Men at Arms / Mercenaries

[Kurgan]

Playing the Frozen Horror, the party has lost more than 25 mercenaries (I kind of lost count several sessions ago...).

[lestodante]

We switched to using the Barbarian Quest pack rules for Mercenaries, and they are a lot more popular than the men-at-arms rules in Wizards of Morcar. The only part that makes no sense is that the halbardier has the exact same stats as the crossbowman but less utility and costs the same. Thinking of changing it to giving the Halberdier 4 defend, 7 Movement, and 3 body points as well as diagonal attacks to make him unique and kinda like an hp tank bruiser but lower defense than the swordsman. Will see what my group thinks. Also we are doubling the stay-hired cost to 40 gp so that they are not kamikaze and rewarded for keeping them alive. BQP rules don't reward that, and WoM rules do, so found a hybrid approach to take the good of both.

I agree with you, in BQP the Halberdier is unuseful if you can hire a crossbowman for the same price. The European version of the Crossbowman has 2 attack dice, maybe he uses a small crossbow, not a standard one. It says attacks can be ranged but doesn't say he can't attack adjacent figures (as with a normal crossbow). Or the two attack dice can be justified because he's not as skilled as our heroes.
I would eventually rise up the Crossbowman price to 100 or would give the Halberdier a +1 bonus on one of his stats; one extra body points seems an appetible solution but I am afraid it will be too much for a cannon foodder. So maybe rising his attack skills to 4 dice?
The Scout wielding a shield and not earning any extra defense die is odd.

[HispaZargon]

Absolutely right... because of that these are the stats I use for my Mercenaries (and Dark Warriors under NA rules):

Scout: M9, A2, D4, BP2, MP2, Disarm traps. 75 gold coins hire.
Crossbowman: M6, A3(1*), D3, BP2, MP2, Wields a Crossbow (*Dagger against adjacent enemies). 75 gold coins hire.
Halberdier: M6, A3, D3, BP2, MP2, Diagonal attacks. 75 gold coins hire.
Swordman: M6, A4, D3, BP2, MP2. 75 gold coins hire.

The errata thread also includes a line about this, declaring that has no sense seeing a Crossbowman with a Broadsword for adjacent attacks since it goes against the Halberdier use.

[SirRick]

I find it really strange the mercenaries were introduced in the BQP. I have not played any of it, but at a glance it seems most of them would die from environmental damage from Icy Rivers, Ice Vaults, traps, etc. before they see much action.

Those of you who played some of the BQP, how did most of your mercenaries die (I know Kurgan mention losing a bunch)?

Also I don’t see mercenaries as cannon fodder as some people suggest. They seem too weak and costly just to take a hit for a hero. I see them as either softening up monsters so the heroes finish them off, or finishing off monsters the heroes failed to kill. I see crossbowmen and halberdiers being more useful in both situations (crossbow being better of course). The only time the halberdier would be more useful is attacking diagonally through doors or around corners, which crossbows can’t do.

So for those who played this how did the mercenaries perform? Were they useful? They they get in the way? Or did they all die without doing much?

[lestodante]

The only time the halberdier would be more useful is attacking diagonally through doors or around corners, which crossbows can’t do.

Why crossbowmans should not be able to attack diagonally through a door or a corner? I guess the do.

[SirRick]

The only time the halberdier would be more useful is attacking diagonally through doors or around corners, which crossbows can’t do.

Why crossbowmans should not be able to attack diagonally through a door or a corner? I guess the do.

A crossbow needs line of sight to attack a target, and attacking diagonally through a door, or around a corner involves a piece of wall blocking the attacker’s line of sight according to the rules given in the instructions.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Maybe we have different instructions (mine are EA Second Edition) but...

Missile Fire - Your opponent must be visible, as with casting a spell.

Spells can be cast at monsters or characters provided they are visible to the spell-caster. Miniatures in the same room are always visible. Miniatures in passages or in different rooms are only visible if you can trace an unobstructed straight line between the two miniatures. If the line passes through a wall or a closed door or another miniature, then the miniature is not visible.

And the diagram on page 11 shows two different clear lines of sight along diagonals, both of which touch (but don't pass through) a wall.

So I'm pretty sure there is no issue in the rules with shooting diagonally with missile weapons, even if they touch a wall, although there is an open question of interpretation around whether missile weapons can target diagonally adjacent squares but that is amply discussed on the
Crossbow Argument topic.

[HispaZargon]

The only time the halberdier would be more useful is attacking diagonally through doors or around corners, which crossbows can’t do.

Why crossbowmans should not be able to attack diagonally through a door or a corner? I guess the do.

A crossbow needs line of sight to attack a target, and attacking diagonally through a door, or around a corner involves a piece of wall blocking the attacker’s line of sight according to the rules given in the instructions.

Yeah, I partially agree with such interpretation. I only allow using the crossbow against diagonal close targets if there is line of sight. If there is only a corner or wall, the shooter could lean a bit and see the target without any problem, however if there is also another miniature next to him (hero or monster), blocking more the line, I consider there is not enough line of sight for the shot. I introduced this interpretation of the line of sight to limit a bit the use of the crossbow and giving more role to the longsword/halberdier/spear without changing any official rule (i.e. forbidding the use of shield with the crossbow). I explained all this interpretation in detail on this post.

[SirRick]

Ah, I see. So I was wrong. There are some differences in the 2nd Edition and NA rules. The diagram for line-of-sight is the same, but there are some differences in the text, but basically say the same thing. The NA rules mention tracing a line from the center of a square to the center of the target’s square. Attacking through a door looks as if the door frame and the wall are blocking line of sight, but according to the diagram it clearly shows the elf has line of sight diagonally through the door. My confusion came with another picture in the NA rules of the Wizard attacking through a door with the staff. It looks like he does not have line of sight, but as indicated from the diagram in both versions, an open door does not block line of sight even if the physical door piece seems to.

IMG_0322.jpeg

[HispaZargon]

Ah, I see. So I was wrong. There are some differences in the 2nd Edition and NA rules. The diagram for line-of-sight is the same, but there are some differences in the text, but basically say the same thing. The NA rules mention tracing a line from the center of a square to the center of the target’s square. Attacking through a door looks as if the door frame and the wall are blocking line of sight, but according to the diagram it clearly shows the elf has line of sight diagonally through the door. My confusion came with another picture in the NA rules of the Wizard attacking through a door with the staff. It looks like he does not have line of sight, but as indicated from the diagram in both versions, an open door does not block line of sight even if the physical door piece seems to.

Well, you know that Line of Sight is a very long discussion inside the fans Community because the rules are not clear. I only wrote above my interpretation for these cases.

In this discussion there is nothing 'correct' or 'wrong' becasue it is quite open for interpretations.