in-faction units.

Granted I'm trollbloods player in hordes, and in mk2 even though we had several ranged options released, the best one was still a neutral unit. It was terrible design for them to make the neutral unit so good, but it was equally terribly to waste trollblood release space on something that they are just not meant to be good at.

59 minutes ago, Obscene said:

Granted I'm trollbloods player in hordes, and in mk2 even though we had several ranged options released, the best one was still a neutral unit. It was terrible design for them to make the neutral unit so good, but it was equally terribly to waste trollblood release space on something that they are just not meant to be good at.

This can be viewed positively in two lights.

The first is that there will be a number of players who will want to build all in a faction, so giving them an option, even a subpar option is a good thing

Second is fluff wise, everyone starts somewhere near the bottom with new tech, your bad unit at X, so long as it's priced right, it shouldn't be an issue

@Obscene Yeah, I've played Skorne and Cygnar myself. I just was always frustrated that people would point me towards some mercenary or neutral unit to fill a gap in my force builds instead of something in the faction. Like if I needed a good melee unit to fill out my Skorne list, I wanted to use one of the faction units, but then everyone would say I need the gatormen unit instead because it actually performs better in melee per point and has better synergies with my warlock. I didn't want to add a swamp-themed unit to my desert-themed force, and I could never reconcile between the desire to perform at my best (I liked the way the gatormen worked and how they functioned in my army) vs wanting an army representative of the faction (desert-themed 300-persian-style conquerers)

9 hours ago, Obscene said:

The reason a mercenary faction is appealing is because you can create a standard baseline to represent the strength of a unit and allow a faction to get access to something it normally doesn't have, rather then creating a poor performer for that faction.
Let's say Uthuk has a weaker ranged game then most factions, but for whatever meta reason you need a ranged unit. FFG could release a bad ranged unit for Uthuk that can still fulfill the need, or you can take a mercenary unit that is actually decent at it.
I assure you, having to buy/paint/field models that are not good at something sucks, but sometimes you need to. It also creates buyer remorse for new players who buys something that looks cool in the faction and is then a poor performer.
Now, Mercenary units that are excessively strong in a vacuum are poor design because they limit choices for all factions. Mercenary units that are relatively strong actually open up choices.

They could pull a lot of the Descent monsters to be a mercenary faction. Beastmen, Flesh Moulders, Merriods, Ice Wurms, the lot.

I just believe it's a waste of resource to produce a trollblood unit that is inherently bad at its intended roll to fill the need of the role for that faction.
Gatormen Posse are actually symptomatic of bad design in MK2 much like Nyss hunters. They were systematically better then almost every factions specific unit at their role.
Good Design of a mercenary unit is Totem Hunter. Not every faction has support piece assassination, so if you want that function you take totem hunter. If you are one of the factions that has solo assassination, you still continue to use yours. Bad Design is giving every faction solo assassination pieces. but because it isn't the factions *strength* it's kind of underpowered but they atleast have the option to take it.
I just think engaging game play comes from having factions being specifically strong at certain things and designing them around that and not giving every faction a variation of an archer unit and then only one or two of the archer units actually being good.
I don't think every army would inherently develop the same exact way to fight, they would play to their specialized strengths and push that as hard as possible.
In a bit of reflection, it seems like we are on the same page as far mercenaries overshadowing. I just think there are ways to do better then warmachines poorly done way.

I always liked the way WHFB used to handle it (at least in the old days ... I never played past 4th ed.)...

Basically, neutral units were their own unique thing, not designed to be filler units to make up for faction slack (as in the examples above), just interesting units in their own right that could be added to an army for fun.

Neutral units were either beasts (Dragons, Manticores, etc) that had been captured and trained to fight for an army, or mercenary minded monsters like Ogres and Giants (yes Ogres eventually got fleshed out to be their own faction but this was before that).

2 hours ago, Obscene said:

I just think engaging game play comes from having factions being specifically strong at certain things and designing them around that and not giving every faction a variation of an archer unit and then only one or two of the archer units actually being good.
I don't think every army would inherently develop the same exact way to fight, they would play to their specialized strengths and push that as hard as possible.
In a bit of reflection, it seems like we are on the same page as far mercenaries overshadowing. I just think there are ways to do better then warmachines poorly done way.

