Liber Malefic: Old Swords on new contracts!

RationalLemming wrote:

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).

What were the two that can shoot? I know about the Chaos Centaur (strange that it's basically just an extra Centigor, but at least it's duplicating one of the best heroes).

I like the look of the blood pact rules and would be interested in seeing them used. The biggest drawback is with warbands that have very few/no Hired Swords since the more variety available to other band (some who will now be permanent members) the bigger the disadvantage not having them becomes. So it's nice to see Beastmen getting a few, but I'd hope that some of the other limited bands get a bump also. (I'm not familar enough with all the bands to say which may still need help)

Of course, if you ever need any UNOFFICIAL hireds, I can remember a few we came up with on this site and on SG

Let's see...

Lustria
Zoat - Amazon
Cunning Woman - Amazon
Pygmy Scout - Amazon

Beastmen
Boomarungor -
Khornigor

Sartosa
Swivel Gun
Jezzail Gun
Old Smuggler
Leviathan Hunter
Orc Captain & Gobbo Swabbie

Goblin
Doom Diver
Squighopper

Now, these might have been INTENTIONAL, but I know of a few (less small fry) ones that I think weren't on your list:
Skyre Rat Ogre (TC),
Emissary of Chaos, Beggar, Wood Elf Hunter, Halfling Knight - Ethol
Crimashen & Holy Man (Relics)
Estalian Diestro, Gravesmen, Dark Mage (LoD)

@RationalLemming

Quote :

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.

Ignore my previous comment. I'm an idiot.

@Styro

Quote :

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.

I would suggest double-checking the flavour of the article because this straight up contradicts the reasoning.

A sell-sword can always be hired to fight for gold. You can't put a price on a blood oath. Every warrior has a price but a pact in blood is only formed if the dog soldier develops some bond of kinship over time, suffers a loss at the hands of common foes or harrowing experience. Hence the +1 (or -1 based on starting roll required being 12) after each battle.

I would suggest gaming with it rather than idly speculating. We've trialled freebie warriors in the form of 'Allies' during Border Town Burning campaigns. It worked fine in those narrative campaigns and Blood Pacts were a logical progression.

Regards,

Werekin.

p.s. It's not a compendium of every pay-sword ever published. All the greats are featured. Alas there is no such thing as a halfling dressed as a knight riding a pooch! The wood elf hunter hireling has been included though, if you look closely enough.

HS List: Fair enough! Pick and choose them as you see fit! If it's any consulation, my group seemed to like the Emissary of Chaos... definitely strong, but it's amazing how one simple mark changed the feel of the HS so completely. I'd recommend it.

Cianty & Werekin: Werekin is right... my idea of buying them early with cash (vs. letting them form a gradual bond with the warband) is against your fluff about "bloodpact". A proper bloodpact would be slow and earnest.

However, Cianty seems to want to make Hired Swords a good EARLY game option. The bloodpact system, as is, will not do much to grant this goal... it's has amazing LONG term effects, but very low short term effects, which does little to alleviate your problem.

So the question becomes: do you go for the fluff (blood kinship), and alter the goal to match, or go for the goal (early HS incentives) and alter the fluff to match (ex. a bound contract).

IDLY SPECULATING:

First and foremost, you are right to a degree... you can eyeball rules till the cows come home, and it'll mean nothing till you actually PLAY them. That being said, the idea of infinite number of Blood Pacts scares me.

You compare them to the Ally rules you used in BTB- however, allies was slightly different. (Admittingly, I haven't played them, but I have the rules in front of me...)

Chance a Random NPC you find in a field will ally with you: 1 in 6.
Chance he'll remain with you (if you have Ld : 26/36
chance he'll blood pact with you : 1 in 36

Thus, in any game that you find an NPC on the board, the chances that he'll pact with you by game X is=
Game 1: Chance of Pacting 0.4629% - Chance of Remaining - 12%
Game 2: Chance of Pacting .33% - Chance of Remaining -8%
Game 3: Chance of Pacting .22% - Chance of Remaining - 5.7%

Compare to a Hired Sword, which you can pick up without random encounters
Chance he'll ally with you: 100% (with fee)
Chance he'll remain with you: 100% (with fee)
chance he'll pact with you: 1 in 36, increasing to 1 in 12 after 3 games, to 1 in 6 after 5 games

Thus, in any game that you have a Hired Chance, the chances he'll pact with you by game X =
Game 1: Chance of Pacting 2.7% (with fee) - Chance of Remaining - 100% (with fee)
Game 2: Chance of Pacting 2.7% (with fee) - Chance of Remaining -100% (with fee)
Game 3: Chance of Pacting 8.3% (with fee) - Chance of Remaining -100% (with fee)

So, by game THREE, the chances that a Hired sword will join with you is 36 times more likely than a random NPC Ally you encounter on the board. Ignoring the one in six chance of recruiting him in the first place, that means that for every Ally you had in your BTB warbands, you'd have SIX Hired swords.

