VS LAB Alpha Discussions

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

  • Tough topic.

    Let me ask the other way round: What if people keep buying Doomblades in a ratio that is considered as unacceptably high for the RT so they decide to rise the cost in annual price updates.

    Do we want Doomblade to go higher than 180 to eliminate combination with Potion of Swiftness? That would make it pretty RPS, depending on your elven or dwarven opponent. I would not like this. I think the Doomblade should not be affected by Agi.

    But what could be done to prevent later price increase? If it is overpicked, it must drop in power, not rise in points. And without knowing the current state of data analysis, I still have the feeling it is overpicked.

    I want to make designers aware that at a later point after gold, the decision will not be anymore in their hands, and price++ could result in an undesirable situation. I would prefer to asap find a good design that settles somewhere between 165 and 180, without risk of later price changes leaving this corridor.
  • arwaker wrote:

    Tough topic.

    Let me ask the other way round: What if people keep buying Doomblades in a ratio that is considered as unacceptably high for the RT so they decide to rise the cost in annual price updates.

    Do we want Doomblade to go higher than 180 to eliminate combination with Potion of Swiftness? That would make it pretty RPS, depending on your elven or dwarven opponent. I would not like this. I think the Doomblade should not be affected by Agi.

    But what could be done to prevent later price increase? If it is overpicked, it must drop in power, not rise in points. And without knowing the current state of data analysis, I still have the feeling it is overpicked.

    I want to make designers aware that at a later point after gold, the decision will not be anymore in their hands, and price++ could result in an undesirable situation. I would prefer to asap find a good design that settles somewhere between 165 and 180, without risk of later price changes leaving this corridor.
    Let me ask another question:

    Is the VS book so bad, that it needs a weapon with S10,AP10, Divine Attacks, D6 wounds? I personally don't think that.

    From all the legacy things that could have been kept (no matter the reason), this was one chosen? Why? Because the VS cant deal with multiwound-units otherwise? If thats the problem, why not write the LAB in a way the VS has ways to deal with those units without that stupid sword?

    I dont get it.
  • Cultivator wrote:

    Lagerlof wrote:

    I like the tunnel aspect, it's interesting.
    I'm playing a small 3-match tournament tomorrow using this list:


    List
    You should try Shadowfurs in units of 18. Still cheap and put out a ridiculous volume of fire.
    True, just feels a bit expensive and will flee from anything that looks at them :P
    Rules Questions?

    Best online tool for Army building: New Recruit !

    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
  • Zwei wrote:

    Let me ask another question:
    Is the VS book so bad, that it needs a weapon with S10,AP10, Divine Attacks, D6 wounds? I personally don't think that.

    From all the legacy things that could have been kept (no matter the reason), this was one chosen? Why? Because the VS cant deal with multiwound-units otherwise? If thats the problem, why not write the LAB in a way the VS has ways to deal with those units without that stupid sword?

    I dont get it.
    Well, seems like community has decided that we want a BIG weapon. Does not necessarily be the current one. But the price range from 165 to 180 seems like a good settling point for me to allow combination with Swiftness but forbid significant protection.
    On the other hand we have this background story, that there is a weapon that once killed Sunna's Avatar (or something) and the Doomblades of nowadays seem to some kind of heritage from this ancient weapon of God destruction.

    When we take thes two requirements as given design guideline, not allowed to be questioned, how would your design look like?

    Sure, you can still oppose against this guideline, but then this is probably not helpful for the process at all. When you want to contribute, it is better to work WITH the process instead of opposing it. When you want to change something, try to change what is in range.

    Edit: Reading this again, I fear it might sound more offensive than intended. I just want to make people aware about how they can positively contribute.

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

  • Doomblade downside suggestion....

    .... How about scraping the current downsides of lightening attach each round (because why lightening attacks anyway? Doesn't seem to fit any fluff unless I've missed anything).

    ... Let's say that the weapon saps lifeforms from the weilder... So with every unsaved wound roll the weilder loses a wound.

    ...so basically the guy is going to do alot of damage, as planned, however the weapon is so powerful that he can literally only do so much damage with it before the exertion/ feedback kills him.

    ... Your literally giving away the points to your opponent for this model in exchange for whatever he can kill in the meantime. There is still possibility for counter play, throwing single wound units to kill him first (I'd certainly add a caveat that he doesn't have to attack unless he chooses to; like he's chosen to fight big threatening creatures/ characters).
    He could conceivably kill something with only 2 hits and go on to kill something else, but it's not likely. Usually this character will overkill something and die in the process.
    This downside will likely please opponents that can kill him first, those that can avoid him, and those that lose models to him (due to getting the victory points for him).