I'm starting to understand your philosophy on neutral units. The thing is, the lore already has archers, infantry, cavalry, elite units, and heroes for every faction. I'm believe FFG will give every faction every kind of unit and try to just give each of them a different spin through the unit abilities, rather than having one faction be the only one that has a certain unit type or strategy. Looking X-Wing, they started with some clear mechanical themes for each faction, but those lines have blurred over time. While the 8-ship swarm (MSU) was the trademark of the Empire in the early days, all 3 factions can do it now, and Scum will be able to do it with 2 different ships in a few months! I think Runewars will go the same way, where every faction can do everything, but some will do it better than others.

In my opinion, there's still a lot of strategy to be had with that kind of a system. It's all about calling the meta and saying, "I know my Uthuk archers are weaker than other archers, but given that Unit X is in nearly every Daqan army, I think a 2x2 unit of archers is just what I need to give me some leverage against that unit. I can then send in my Flesh Rippers to tear it up once it's weakened and Flesh Rippers should be able to deal damage much quicker than other factions if my archers can get the poison on Unit X." To me, that's a more interesting scenario than having, for example, really good archers for Latari and Waiqar and then every Daqan and Uthuk army with ranged attacks has the same neutral ranged unit.

So we differ in our opinions, but that's okay. And you have seem to have way more miniatures experience than I do, so even though I'm maintaining my own opinion, I think yours carries more weight.

Excellent Post!
Always multiple ways to skin a cat, not really trying to convince one person of anything, I'm really just fleshing out ideas and running with it. Armchair game design is a bit of hobby. You're bit on everybody else just stuck with being a neutral archer was an excellent point. Archers was perhaps not really the best unit to describe it with.
However, I do agree when applicable that units don't need to be comparably good to be equally good in both armies. While still creating interesting game play elements and meaningful decisions in list building.
Another good criticism for mercenaries, is just really how modular and specialized units can be in this game. Between the dial, the stat card, and the upgrade cards units can serve radically specialized roles that can really prevent a variety of options from just becoming a homogeneous blend. Almost all of the units in the core set have radically different functions on the table, while point for point are almost all equivalently costed. The only exceptionally general unit is the spearmen, and that seems more to be it's specific strength is the tactical flexibility within that single choice.
I really want the wolf calvary, super bad. I normally love the demons/barbarian type guys, but Elves on Wolves just sounds incredibly awesome. I also love mobility, and trying to win by out maneuvering my opponent. I don't know if elves ally with treemen in this game, but Tree Folk are pretty cool aswell, and ent style model would be pretty cool, but it might be a little to cliche.

21 minutes ago, Obscene said:

I don't know if elves ally with treemen in this game, but Tree Folk are pretty cool aswell, and ent style model would be pretty cool, but it might be a little to cliche.

It's totally a thing!

If they were going to bring in some neutral units, what I would love to see would be to create some way of bringing them in as a terrain hazard. I think it would be cool to have a band of ogres or a dragon or something that comes with a 'dragon's lair' or 'ogre barrow' deployment card, and when you select it you get to pull out this amazingly painted model and throw it down on the table. If you kill it you get a bunch of victory points but while you try to do so the enemy is outflanking you and raining arrows down on both of you.

Or, as another option, perhaps we could get some kind of mercenaries where there is something unpredictable about their nature that, while unique, increases their RNG factors to make them risky to use compared to your faction's options. Like a beast that every turn it builds up rage tokens, until it eventually goes berserk and attacks anyone nearby. If you can channel it into the enemy, it will do more damage to them than your units, but if the enemy can slow it or wound it at range, it may tear into your own troops first.

One thing I'm hoping the expansions will come with are Scenarios the way XWing had. I just think it would be neat to have some one-shot missions like they did in there, especially some hero-themed ones for those Expacs. Then in time perhaps we can see some kind of fan-built system like Heroes of the Aturi cluster where players work together, each commanding units that

They've got to release the Latari straight away. If they don't then the hero you get in the starter box for the Daqan is losing an ability since it lets her field some Latari alongside your forces. Why have that as a power if they're not being released for months and months?

Also I'd expect some Descent heroes that are elves to show up in the Latari ranks. I mean if Lord Hawthorne and Master Thorn were there for the Daqan at Gencon surely Laurel of Bloodwood and others will turn up?

So many heroes in Descent (both 1 and 2) that I've sometimes run "race-focused" games like : all dwarves, all elves, all orcs... mainly by myself with the App but never been too far because of time consuming games...

So they have the roster ready and at hand. for the fuure units, well... let's see what they bring on the table.

