VS LAB Alpha Discussions

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

  • I think the title senator gives off the wrong impression of its role at the table. even if it is "historical" true to avras/rome culture. :) I don't agree with other people that VS should have less specialized characters though. I like the division between who is doing what and that the VS army has to compromise between what they want out of the army.

    Somone above said 77% chance of passing leadership is bad. For me that is kind of hard to understand. It means a unit does what it is intended to do for 77% of the times. Which is a lot! :)

    I would like the senator leadership mechanics to tie into more of a triumvirate solution instead of the crown of autocracy (which should be removed from the game).

    I like the division between senators for leadership, mages for magic, prefects for general damage, assassins for specific damage. And the dictator being more of a generalist.

    I hope the divisions will become clearer and more strict. At the moment I don't really see why the investment in prefects are worth it. But I would hate for the army to be able to get good leadership, decent magic and fighting in just a few characters. I think if someone wants high leadership they has to sacrifice something else. If they want good magic they should have to sacrifice something.

    It seems like a very VS way to do things. Especially if it is based on the roman/avrasi system which is famous for its checks and balances in its system. :)
  • I just imagine the Bell providing +1Dis. That would certainly make it more expensive, because people would play it more often if not. But then it would be stupid to have a Bell that is not the general. Lists with combination of Dictator+Bell and Senator+Bell would vanish.

    Not only that I don't like the idea of a wizard general in VS, it would also have negative consequences on the list variability.
  • Bulls Eye wrote:

    The thing is who in world would play a senator if you can also have a Dis7 general who is also a wizard and has the same 18 inch Dis bubbel on platform?

    But IMO this is the whole problem with the VS character section. As disigned they only have one roll. Because of this you need more "cheap" characters, to get the same profits other army's have combined in a few characters. In the end you pay the same and often even more for the same amount of abilities unless you chose to skipp on them. And VS only have 1575 char points instead of the usual 1800. They should at least give VS 1800 ptns.
    I agree that character allotment should be more too.

    It's also good design for VS characters to have their roles. However I don't think that 'General' should be one of those roles. The existing senator should have another role, perhaps something to do with tunneling but a bit stronger.

    Then being discipline up to 7 on Wizards, legate and senator.

    This way the player can choose whether their vermin detachment is lead by a combat leader, a wizard or a master tunneler. They have the versatility in list design and character selection.

    At the moment the senator is literally a tax on competitive lists.

    Or at least make all those characters discipline 6 but rule that whichever model is chosen as general gets +1 discipline

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

  • Okay let us brainstorm a bit:

    The efficacy of Crown of Autocracy on a Senator is considered a problem.
    The high Discipline of the Senator in comparison to other characters is considered a problem.

    What if we modify the senator, that he is not as valuable as general, but still helping the far out units to stand better?

    1. Reduce Senator Discipline value to 6.
    2. Remove old Vox Populi rule.
    3. New Vox Populi: Units carrying an Eagle Standard within 24" of a Senator have their Discipline SET to 7.
  • (Not commenting in staff role)

    jirga wrote:

    That is exactly the argument I dislike: just avoid the unit. How boring games this reasoning creates when both players just avoid each other the whole game
    A bit late to the party here but I just wanted to comment that manoeuvre is an unavoidable part of the game (not aimed at jirga, just a general comment).

    There is no way to "ban" manoeuvring from being a gameplay solution to a tactical problem, and while it is a possible solution, the game balance must take account of players using this possibility.

    So, as long as models have different movement rates/abilities/costs, some models weaknesses will include the ability for the enemy to avoid them. That is... unavoidable ;) :P


    More generally, the game is balanced to the victory conditions that exist in the game, not the victory conditions that some players may prefer to have.
    I.e. nothing in the rules requires you to take all of your opponents models off to win, so the game does not necessarily guarantee you the chance to do this.

    The game does its best to give both players an equal chance of winning (i.e. games between equally skilled players should have an average score of 10-10).
    That is not the same as necessarily providing players an equal chance of taking every opposing model off the table, or an equal chance of winning independently of the strategy/tactics the player chooses to use.


    This is an important point because it can play heavily into LAB design, in ways that players don't always appreciate.
    For example, if players want their units to have certain properties X, but don't want manoeuvre to be a solution to things, this can be a problem if the properties X necessarily make manoeuvre a good solution to things.
    Just because the player asking for X won't use it that way, doesn't mean that this isn't the best way to use property X.

    I hope that tortured sentence makes some sense to people haha!
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • arwaker wrote:

    Okay let us brainstorm a bit:

    The efficacy of Crown of Autocracy on a Senator is considered a problem.
    The high Discipline of the Senator in comparison to other characters is considered a problem.

