VS LAB Mechanics Phase Update 4

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 available! You can read all about it in the news.

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • VS LAB Mechanics Phase Update 4

    Well here's a rule that will change things. Interesting discipline has always been a hallmark of VS and this book will be no different. See below!

    Display Spoiler

    AWSR 04

    Models with AWSR 02 in the bearer's unit gains Commanding Presence with the following restrictions:
    • Its range is set to 8".
    • Only models with AWSR 02 may benefit from it.
    • Discipline Tests using this instance of Commanding Presence are subject to Minimised Roll.


    As you can see, only models with AWSR 02 will be affected by this rule. One of the internal names for the corresponding affiliation has been "military". Take that how you will. Rules wise I believe we have affiliated and.. not. Background-wise there are more affiliations but right now the rules just have the two options.
    As you can see, this is a pretty big change. Your Discipline will no longer be based on your ranks. The idea here is that it will enable wide play as the general's Discipline can be passed all the way long the line, as long as the chain is unbroken.

    One thing that isn't clear from the AWSR 04 name is that this rule is a mandatory standard bearer upgrade (for affiliated units). So the "bearer" in this case cannot be sniped and will only die once the unit is down to only couple of models. This helps make it easier to keep the chain intact. It will still allow an opponent to break the chain by destroying a weak link, but it won't be as easy as sniping a champion.

    Note that Discipline values across the army are not changing drastically. So don't think you're going to be fighting with Di 10 Minimised. Think Di 7 Minimised, at best.

    Discuss!

    Guideline:
    Display Spoiler
    Parallel to leadership through high-ranked politicians on army-level, seasoned military veterans leads vermin on cohort-level. Such cohort leaders (e.g. unit champions) can receive and carry out orders from the politician group from far away through coordinated visual signalling (e.g. flag-waving, Morse code or other high-tech solution). This enables VS army to be played wide as long as both politicians and veterans are present. In order to encourage large units, this type of cohort-leaders should be limited to large units, or become more effective the larger units they lead.


    Disclaimer:
    We as a team want to keep you informed of progress as it happens. However, you must understand that anything we show you now can and most likely will be changed before release, once it is seen how the entire design functions. The idea right now is that we will share with you, the community, on a regular basis.

    When speculating, keep in mind that we did not show you the guidelines so the LAB team could ignore them. The guidelines and your and stakeholder's feedback are essential to ensure a design team stays within set boundaries. These guidelines are the framework for any discussions. Although it is not inconceivable to alter the guidelines, it is very unlikely. Should this occur, we will update you, so we keep the same framework in our ongoing communications. Currently the VS LAB team initiated a first round of feedback on rules produced so far. Stakeholders review these rules to make sure we stay within our boundaries set by the design guidelines and the LAB team's concept (tighter guidelines). The stakeholders can also identify potential issues as do you, the community, when we show you ideas. This is an ongoing process with checks and balances. Even so, we know not everyone will be happy, the only promise we can make is to give our best to give you an interesting and good set of rules grounded in T9A lore. Beyond tokens there will be in world reasons for everything and that should help get the right feel playing this army.

    For those of you that have read this far, I'd also like to welcome @bolard to the ADT, replacing ArchangelusM, who had to step down due to IRL commitments.
    Please leave your assassins at the door.
  • Network discipline if I see it correctly. Banner-bearers of R@A will get it and as long as they are 8" from one-another generals discipline will be spreaded across the table. Supporting units will keep probably their rule to use R@A discipline if within 6" of R@A.

    Dis 7 minimized is a bit better than 9. Which is nice. However when facing anything with fear it will be a bit worse than Dis 8. Definitely an interesting solution which makes fear more significant.

    Am I the only person that feels that our FAB tries to fix things broken on much higher level...?

    The post was edited 1 time, last by JimMorr ().

  • Let me see if I am understanding this correctly:

    1) this rule is only on the units with the "more ranks = more FIER" rule.
    2) It makes a commanding presence bubble of its own.
    3) If this unit has a higher discipline, it is spreading that discipline, allowing you to chain discipline down the line.


    Some assumptions (based on conjecture)

    1) the units this rule is on have inherently low discipline values.
    2) the general will have a decent discipline value - 8? 9? Whatever.
    3) So long as your big long units stay fairly close to each other, you can have a huge battle line (that is still pretty maneuverable thanks to the first AWSR revealed (the "move your units tail through other units while wheeling" rule) that all have a decent discipline value.
    4) There is now an interesting strategy that can be taken advantage of by opponents where they focus on breaking a unit in the middle of the chain to cause units further away from the general to lose their discipline bonus and potentially run away.