1 hour ago, Elrad said:

So many heroes in Descent (both 1 and 2) that I've sometimes run "race-focused" games like : all dwarves, all elves, all orcs... mainly by myself with the App but never been too far because of time consuming games...

So they have the roster ready and at hand. for the fuure units, well... let's see what they bring on the table.

It's hard to do an all orc party since there's only one orc scout and the model is absolutely awful.

And no Dwarf Scout. It's a tragedy!

I'd really prefer no mercs in this game. If you do have mercs/neutrals though, then they have to generally only be just viable, not crazy strong. If they're viable, then they can fill gaps in factions and make things interesting and less predictable. If they're even slightly OP then they quickly work their way into multiple factions and make the game boring. It's a tough balancing act and I don't have full faith that they can do it, so I'd rather they just didn't try. :\

4 hours ago, Willange said:

I'd really prefer no mercs in this game. If you do have mercs/neutrals though, then they have to generally only be just viable, not crazy strong. If they're viable, then they can fill gaps in factions and make things interesting and less predictable. If they're even slightly OP then they quickly work their way into multiple factions and make the game boring. It's a tough balancing act and I don't have full faith that they can do it, so I'd rather they just didn't try. :\

If it's like the runewars board game, the neutrals were good, but they didn't actually help do the combos that were built into your army. If this is the same for the minis game, it should work out fine.

@Taear I like the Durik model I'm just dissapointed that his companion is a token. Also it would be awesome to see Syndreal as a hero especially if she is able to round up some of her fellow disgraced guards to regain their honor.

36 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:

@Taear I like the Durik model I'm just dissapointed that his companion is a token. Also it would be awesome to see Syndreal as a hero especially if she is able to round up some of her fellow disgraced guards to regain their honor.

Syndreal is one of my favorites, Jaes Also

I have to say i really mercs it's troue though tha ti haven't used that many and it may not too easy to get them good rules wises, you could make them cheaper than the average unit it is close to or make it so that you really have to thin to I stick to the things my army can (for example close combat) or do i loos some of thatpunch to be little bit more versatile, or you could just say no more than 1 merc unit per armie/X points.

Now why do i like mercs, well you can go really crazy in terms of rules (not meaning overpowered), looks and lore for them. Warhammer Fantasy had some nice and crazy mercs like Lumpin Croop's Fighting "Chickens" (cause the real word is bad) , Long Drong's Slayer Pirates , Birdmen of Catrazza , The Cursed Company (something for you Elrad), some of the merc units came from countries/Cities that were part of the lore for a long time but never got an army so it was nice to see and read at least a little bit about it. And then in the ogre army they said that ogres like to wander and see the world and fight as mercs but they always retunr to their tribe and those returned ones were the Maneaters and they brought a nice different look into the army because one looked like a pirate another one was wearing clothes in the stye of the troops of the empire and one is a ninja (isn't his grot cute?) and you could go really crazy on them i saw some with Khemri or Lizardmen pieces on them meaning he fought for or againss them and for other armies you could get Maneaters or normal Ogre Bulls as mercunits, which i liked cause it showed the beginning (Ogre Bulls) of their journey and a later state (Maneaters).

Other games like Freebooters Fate ( Franjo , M.Gorgonne & Cesar , Baron Conchita , C Montero Guaca ) or Infinity (Deadp i mean Senor Massacre , Jojimbo , Miyamoto Mushashi , Father Lucien Sforza , Scarface and Cordelia , Lara i mean Miranda Ashcroft ) have good and crazy looking mercs, so yes i would like to see some mercenary units or characters.

Well heck, back in Warhammer Fantasy 5th, there was an entire army based on mercenaries: Dogs of War. That was a different time, a different age.

did you ever seen in any fantasy setting an elvish army using mercenaries ? Maybe Drows ?

9 hours ago, Kubernes said:

Well heck, back in Warhammer Fantasy 5th, there was an entire army based on mercenaries: Dogs of War. That was a different time, a different age.

I know that, i was sadly too late for that. And about Elfs and mercenaries, well WHF had a Dark Elf Mercenary unit so Dark Elfs could probably use that. In most settings i can't see them using non elves but what about elven mercenaries, they could exist.

Wait the Retribution of Scyrah in Warmachine is an elven faction, does anyone know if they can use non elvish mercs?

I used some high elf Mercs in my wood elf army for whf to add a block formation to what was otherwise a skirmisher army. It let me lock in an objective and hold against big block armies for a few rounds while my snipers and ambushers ripped them apart.