Liber Malefic: Old Swords on new contracts!

I have just posted an intro to a new article by fellow conspirator Werekin: Swords of the Empire. The article both serves as a handy reference compiling all your favourite Hired Swords as well as introducing new rules to promote the use of Hired Swords in Mordheim campaigns, where they are less used than we would like to see.

Have a look at the post and article here:
http://libermalefic.blogspot.com/2010/10/old-swords-on-new-contracts.html

Awesome compilation, but I miss the differents priests HS (Ulric, Morr, Sigmar one, etc) there.

Will there be a new priest of Mannan for the new Marienburg setting? ^^

An extremely useful compilation of the hired swords - thanks, Werekin!

I gave the rules a quick skim, and they are intriguing. I have one question, one concern, and one quibble:

The question: you no longer have to pay upkeep for a HS who has sworn a blood pact with your warband - so, does he now increase the size of the warband by one in terms of selling wyrdstone shards (since previously he didn't because you were paying for him separately)? OK, one-and-a-half questions - do they now also count toward the maximum size of your warband? Intuitively, I would think "yes" in both cases.

The concern: Over time, a warband could really beef up its membership with an good number of (ex) hired swords. But warbands that are severely limited in the number of hired swords they recruit won't benefit as much from this rule (I don't think this issue is a major problem... since you aren't changing the number of HS they have access too, you are just making them cheaper in the long run).

The quibble: the HS swears a blood pact on a roll of 2 on 2d6, with the base target number needed increasing by "1" for every improvement the HS has obtained while in the waraband's service. Wouldn't it be more intuitive to say the base number you need is 12 and you add +1 to the roll for every improvement the HS has obtained? Statistically it is the same, but it just seems more logical to add modifiers to the roll, not the target number. Also, in Mordheim in most cases rolling high is good, rolling low is bad (I did mention it was a quibble, didn't I?).

That article and the compilation took a lot of work - much appreciated!

@Pyyr

Quote :

Awesome compilation, but I miss the differents priests HS (Ulric, Morr, Sigmar one, etc) there.

Thanks. As indicated on the opening page, there is a division between Priests and Hired Swords.

Quote :

Will there be a new priest of Mannan for the new Marienburg setting?

Yes my liege. He is ready to pray and smite the enemies of Manann in our upcoming article.

@mweaver

Quote :

The question: you no longer have to pay upkeep for a HS who has sworn a blood pact with your warband - so, does he now increase the size of the warband by one in terms of selling wyrdstone shards (since previously he didn't because you were paying for him separately)? OK, one-and-a-half questions - do they now also count toward the maximum size of your warband? Intuitively, I would think "yes" in both cases.

Intuitively you would be correct, but the answer in both cases is no. The only exception is when a Hired Sword who has sworn an oath becomes the warband leader.

Quote :

The concern: Over time, a warband could really beef up its membership with an good number of (ex) hired swords. But warbands that are severely limited in the number of hired swords they recruit won't benefit as much from this rule (I don't think this issue is a major problem...

Correct. In an epic length campaign there is a chance of bolstering membership by recruiting Hired Swords. However, this cannot happen quickly as a Sword needs to survive 4, 5, 6 or 7 battles after recruitment to stand a chance of making the Blood Pact. There is still a significant investment to be made before seeing a return.

I would agree that it shouldn't be a problem for any warband which doesn't associate with Hired Swords because such warbands tend to benefit from other strengths.

Quote :

since you aren't changing the number of HS they have access too, you are just making them cheaper in the long run).

Technically not, although there might be the odd adjustment to availability as a result of the suggested Warband categories...

Quote :

The quibble: the HS swears a blood pact on a roll of 2 on 2d6, with the base target number needed increasing by "1" for every improvement the HS has obtained while in the waraband's service. Wouldn't it be more intuitive to say the base number you need is 12 and you add +1 to the roll for every improvement the HS has obtained? Statistically it is the same, but it just seems more logical to add modifiers to the roll, not the target number. Also, in Mordheim in most cases rolling high is good, rolling low is bad (I did mention it was a quibble, didn't I?).

Think of the Blood Pact roll as more comparable to a Leadership roll because it is a kind of intelligence test. It's based on something we trialled first in the Border Town Burning campaign and it feels right that way.

Low = great, on the important tests in Mordheim. Now roll them snake eyes.