    What if we modify the senator, that he is not as valuable as general, but still helping the far out units to stand better?

    1. Reduce Senator Discipline value to 6.
    2. Remove old Vox Populi rule.
    3. New Vox Populi: Units carrying an Eagle Standard within 24" of a Senator have their Discipline SET to 7.
    I would instead like a mechanics which makes the senator get higher leadership for every other senator in the army.

    So it starts ad Ld6 like everyone else. Add+1 for each additional senator, up to +2. When a senator dies the bonus is reduced accordingly.
    If the general dies, another senator become general (with reduced bonus). As long as there is a senator on the table the VS army has a general. And the opponent won't get VP for killing the general until all senators are dead.
  • Davian wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    Okay let us brainstorm a bit:

    The efficacy of Crown of Autocracy on a Senator is considered a problem.
    The high Discipline of the Senator in comparison to other characters is considered a problem.

    What if we modify the senator, that he is not as valuable as general, but still helping the far out units to stand better?

    1. Reduce Senator Discipline value to 6.
    2. Remove old Vox Populi rule.
    3. New Vox Populi: Units carrying an Eagle Standard within 24" of a Senator have their Discipline SET to 7.
    I would instead like a mechanics which makes the senator get higher leadership for every other senator in the army.
    So it starts ad Ld6 like everyone else. Add+1 for each additional senator, up to +2. When a senator dies the bonus is reduced accordingly.
    If the general dies, another senator become general (with reduced bonus). As long as there is a senator on the table the VS army has a general. And the opponent won't get VP for killing the general until all senators are dead.
    Way to go and increase the tax of playing more models just to have good discipline.

    I think there is a serious issue in the minds of many players (not aimed at those here in particular)...

    ... This issue is that no matter what you do the majority of players in the competitive scene are going to get the highest discipline possibly at all times, regardless of the cost. They will also cut out other important army design features to get this too.

    By making the senator discipline 7 and the others discipline 6 the design team are currently aiming all army lists to use a senator.
    The only current alternative is really the Dictator and that is 'only' because his rule dictates that he must be the general.

    @arwaker idea is a neat suggestion, however the bonus discipline value should be based on 'general' not 'senator' so other characters can be taken instead.

    Note aswell that this suggested rule only effects the blocks with standard bearers, the 7 discipline is then not available to other units that may be on the generals commanding presence. It's s minor debuf to the current discipline level, yet could balance by being available to all characters as general instead.
  • I don’t know if nearly everyone always uses the highest disciple characters as general. I’d look at current DE, OK in the last few years before the successive price cuts for the great khan made him viable etc. I however think for vermin because of the lower dis, even minimized it creates a greater difference. I’d be fine with other vermin characters at dis 7, just focus on making the senator better at running a wider army with its special rules.
  • My opinion is still that allocating really specific roles to each characters is not a bonus for the army. I don't mean I don't like it, just it must not be considered as a bonus - due to more HP - for the army as a whole.

    I rather prefer a decrease of point than an increase of the character's allotment.

    Actually, if you do not take the Dictator, you have to take the Senator+Legat+may be 2 priests at least... and then what about assassins (at least 2) and House Prefects? That's why i think a way could be to mix houses with other entries. And it doesn't hurt background logic at all.
  • @DanT

    Argument I was trying to make was that I don't like items or units which are so powerful that only solution is to avoid them. I don't see how that can be fun for either one of the players.

    Also I see a lot of "it's fluffy and so it's fun" arguments. I really wonder how it's always really powerful rules that gather fluff arguments in their favour.

    Can't remember many fluff arguments defending Feldrak Ancestors dying embers rule or favour of wrath. Both introduce a downside to the unit but to me at least both have more flavour than S10, AP10, D6 MW, +1att and Divine attacks weapon. Dying embers especially is really flavourful. But no fluff arguments praising those designs.
  • Twisted Magpie wrote:

    Way to go and increase the tax of playing more models just to have good discipline.

    This is a perk. The very point of it. VS is supposed to be average or less than average in their leadership. So getting good discipline is not something they should attain that easy.

    If you want high discipline you should have to sacrifice something for it. Or tax it if you want. VS as an army should NOT, have access to leadership above 7. The entire crown of autocracy-business is nothing the VS should partake in. Never.

    There should be NO WAY to get DIS8 with the VS army. I agree that Ld7 on senator makes it almost autoinclude. Reduce it to 6 like everyone else with some, expensive, options to get higher than 6.

