VS LAB Alpha first impressions

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

  • trulyelse wrote:

    Flames wrote:

    A creative design should offer new choices, acceptably more interesting ones. But under no circumstances destroy old ones.
    I'm reminded of that comic of the dog asking the master to throw the ball, but doesn't want the master to take it, only throw it.
    If you're expected to always be adding options, but never getting rid of old ones, you're going to get bloat, both guaranteed and fast.
    well we could "battle" endlessly on our future forecasting capabilities but ..no, especially when "guarantees" are keyboarded (this is when i personally stop all serious conversation). In my opinion if you want to U-turn an army simply create a new one. Better than having rats with ..eagle banners (unless irony was intentional)
  • SlaveToThePyre wrote:

    I'd suggest people to build 4x4-sized unit fillers. Also, I'd ask tournament organizers to accept it, if they are decent. Like tunnel holes or something. This sounds as the only solution to lack of models to me.
    Eh. Units that half filler never look right to me. It just creates a lot of empty space on the table, instead of a proper feel of a mass of bodies.
  • arwaker wrote:

    Flames wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    All such concerns:

    - I can not fill my min core anymore with the models I have, because some were shifted to special
    - I can not use all the models I have in one 4500 list, because different units were merged into one
    - The base size of a specific model has changed, so I need to make a new base for my model
    - I can not play unit XY anymore, because min size increased and I don't have enough models now
    - not to forget the most laughably one "I can not play unit XY of size Z in core anymore, I could play a larger unit in core or a similar sized in in special, but I don't want to"
    can't you at least try to understand how people stating above feel or you don't care in general? Or you think people will complain no matter what? I don't want to be rude or disagree or anything i am just trying to understand your perspective.
    Well, I can understand very well. Don't you think the changes hit my collection as well? I personally also disagree with many of the decisions. But I am also objective enough to understand that it is not a vermin specific topic, and therefore it makes no sense to discuss it here.
    It is of course a problem of VS if it concerns VS models, the LAB team could easily have decided to include entries for the things that don't have any.
    The project as a whole doesn't object or approve to the number of entries, it is the LABs decission.
    So if I want entries for all types of models I have, and I want as many (or more) units to choose from than before, it is something the lAB failed to do, and they can also fix it. Not "the general project".
    So yes, I think there are entries missing, and I ask the very people who decided to not include those to rethink what they did and add the missing entries.
    No other place than a VS forum to ask for that change in the VS book.
    And since this is the very first alpha release, it is also the best time to mention this mistake now, and it is also easiest to correct that mistake now.
    (Yes, I now some don't think it was a mistake, but I think it is a deliberate decision that annoys people unnecessarily, and it can be solved easily).
  • I have seen fillers that are very impressive. And that can be used for different units.
    A unit filler doesn´t necessary need to have no models on it.

    Vermins could have some hole in the ground with models crawling out from it. Could have some "ration pile" that moves with the unit, and even some "fillers" that are just multibase models representing a somewhat chaotic formation. Crawling above some ruins, a fence with 2 rats moving over it....

    In my imagination vermins are not the super trained and organized army. All the link to roman units seems to tell otherwise. But on the other hand a MASS army should lack proper training due to short lifespans and heavy losses in battles.
  • Eldan wrote:

    SlaveToThePyre wrote:

    I'd suggest people to build 4x4-sized unit fillers. Also, I'd ask tournament organizers to accept it, if they are decent. Like tunnel holes or something. This sounds as the only solution to lack of models to me.
    Eh. Units that half filler never look right to me. It just creates a lot of empty space on the table, instead of a proper feel of a mass of bodies.
    That is correct... If we are talking about Wasteland Warriors. If 33% or 300 rats are fillers, you still have 200 rats on the table. That's some solid mass effect to me.
  • rolan wrote:

