Vermin Swarm - Reimagined, slimmer book with more options.

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

    Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

    • kisanis wrote:

      wut?
      If our legal playstyle becomes multiple small units, all my large units are now useless. I don't ahve the models to field MSU, and honestly, I don't want to.
      “The touch of a sword handle is the deadliest poison known to man. It settles in, deeper than the bone, instantaneously. It is a deep curse that can never be lifted and will last you the rest of your days.”
      – Ryo-ten-Ryam
    • Eldan wrote:

      IF we don't encourage big units in any way, how is that an army strength, then? And by encourage, I mean giving something other armies don't have. Everyone has steadfast.
      And if we don't have big units ,why are we even called swarm?

      You're taking out a strength (no I really am not :) ) , and you're taking out character Only by fluff, not but playstyle. What do we get in return? I think you got a whole lot of options in this book. It's just not presented as special rules.

      And ASAW has always been horse manure. Stop calling back to that. I am just playing by the rules. If it turns out we keep that AWAS we have now, I would like to be proactive.
      But SiN is not a strength now, I would almost say it's a weakness, because we are forced to have a bad LD on all units. Thats why I don't understand the eagerness to keep it. Other than nostalgia. I am 100% in for bonus for big units, and as I already said, I have already proposed it before, it came in the book, but it ended up as banner of the endless swarm, instead of just a AWSR.

      If you have any ideas of how to make some functional rules which promotes big units, it would be really cool.


      setrius wrote:

      I will change Safety in numbers this rule is hederitage of WG.
      If the unit have more ranks that enemy Ld test with 3d6 minimise roll I think is the rule. To do this we need change the Ld. Troops Ld6, heroes between Ld7 and Ld8.

      That is all
      The problem with making it a rank thing is that this way around is that you don't help jezails, gutterblades, vermin hulks, grenadiers and so on. It should be to give everyone in boble a strong LD, not just ranked units, as it is right now.


      Eldan wrote:

      If our legal playstyle becomes multiple small units, all my large units are now useless. I don't ahve the models to field MSU, and honestly, I don't want to.
      I know this was not for me, but just to be clear, this book does not promote MSU. Our current book does with footpads and vermin daemon.
      VS ACS - IDDQD
      My Elementgames code: FRE7850, in case you need one, + sent me yours (win/win)
    • niceguy.dk wrote:

      If you have any ideas of how to make some functional rules which promotes big units, it would be really cool.
      After having by 40-strong spears with Banner of the Endless Swarm have been charged to the front by dwarf handgunners and managed to kill just 3 of them... well I do not think there is point in boosting R@A performance at all. Maybe I would kill 4 if I was not charged at side in the same time (cost of long units is having your flanks exposed, especially against flying dwarfs). A single globe launcher was as effective (killed also my two rats, but who would count...)

      Do not boost performance. Boost survival. For every full 4 ranks (or 3 ranks in line formation) R@A unit recovers in the beginning of VS player D3 health points. It will represent rats removed from table not really dying but fleeing from combat on their own and coming back to the swarm.
      StormRider Games
      StormRider Facebook
      _____________Join my closed Facebook group: Åsklander Bar
      Or my WoT EU clan:
      The Ninth Army
    • I'd prefer my proposal for that one. Does much the same, but only works if anyone actually fled. Better for the story.

      Safety in Numbers
      Non-fleeing units comprised entirely of models with this rule add their number of Full Ranks after the first one to their Discipline, up to a maximum of +3 and never above 10. Safety in Numbers cannot be used to modify the Discipline that is distributed by models with Commanding Presence (but the received Commanding Presence can be modified by Safety in Numbers). Furthermore, units comprised entirely of +1” to their Flee Distance roll.