Regards,

Werekin.

werekin wrote:

@Pyyr

Quote :

Awesome compilation, but I miss the differents priests HS (Ulric, Morr, Sigmar one, etc) there.

Thanks. As indicated on the opening page, there is a division between Priests and Hired Swords.

Touche! That happens to me for not reading the entire document.

Waiting for more from that new setting.

Cheers

OK - thanks for the responses, werekin.

Great.

I'm going to suggest that we add this into our campaign at the end of the next round. Currently we only have one warband with hired swords although we do have a Chaos Dwarf warband that may benefit from sending those slaves to work searching for wyrdstone.

werekin wrote:

@mweaver

Quote :

The question: you no longer have to pay upkeep for a HS who has sworn a blood pact with your warband - so, does he now increase the size of the warband by one in terms of selling wyrdstone shards (since previously he didn't because you were paying for him separately)? OK, one-and-a-half questions - do they now also count toward the maximum size of your warband? Intuitively, I would think "yes" in both cases.

Intuitively you would be correct, but the answer in both cases is no. The only exception is when a Hired Sword who has sworn an oath becomes the warband leader.

My gaming group through exactly the same as mweaver in regards to selling wyrdstone and maximum warband size because that is the intuitive interpretation as you have said. Since the rules are not immediately intuitive in this regards I think it would be worth spelling it out inside of the article so that you don't continue to get people asking for clarification or not asking and playing the rules differently to how they were designed.


I have only flicked through the hired sword listings. I thought that it was very smart listing common rules for all hired swords within a section at the top of each section. I did notice an anomaly with the Dwarf Adventurers section though. It mentions the "Elf Grudge" special rule which would apply to all dwarf hired swords but then says that the upkeep is 20 gc instead of 15 gc when there is also an elf in the warband. It would be better if it said that the warband must pay an additonal 5 gc upkeep when there is an elf in the warband and then give the example as 20 gc upkeep instead of 15 gc as this proposed wording caters for the Treasure Hunter and Troll Slayer hired swords both of which do not have a 15 gc upkeep.


Oh and I see that there must be a new 'buyer of stolen goods' hired sword coming in MiM...

I think this could be really useful and fun.
But I have a couple concerns.
I really do think that Hired Swords are under-utilized, at least in my play group, but I think that having them possibly stick around sans fee possibly makes them a little too good. I mean warbands won't be just getting a bunch of free Hired Swords but somebody will. That is the result of a high variance mechanic like the Blood Pact mechanic you are introducing. The occasional Campaign, somewhere, will be destroyed when "that guy" has three Hired Swords for free by game 5.

That said, I feel really left out.
I realise that these are all official Hired Swords, but to make them even more desirable for everybody else hurts a little.
I play skaven, specifically I play clan pestilens, and while they are a really good warband out of the gates they start to get really shafted in the long campaigns (which my group here in Tallahassee plays). I can't hire anybody or anything. No Hired Swords, no animals, and not even Dramatis Personae because I'm Clan Pestilens and not Clan Eshin. And I am restricted to 15 guys, not the 20 that Skaven normally have. So I really hate that once I have my 14 guys and my Rat Ogre and a couple poisoned weapons there is NOTHING for me to do, nothing at all.
So I''m going to sit here and pout now.

@Krashlandon: that does suck...hell as a Rat Guy, you can't even make pouty lips, & red, beady puppy eyes don't cut it. You have my condolences.

I actually down loaded the Sell Swords List...VERY IMPRESSIVE & WELL THOUGHT OUT! Of course for moi, it's mostly the modeling/painting possibilities, but VERY WELL DONE regardless.

@ Krashlandon -Yeah It would be nice if they made more Hired Swords for all the Warbands. Human Mercs are pretty well covered. However most of the Non-human warbands could use a couple more choices.

@ werekin - Good job, it looks really good.

@RationalLemming

Quote :

Since the rules are not immediately intuitive in this regards I think it would be worth spelling it out inside of the article so that you don't continue to get people asking for clarification or not asking and playing the rules differently to how they were designed.

It's not necessary. The additional rules are intended to enhance what's already in the rulebook. The existing rule for Hired Swords doesn't change in this respect. The one permissible exception is stated.