    So, assuming all of this is correct, this sounds like an interesting rule. Neat :)
  • lawgnome wrote:

    1) this rule is only on the units with the "more ranks = more FIER" rule.
    Maybe, maybe not, WIP :)

    lawgnome wrote:

    2) It makes a commanding presence bubble of its own.
    Yes.

    lawgnome wrote:

    3) If this unit has a higher discipline, it is spreading that discipline, allowing you to chain discipline down the line.
    Yes.

    lawgnome wrote:

    1) the units this rule is on have inherently low discipline values.
    Low compared to... goblins? Warriors? WIP.

    lawgnome wrote:

    2) the general will have a decent discipline value - 8? 9? Whatever.
    Whatever.

    lawgnome wrote:

    3) So long as your big long units stay fairly close to each other, you can have a huge battle line (that is still pretty maneuverable thanks to the first AWSR revealed (the "move your units tail through other units while wheeling" rule) that all have a decent discipline value.
    Maybe, but wasn’t there an outcry that this rule was overly complicated and unneeded? Is it still needed now? What do you all think now that they have more pieces to the puzzle?

    lawgnome wrote:

    4) There is now an interesting strategy that can be taken advantage of by opponents where they focus on breaking a unit in the middle of the chain to cause units further away from the general to lose their discipline bonus and potentially run away.
    Historically, long supply lines have been an army’s weak point.
    Please leave your assassins at the door.
  • skipschnit wrote:

    JimMorr wrote:

    Am I the only person that feels that our FAB tries to fix things broken on much higher level...?
    I hope that is a good thing. :D
    That is an interesting question.

    I like the direction in which you are going. However a single rulebook has no power to re-balance the whole game. If you designed something that would be meta-shaking it might result in outrage and frantic cries VS are OP! It would be easier if our FAB was designed together with VC and OnG - it would let you much more freedom. The blame would be shared.
  • Hombre de Mundo wrote:

    Is commanding presence inherently chain-able? I mean, I suppose there's nothing in the rules that prevents it from being so but that's something I'd like to be made clear.
    KoE Serf-knight synergy.
    B. "MF’ing" Jones - CGL Member

    D.L.- ADT - TT

    Campaign Design-Broken Isles

    Freelance Design

    PlaytestTeam-Mid Atlantic USA

    CGL 2018 Worst Player Winner

    CGL 2019 3rd Place

  • ValourUnbound wrote:

    Maybe, but wasn’t there an outcry that this rule was overly complicated and unneeded? Is it still needed now? What do you all think now that they have more pieces to the puzzle?
    If anything I feel this rule makes the first one even less necessary, if we are expanding our effective ld bubble, there is less need to have lots of big units crammed in a small space.
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • Nicreap wrote:

    If anything I feel this rule makes the first one even less necessary, if we are expanding our effective ld bubble, there is less need to have lots of big units crammed in a small space.
    While this might be the case when you look at two large unit 8" apart on its own, consider the amount of units you'll have in total that need to manouvre around enemy units and terrain + all the weapon teams, swarms and such that will want to manouvre in between units, that rule is sure to come in handy.
    My wife and I just released our first video game title!
  • Puh, from the rule alone I wouldn't have been able to understand the effect. Only the explanation text was able to enlighten my rat brain. Might be easier to put an additional sentence in the rule text to make it more understandable.

    The rule itself is really interesting. But some questions stay.

    a) We still have an army general model with regular commanding presence 12"? Or is there a need for this at all?
    I fear the army general model could now be abused to operate outside the battleline to provide discipline to Hulks or gutterblades.

    b) If the army general dies, it is not much of a problem, because in that case it will just be the next lower (or similar) discipline character to spread it's number across the army?
    Like redundant leadership? I like this. Encourages the player to buy several cheap characters and distribute them along the front for security.

    c) Discipline values will about stay the same was mentioned above? So 7 (8 with crown of autocracy) as maximum for Warlord type character? Without access to bonus from ranks because this old rule is removed? So our blocks will roll on steadfast minimised 7?
    Significant nerf, but certainly deserved.

    d) What is the reason for the minimised rule? Why not just increase the DIS value without minimised for similar effect?
    Is it because the minimised rule can only be used by block infantry, while other troops in range of commanding presence have to roll normal (while a simple DIS bonus would be fully transferre to non-block models)? Is that the intention behind?

    e) Anyone thought about crown of autocracy? Seems like an auto include to me. Ultra effective way to increase the DIS of the whole army by +1. The step from minimised 7 to minimised 8 is just MASSIVE!
    I don't like auto-include things. Please find a way to make the crown less attractive.

    f) The commanding presence is bound to the unit standard bearer or the unit? Or does it affect each model in the unit. I don't really understand this part, the difference between AWSR02 and AWSR04 in the text of this new rule confuses me. Or is there a typo?.

    g) 8" commanding presence range seems a bit (inconveniently) low for passing DIS from standard bearer to standard bearer only, but a bit (unnecessarily) high for passing it from unit to unit.
    If standard bearer is the situation, I fear we will see lots of wasted minutes per game in rearranging the positions of the standard bearers inside their units every turn.
  • arwaker wrote:



    a) We still have an army general model with regular commanding presence 12"? Or is there a need for this at all?
    I fear the army general model could now be abused to operate outside the battleline to provide discipline to Hulks or gutterblades.
    Abused? My good sir, I think you confuse our fine military tactics with those of the filthly, furless surface dwellers. Any good leader worth his tail has the common sense to lead from behind.
    My wife and I just released our first video game title!