VS Brainstorming for LAB

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!

  • Eldan wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    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.
    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.

    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).

    Background Team

  • Lagerlof wrote:

    Eldan wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    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.
    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.
    We do now. No other race needs to babysit their units with the general as much as the rats do.
    Main reason Hulks and everything is pretty garbage without a Deamon. They more or less instantly break in the wrong combat.

    No one is going to play VS if their Dis is anything but reliable. Otherwise the core mechanics of the game needs to change, so that you lose X models instead of explode if you are caught in a combat.
    Then maybe this game just isn't right for a vermin army and there shouldn't be one.

    I'm serious. If the core rules can't support our army, maybe we should just write for another edition of the game. There's no point in applying band aids over band aids over band aids. Let's wait until we can get it right.
    A summary of all proposed ideas from the VS LAB brainstorm thread

    MAKE THE SWARM COWARDLY AGAIN!
    WE DEMAND TERRIBLE LEADERSHIP!
    DOWN WITH COMPETENT GENERALS!
  • so how about a special rule to account for our bad discipline but allowing us to say in combat after we have lost.

    sacrifice the weak -
    At the end of a combat that the VS player has lost they can sacrifice the weak and cowardly, before rolling dice for combat results, so the strong and brave keep fighting.
    The VS player can roll XD6 (X=1 up to the number of ranks in a unit) and inflict that number of wounds on their unit.
    The number of wounds caused is added to the VS players combat score, this can not increase the difference in combat scores beyond zero (i.e a draw is the best a loss can be turned into).
    Ranks for steadfast are calculated after these wounds are removed.
  • This discipline issue needs to be fixed with army rules.

    Perhaps some VS units could get an instability check and become shaken instead of fleeing in certain instances IF the unit has enough ranks/models/a character etc.

    Edit: I think the general consensus is that it is ok for the army to show its true colours once units drop in size/characters start dying. I personally like the idea of a swarm of rats having some portion of rats deserting on the way towards the enemy, while leaders whip the rest onwards in a pile of confusion and forced (high) discipline until the actual fighting starts and rats start dying...

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

  • We need good discipline, yet the source of discipline should be core units not the leaders. The more ranks the further they can spread their discipline and the more reliable the discipline is. Something like every model in R@A, VG, PB unit has Always Dis Set to 4 + 1 / Full Ranks above 3rd (Max 10? 9?) and Commanding presence of X" where X is number of ranks. IIRC Always used in this place would override borrowing Dis from characters and commanding presence. It would also override Dis of characters joining the units. It would force discipline based on unit own numbers only, preventing 'net effect' of a single big unit hidden behind a cloud of Core MSU Ld10 redirectors.

    At the same time our Cores should be tarpits everyone should avoid fighting with unless they wish to break our army morale. And a way to restore wounds would be nice.

    Why do we need a general someone might ask... a General with commanding presense 12/18" and discipline set to 10/9 could affect non-core units outside unit bubble. Probably wouldn't last long as each possible range attack would go against the unit he is in to reduce his influence.
    StormRider Games
    StormRider Facebook
    _____________Join my closed Facebook group: Åsklander Bar
    Or my WoT EU clan:
    The Ninth Army

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

  • JimMorr wrote:

    We need good discipline, yet the source of discipline should be core units not the leaders. The more ranks the further they can spread their discipline and the more reliable the discipline is. Something like every model in R@A, VG, PB unit has Always Dis Set to 4 + 1 / Full Ranks above 3rd (Max 10? 9?) and Commanding presence of X" where X is number of ranks. IIRC Always used in this plays would override borrowing Dis from characters and commanding presence. It would also override Dis of characters joining the units. It would force discipline based on unit own numbers only, preventing 'net effect' of a single big unit hidden behind a cloud of Core MSU Ld10 redirectors.

    At the same time our Cores should be tarpits everyone should avoid fighting with unless they wish to break our army morale. And a way to restore wounds would be nice.

    Why do we need a general someone might ask... a General with commanding presense 12/18" and discipline set to 10/9 could affect non-core units outside unit bubble. Probably wouldn't last long as each possible range attack would go against the unit he is in to reduce his influence.
    I think that works pretty nicely, yes, and it has been one of my favourite rules suggestions.