Quote :

I did notice an anomaly with the Dwarf Adventurers section though. It mentions the "Elf Grudge" special rule which would apply to all dwarf hired swords but then says that the upkeep is 20 gc instead of 15 gc when there is also an elf in the warband. It would be better if it said that the warband must pay an additonal 5 gc upkeep when there is an elf in the warband and then give the example as 20 gc upkeep instead of 15 gc as this proposed wording caters for the Treasure Hunter and Troll Slayer hired swords both of which do not have a 15 gc upkeep.

The wording from the Mordheim rulebook is used as the template. I didn't repeat in for every entry. It would've been a great waste of space.

Quote :

Oh and I see that there must be a new 'buyer of stolen goods' hired sword coming in MiM...

Fo' sure.

@Krashlandon

Quote :

The occasional Campaign, somewhere, will be destroyed when "that guy" has three Hired Swords for free by game 5.

I think "that guy" would be cheating his rolls. Also, remember that Hired Swords are breakable like Henchmen! Enjoy them while they live.

Quote :

I play skaven, specifically I play clan pestilens, and while they are a really good warband out of the gates they start to get really shafted in the long campaigns (which my group here in Tallahassee plays). I can't hire anybody or anything. No Hired Swords, no animals, and not even Dramatis Personae because I'm Clan Pestilens and not Clan Eshin.

While I have a pet loathing for the underfolk, there are heretics been identified who sympathise with your cause! It's rumoured the 'Tradesrat' will carry illicit new product...

And the issue relating to a lack of specialists has been recognised during compiling the article. It will at least be addressed concerning all those plotting in (or beneath) the city sea-port.

@DeafNala

Quote :

Of course for moi, it's mostly the modeling/painting possibilities, but VERY WELL DONE regardless.

Can't wait to see what craft hobby magic the setting inspires from the community.

Regards,

Stuart.

RationalLemming: "Since the rules are not immediately intuitive in this regard [do sworn HS add to the size of your warband for upkeep and size limits?] I think it would be worth spelling it out inside of the article so that you don't continue to get people asking for clarification or not asking and playing the rules differently to how they were designed."

werekin: "It's not necessary. The additional rules are intended to enhance what's already in the rulebook. The existing rule for Hired Swords doesn't change in this respect."

I think it will cause confusion if you don't (at least, for the unenlightened who aren't following this thread) because, in a way, you do change the rules. Consider:

Living Rulebook, p. 101: "The more models there are in the warband, the more it costs to maintain and the higher the level of any profits made that must be shared between the men. The number indicated on the following chart is the profit in gold crowns earned after deducting the warband’s maintenance costs." The chart referenced is the one where that shows profits from selling shards based on the number of warriors in the warband.

Hired swords don't count in this regard, but you pay them an upkeep fee, from which (presumably) they buy their own food and supplies.

Warband members currently fall into these two categories: those you pay upkeep for indirectly, using the chart on p. 101, and those you pay an upkeep fee for directly to keep them on the roster. Your sworn hired swords are a brand new category - guys that require no upkeep at all. I think most people will assume that, since they have become card-carrying members of the warband, and no the secret handshakes and all, that they count toward warband size. One sentence added to the rules could clear it up.

An awesome list. Thanks for making it!

@werekin I appreciate the sympathies.
But as for the "that guy" reference, let me explain, as more people play with the blood pact rules over longer periods eventually there will be times where somebody gets very lucky and is able to keep several Hired Swords at an early point in the campaign. Now getting lucky is fine but I cannot think of many situations where a single roll has such a important impact on not just a warband but on the balance of the campaign. It just has the potential, agreeably a rare one, to completely destabilize a campaign in just 2 or 3 clutch die rolls.

I kinda have to agree... hired swords are as strong as heroes... it's like saying there are no limits to the number of henchmen that can get TLGT. There is no cap, and thus the players that have more money get more HS, and thus more Heroes. The players that have no money get no hired, and thus stay with fewer 'heroes'. Whenever I add rules, my biggest worry is, "will this help everyone, or only the players that are already winning?"