To me, the NUMBER ONE difference to me is= The Allies are randomly encountered. Luck favors everyone equally in the long run, so nearly every warband has an equal chance (although, most BTB monsters were more likely to ally with Chaos... but I digress)...

Also, to maintain an ally, the key factor was Ld... something that every warband has to some degree, whether it's the top warband, or the weakest in the campaign.

With hired swords, there is no chance when it comes to initial hiring... the only requirement is money, aka, WINNING. Likewise, upkeep is not based on an equal shared stat (ld), but an unequal stat (gc). Thus, the winners have a high chance of getting blood pacts, while those without money (the losers), have an unequal chance.

Again, actual game play can / will prove me wrong, but it seems to favor only the higher ranked players, making the divide between the weak and the strong even wider.

So, again, I recommend... add a cap. Heck, it can be a HUGE one, (Max 3, or max 5 bloodpacts per warband), just don't make it infinite.

COUNTER-PROPOSAL
How about this....

Once per post game, you may try to convince ONE of your Hired Swords to stick around, and aid your cause out of the goodness (or badness) of his heart. Make a LD test... if passed, the Hired Sword will waive THIS upkeep fee. If the LD test is failed, he demands upkeep as normal. On a roll of 2, he forms a bloodpact. HSs with a cost over a certain level (25gc? 30gc?) have a +1 or +2 penalty on the Ld, as they are more money driven.

Benefits:
~Ties into Ally system closer
~It helps early games, as Cianty stressed, because it reduces the cost of upkeep, making early campaign HSs a better option
~With a limit of ONE attempt to 'pact' each post game, it spreads the bonus equally... the rich player with 5 hss has the same chances of a pact as the poor player with 1.

StyrofoamKing wrote:

So, again, I recommend... add a cap. Heck, it can be a HUGE one, (Max 3, or max 5 bloodpacts per warband), just don't make it infinite.

StyrofoamKing does know how to put forward a compelling argument.

A cap of some sort (even if it was quite big) may help limit this from breaking things in longer campaigns for those groups (which may be only a small percentage of all groups I don't know) who play long / never-ending campaigns. Money is always the reason why warbands can only have a limited number of Hired Swords. However, once a Hired Sword makes a blood pact then that money can go towards a new Hired Sword ad infinitum until all available Hired Swords for that warband type have been hired. Of course that would take a LONG time...

StyrofoamKing wrote:

COUNTER-PROPOSAL
How about this....

Once per post game, you may try to convince ONE of your Hired Swords to stick around, and aid your cause out of the goodness (or badness) of his heart. Make a LD test... if passed, the Hired Sword will waive THIS upkeep fee. If the LD test is failed, he demands upkeep as normal. On a roll of 2, he forms a bloodpact. HSs with a cost over a certain level (25gc? 30gc?) have a +1 or +2 penalty on the Ld, as they are more money driven.

Rather than going to that extent I have been wondering whether blood pacts could be balanced slightly (if needed) simply by stating that if a 12 is rolled then the Hired Sword decides to reject the upkeep payment and leave the warband (I don't know how you'd explain it in the fluff). Therefore while there is a 1 in 36 chance of getting a Hired Sword making a blood pact (made easier with modifiers over time) there is also a 1 in 36 chance of loosing the Hired Sword and the investment made in that Hired Sword.

Anyway, our gaming group will play the rules as written and see how they go.

First of all, I like these additional rules very much. However, as a few other forumers, I feel that the unlimited (and unlimiting) approach to Blood Pacts tempts to abuse them a bit (the rules and the Blood Pacts, not the forum members, of course ).

I also think that while it is certainly fitting to treat Hired Swords as characters with personality of their own (thus allowing for the possibility that they forgo their monetary claims and let themselves become attached to a warband because of some sense of honour and, most importantly, the blood spilt together), it is a bit much to make all and every Hired Sword some sort of good samaritan who eventually will forget all of the motives that drove him to become a mercenary in the first place (especially with those Hired Swords that are supposed to be battle-hardened veterans with experiences before their time with the warband), and to happily throw away his only source of income (staying with the warband does not leave much room for other engagements where he could earn the money "lost" through the Blood Pact), while still providing for his own welfare on his own costs (since ruleswise, he remains a Hired Sword and explicitly does not become a warband member) - I think a compromise between the Hired Sword's sense of loyalty, honour and pragmatism should be reflected by the rules.