    It is of course a problem of VS if it concerns VS models, the LAB team could easily have decided to include entries for the things that don't have any.
    They could but why? I mean, any LAB could add an infinite number of units. Why should, for example, your collection of models be the design goal? Why should mine? After all, we are at different levels of collections.
  • Davian wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    It is of course a problem of VS if it concerns VS models, the LAB team could easily have decided to include entries for the things that don't have any.
    They could but why? I mean, any LAB could add an infinite number of units. Why should, for example, your collection of models be the design goal? Why should mine? After all, we are at different levels of collections.
    It isn't about my or your collection, it is about entries and kinds of models everybody might possess. Since that is the reason for most entries in the book (existing models), it should cover all types, not just some.
    And yes, they could have done so, why didn't they? is the right question here.
    Not because I own models, but because it upsets players in all armies if done so carelessly as with WodG and now VS. It annoys people unnecessarily, given the amount of trouble a new book always creates, it is very thoughtless to add this kind of trouble on top.
  • rolan wrote:

    It isn't about my or your collection, it is about entries and kinds of models everybody might possess.
    keyword: "might". Since designers have no idea about what and how many miniatures any given person has they can not that into account in the design process. I might have 6 cyclops models. Does that mean 6 cyclops should be able to be fielded in a BH army?

    rolan wrote:

    And yes, they could have done so, why didn't they? is the right question here.
    No, the question is "why should they add up to an infinite amount of new entires?" when designing a book. How many new entries do you think an LAB should have? 5? 15? 25?

    Since T9A is a model agnostic game there is no way to know what types of models people are having and wanting to use. Trying to add entries for all the possible models out there is close to madness imho. And now, if someone claims they want more entries, but not entries for all model lines in minature production; they are actually basing their argument on their own personal view of what and what should not be included. And that is a form of entitlement.
  • Quoting myself in a discussion:

    Jomppexx wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    Fleshbeast wrote:

    Bogi wrote:

    Can I ask what happened to the Censer Bearers and the Monstrous Rat mounts? The video did not show them so I might have missed them.
    Monstrous Rats seem to be in the final entry in the book which also does the Abom. The Abom upgrade removes the handler and adds attacks.I thought all the various Brotherhood / Disciples got combined also with the upgrade to GW being the flail option.
    the decission of merging Abo and monstrous mount is a big problem to me, Especially as I started buying and building monstrous mounts because 9th age added them to the book, before it was only a forge world option, not official.So Now after a couple of years I own 2 Abos and 3 monstrous rats, and Now you simply tell me that I will never be able to use more than 2?After you made me buy those things?Und you delete one of the playstyles I liked a lot with this army.
    The same thing happened with censor bearers and brotherhood, the sheer number of both type of models I have because the rules Until now had me stack up the number of censors greatly, brotherhood I already had many, and again I can shelf half of them because Now they are the same entry.
    This is even worse than what you did with wodg, there I also cannot use some models, but at least you didn t make me get them in the first place.
    Please change that in the next version of this book, this decission to get rid of entries is very annoying
    The mounted and unmounted monsters are mechanically different, and IIRC 0-3 per army, so you can field all five in a Grand Army, and meaningfully have the option to represent a mixture of the two different varieties of the same unit.
    Fetthis Broodmaster and Rakachit Mechanist are both variants of House Prefect, but that doesn't mean you only want one model to represent either.


    Same for the Great Weapon vs. Paired Weapon Plague Cultists; different weapon options are a good reason to have different models.


    If you felt a need to use different models to indicate "this giant rat monster has a rider" and "this giant rat monster just blobbles around on it's own" before, and to indicate "this unit of plague cultists has plague flails" and "this unit of plague cultists has paired weapons" before, you should still feel the exact same need.
    I don't really like these combination units like the new abomination/monstrous rat + rider combination. Looking at the Swarm Priest one with Caelysian Pantheon and one with Cult of Errahman (Errorman) are basically two completely different characters.
    This is even worse on the House Prefect: The Fetthis Fleshmaster, Skorchit Alchemist, Rakachit Technocrat, and Stygian Overseer are all completely different characters besides their statline and some equipment... Well Pistols really only, all other weapons are somehow limited.