My suggestion is to go with one of the following:

~ A Blood Pact HS now counts as a Hero. He now gains exp just like a normal hero. If you already have 6 heroes, you must either retire one of your heroes, or refuse the Blood Pact (at which point, he remains a HS). [I know this is probably not what you intended, but if you let the blood pact become the LEADER, it kinda makes sense that he operates like a hero.)
OR
~ You may only have one Blood Pact Hired Sword at a time. If a Hired Sword agrees to a Blood pact, and you already have one member in bloodpact, you must retire the former pact member (who leaves, dejected), or keep the new hired sword as a hired sword. (Thus, the cap moves from "six heroes" to "six heroes + one bloodpact". The leading warbands will trade their stronger HSs in, while the weaker ones won't lose the arms race all that badly.)
OR
~ You may only FIELD one blood pact member in any given battle... any other blood pact members will remain out of the game. They still add to your warband rating, but grant no bonuses to warband size. In the case of Arabyan Merchants and other swords with post-game results, you may not use their post game benefits unless they were fielded during the battle. (While more common in Blood Bowl than Mordheim, it makes sense that a powerful leader would have a few people in reserve, or off doing other missions. Killed my Warlock? Fine. I'll just put the pit fighter in. It works, because the 'benched' swords don't cost the higher player any money, and the lower player only faces the power of one, and gets the underdog for both.)

Also, the warband size makes a difference too. If you're no longer paying upkeep on a sword, he should count towards your size when selling stones/treasures, as he's now eating from the same stew pot. (Not to mention the fact that it's possible for a player to go WAY over their max warband size.)

@werekin

mweaver wrote:

I think it will cause confusion if you don't (at least, for the unenlightened who aren't following this thread) because, in a way, you do change the rules.
...
One sentence added to the rules could clear it up.

Mweaver hit the nail on the head. I believe that adding a single sentence (which shouldn't be hard to do) would go a long way to making your intentions as the author understood. How many times have people lamented and debated rules that are not clearly defined in the official Mordheim rules? Why not avoid that in these new rules by adding an extra sentence (or two)?

werekin wrote:

Quote :

I did notice an anomaly with the Dwarf Adventurers section though. It mentions the "Elf Grudge" special rule which would apply to all dwarf hired swords but then says that the upkeep is 20 gc instead of 15 gc when there is also an elf in the warband. It would be better if it said that the warband must pay an additonal 5 gc upkeep when there is an elf in the warband and then give the example as 20 gc upkeep instead of 15 gc as this proposed wording caters for the Treasure Hunter and Troll Slayer hired swords both of which do not have a 15 gc upkeep.

The wording from the Mordheim rulebook is used as the template. I didn't repeat in for every entry. It would've been a great waste of space.

I understand that you didn't repeat it for each entry and I think that is a very smart idea. However, because the single rule now covers all of the dwarf hired swords some of which have different upkeep costs the wording for the rule should be rewritten into something slightly more generic. That was all my suggestion was about to help reduce potential confusion in your great work.

Anyway, I am just offering suggetsions and am not being critical of the work that you have done. I don't mind if you choose not to agree with my thoughts as they are your rules. I think that these rules are great and my gaming group will be adding them to our current BTB campaign this upcoming round. I should mention that we are already using the rules in your "Corrupted Characters" article and had three mutations occur in our last round after an outing to the Northern Wastes and someone else has a Stone of Skill after visiting an alchemist. Keep up the good work!

I am very happy to see the article cause such a discussion! Indeed this is the route we would like to go with this project: Seek the readers' thoughts and comments before the material ends up in a BTB-like supplement. It is a long way until such a book and we would like to see the community involved. There were a number of interesting and valid concerns posted.


Blood Pact Roll of 2
I totally agree with mweaver here: Rolling high is the usual formula for making successful rolls in Mordheim. Leadership rolls are an exception to this rule and the mentioned Ally rule from the BTB Bestiary explicitly uses Ld tests, so the comparison doesn't really hold. The Blood Pact no longer has the connection to the Leadership stat and thus it should follow the usual design conventions for making rules.


Blood Pact'ed Hired Swords & Warbands size
Here I kind of agree with Werekin. All you really have to do is read the rules as written: "If a pact is formed the Hired Sword still counts as a Hired Sword but no longer has any upkeep to pay." If no further effects are stated why would you interpret them into the rules? However, I don't think one should ignore the concerns of you two (mv, RL) - especially as you're both experienced Mordheimers. It doesn't hurt to make it extra clear to avoid unnecessary confusion. I suggest an addition/revision to that paragraph which goes something like this: If a pact is formed the Hired Sword no longer has any upkeep to pay. Write 'Blood Pact' in the Hired Sword's special rules field on the warband roster.
I think the source of the confusion is the "still counts as a Hired Sword but" bit which suggests a change to the normal rules. The bit isn't really relevant anyways.
ANother good point brought up by mweaver is the dreaded realism/logic: Models need to get their food one way or another - either along with the rest of the warband (members/wyrdstone selling) or by upkeep in the case of Hired Swords. Maybe it would be good to have some sentence saying that the Blood Pact'ed Hired Swords now take care of themselves and thus do not ask for an upkeep fee any longer.


