Uh, no, no we shouldn't. We are a race of cowards, we should have bad leadership (not acceptable, bad) in a lot of cases. Giving us good leadership because it is necessary is just lazy design and exposes badly written core rules.I
Fundamentally, though, I think hamstringing the best list by some amount of points and pushing VS up the schedule for LAB-ing is the best approach. The Vermin Daemon, in particular, is a band-aid holding a poorly designed book together; having a wide swathe of units that have terrible Discipline and no way to improve it to a decent standard other than "there is a Vermin Daemon on the table" just narrows list design; the Vermin Daemon "unlocks" half the book; if they're costed for a VD being in charge, they're overpriced if he isn't, and if they aren't, they're underpriced if he is.
Either VS should have good bubble leadership regardless of the general, or it should have acceptable (but not "good") non-bubble leadership and bubble leadership, again, regardless of the general.
You're literally arguing that unacceptably bad Discipline should be accepted.
That's contrary to the definition of the word 'acceptable'.
I have no horse in the race of "should VS be cowardly" and even less in the race of "HOW should they be cowardly". The argument is simply that choice of general shouldn't be the difference between "army with good Discipline" and "army with poor Discipline". It's too transformational.
And I'm certainly not interesting in debating the core rules (I personally advocated for changing Discipline to work in a less binary fashion before Gold) - they're locked, they're not changing, so good or bad, they need to be designed around. (They are nowhere near bad enough to fairly be called "badly written". The core rules themselves could allow for a radically different game to play with them if stats and special rules were rejiggered. The totality of the expression WRT Discipline has flaws, but while it could possibly be fixed *by* a core rules change, it can also be fixed *without* one).