    Something I really dislike is also how these entries are listed in armies. Your army won't have a Stygian Overseer, rather it will have a 'House Prefect, Pistol, Stygian Overseer'. It's really a nonsensical way to show these unit entries, it should just be Stygian Overseer, not a House Prefect "upgraded with" Stygian Overseer-ness.

    This has always bothered me but this hasn't been used that much until now. Sure there were Infernal Warriors/Ziggurat Regulars and Seekers/Brothers of Vengeance but these units were fairly rare. In the VS book it feels like 80% of units have some other alternative "upgrade". There's some other non-sense too, like Shadowfur Stalkers with Poison (Melee only) and Paired Weapons, then the unit entry right below them has Bloodpox Blades: Poison and Paired Weapons. Bloodpox Blades is a 'Universal Rule' rather than a weapon, when if it was a weapon it would give PW benefits and poison in melee, making it the exact same kit that Shadowfur Stalkers have.
    It's okay, it has frenzy.

    Painting League 2021

    :OK: :DH: :EoS:
  • the good old model invalidation topic. I guess asking for specific reasons for specific entries is ok, if the LAB team wants to answer that. What I fear is that this turns into "give me your reasons so I can pick them apart and prove that you are wrong!".

    Can we please have a dedicated thread for the model invalidation stuff, to avoid drowning this thread in the same old discussions? Maybe one ACS can facilitate one?
  • berti wrote:

    In my imagination vermins are not the super trained and organized army. All the link to roman units seems to tell otherwise. But on the other hand a MASS army should lack proper training due to short lifespans and heavy losses in battles.
    I think this is a common misconception about the Vermin, based on GW skaven heritage. Unlike Skaven, Vermin are by far not undisciplined. They are not Goblins. They are cowards as well, yes, but disciplined cowards. Their brain works just a bit different than ours, they behave like a swarm of birds or fish, intuitively coordinating each other, acting like a single unified entity. And this allows them to negate half of casualties for combat resolution, because like a flood of water, they intuitively restore their formation after losses. Unlike other beings who first have to think about it.
    Vermin have no long years of training, but for this sort of unit coordination they don't need it. They are born with it.

    One could claim that their weapon skill is too high. That might be a valid point, because they really have only very short life spans and just have no time to train their weapons a lot. Using weapons is not a skill they are born with.
  • Davian wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    It isn't about my or your collection, it is about entries and kinds of models everybody might possess.
    keyword: "might". Since designers have no idea about what and how many miniatures any given person has they can not that into account in the design process. I might have 6 cyclops models. Does that mean 6 cyclops should be able to be fielded in a BH army?

    rolan wrote:

    And yes, they could have done so, why didn't they? is the right question here.
    No, the question is "why should they add up to an infinite amount of new entires?" when designing a book. How many new entries do you think an LAB should have? 5? 15? 25?
    Since T9A is a model agnostic game there is no way to know what types of models people are having and wanting to use. Trying to add entries for all the possible models out there is close to madness imho. And now, if someone claims they want more entries, but not entries for all model lines in minature production; they are actually basing their argument on their own personal view of what and what should not be included. And that is a form of entitlement.
    We had a known amount of units to represent in the old book. Easy enough, you create as many different unit entries as you had before, and as many options for things like mounts as you had before, and create rules for those.
    After that, if you still have ideas left, you can still create new entries.
    Any other approach will add another layer of possible annoyance to the process.
    So why has it been done differently, even knowing the problem exists since the trouble with the same stuff while WodG came out?
    It was a deliberate decision, and that decision creates trouble. Easy solution: correct that mistake.