      Any infantry unit comprised entirely of models with this rule that successfully flees from combat may choose to flee towards the nearest unit of Slaves or Militia instead of the normal direction. If they reach that unit, immediately remove all fleeing models from the game and add that many models to that unit instead.
      “The touch of a sword handle is the deadliest poison known to man. It settles in, deeper than the bone, instantaneously. It is a deep curse that can never be lifted and will last you the rest of your days.”
      – Ryo-ten-Ryam
    • @niceguy.dk

      The problem with making it a rank thing is that this way around is that you don't help jezails, gutterblades, vermin hulks, grenadiers and so on. It should be to give everyone in boble a strong LD, not just ranked units, as it is right now.

      I speak in increase the Ld of all army between 1 and 2 points. I think this help not ranked units.

      That is all
      The Al-Qassar Sultanates (Homebrew)
      Halflings (Homebrew)
      Silexian Goblins (Homebrew)
      Feral Orcs (Homebrew)
    • JimMorr wrote:

      Do not boost performance. Boost survival. For every full 4 ranks (or 3 ranks in line formation) R@A unit recovers in the beginning of VS player D3 health points. It will represent rats removed from table not really dying but fleeing from combat on their own and coming back to the swarm.
      Yea I agree that our infantry should not be improved in strength, but I think war platforms is a cool way to do this indirectly. So it's not a buff, but a pre determined synergy, something providing ranks something providing damage. + it's already in the army. We just have to release the potential.

      Eldan wrote:

      Safety in Numbers
      Non-fleeing units comprised entirely of models with this rule add their number of Full Ranks after the first one to their Discipline, up to a maximum of +3 and never above 10. Safety in Numbers cannot be used to modify the Discipline that is distributed by models with Commanding Presence (but the received Commanding Presence can be modified by Safety in Numbers). Furthermore, units comprised entirely of +1” to their Flee Distance roll.

      Any infantry unit comprised entirely of models with this rule that successfully flees from combat may choose to flee towards the nearest unit of Slaves or Militia instead of the normal direction. If they reach that unit, immediately remove all fleeing models from the game and add that many models to that unit instead.
      IDK, to me this is still one very long rule which will have minor impact on the game. Also does this mean you can transform 50 slaves to 50 Rat at arms? I think you will need a lot more words to actually cover all rule options. and again the result will not be game changing and more important, this doesn't really help bringen more big units to the table.


      setrius wrote:



      I speak in increase the Ld of all army between 1 and 2 points. I think this help not ranked units.

      That is all
      Ok, I get it now. Yea, if we are no longer supposed to have a strong bobble then this could be a way to do it also. It would not have a big impact on a unit like hulks, but maybe it's ok. We would be able to spread out on the table a bit more.
      VS ACS - IDDQD
      My Elementgames code: FRE7850, in case you need one, + sent me yours (win/win)
    • niceguy.dk wrote:

      Yea I agree that our infantry should not be improved in strength, but I think war platforms is a cool way to do this indirectly. So it's not a buff, but a pre determined synergy, something providing ranks something providing damage. + it's already in the army. We just have to release the potential.
      True that. I wonder if all weapon teams shouldn't be permanently attached to R@A units. For example instead of being flame thrower weapon Napatha launcher could be Breath Attack (S5, AP3, Flaming Attacks) with 3 shots rather than one on 20x60 base. Globe launcher could be providing supporting shooting attack - on charge and during combat. And so on...
      StormRider Games
      StormRider Facebook
      _____________Join my closed Facebook group: Åsklander Bar
      Or my WoT EU clan:
      The Ninth Army
    • personally I am not against radical change, like the loss of SIN.

      there is a good idea (meat grinder in core, Sent of Weakness, Lightning Cannon I really like it, 3HP on Weapon Team, True Heir of Avras is a true alternative to Hero's Heart)

      there is a big problem of equilibrium, you do not repair the units that are currently bad (Grenadiers, Gutter Blades, etc ...)
      for the Vermin Daemon the Cosmology is bad if have only the Chaos
      and the tyrant on Pendulum, Plague Brotherhood, Naphtha Launcher are competently Broken
      brood mother seems to me completely useless.
    • azra wrote:

      personally I am not against radical change, like the loss of SIN.