    That said, 4+ full ranks above 3rd is a bit... harsh? That's six ranks (30 models minimum) for a leadership of 7. And people keep telling me that we need leadership 10 to be competitive, which would be 9 full ranks, or 45 models 5 wide. We'd have to run all our core units at 50 models five wide, probably, which is just giant busses. I'm not sure that's ideal.

    Maybe it should be model numbers instead of ranks? That way, it would at least allow for some wide formations, too.

    Also, if we go that way and people would run, say, 2 big rat at arms block of 50, with each leadership 10 and 10" commanding presence, flanked by things like footpads and so on that profit from it, I think the question to me becomes:
    What are our leaders good for now? Just magic item caddies that are good in close combat? Because I think we need another use for them than just that.



    Edit: I'm getting real tempted to write another homebrew book, with these rules and the "invest magic dice/Veil tokens to power machines" rules. If I have a day or two free, I should get on that.
    A summary of all proposed ideas from the VS LAB brainstorm thread

    MAKE THE SWARM COWARDLY AGAIN!
    WE DEMAND TERRIBLE LEADERSHIP!
    DOWN WITH COMPETENT GENERALS!
  • Eldan wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:

    We do now. No other race needs to babysit their units with the general as much as the rats do.Main reason Hulks and everything is pretty garbage without a Deamon. They more or less instantly break in the wrong combat.

    No one is going to play VS if their Dis is anything but reliable. Otherwise the core mechanics of the game needs to change, so that you lose X models instead of explode if you are caught in a combat.
    Then maybe this game just isn't right for a vermin army and there shouldn't be one.
    I'm serious. If the core rules can't support our army, maybe we should just write for another edition of the game. There's no point in applying band aids over band aids over band aids. Let's wait until we can get it right.
    Why is your opinion the right one and everyone else is wrong?

    The army you describe doesnt sound too fun to play TBH. No one wants to play something that just runs away from panic and combat. It doesn't work in this game with 6 turns.

    It works perfectly in Total War Warhammer. Where Goblins and Skaven units break really quick, but they always rally and come back to the fight. So it's like waves, back and forth.
    Rules Questions?

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
    ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans
    ETC 2019 - Team Sweden
  • I'm not saying that they should always flee. But when they lose, they should. Because they are cowardly rats. And I think it's a poor game when everyone agrees that of an entire spectrum of 2-12, only 10rr is a playable leadership.
    A summary of all proposed ideas from the VS LAB brainstorm thread

    MAKE THE SWARM COWARDLY AGAIN!
    WE DEMAND TERRIBLE LEADERSHIP!
    DOWN WITH COMPETENT GENERALS!
  • Lagerlof wrote:

    The army you describe doesnt sound too fun to play TBH. No one wants to play something that just runs away from panic and combat. It doesn't work in this game with 6 turns.

    It works perfectly in Total War Warhammer. Where Goblins and Skaven units break really quick, but they always rally and come back to the fight. So it's like waves, back and forth.
    Maybe it could be made to work in 6 turn game. VPs scored by enemy against VS are Always reduced in the following way:

    1. If at least one model from the unit has fled the battlefield award only VPs worth 50% unit cost for the destroyed unit not 100%
    2. Do not award any VPs for unit Fleeing at the end of the game

    Do some damage to enemy early and ruuun!!!
    StormRider Games
    StormRider Facebook
    _____________Join my closed Facebook group: Åsklander Bar
    Or my WoT EU clan:
    The Ninth Army
  • Lagerlof wrote:

    Why is your opinion the right one and everyone else is wrong?
    Is that really the level you want to reduce this discussion to? I thought this was a brainstorming thread, not a mudslinging contest.
    A summary of all proposed ideas from the VS LAB brainstorm thread

    MAKE THE SWARM COWARDLY AGAIN!
    WE DEMAND TERRIBLE LEADERSHIP!
    DOWN WITH COMPETENT GENERALS!
  • Eldan wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:

    Why is your opinion the right one and everyone else is wrong?
    Is that really the level you want to reduce this discussion to? I thought this was a brainstorming thread, not a mudslinging contest.
    It was an honest question. Since you seem so determined that either they are cowards or we remove the entire army from the game :D Maybe write it more in an idea state than a statement.

