VS LAB Mechanics Phase Update 14

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

  • Gingersmali wrote:

    Question, don't you think the carts go against the LAB guidelines for movement?
    Nope, guidelines are not hard and fast rules... they are guidelines.

    Single entries are allowed to go against the design guidelines so long as it's single instances and not large swathes of the book.
    “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.
  • Eldan wrote:

    Screw the guidelines. Rocket chariot. Rocket. Chariot.
    I think the concept is suuuuper cool, it's just not particularly well balanced and seems to want all the bells and whistles without actually paying for it.
    “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.
  • Right, I know this is crazy but hear me out.

    They get the current movement in their profile normally. But they can activate the crazy long charge range if, once they make it in, THEY EXPLODE. They don't get the impact hits, just the weaker explosion attacks.

    This would make them decent short range hammers for our units anvils as they wouldn't need to activate the long charge distance, and also give them a crazy zoning option, but crucially with a vermin twist. We get to bend our guidelines in exchange for leaning even more into the life is cheap philosophy
  • Nicreap wrote:

    Nope, guidelines are not hard and fast rules... they are guidelines.
    Single entries are allowed to go against the design guidelines so long as it's single instances and not large swathes of the book.
    As someone who worked on a LAB, that is not a free ticket to make a unit that flies in the face of them. Especially if your restriction is forward speed and instead you create the highest charge range in the game.

    Lord of the Hobby

    The Great Horde of Chaos <-My hobby blog Tyranno's Ride into the Steppes <-My Makhar hobby/army-list blog
  • Tyranno wrote:

    Especially if your restriction is forward speed and instead you create the highest charge range in the game.
    You mean the unit whose average charge range is less than move 9 swiftstride? Being able to hit a 23" charge doesn't mean much when 5/6 of your charges it's impossible to reach that distance, and you don't know if you can hit that distance in advance.
    “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.
  • Gingersmali wrote:

    @skipschnit

    Question, don't you think the carts go against the LAB guidelines for movement?


    "Movement

    The ranked infantry part of the army (which is the main bulk of most VS armies) offers average speed (for its unit type) and typical lateral maneuverability (e.g. swift reform capabilities where appropriate). The infantry part of the army is overall pretty static except forward movement, and multiple very large units that all need general/BSB support enhance this further.

    This is in stark contrast to most VS support tools, which are nimble and offer high mobility. Speed is however not anything special and is just enough to match the ranked infantry.
    The army lacks the typical fast elements that many other armies have,
    such as cavalry, flying chaff, fast character mounts, fast monsters."
    Honestly, no. The Karts (Dreadmills) achieve both the Guidelines of staying close to infantry movement with the 5 Adv., and the background immersion of a rocket chassis with a swingy boost to that movement. I’ve been involved in 5 books and guidelines are there to serve as just that, guidelines. However, they are not unforgiving in that ideas and concepts that meet certain criteria and approval couldn’t exist.

    Nicreap wrote:

    Eldan wrote:

    Screw the guidelines. Rocket chariot. Rocket. Chariot.
    I think the concept is suuuuper cool, it's just not particularly well balanced and seems to want all the bells and whistles without actually paying for it.
    Define “without actually paying for it”?

    heliconid wrote:

    Right, I know this is crazy but hear me out.

    They get the current movement in their profile normally. But they can activate the crazy long charge range if, once they make it in, THEY EXPLODE. They don't get the impact hits, just the weaker explosion attacks.

    This would make them decent short range hammers for our units anvils as they wouldn't need to activate the long charge distance, and also give them a crazy zoning option, but crucially with a vermin twist. We get to bend our guidelines in exchange for leaning even more into the life is cheap philosophy
    Um...we call that the Mauss Cannon. :P :D
    B. "MF’ing" Jones - CGL Member

    D.L.- ADT - TT

    Campaign Design-Broken Isles

    Adv. Magic & Giants Design

    PlaytestTeam-Mid Atlantic USA

    Vermin Swarms LAB TT

  • skipschnit wrote:

    This is not speed creep
    Yes it is. :)Just a theoretical way to get a 23" charge is speed creep. Objectively.

    skipschnit wrote:

    Auto hits...many units in the game have even more.
    Yeah and they should be done away with. I don't udnerstand the T9A design goals sometimes. We have profiles with stats, but the units are getting special rules instead of stats to simulate their skills. Like elves and lightning fast. It should be enough to have higher iniative. No need for special rule to cover this.

    And then we have the close combat mechanics. The rules make a big show of how the to hit/wound mechanics works. And then suddenly almost all armies have one or more units with different kind of autohits. Why even bother with a to hit-mechanic when more and more units are ignoring it.