      there is a good idea (meat grinder in core, Sent of Weakness, Lightning Cannon I really like it, 3HP on Weapon Team, True Heir of Avras is a true alternative to Hero's Heart)

      there is a big problem of equilibrium, you do not repair the units that are currently bad (Grenadiers, Gutter Blades, etc ...)
      Yea I didn't have many ideas for these. If you have some good ones feel free to share.


      for the Vermin Daemon the Cosmology is bad if have only the Chaos It's worse then the current but IMO it needs to be. I am not sure what else to give him? I am also not so sure it is bad-bad..

      and the tyrant on Pendulum How ? , Plague Brotherhood Because if 2 support attacks right?, Naphtha Launcher are competently Broken. How would you change it to make it a not broke, still flame thrower weapon ?
      brood mother seems to me completely useless.Honestly I kind a have the same feeling, at least the special rule, but someone found it broken.. Thinks are funny like that. I like the idea of a big giant rat in the giant rats units, also to make some more fun options in core. But it could do something else.
      VS ACS - IDDQD
      My Elementgames code: FRE7850, in case you need one, + sent me yours (win/win)
    • Giving the Vermin Daemon only chaos makes him too close to a daemon of the dark gods. I want to distance us as far as possible from those dark times when GW always tried to lump is in with Chaos.

      As for SiN, I'd say that having weaknesses in the army list that are conditional weaknesses is a good thing and should be embraced. We have low leadership, unless we're in large groups. It's flavourful, it's characterful, it informs worldbuilding, it's a perfect rule. It's almost like an aspect in Fate. It's what every rule should look like.
      “The touch of a sword handle is the deadliest poison known to man. It settles in, deeper than the bone, instantaneously. It is a deep curse that can never be lifted and will last you the rest of your days.”
      – Ryo-ten-Ryam
    • Eldan wrote:

      Giving the Vermin Daemon only chaos makes him too close to a daemon of the dark gods. I want to distance us as far as possible from those dark times when GW always tried to lump is in with Chaos. Divanation is the Daemon Path as far as I know. So having that actually makes him more chaos/daemon.

      As for SiN, I'd say that having weaknesses in the army list that are conditional weaknesses is a good thing and should be embraced. We have low leadership, unless we're in large groups. It's flavourful, it's characterful, it informs worldbuilding, it's a perfect rule. It's almost like an aspect in Fate. It's what every rule should look like.
      Ok, I get that you like the fluff of it. But It's our AWSR. And what it does is effect Clanrats, Vermin Guard, Giant Rats, Footpads, Monks and Slaves. in theory rat ogres.. What it does when it works is give us 1 Dis over the average of similar troops. What it also does cripple the rest of the units.


      List-wise it looks like it doesn't encourage people to take big units, and you really only need 20 models to get the max benefit, or 8 models and a war platform. I know we suffer casualties, but in this sense steadfast does way more for us, and when we lose that most times I would argue +1Dis doesn't matter too much. I mean in most cases wouldn't you agree that Steadfast is what is what makes or breaks a Dis test. Slaves most likely too gazillion wound, what does Dis 10 matter then? Same for VG and all other non parry models. And even sword and board gets blown up most of the times.
      Even though it on paper looks like it matters it really doesn't that much. I mean it the only AWSR which actually cripples the army
      rather than makes it excel in some playstyle + it has no synergy with of our other rules.


      I am all for rules which will make big units matter but, SiN really isn't that rule.
      SiN prevents us from have other cool rules in the book, simply because there is limit on how many rule there can be in the book.


      Honestly I am pretty sure we envision the army similar, we just don't agree on how to get there.

      Mamut wrote:

      As for the Daemon, why not go back to Occultism? But he needs at least 3'' increased range to be able to use that path, so keep that in mind.


      Yea that could work as well. I think it would be really fluffy too. Him sacrificing the lesser rats for his spells. I just thought maybe it was not that exciting. And maybe some other path would be cool. But yea, for me the most important part is that he is not a unit buffer.


      If we should have buff spells it should be on our Seers and we would need to see a lot more buff and synergy in the army to make it matter, and then we start looking an awful lot like EoS.