Dwarf Adventurers: Elf Grudge.
Rational is absolutely correct. Obviously it is not possible to use the exact original wording when consolidating the various Hired Swords. Even if all Dwarf Hired Swords happened to have the same upkeep costs it wouldn't be wise, because it would restrict the design possibilities of future Dwarf Hired Swords. Therefore this is the way to go:
Elf Grudge: Any warband wishing to hire a Dwarf that also contains an Elf must pay an additional 5 gold crowns upkeep for each Dwarf Hired Sword.


Lastly: Concerns of Balance
Naturally the initial reaction to new rules is to see the potential, and of course as a player you'd want to exploit them as much as possible. In this case you shouldn't overlook the context though: The presumption is the "uselessness" of most Hired Swords due to their prohibitive costs. With these rules you do not simply circumvent the disqualifications. A Hired Sword's hiring fee is still pricey and the upkeep costs add up to a lot after only a few games. So until you can lean back and take full advantage of the rule there is still some pondering in order: Should I buy a Hired Sword specialist because of his unique skills now and can I really afford it for a couple of games? Isn't a maximum of standard Henchmen better because I want to have my 'Lad's Got Talent' as quickly as possible?
I think the concept is great in that it encourages players to take a chance in Hired Swords by providing a viable perspective of where to go with the sell-sword route, while at the same time it doesn't make the use of Hired Swords a no-brainer. You do have to calculate the risks of inventing in Hired Swords instead of normal models and equipment. The hiring costs and a couple of upkeep fees is a lot of gold crowns for a model that has a chance of 1/3 to die permanently.
This also means that the Blood Pact rule shouldn't treat those warbands in favour who have a larger list of available Hired Swords. The idea of Hired Swords is to enable players to deepen their strategy and adjust their warband to their style of play. Hired Swords provide alternatives, they do not make the respective warbands strongers. So lack of Hired Swords doesn't mean a disadvantage in game balance, it merely means that the player has less possibilities to personalise the warband.

Maybe Blood Pact should be a skill?

Maybe it is a skill you can only take at 9 or 14 exp?

I think the going over your max warband number is the unbalancing element. I have noticed that the pattern I have seen is a warband with surperior models has 12 max, human average 15 and models with flaws 20.

For example 12 includes Elves, Witch Hunters, etc... 15 are most Mercs, The Undead, Sisters etc... and 20 all of the warband has a flaw, like Orcs/Anamosity, Skinks/Toughness 3, Skaven/low leadership.

Balance: I disagree, Cianty. Hired Swords DO make a warband stronger... pound for pound, they have higher stats, better equipment, and better skills than henchmen worth the same value.

Likewise, in my gaming circles, the more powerful warbands tend to hire more and more hired swords, while the weaker ones spend their money desperately, trying to rebuy all of their members that have died. The strong have more hired swords, the weak do not.

To both of those situations (stronger, have more), the balancing factor seems to be the fact that their upkeep is so high. That's what MAKES them inefficient in the long run, and limits the number that a strong player can buy... he might be doing well enough to buy 5, but after a few games, he can only maintain 3. To eliminate that balancing factor completely and say it's "fair" without testing is a very dangerous move.

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE new things. I love the idea of the Blood Pacts, and I definitely like how the system is set up. I just think it needs a CAP of some kind... a maximum strength that a player can get from the arrangement. That way, a lucky weak player, who happens to roll a 2, will be not much weaker than a winning player with 5 hired swords, and is rolling 5 potential Bloodpact dies a game. Make sense?

Another potential cap just hit me... maybe you can only pick ONE sword to attempt to make a pact with any post game. So, if you have three HSs, you can only pick one to attempt to pact with.

There are so many things to consider and factor in....

Yes, a Hired Sword is a stronger model compared to a normal Henchman (or even Hero) - that is out of question. The question is: Which option is better in the long run: Invest in a Hired Sword now at a ridiculous price and hope it pays off over time, or hire another couple of henchmen or save for a Gromril Armour on your leader who thus becomes near invincible or whatever else you think would be a good investment.