    You don't seem to care about those facts, so you don't see the problem, fine. I'm - and some others - telling you the problem exists.
    So please accept that, different than your POV, there are people who are annoyed by this.
    -I don't want infinite new entries (overemphasizing is never a good argument, by the way), I want to keep the same number as before (or more if the designers want that)
    -I don't want the designers to know everybodys collection, I want them to acknowledge that the old entries defined players collections and work toward keeping all of them playable as seperate entries, as that ensures that the units players thought to create for their army keep their usefulness, and don't have to be mixed with unfitting other models.
    -keeping the number the same as it was is not even closely "madness", it is what should be the natural starting point for the whole process of creating a new version of an AB that is already out for years.
    -a deliberate decision to leave some models out is - while of course within the right of the designers - a bad decision if the goal is to create a book ALL players are supposed to like playing. Not every entitlement I have should be used carelessly just because I can.
    Especially with some new entries added, calling for new models while old models don't have a role anymore is ... weird at best.
  • arwaker wrote:

    berti wrote:

    In my imagination vermins are not the super trained and organized army. All the link to roman units seems to tell otherwise. But on the other hand a MASS army should lack proper training due to short lifespans and heavy losses in battles.
    I think this is a common misconception about the Vermin, based on GW skaven heritage. Unlike Skaven, Vermin are by far not undisciplined. They are not Goblins. They are cowards as well, yes, but disciplined cowards. Their brain works just a bit different than ours, they behave like a swarm of birds or fish, intuitively coordinating each other, acting like a single unified entity. And this allows them to negate half of casualties for combat resolution, because like a flood of water, they intuitively restore their formation after losses. Unlike other beings who first have to think about it.Vermin have no long years of training, but for this sort of unit coordination they don't need it. They are born with it.

    One could claim that their weapon skill is too high. That might be a valid point, because they really have only very short life spans and just have no time to train their weapons a lot. Using weapons is not a skill they are born with.
    an exceptional post that is!
    I remember my university thesis (advanced algorithms - the ant society) i studied swarms and insects to build mathematical models (some are used in NP-complete problems optimization if i am allowed to brag). However this book got only half of it.

    A) Fear that swarms naturally suffer when their numbers are broken, is not there.
    B) A unique battle formation? We had a huge opportunity to get really creative.
    C) Impact hits every round or auto hits from countless vermin lapping around the foe. Anyone remembers the old zombies lapping round from 5th edition?

    That would be swarm like imho. Life is cheap is not the case. I mean how cheap is life when 4 die on 10 remaining rat at arms ? It is the end of the world for them, not a -2 combat resolution score.
  • Flames wrote:

    A) Fear that swarms naturally suffer when their numbers are broken, is not there.
    B) A unique battle formation? We had a huge opportunity to get really creative.
    C) Impact hits every round or auto hits from countless vermin lapping around the foe. Anyone remembers the old zombies lapping round from 5th edition?
    These things are in the book, in one way or the other (items, rules).
  • Some things that make me think that a mass army, without proper training is a bit misleading with the new vermin rules.
    The link to roman army is in my opinion somewhat weird, when it should represent a wild mass army. And when it represents a very well trained and organized army, well then some other things feel weird.

    - Proper training for formation fighting....the rules indicate 2 additional fight in extra ranks, because of the masses. And in addition there are some rules that also represent the masses.....life is cheap (and not caring for losses with it) and the rank bonus of the units.
    Something feels (for me) wrong when the mass unit has all of these things. It is the combination. Having a unit that does very well in rank and file formation (hence the rank bonus) and ignoring the losses (life is cheap) and at the same time representing a wild horde that gets 2 additional ranks for fighting. The super well trained DE or EoS units don´t have such a bonus, and also don´t ignore half of their losses.

    And in addition. Life is cheap indicates that there is not much time invested in gear and training of the units. Why is this rule present on pretty much VERY elite units too. The units that seem to be the survivors of battles and getting best gear and additional formation training? You would assume that "elite" units care about their losses mostly. At least when their gear and training excels them alot above standard soldier.


    Mostly it is the life is cheap rule that needs huge adjustments in my opinion. It makes 1 attack units of oponents, no matter how elite these units are, nearly useless. And this may be ok with the mass troops that struggle to inflict wounds themself, but it is for sure not balanced on damage dealing vermin units.