I actually quite like StyrofoamKing's ideas, because in the rules as they are, the Hired-Sword-becomes-attached-to-warband-for-free mechanic is working a bit too automatically for my taste. Activity on the player's part (as in a Ld test for actively initiating a discussion over the Sword's salary or trying to motivate him to stay with the warband for other reasons than monetary ones) portrays that aspect a bit better than routinely rolling for every Hired Sword if the time has finally come where he gives up his actual profession and becomes a groupie.

Also, this would perfectly justify the cap of only one such Ld test per post-game phase - I mean, again from the Hired Sword's perspective, how believable would a warband leader be who tells you about the value that you hold for the warband, about your position as a comrade rather than a dispose- and replacable asset, if he then just stands up and holds the same sermon to the next mercenary?

Combined with RationalLemming's proposal of such Ld tests possibly going awry and the Hired Sword leaving (maybe a single compensation payment of double his income could change his mind and let him agree to staying with the warband in spite of the botched negotiations - or the 12 represents not anger on the Hired Sword's part, but a warband leader who has started haggling about the salary and quite literally got more than he bargained for; honestly, I quite like the idea of a warband leader getting hornswoggled, ripped off and fecked around with by a Hired Sword who turns out to be more of a haggler than the seemed ), I would consider this a relatively easy, but optimal (optional) "fix" (since technically the mechanic is not broken, just a bit open).

Well said Mephysto. I think it's easy to misinterpret my reasoning behind the Blood Pact. The pact is more than just a bond. A bond is held together by loyalty or fealty. It is an allegiance of sorts I suppose but what I'm trying to get at is more like an oath.

The sell-sword has come to an agreement with the warband leader. This could stem from sharing a common enemy or there being a widespread threat. It might be the safety in numbers provided by tagging along with a large group or having a mutual objective where their ends meet.

Of course there are cases where more than kinship comes into it because a Hired Sword could just as likely be a relative of one of the other warriors in the warband. Whether the Sword is a cousin, blood-brother or not there is a rough code of honour which nearly all mercenaries will adhere to.

Quote :

I also think that while it is certainly fitting to treat Hired Swords as characters with personality of their own (thus allowing for the possibility that they forgo their monetary claims and let themselves become attached to a warband because of some sense of honour and, most importantly, the blood spilt together), it is a bit much to make all and every Hired Sword some sort of good samaritan who eventually will forget all of the motives that drove him to become a mercenary in the first place (especially with those Hired Swords that are supposed to be battle-hardened veterans with experiences before their time with the warband), and to happily throw away his only source of income (staying with the warband does not leave much room for other engagements where he could earn the money "lost" through the Blood Pact), while still providing for his own welfare on his own costs (since ruleswise, he remains a Hired Sword and explicitly does not become a warband member) - I think a compromise between the Hired Sword's sense of loyalty, honour and pragmatism should be reflected by the rules.

When a Hired Sword becomes bound to a warband, he'll remain self-sufficient. In the post-battle sequence you won't have your Hired Sword running around like Heroes shopping for rare items or visiting Encampments. Not when he has his own private commissions and affairs to be taking care of! Heroes will remain the errand boys for a warband.

Hey has anyone heard of K.I.S.S.? The reason I have heard Mark Havener and others go on about this seems to be because a lot more fun can be found in simplifying things.

If one roll is all that's necessary why complicate matters. It's modified over time which is fitting. From battle to battle Hired Swords will either leave if you don't pay (can't afford) their upkeep or they wind up in a body bag! I think you'll find that any tax-free warriors will quickly make targets of themselves in your campaign!

There isn't really any point in capping this system before you've used it when the intention is to encourage warbands to hire more mercenaries whenever possible. It would be great to see up to half-a-dozen Swords as well as Heroes fighting it out on the wharves...

Regards,

Werekin.

B-)

werekin wrote:

There isn't really any point in capping this system before you've used it when the intention is to encourage warbands to hire more mercenaries whenever possible. It would be great to see up to half-a-dozen Swords as well as Heroes fighting it out on the wharves...

Unless you're the person playing 'em.

Well, if you still consider it "in flux", then I'm happy. Things change after you test them, as they should.

Brilliant work Werekin, are you planning on doing the same for other sections such as DP?

Actually, on the subjects of Hired Swords, I'd love to see rules about Hired Swords that LEFT someone's employ... the idea that a Hired Sword doesn't have to be created fresh every time you make one. One warband couldn't afford to keep their hired sword in their pay? Another warband can buy him after he leaves! Mwah ha ha.

werekin wrote:

Hey has anyone heard of K.I.S.S.? The reason I have heard Mark Havener and others go on about this seems to be because a lot more fun can be found in simplifying things.

...

There isn't really any point in capping this system before you've used it when the intention is to encourage warbands to hire more mercenaries whenever possible. It would be great to see up to half-a-dozen Swords as well as Heroes fighting it out on the wharves...

I totally respect that.

Happy new year folks.

I've uploaded a new more efficient version of the Warband Roster Sheet to Liber Malefic updated by the usual man responsible for these advances.

As well as now being able to use the roster to record mounts & drafts animals in your warband rating calculations (yes!) Sean has rearranged page 2 of the roster to create additional space for Hired Swords.

And, having considered all of the feedback and suggestions, your opinions have magnanimously swayed me concerning the application of a maximum number of Hired Swords allowed.

Download link and further commentary are provided on the blog.

Regards,

Werekin.

happy new year as well.

the Roster sheet looks grat to me.
the maximum hired sword limit is ok for me too.

i am really curious about the campaign seeting and the rules.

SerialMoM

Looking good, Werekin!

Very nice indeed, Werekin, and a merry new year, too!


And about MiM - I am so looking forward to this. Marienburg! Yay!

(Actually, all your writing about Marienburg got me so excited that I went and procured myself an old copy of Sold down the River. Now I am even more excited for the campaign setting you are cooking up... )

Mephysto wrote:

Actually, all your writing about Marienburg got me so excited that I went and procured myself an old copy of Sold down the River.

Good call Mephysto! If you acquired a hard copy it won't have come cheap! A worthy investment to make though. I've been through a stack of great resources concerning the City of Islands & Bridges and SDtR remains the 'God Book'. It has incredible depth

Let me know how you get on with it. I've read it cover to cover and am constantly revisiting it to reference ideas.

There is an excellent series of articles from old White Dwarf's which I've read recently and I was delighted by how many familiar hot spots & characters appearing in those happen to crop up in tales published elsewhere. Some excellent referencing by the authors. Potion Square* in South Dock district looks like an excellent location for Heroes to visit in between battles!

*Not mentioned in SDtR. PM me if you don't have these Mephysto as I may be able to send something over to you.

Hoping to fire a few Q's at loremaster Sandy Mitchell when we go to Black Library Live. He's contributed numerous times to Marienburg's tapestry.

Regards,

Werekin

PM sent, thanks for the offer!

Aye, those hard copies do not come cheap these days...

I wholeheartedly second your praise of the book, though - after skimming over the chapters (literally getting more delighted from page to page), I am setting for the in-depth re-read now.

All those nationalities and ethnicities, all those cultures, the atmosphere, the gold-and-dagger mentality of this melting (or rather minting ) pot - it feels like London, Dublin, Venice, Amsterdam and every swashbuckling port city from history and fiction I ever loved in one place.
And the book really knows how to capture and convey this flair - inspiring.

Speaking of minting pots, where in the heck is Meridies anyway? ...Narnia!? FFS man...

Just the South, in the tongue of the wise.

Or the pretentious.

Er... south of the Grey Mountains? Or south of the wardrobe!?

Depending on the functionality of the compass in use, maybe both. At the same time.

My location is rife with historical bloodsheds of varying lengths (one of them even Thirty Years long), charming people, whose lives are so intertwined with culture and sophistication that it is difficult to even discern them, and the folklore, customs and traditions are known to man in the most broadest abroad. Yes, my friend, I dwell in the land of the Lederhose, the opulence of the Oktoberfest comes with the mothers' milk here (well, technically; it is still a bit of walking to Munich).
This.
Is.
Spa [TL; DR:] Augsburg!

Gotcha. Cianty is a northerner. Geography puts a serious downer on Tom's Boring Mordheim Convention.

Aye, true words, mate.

Hey Stu. Did you deliberately change the name of the Dwarf Pathfinder hired sword from Nemesis Crown to Dwarf Runebearer? Was this done to align more closely with warhammer lore?

If so then you might want to fix up a name in the fluff.

Quote :

Such fleet-footed Dwarfs are called pathfinders, and they fulfil a special role in Dwarf society, as scouts and representatives to the outside world.

It would be interesting to read actual feedback based on gameplay using the advanced rules for Hired Swords. Sadly at the time of publishing the only comments posted were not made based on experience, apart from the author.

I was just updating the folder link on that page of my blog, because this article is often overlooked as a Mordheim campaign reference.

Rational wrote:

Hey Stu. Did you deliberately change the name of the Dwarf Pathfinder hired sword from Nemesis Crown to Dwarf Runebearer? Was this done to align more closely with warhammer lore?

From memory, this was the career I applied when we were completing the Nemesis Crown project. The final draft version says pathfinder instead of runebearer. Pathfinder is not a dwarf only career though and the warrior's stats are strictly dwarf based. Neither is strictly right or wrong. Runebearer sounds more quintessentially dwarfish, hence I applied that to the header in the Hired Swords article for posterity.

Regards,

Werekin