Shifting Loyalties and 0-Cost Henchmen

[Meeker]

We're getting ready to start a 4-week campaign at my LGS, using some modified rules. We allow Henchmen or Masters to be taken in the initial arsenal. Since it isn't entirely Master led at the start, you still have to pay to add the leader to your arsenal sheet. Because players have the option, we said that 0-cost Henchmen must still be paid for, even if they aren't the leader. The thought process was that the free Henchmen combined with the Master would unbalance the early weeks since the free aspect isn't really offset by the cost of the synergy enablers. Additionally, in a by-the-book campaign a 0-Cost Henchman is still paid for when it's the leader. The Master is then paid for if added later. The thought was that the same should be true when hired in the opposite order.

 

Now I know this isn't entirely fair to the players that want to run the Viks or Lynch. They will slightly overpay in a campaign setting to start with the Henchman/Master combo. Has anyone else tried house rules to help balance out the 0-cost Henchmen in a Shifting Loyalties campaign? Do you think the games will still be fair if the Henchmen are free week 1? I'd love to hear what people's thoughts are and I'm very open to suggestions.

 

Thanks!

[MrDeathTrout]

We made a house rule that if you pay for a 0 cost henchman (like Huggy or Blood) then you can buy their associated master at a discount equal to the cost you paid for the henchman.  For example If you start with Huggy as your leader you pay 8SS (IRCC).  If you later hire Lynch as your leader you pay 7SS to hire him.  That is Lynch's cost (15SS) minus what you paid for Huggy (8SS).

[Ergonomic Cat]

On 6/20/2017 at 6:10 AM, Meeker said:

We're getting ready to start a 4-week campaign at my LGS, using some modified rules. We allow Henchmen or Masters to be taken in the initial arsenal. Since it isn't entirely Master led at the start, you still have to pay to add the leader to your arsenal sheet. Because players have the option, we said that 0-cost Henchmen must still be paid for, even if they aren't the leader. The thought process was that the free Henchmen combined with the Master would unbalance the early weeks since the free aspect isn't really offset by the cost of the synergy enablers. Additionally, in a by-the-book campaign a 0-Cost Henchman is still paid for when it's the leader. The Master is then paid for if added later. The thought was that the same should be true when hired in the opposite order.

 

Now I know this isn't entirely fair to the players that want to run the Viks or Lynch. They will slightly overpay in a campaign setting to start with the Henchman/Master combo. Has anyone else tried house rules to help balance out the 0-cost Henchmen in a Shifting Loyalties campaign? Do you think the games will still be fair if the Henchmen are free week 1? I'd love to hear what people's thoughts are and I'm very open to suggestions.

 

Thanks!

I dunno - Lynch is balanced around having Huggy.  The Viks are balanced around having both of them.  I don't think allowing the 0 cost to be hired for 0 is actually unbalanced.  Because the masters, in a vacuum, are weaker than the other masters.  I wouldn't say that Lynch with Huggy is more powerful than Lilith with Mr. Graves, or Collodi with a Stitched, or Dreamer with a Widow Weaver or the like.  And there's no way I would say that one Vik was the equivalent of *any* Master.