    Nah, right now I feel the game in general is going down the MTG route. I think it will make the gameplay less interesting in the long run tbh.
  • Gingersmali wrote:

    Eisenhans wrote:

    To summarise: Some wonky and special longrange movement has always been present in the rat-army. That people in your specific meta hasn't used them and therefore you have missed out does not mean it shouldn't be present in the new book.
    Nothing in the old book had close to a max charge range of 23". The max was the VD with 20". The next best was 19" on monsters rats.
    Actually... ;)
    Chief with broodmaster and Rangers boots, one of my favourite entries in the book 21" charge range, quite often 22". Seems close.
  • Nicreap wrote:

    You mean the unit whose average charge range is less than move 9 swiftstride? Being able to hit a 23" charge doesn't mean much when 5/6 of your charges it's impossible to reach that distance, and you don't know if you can hit that distance in advance.
    Less than one of the fastest stat spread around. That's a massive jump from an army that previously had no model outside characters with swiftstride at all.

    I'm not sure if you have used heavy cavalry much, but when you have a longer charge potential, it means you can take more risks and be safer. And since a lot of heavy cavalry are really bad off the charge (lances), I don't think they are going to appreciate a unit that can take far more risks than them.

    Lord of the Hobby

    The Great Horde of Chaos <-My hobby blog Tyranno's Ride into the Steppes <-My Makhar hobby/army-list blog
  • @skipschnit

    Honestly, no.

    Okay

    The Karts (Dreadmills) achieve both the Guidelines of staying close to infantry movement with the 5 Adv.,

    Agreed.

    and the background immersion of a rocket chassis with a swingy boost to that movement.

    I agree it fits with the background,( arguably you can make anything fit with back ground ;) ). I don't see why this background gives justification for making them one of the units in the game with the highest threat range or one of the fastest units. When the guidelines says VS don't get this. All in all this unit just doesn't feel in keeping with how I picture VS playing, and think it in current rules is pretty RPS.

    I’ve been involved in 5 books and guidelines are there to serve as just that, guidelines. However, they are not unforgiving in that ideas and concepts that meet certain criteria and approval couldn’t exist.

    The fact you say this makes me curious if you do really think they aren't in contradiction with the guidelines but fair enough.

    EDIT: Just to make this more positive I like nearly everything else in the book so good job with that :)

    The post was edited 4 times, last by Gingersmali ().

  • Eisenhans wrote:

    Actually... ;)Chief with broodmaster and Rangers boots, one of my favourite entries in the book 21" charge range, quite often 22". Seems close.
    I agree this is technically correct. But not really a good example of the VS slim book having long threat ranges as the chief doesn't really project threat. Chariots, especially units of chariots, on the other hand, do.
  • Gingersmali wrote:

    . All in all this unit just doesn't feel in keeping with how I picture VS playing and think it in current rules is pretty RPS.

    And honestly, this is the rub. There’s a team of 6 tasked to create something new that matches a desired direction and project background story that also plays as a balanced game. These 6 have to walk that tight rope while many throw rocks (alternate ideas and wishes). It like a game show. Sometimes (or most times), these two directions either collide or run smoothly together with what has been done in the past. But there again, that’s another run. “The Past”. We are moving forward and blazing our own trails now. That is hard for some. I’m a 20+ year player, too, but I’m finally embracing it for what it is. A new opportunity.

    I’ve been involved in 5 books and guidelines are there to serve as just that, guidelines. However, they are not unforgiving in that ideas and concepts that meet certain criteria and approval couldn’t exist.

    The fact you say this makes me curious if you do really think they aren't in contradiction with the guidelines but fair enough.

    No, what I’m trying to say is that things can be more fluid. Guidelines also usually mention certain troop types by name that sometimes are deleted from books and background. You can’t cherry pick the guidelines for good and bad. They embody the “outline”, but are written well in advance of anything conceptual and in some cases before any background material is available in full. Example being DL. That background was totally scrapped after a year when we took a total split from WDG influences; and so the book and background were done together. It’s a learning process and the guidelines are improving with every book to allow for creativity. It’s another reason why the “strengths and weaknesses” conundrum was scrapped and replaced with the evolving guideline process. Huge improvement overseen by RT and Project Management.


    B. "MF’ing" Jones - CGL Member

    D.L.- ADT - TT

    Campaign Design-Broken Isles

    Adv. Magic & Giants Design

    PlaytestTeam-Mid Atlantic USA

    Vermin Swarms LAB TT

  • New

    its kinda funny, whilst I get where the designers are trying and come from (themes throughout the book are thematic and evocative) it's just over done.

    It also doesnt help when people are selecting what feedback to listen to in a design context to confirm thier assumptions whilst ignoring this issues from other feedback.

    I've played against the book several times with PT and the only way I can describe current interactions and implementations is pretty off colour. Accurate but off colour.