      VS ACS - IDDQD
      My Elementgames code: FRE7850, in case you need one, + sent me yours (win/win)
    • I mean, where does it say that an AWSR needs to be exclusively a strength? Weaknesses are just as important for differentiating identities as strengths. If there's a balance problem, it can be balanced in other ways. That's what point costs and other number stuff are for. Just because other armies have badly written AWSRs doesn't mean we can't hang on to our good one.
      “The touch of a sword handle is the deadliest poison known to man. It settles in, deeper than the bone, instantaneously. It is a deep curse that can never be lifted and will last you the rest of your days.”
      – Ryo-ten-Ryam
    • I know it's not a rule that it has to make an army excel at something. So it's just a personal preference that our AWSR somehow would impact the way I play the army, other than me trying to bypass the rule :)

      I think there are some pretty cool rules in some of the other books, take forrest follows and forrest walker in the SE book. They are book functional and flavourful. I also think we have one of the coolest rules in the game in Callous. Thats super flavorful and actually matters.
      VS ACS - IDDQD
      My Elementgames code: FRE7850, in case you need one, + sent me yours (win/win)
    • Sure. But just as a thought experiment.. you could make an army with better stats across the board, but they roll 3d6 and take the two highest for leadership, say. That's a negative special rule, but could be balanced. Special rules don't have to be a bonus.

      Impact, sure. But I would argue that there is an impact to sometimes having high leadership and sometimes not. That's the concept. Brave in a horde, cowardly alone. The rest is details.
      “The touch of a sword handle is the deadliest poison known to man. It settles in, deeper than the bone, instantaneously. It is a deep curse that can never be lifted and will last you the rest of your days.”
      – Ryo-ten-Ryam
    • tyrant on Pendulum: the same way he was in 0.99 (too good report quality / price)

      Plague Brotherhood: if I play 50 in horde with Banner of the Endless Swarm it does 64/80 attack with Hatred and Battle Focus if I hit 4+ on average it's 64/80 hit, I do not know a lot of unit capable to survive his.

      for repairing our units that do not work I have some idea.

      Grenadiers: to give them back 12 ", with the decrease of the volley fire it is no longer possible to do shaff on a monster or cavalry hoping to finish it on the counter-charge tire and adjust the price if that is not enough not.

      Gutter Blades: more difficult, with 5HP on the war machine and 3+ on the monster they lost their target. To find out why the Skink Hunters and Chameleons are playing can understand how to repair them. or why not give them a rule like (D3 against the Construct). or make it a CC unit by giving them Battle Focus + Tail Weapon. a rule that may have a hex like the Gray Watchers may be an option. but one thing is about they need a role.

      Monstrous Rat: the problem comes from RT who does not want vermine swarm to have cowboys, I propose to reduce the movement of forced march to 10 "or 8" like that it will not be able to attack only one flank and increased its survival (better equipment for the tyrant/chief could help him the same for the Vermin Hulk Bodyguard).

      Rakachit Machinist: must have a precise role, I think we need a personage who is an important role in the guneline. to get it he needs a powerful shot (like forest prince with lifeseeed feathers) or to give buff to the other gunman (but more important for the moment) or a hex when he hits a unit enemy.

      Lightning Cannon: I like you version, Lightning Cannon 2.04 is good too only a bit too expensive, 200/220 points would be a fair price

      Sicarra Assassin: currently he has almost no chance to kill in personage with a correct protection but it is not necessarily a problem if are price is appropriate. to decrease are price between 200/250 points and to see that that gives (us some in beta if everybody is but to play it is that the price is too low, if each army did not allow more than 1 test like if it does, it should not have a problem for quickly balancing).

      but it is very difficult to propose interesting modifications without a real directice linen.
      If I had to create an army, I will start to define the strategy that this army must be able to put in place (control, guinline, rush, harassment, ...)

      then the way to put in place is strategy (ASAW seems to me to cover well)

      when I look at the book vermin I see the posibility of making list control and guneline.les list control seems rather well function, but guinline has too much bad machup to be competitive.