Lending Mercenaries different weapons?

[hightechartist]

Officially, are there any rules that prohibit lending a different weapon to a mercenary? For example, giving a scout a crossbow that you own.

[The Admiral]

Officially, are there any rules that prohibit lending a different weapon to a mercenary? For example, giving a scout a crossbow that you own.

He wouldn't be a Scout then. Is a scout actually trained to use a crossbow, and could he hit anything with it if he had never used one before? If the game intended for the mercs to be multi functional it would have been a fairly easy rule to write. So I do not, and would not allow it. But in your own game it is easy to houserule it.

[hightechartist]

Officially, are there any rules that prohibit lending a different weapon to a mercenary? For example, giving a scout a crossbow that you own.

He wouldn't be a Scout then. Is a scout actually trained to use a crossbow, and could he hit anything with it if he had never used one before? If the game intended for the mercs to be multi functional it would have been a fairly easy rule to wright. So I do not, and would not allow it. But in your own game it is easy to houserule it.

I'm not interested in house rules, I'm just interested in learning all the rules quirks of the game sans GM modification.

[mitchiemasha]

I'm not interested in house rules,

The problem there is you'll come to realise that there are huge differences between the version and even how you interpret the words with in those versions. For instance, the dwarf card completely contradicts the trap rules in the rule book, UK edition. Not having clear predetermined house rules can get nasty if you have a player who disagrees. And that isn't fun.

But yeah... You can't give mercs different weapons. You're paying for them being trained, experts in the class they already are.

[lestodante]

their skills allow them to use only their own weapon, will not change it for a new one that they are not comfortable to use.

[wallydubbs]

I consider mercenaries to be like typical monsters, but only the heroes can control them. Most monsters, as far as I know, cannot change weapons. With an exception for the Scout, mercenaries can only move and attack. No specifics are given on what armor they wear, so they are only defined by what weapons they have.
I'm pretty sure with mercenaries it comes down to skill level. The swordsman gets 4 attack dice, yet the type of sword he wields is not specified. Broad and Long Swords still only give you three attack dice. So you need to assume he's more comfortable, or at least best at using a sword as weapon of choice.
The scout is visually indistinguishable from the other 3 mercenaries, even though he visibly carries a shield it doesn't give him any more defense dice from the others. This is because he's not really a fighter, by his attributes of increased movement, search and disarm traps, he is well trained at scouting. He can outrun most enemies (except a goblin) and is better at disarming traps then most heroes.
Although the rules say differently, I do not allow the Crossbowman to switch to a Broadsword for close combat; so he can't attack when adjacent or diagonally adjacent, but I do allow him accuracy with the crossbow, so he can shoot through other heroes, this makes him distinguishably different from the Halberdier.

Only the heroes' attributes change with weapons, so therefore they are the only ones that can carry weapons. At first, I was not comfortable with mercenaries carrying potions, but there are circumstances where the Wizard would cast a spell on them, so I guess if the hero requests their mercenary to carry and/or use a Potion I'll allow it... after all, if Kassandra can use a Potion of Speed, monsters aren't entirely exempt from drinking potions, so if they want to waste a Healing potion for 2 BP that's on them, so I guess heroic brew and defense potions make sense too. But granted if there are certain potions that only work on the Barbarian or Elf, they cannot. So it would make sense to give the Scout and Anti-venom potion.

However, the question does arise on what-to-do with Chaos spells "Rust" and "Thieving Wind". Mercenaries are solely defined by their weapons and what skills they may have with them. So what happens if "Rust" is used on a awordsman's sword? Or Thieving Wind steals the Halberdier's weapon?
I suppose it brings them down to 1 attack dice... maybe?

[The Admiral]

The question does arise on what-to-do with Chaos spells "Rust" and "Thieving Wind". Mercenaries are solely defined by their weapons and what skills they may have with them. So what happens if "Rust" is used on a awordsman's sword? Or Thieving Wind steals the Halberdier's weapon?
I suppose it brings them down to 1 attack dice... maybe?