Yes, stronger (older) warbands have more Hired Swords.. Why? Because they already have bought everything that they would need normally? They already have six Heroes, full set of Lucky Charms and Rabbit's Feet, etc.? At this point it is not about whether it is good to have many Hired Swords, when players are already also considering fleets of opulent coaches. The issue is that Hired Swords should be viable earlier on. If you have warbands in mind that hire 5 Hired Swords and continue to maintain 3 of them we also may not even be thinking of the same type of campaign. From what I've read and from my own experience players don't need/want/have the time to play campaigns much longer than roughly 20 games. Balancing the game for short campaigns, middle length campaigns or very long campaigns is a very different thing as certain warbands or choices have their strengths in different periods of a campaign. I don't know... It's just a lot of stuff one has to have in mind. It's always interesting to see how different people's assessments are.

I, myself, reserve final judgement for until after I have seen the rules more in-game and have a better feeling for them. Also I hope to read some player feedback from actually using the rules (I'm especially looking at you, Ben!). After all that's the point of posting them here.

Fair enough. But if you're looking for EARLY game options, then maybe you can BUY a bloodpacted member, rather than merely waiting to roll for one.

For example, if you compare the hired swords vs. their hench/hero counterparts (for trollslayer, ogre, warlock,) the "golden ratio" I've found was that Hiring + 2 x Upkeep = about the base price of the warrior. This doesn't account for EQUIPMENT, sadly, which can be all OVER the place. Maybe a warband can hire up to one for the that amount at warband settup, and thus encourage players to start with one.

I definitely love the idea of Marienburg being a hired sword heavy setting, though...

StyrofoamKing: "Balance: I disagree, Cianty. Hired Swords DO make a warband stronger... pound for pound, they have higher stats, better equipment, and better skills than henchmen worth the same value."

True, but they are very limited in the equipment they can take and they can never be promoted to henchman. It isn't just the money that balances their stats and special abilities.

While it is possible these rules might be unbalancing, they might work just fine as written. Obviously, they need playtesting!

Quick edit: in terms of early random rolls skewing the course of a campaign, that possibility is already firmly entrenched in the Serious Injury table.

mweaver wrote:

Quick edit: in terms of early random rolls skewing the course of a campaign, that possibility is already firmly entrenched in the Serious Injury table.

Yes it is, at least for taking a warband down. But not for promoting a warband above all of the others.

True, but then the warbands that fortune has spurned can gang up on the smarty-pants, look-at-our-cool
hired-swords warband and collectively stomp on it. (Of course, pesky role-playing sometimes interferes with that type of strategy).

cianty wrote:

Blood Pact Roll of 2
I totally agree with mweaver here: Rolling high is the usual formula for making successful rolls in Mordheim. Leadership rolls are an exception to this rule and the mentioned Ally rule from the BTB Bestiary explicitly uses Ld tests, so the comparison doesn't really hold. The Blood Pact no longer has the connection to the Leadership stat and thus it should follow the usual design conventions for making rules.

I actually agree with the rules as written because they are designed to follow on from the rules for allies and blood pacts. It might 'feel' odd to someone who doesn't realise that the rules are a derivative of a Leadership test (and I understand that totally) but I think that keeping the consistency with the rules for allies is better than changing the 'feel' of the dice roll considering that the odds are exactly the same either way.

cianty wrote:

I, myself, reserve final judgement for until after I have seen the rules more in-game and have a better feeling for them. Also I hope to read some player feedback from actually using the rules (I'm especially looking at you, Ben!). After all that's the point of posting them here.

I'll definitely let you know how we find the rules in the upcoming rounds of our campaign! I think that our Chaos Dwarf player will definitely be interested in the extra income from finding extra wyrdstone through the use of his slaves and one of our two Beastmen Raider players is already salivating at the thought of the three Hired Swords now available to his warband (especially since two of them can shoot).

mweaver wrote:

True, but then the warbands that fortune has spurned can gang up on the smarty-pants, look-at-our-cool
hired-swords warband and collectively stomp on it. (Of course, pesky role-playing sometimes interferes with that type of strategy).

I totally agree. Any 'lucky' rolls can quickly become 'unlucky' rolls.

Cheers,
Ben