    ...It could even bring the cost down because allowing him some kind of armour wouldn't actually be that bad, it would be an investment by the vermin player to help get him to the intended target alive, yet still meet the opponent good points for the dead model at the end of the game
  • arwaker wrote:

    Zwei wrote:

    Let me ask another question:
    Is the VS book so bad, that it needs a weapon with S10,AP10, Divine Attacks, D6 wounds? I personally don't think that.

    From all the legacy things that could have been kept (no matter the reason), this was one chosen? Why? Because the VS cant deal with multiwound-units otherwise? If thats the problem, why not write the LAB in a way the VS has ways to deal with those units without that stupid sword?

    I dont get it.
    Well, seems like community has decided that we want a BIG weapon. Does not necessarily be the current one. But the price range from 165 to 180 seems like a good settling point for me to allow combination with Swiftness but forbid significant protection.On the other hand we have this background story, that there is a weapon that once killed Sunna's Avatar (or something) and the Doomblades of nowadays seem to some kind of heritage from this ancient weapon of God destruction.

    When we take thes two requirements as given design guideline, not allowed to be questioned, how would your design look like?

    Sure, you can still oppose against this guideline, but then this is probably not helpful for the process at all. When you want to contribute, it is better to work WITH the process instead of opposing it. When you want to change something, try to change what is in range.

    Edit: Reading this again, I fear it might sound more offensive than intended. I just want to make people aware about how they can positively contribute.
    The thing is not, that its a strong big weapon. The thing is that its a "i got everything big" weapon that no other weapon in the game even comes close too. And that it has absolutly no restriction on the target it works.

    No restriction on were S10 works (like at least vs LD like many other weapons, no straight S10 wounding vs toughness).
    No restriction on were AP10 works.
    No restriction on were divine attacks works.
    No restriction on were the multiple wounds D6 work.

    Thats not "big". Thats a joke.

    Its a "god" killer? Fine, then give it S10, AP10 and let divine attacks and D6 wounds only work against models with an aegis save.

    But right now, its everything without any restriction and some players say "its so we can handle units/chars with multiple wounds". We are in a new book alpha. If thats REALLY a problem for the VS army, then there is surely a better way to solve this than this weapon.

    And just because the weapon exist in the BG, doesnt mean it HAS to be represented in the rules. That is not a law.
  • Zwei wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    Zwei wrote:

    Let me ask another question:
    Is the VS book so bad, that it needs a weapon with S10,AP10, Divine Attacks, D6 wounds? I personally don't think that.

    From all the legacy things that could have been kept (no matter the reason), this was one chosen? Why? Because the VS cant deal with multiwound-units otherwise? If thats the problem, why not write the LAB in a way the VS has ways to deal with those units without that stupid sword?

    I dont get it.
    Well, seems like community has decided that we want a BIG weapon. Does not necessarily be the current one. But the price range from 165 to 180 seems like a good settling point for me to allow combination with Swiftness but forbid significant protection.On the other hand we have this background story, that there is a weapon that once killed Sunna's Avatar (or something) and the Doomblades of nowadays seem to some kind of heritage from this ancient weapon of God destruction.
    When we take thes two requirements as given design guideline, not allowed to be questioned, how would your design look like?

    Sure, you can still oppose against this guideline, but then this is probably not helpful for the process at all. When you want to contribute, it is better to work WITH the process instead of opposing it. When you want to change something, try to change what is in range.

    Edit: Reading this again, I fear it might sound more offensive than intended. I just want to make people aware about how they can positively contribute.
    The thing is not, that its a strong big weapon. The thing is that its a "i got everything big" weapon that no other weapon in the game even comes close too. And that it has absolutly no restriction on the target it works.
    No restriction on were S10 works (like at least vs LD like many other weapons, no straight S10 wounding vs toughness).
    No restriction on were AP10 works.
    No restriction on were divine attacks works.
    No restriction on were the multiple wounds D6 work.

    Thats not "big". Thats a joke.

    Its a "god" killer? Fine, then give it S10, AP10 and let divine attacks and D6 wounds only work against models with an aegis save.