    The snippets that the community see here are not really painting a proper picture of the book in its entirety, and honestly are probably creating a misnomer.

    In it's current form, I wouldn't play against it. Catagorically.
    Once a Highborn, always a Highborn.
  • New

    Nicreap wrote:

    Eldan wrote:

    Screw the guidelines. Rocket chariot. Rocket. Chariot.
    I think the concept is suuuuper cool, it's just not particularly well balanced and seems to want all the bells and whistles without actually paying for it.
    So it's basically too cheap for what it brings. Ok, that is easily fixed in pricing and will level out over time.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • New

    skipschnit wrote:

    Gingersmali wrote:

    . All in all this unit just doesn't feel in keeping with how I picture VS playing and think it in current rules is pretty RPS.
    And honestly, this is the rub. There’s a team of 6 tasked to create something new that matches a desired direction and project background story that also plays as a balanced game. These 6 have to walk that tight rope while many throw rocks (alternate ideas and wishes). It like a game show. Sometimes (or most times), these two directions either collide or run smoothly together with what has been done in the past. But there again, that’s another run. “The Past”. We are moving forward and blazing our own trails now. That is hard for some. I’m a 20+ year player, too, but I’m finally embracing it for what it is. A new opportunity.


    Yer I am aware my opinion counts for very little here. There are lots of others in this thread who disagree with me. I think the rest of the book captures the feel of VS at least in my view. These new carts just feel so out of place to me, like someone suggested why don't we put wolf chariots into VS. I get it came from the romany back ground, but it just feel like the fact the romans had chariots races as a very small part of their culture is being used to put a unit in a book that doesn't belong there IMO. Also worth noting chariots in history weren't used for charges, because as you might expect ramming massed up infantry with a chariot ends a badly for the riders as it does for the people getting hit by the chariot but I digress. T9A shouldn't try and be historically accurate. Again background can be used to argue most decisions either way.

    Just to be clear about my objection I don't think VS should have a unit that is so charge dependant, and has such a high threat range.
    I think they are RPS, for example they give BH and DL a really bad time while just die for free against most SE or HBE lists. I also think they and are random in a bad way, even for VS. And I'm pro d6 mauss cannon ;)
    I’ve been involved in 5 books and guidelines are there to serve as just that, guidelines. However, they are not unforgiving in that ideas and concepts that meet certain criteria and approval couldn’t exist.

    The fact you say this makes me curious if you do really think they aren't in contradiction with the guidelines but fair enough.

    No, what I’m trying to say is that things can be more fluid. Guidelines also usually mention certain troop types by name that sometimes are deleted from books and background. You can’t cherry pick the guidelines for good and bad. They embody the “outline”, but are written well in advance of anything conceptual and in some cases before any background material is available in full. Example being DL. That background was totally scrapped after a year when we took a total split from WDG influences; and so the book and background were done together. It’s a learning process and the guidelines are improving with every book to allow for creativity. It’s another reason why the “strengths and weaknesses” conundrum was scrapped and replaced with the evolving guideline process. Huge improvement overseen by RT and Project Management.


    Yer I get the process, I just feel the carts while maybe not "breaking" the guidelines go against the spirit of them, but yer subjective.
  • New

    First phase out of the gate is Alpha playtesting. Lets see what the feedback gives. :)

    Personally I can see a canon/catapult/magic going through the unit and absolutely devastating the VS units around it. It'll be awesome!
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • New

    Hi all,

    Guidelines are guidelines and we regularly submit reports to those that gave us the guidelines. They have the power to stop us at any time for good reason. Checks and balances are needed and done, the community feedback is a part of these checks and balances.

    Once we have an alpha book with whatever content made it, you the community can judge the book on it's total content with all revealed. We at that point will have many discussions and it's almost inevitable things will change. No matter how good I think the overall balance and story driven design are, kill your darlings is part of the design ethos. And trust me, change happened a lot on the VS LAB.

    I also want to thank you for your open feedback and breaking (down) what we release, it is very valuable for us, so please keep it coming.

    Thank you
  • New

    Gingersmali wrote:

    @skipschnit

    Question, don't you think the carts go against the LAB guidelines for movement?


    "Movement

    The ranked infantry part of the army (which is the main bulk of most VS armies) offers average speed (for its unit type) and typical lateral maneuverability (e.g. swift reform capabilities where appropriate). The infantry part of the army is overall pretty static except forward movement, and multiple very large units that all need general/BSB support enhance this further.

    This is in stark contrast to most VS support tools, which are nimble and offer high mobility. Speed is however not anything special and is just enough to match the ranked infantry.
    The army lacks the typical fast elements that many other armies have,
    such as cavalry, flying chaff, fast character mounts, fast monsters."
    @Henrypmiller

    fyi every lab has entries who break guidelines. It was "weird" that this was not a problem for RT.......

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/