I simply don't allow these spells to be cast against henchmen. Not as realistic, but it makes life easier. Your suggestion of reducing them to 1 attack die does make sense though. They probably have a dagger somewhere on their person.

[Kurgan]

I would treat "rust" as reducing the now weaponless Merc to 1 attack die adjacent, and removing his armor I'd reduce him to 2 defend dice (the cards aren't strictly literal, since they all appear to be wearing full plate and a helmet and in some cases a shield, but don't defend with 4). I actually have provided all the Mercs with ranged weapons with a backup weapon. I think we've figured out that a crossbowman also has a sword to attack close... I added some variant mercs, so I gave the crossbow guy a shortsword backup weapon, while I gave the longbowman (4 attack ranged) a broadsword backup (3 attack) and the short bowman (2 attack ranged) a broadsword (3 attack). I have a bunch of variations beyond the EU and NA official mercs.

I put some "prisoners" in a Quest with the Barbarian, and he had a bunch of spare weapons and armor, so I let him give them each one piece of armor and/or weapon.
Before the equipping, I made them each 1 body point (but 2 maximum, if he wanted to heal them) and six squares of movement, but only 1 attack die/2 defend since fighting with bare hands. This was a special case. Most of the time I wouldn't object to it being done for henchmen, within reason. I would tend to treat them as under powered Heroes, rather than as Monsters. So other than them not searching for stuff (except the Scout for traps), they can do anything a Hero can do. They defend with white shields, they open doors. They see stuff and can fall into traps.

So in theory my Elf could hand a spell scroll to his henchman and that henchman could use that scroll on a future turn. I don't think that would break anything at this point... though I suppose it could be abused if the Heroes were really being clever.

I would not allow, however, for the Hero to hire a mercenary, grab away his weapon, and kill the guy off on purpose so he could sell the weapon and repeat. Maybe he could attempt it and I'd say the mercenary hangs onto his weapon and refuses to give it up, or if he betrays the guy, future mercenaries don't want to work for the Hero... or maybe the other Mercs in the game turn against the Hero if they see his behavior. Maybe future mercenaries demand more money up front because of the "Hero"'s tainted reputation.

But if you've got a few spare pieces of gear you want to give your guys? I think that's fine. But if just bought the cheaper mercs and gave them weapons equivalent to the more expensive ones, that would seem like cheating, sure. But if you had a bunch of otherwise useless spares and decided to equip your guys a little better? I'd allow it. Maybe the Mercs keep the extra gear when they leave at the end of the quest...

But if your merc dies carrying that extra gear in the presence of another Hero? I'd let that hero claim the extra gear.

[Daedalus]

Officially, are there any rules that prohibit lending a different weapon to a mercenary? For example, giving a scout a crossbow that you own.

. . . A mercenary does not receive any treasure.. . .

That includes weapons found as treasure in the current Quest or any previous one, even if held by a Hero. Weapons that Heroes pay a gold-coin cost for are also purchased with treasure, so they too should be disallowed; they still retain a resale value that can be redeemed at the Armory, just as with weapons found as treasure.

[Kurgan]

If a Merc has one of his weapons taken away (by chaos spell or monster theft) you could say he's permanently weakened (even when re-hired??) or you could say he can accept a replacement from the Heroes' gear, which wouldn't be wildly unfair if it's the same thing he would have had before anyway. If the Merc then "walks away" with the gifted weapon if he's not rehired, that would be a fair compromise.

In the case of a Merc dying (not by betrayal!) next to an unarmed Hero, I would probably allow the Hero to equip the weapon from his fallen ally in that case only.

I would make a distinction between hired mercs and "special" one-off characters. This reminds me of the debates over what Sir Ragnar should be able to do.

But I agree with the general principle that the hired mercs should remain with their starting gear. They are hired muscle and apart from the Scout's trap abilities, that's what they are there for, to help you fight with their basic abilities, not turn into armor bearers or tanks.

Even without homebrew rules, there are ways to destroy the weapons of non-Hero characters (EQP for example) which impacts their fighting ability. Imagine if the bad guys could pick up new weapons to regain their strength!