    But right now, its everything without any restriction and some players say "its so we can handle units/chars with multiple wounds". We are in a new book alpha. If thats REALLY a problem for the VS army, then there is surely a better way to solve this than this weapon.

    And just because the weapon exist in the BG, doesnt mean it HAS to be represented in the rules. That is not a law.
    I'd either like to see the multi-wound part only work vs towering presence or have the weapon wound on inverted Res like how quicksilver lash wounds on inverted armour. For example str (x) (These hits alwayswound on a roll equal to or greater than “7 minus the Resilience of the model that the hit is distributed onto”. Then its still scary vs characters and monsters but, not weak characters or units. Maybe even 8-res. This is a little fluffy as its bringing down those who are tougher than you.
  • According to the BG, the weapon was made for the purpose of killing anything or just the Avatar of Sunna? If it is anything, it seems reasonable that it should be close to the current state. If it's just Sunna's avatar it could have MW1d6 only against models with Aegis, like UD's weapon, which would make the weapon not as destructive with dragons, giants and monsters are Aegis or it could have MW1d3 against Aegis and 1d6 against Supernal. Either way, AP could be lowered to AP3 or 4 to allow some saves to armoured characters. Most demons don't have that much armour.
  • arwaker wrote:

    Interesting discussion swapping over from DE.
    What do you think about VS alpha complexity? Do we have too many special rules and entries? In case the upper management decided yes, which of the current content would you remove/unify/simplify?
    In that case I would recommend to scrap the murmillo brutes completely. This would open up design space for the fettish brutes and the weapon teams. I'm sure that would be highly controversial, but I think it would be a healthy decision for the book.

    Beside that, the hereditary spell is the worst offender. The idea is simply great, every other aspect is terrible.

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

  • Hm, I can only agree half. From a gameplay perspective we don't need Murmillos. Their role can be filled by normal Fetthis Brutes and Weaponteams. But all those models.... I think we should limit model invalidation to an absolute necessary minimum. The decision of unifying Censer Disciples with regular Brotherhood hurts, but it still offers possibilities to use the models somehow. What to do with those Thunderhulk models? They are just too big to put them on 40×40 bases.
    If anything, and unification of Thunderhulk and RatOgre models would be inevitable, they should both be on 50×50. But in general I would not like it. I think when we really have to give up on something, I would choose something else.

    If I was forced to choose some elements to lose, I would probably go for things that are not yet as established. Maybe:
    • Re-unite Dreadmill chariots with Doomspark Devices
    • Remove Wolf Rats from the book
    • Get rid of the Triumphal Platform.
    • Remove Without Number
    I know the Design team has put a lot of effort in them, and I appreciate their work, but those are probably the losses that hurt people the fewest. Imho.

    But this is just speculation, not even rumours. Of course I hope we can keep all things. But I take complexity concerns very serious, especially those coming from other factions, because I might be a bit blind on the VS eye. I also would not like other factions to explode in complexity, and if we have to sacrifice something to prevent this, I would do so. And I think it is worth to at least discuss about this concern in a civilized way.

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

  • A single entry with two options for Brutes would be fine. One with PW and one with Halberd and heavy armour. Some different rules. Same base. Would be fine with me.

    All those units @arwaker names are fine for me, they're not that complex. Maybe wolf rats is the least relevant unit, but it's also an original idea with a minor design that has minimal complexity. I wouldn't take anything away
  • Personally I love the new book and the ideas behind the cast majority of it.

    And if take this opportunity to say that the design team have done an absolutely incredible job and continue to do great work.

    However the complexity of the rules is huge, the amount of unique combinations and interactions within the rules is also vast.

    I understand that for new players that come to the table as opponents of the vermin swarm can easily be swamped by these rules and find them difficult to keep in mind throughout the game.

    It must also be understood that removing rules would mean stats changes to account for power balance. The units that lose rules must still have the same power and impact.

    Current complexity....

    Tunnelling... Really Great idea, very Verminlike. I'd like this kept, however it could be simplified by only being available for deployment. Remove Without Number and the drill team abilities. Keep the banner but allow the unit to be deployed with characters.

    Callous... I also love this, however it adds alot of complexity. Personally I could see this removed, it has less impact than other special rules and would likely allow balancing of our shooting options much better.
    I also would now that with our army in the current design shooting isn't as powerful anyway so this role has less effect

    Eagle Standard... I also really like this and think it should definitely be kept. It might be wordy but it is pretty simple in its function once is understood.