    "MAKE THE SWARM COWARDLY AGAIN!
    WE DEMAND TERRIBLE LEADERSHIP!
    DOWN WITH COMPETENT GENERALS!"
    Rules Questions?

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
    ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans
    ETC 2019 - Team Sweden
  • Eldan wrote:

    I'm not saying that they should always flee. But when they lose, they should. Because they are cowardly rats. And I think it's a poor game when everyone agrees that of an entire spectrum of 2-12, only 10rr is a playable leadership.

    Less than that can work. I've never been fussed by my OK being Dis 8 tops, f'rex.

    But that isn't what VS is designed to make work.

    Here:


    Lagerlof wrote:

    Eldan wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:

    We do now. No other race needs to babysit their units with the general as much as the rats do.Main reason Hulks and everything is pretty garbage without a Deamon. They more or less instantly break in the wrong combat.

    No one is going to play VS if their Dis is anything but reliable. Otherwise the core mechanics of the game needs to change, so that you lose X models instead of explode if you are caught in a combat.
    Then maybe this game just isn't right for a vermin army and there shouldn't be one.I'm serious. If the core rules can't support our army, maybe we should just write for another edition of the game. There's no point in applying band aids over band aids over band aids. Let's wait until we can get it right.
    Why is your opinion the right one and everyone else is wrong?
    The army you describe doesnt sound too fun to play TBH. No one wants to play something that just runs away from panic and combat. It doesn't work in this game with 6 turns.

    It works perfectly in Total War Warhammer. Where Goblins and Skaven units break really quick, but they always rally and come back to the fight. So it's like waves, back and forth.

    We (the project) could do this.


    "Machismo: This unit has Feigned Flight, except it may move even if it rallied after fleeing due to a Panic or Break Test".

    That could get waves going.


    There are ways to make VS "cowardly" and still playable. It'll just require some out of the box thinking. And a LAB team to do said thinking, because it's not something you can jam through in a patch.

    Background Team

  • Not sure what's so wrong with the current rules.

    Dis5, +1 per rank bonus (max3)
    Makes an fine reliable unit with dis8, until someone kills enough of us. Good rule for infantry.

    Is that too much if combined with dis7 general (->10)? Maybe. Could be solved by reducing tyrant dis to 6.

    I see no necessity for any major change, just some fine tuning required.
  • arwaker wrote:

    Dis5, +1 per rank bonus (max3)
    Makes an fine reliable unit with dis8, until someone kills enough of us. Good rule for infantry.
    Except that our generals are Ld 9 / 7, so you've got Disc 9 with 15 R&F left...
    StormRider Games
    StormRider Facebook
    _____________Join my closed Facebook group: Åsklander Bar
    Or my WoT EU clan:
    The Ninth Army
  • Eldan wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:

    Why is your opinion the right one and everyone else is wrong?
    Is that really the level you want to reduce this discussion to? I thought this was a brainstorming thread, not a mudslinging contest.
    You did start it by suggesting the project remove one of the 16 armies. Hyperbole isn't useful here.

    Let's stick to brainstorming, please.


    Find me on Twitter! - twitter.com/SkavenInAZ
  • • +1 Dis per rank Bonus (max3)
    • Max Dis of characters 6
    • Demon has also only Dis 6 (but gets a special rule to roll his own Dis tests on 1d6)
    • Units can borrow their Dis bonus to other units in 3"

    Something like this. Not so complicated. Just my two cents

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

  • arwaker wrote:

    • +1 Dis per rank Bonus (max3)
    • Max Dis of characters 6
    • Demon has also only Dis 6 (but gets a special rule to roll his own Dis tests on 1d6)
    • Units can borrow their Dis bonus to other units in 3"

    Something like this. Not so complicated. Just my two cents
    I like it. Simple and easy to remember.

    - We can still get to Ld10 but need a Hat to do so thereby constraining the build of the General.
    - supports bubble play by utilizing 3” support.
    - assuming Demon would benefit from BSB reroll then the ~12% break chance base isn’t horrible. Minimized could be interesting here also.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef