Safari Warband Question

I seem to be getting strong opinions from both sides (from people offline as well). I'll have you guys help me.

My thoughts:
Lads
Pros - Shooting youngblood, simple, gun based fitting with fluff
Cons - simple, doesn't make sense to be able to reinforce
Example: Jane from Tarzan (if she decided to start shooting things of course)

Guide
Pro - Mediocre combat youngblood, +/- 1 exploration, fluffy as well
Cons - Not the gun based hero theme of warband, leaves the warband a bit weak on shooting gearwise unless bodyguard start getting LGT, fluff could be done via HS or Porters without hurting the feel
Example: Short Round from Temple of Doom, Beni from The Mummy

So vote below!

Also if Lads only is chosen Guide would become a hired sword for Southlands, Araby and maybe Lustria. Safari would probably have a reduced cost for hiring due to setting aside a budget for a guide prior to launching the expedition!

I voted Guides as to me it works better, when I think stereotypical big game hunting safari parties I also envisage a couple of native guides.

If you do go HS Guide, I wouldn't give the Safari a lower cost to hire them - if anything I think the canny natives will overcharge the Imperials

Good point. The vote for Lads is from my brother Redhammer who feels the local guides should be HS or just represented by Porters.

Voted lads only - the colonialist vibe is clearer that way...

Guides only. You can get junior heroes in EVERY human warband... the idea of them being native guides makes them unique.

Of course, the guides can still have gunpowder... just restrict them from the fancy stuff. Keep them to handguns, long bows, and pistols. Or maybe, they have access to the same ones, but they only have Combat & Speed skills. They can shoot, but they're not snipers. If the bodyguards have access to the same shooting skills, it'll be fine.

Although, if I'm shot down, a Guide HS would be awesome.

Special Rule:
Untrustworthy - If you look for a Guide, there's a chance that you may be able to find the same guide that's been helping someone else. If you hire a new guide, roll 1D6: on a roll of 6, you may hire a guide currently owned by another warband. He retains any experience, but increases in Hiring Fee by +3gc per experience point. In addition, during your next game against the HS's former employers, you automatically pick your deployment zone first, and may start first if you wish. Once a guide has betrayed a player, any further attempts to pull that same guide away will succeed on D6 roll of 5+, instead of 6, as his two-faced nature has been revealed.

Voted for both. (the share slot option that is)

Reason for it was that in my mind a Safari party only needs one local to bring them around sightseeing.
Also, they need one youngster who is brought along for the simple tasks of cooking, raising tents, and take the worst nightwatch-passes.

I too think one of each, or at least share slots so you can choose lads, guides, or one of each.

folketsfiende wrote:

Voted lads only - the colonialist vibe is clearer that way...

I actually think the opposite shows a clearer colonial vibe - a few wealthy elite Imperials supported by a collection of native locals more closely fits the theme.

A quick search of images online showed plenty of white colonials pictured with their trophy kill and a crew of natives (often quite young).

The crew of Natives is supposed to be represented by the Porters. The Historical information i could find usually pointed out to a professional hunter (often a local man) leading a group of european hunters. The Porters would be natives as well.

I voted for lads only. I think that the natives wouldn't be heroes (or wouldn't start off as heroes) and hence having a henchmen type for porters is sufficient together with the option for a Native Guide hired sword.

Ok for playtesting purposes at least I am going to leave Lads in and Guides have become Local Guide Hired Swords. Sorry Styrofoam King, you gave such an incrediblly good concept rule that you doomed your own point of view!

To quote the famous Orc philosopher Aristwaaaghtle, "De unexamin'd warband ain't worff playin'!"

It doesn't matter if you came up with the same conclusion you had before... so long as you feel sure that the line-up you have strongly matches your concept.

Yeah, which was my reason for removing my original heroes of Armorer and Guide. The Armorer was basically the instructor from Gunnery School of Nuln. The Guide was almost exactly how you suggested before on the other thread. Then i read up some more on historical Big Game Hunting and saw that they usually were a core group of Hunters led by a Professional Hunter who could be a local or the 'Big White Hunter'. Who acted as guide as well as hunt coordinator. The local presence was usually hired help and nothing special (in their minds) until they had proven themselves useful (Lads got Talent).

The Lads actually seem to fit the fluff better, and add the benefit of reinforcing the gameplay style (I hope) I was trying to get from the Safari.

You guys have really helped on this! I appreciate all your input. That's one of the things I like so much about this forum. You guys helped me take an idea I thought up randomly and turn it into a warband that hopefully will allow at least one person to have fun. That alone is a win.

EPIC WIN!