    Life is Cheap... This is a great unique role that goes in hand with the reduced resistance. I like it and wouldn't see a change. It's also simple to understand

    Cohort coordination... Could be removed and just give each unit fight in extra rank and 2 attacks. The extra attacks is a logical step for small nimble creatures anyway.

    Lightening attacks... Rule could be removed as they are not all that common throughout the book and similar attack/damage profiles could achieve similar results. Strength d6 seems largely unnecessary.

    Misshap... I love this idea and wouldn't lose it. I understand it's currently in design too.

    Cult of Errahman... This is also largely unnecessary. The whole different cults could be removed entirely. It would remove complexity from the Wizards, keep the triumvirate rule but lore choice not mattering.
    The toxic attacks in return to misses isn't massively impactful. The plague disciples could always have another standard core rulebook ability that's just as good.
    Also more design space for an item due to the cowl no longer being relevant

    Hereditary spell... This is not overly complex, the ruling for casting and using the swarms is pretty simple once understood. The versatility is massive so it doesn't do anything amazingly. So for complexity this isn't too bad, but I don't like the spell for other reasons that are not relevant to this discussion.

    Triumvirate... This is ok, if the cults were removed it would reduce the complexity. It's very impactful on list design though; I think that this should be a duo rather than trio though. Competitively 3 are necessary and usually one on the bell (to avoid too many Wizards in a single bunker) meaning that the character allotment is very full and reducing the taking of other characters.
    Reducing the Wizard ability to a buff for 2 Wizards will allow much more list building options.
    Again I digress though as this isn't relevant to the complexity discussion

    Assassin's... I like the idea of them, I have not tried them (for to no character space... See Wizard comments above). Really wanting 3 or none. They are not overly complex

    Avrasi formations... I think the actual rules need some work but the design isn't overly complex either

    Doomspark device... This is very much overly complex. Way too many d6 rolls needed. Personally I'd make it 6 shots flat to every unit in 9" (6 is too short in my opinion). D6 strength only rolled once. (Unless you want to simplify it even more!)
    Also remove d6 agility and set strength for getting attacks

    Dreadmill chariots... adding d6 to pretty much all movement would be simpler rather than specifying individual instances. I Would also set the number of hits when it goes up to 4, also rolled once for all units around it

    With all these suggestions you would reduce a huge amount of complexity from the book. Yes, certain flavour from many units also get removed but there are plenty of core rulebook abilities that could be used to return flavour.

    I'd like to again stipulate that these suggestions are borne from a desire to make the entire game easier and more enjoyable for everyone playing, me and the opponent. New and old players.
  • On other subjects I'm a little bit worried about the "fake diversity" that appears through the way the book is used.

    Legat only used to carry the doomblade
    Assassins that must be used by 3
    Senator almost mandatory if you don't take the big dictator thing....
    Priests that have become the only magical option if you don't take the Demon...

    It's actually the biggest problem I feel from the book.
  • Necrosa wrote:

    On other subjects I'm a little bit worried about the "fake diversity" that appears through the way the book is used.

    Legat only used to carry the doomblade
    Assassins that must be used by 3
    Senator almost mandatory if you don't take the big dictator thing....
    Priests that have become the only magical option if you don't take the Demon...

    It's actually the biggest problem I feel from the book.
    Agreed. I have little motivation to change what I take in my Characters section from list to list.
  • The Unmarked wrote:

    Necrosa wrote:

    On other subjects I'm a little bit worried about the "fake diversity" that appears through the way the book is used.

    Legat only used to carry the doomblade
    Assassins that must be used by 3
    Senator almost mandatory if you don't take the big dictator thing....
    Priests that have become the only magical option if you don't take the Demon...

    It's actually the biggest problem I feel from the book.
    Agreed. I have little motivation to change what I take in my Characters section from list to list.
    Have to say, as an outsider looking in, this seems to be very accurate. I don't think I've seen much variation at all in the characters. I don't think it's anything to do with the characters themselves, so much as the items they have access to.

    If you're taking a Bloodfur Legate, you give him the Doomblade and Swiftness. Obviously this guy can't be your General, so you take a Senator. The difference between minimised discipline 7 and 8 is massive, so you give the Senator the Crown of Autocracy.
    Add the 3 Swarm Priests for a Triumvirate and you're not left with much space for variation.
    Check out my YouTube channel for Battle Reports >> The Cavalier's Tale (And the thread on the forum)

    [Insert Cool Blog Name Here]