    I think that should be hard as concrete: If a VS army wants to have decent leadership. It HAS to have a senator. It should not be optional. The Senator should be the best character in the DIS department. Without no other character being near to it.
  • Necrosa wrote:

    My opinion is still that allocating really specific roles to each characters is not a bonus for the army. I don't mean I don't like it, just it must not be considered as a bonus - due to more HP - for the army as a whole.

    I rather prefer a decrease of point than an increase of the character's allotment.

    Actually, if you do not take the Dictator, you have to take the Senator+Legat+may be 2 priests at least... and then what about assassins (at least 2) and House Prefects? That's why i think a way could be to mix houses with other entries. And it doesn't hurt background logic at all.
    But that is what the guidelines say. Characters should be cheap and have a single role.
  • Twisted Magpie wrote:

    Way to go and increase the tax of playing more models just to have good discipline.
    I think there is a serious issue in the minds of many players (not aimed at those here in particular)...

    ... This issue is that no matter what you do the majority of players in the competitive scene are going to get the highest discipline possibly at all times, regardless of the cost. They will also cut out other important army design features to get this too.

    By making the senator discipline 7 and the others discipline 6 the design team are currently aiming all army lists to use a senator.
    The only current alternative is really the Dictator and that is 'only' because his rule dictates that he must be the general.

    @arwaker idea is a neat suggestion, however the bonus discipline value should be based on 'general' not 'senator' so other characters can be taken instead.

    Note aswell that this suggested rule only effects the blocks with standard bearers, the 7 discipline is then not available to other units that may be on the generals commanding presence. It's s minor debuf to the current discipline level, yet could balance by being available to all characters as general instead.
    Well, actually my suggestion was deliberately not to force the Senator to be General. He can still be with Dis6, but he does not have to.

    You can still make him general and you can still give him the Crown of Autocracy. But the benefit of the Crown is then smaller, because he then provides DIS7 to units in 12", but only the non-Eagle units will call this a benefit. The Eagle units have DIS7, provided by the senator, even if he is not the general.
  • Bulls Eye wrote:

    The thing is who in world would play a senator if you can also have a Dis7 general who is also a wizard and has the same 18 inch Dis bubbel on platform?
    Because to have Dis7 on a mage general you must have a senator supporting him, and the senator already has Dis7, so you can choose to pay for a mage general a priest + platform + senator or have a cheap general with just the senator. There is quite a difference. Put like that, the thing is who would choose a priest with a platform and senator as general? Same for the Legate, you can choose a Legate with senator for Dis7 or a senator alone, but the Legate brings other things that the senator alone cannot.
  • xaby86 wrote:

    Necrosa wrote:

    My opinion is still that allocating really specific roles to each characters is not a bonus for the army. I don't mean I don't like it, just it must not be considered as a bonus - due to more HP - for the army as a whole.

    I rather prefer a decrease of point than an increase of the character's allotment.

    Actually, if you do not take the Dictator, you have to take the Senator+Legat+may be 2 priests at least... and then what about assassins (at least 2) and House Prefects? That's why i think a way could be to mix houses with other entries. And it doesn't hurt background logic at all.
    But that is what the guidelines say. Characters should be cheap and have a single role.
    I completely agree with you and if you didn't understand it this way that mean I was not clear.

    I'm completely OK with the multiple characters with specific roles concept. What I mean is that it shouldn't be considered as an advantage in the design process. Because as a consequence you need more characters with more coordination even if you get more HP.
  • Necrosa wrote:

    xaby86 wrote:

    Necrosa wrote:

    My opinion is still that allocating really specific roles to each characters is not a bonus for the army. I don't mean I don't like it, just it must not be considered as a bonus - due to more HP - for the army as a whole.

    I rather prefer a decrease of point than an increase of the character's allotment.

    Actually, if you do not take the Dictator, you have to take the Senator+Legat+may be 2 priests at least... and then what about assassins (at least 2) and House Prefects? That's why i think a way could be to mix houses with other entries. And it doesn't hurt background logic at all.
    But that is what the guidelines say. Characters should be cheap and have a single role.
    I completely agree with you and if you didn't understand it this way that mean I was not clear.
    I'm completely OK with the multiple characters with specific roles concept. What I mean is that it shouldn't be considered as an advantage in the design process. Because as a consequence you need more characters with more coordination even if you get more HP.
    Sorry, I didn't understand it as such. My fault, language problems.

    About having many models, I think that in the end, like everything else, it has its pros and cons. You have more HP but you have more models to hide but you have them more spread around the table to be in the right place but you have characters that you can sacrifice when the time comes but they are not reliable for that. In the end it's about having a nice design, the right price and playing despite all the cons.
  • jirga wrote:

    @DanT

    Argument I was trying to make was that I don't like items or units which are so powerful that only solution is to avoid them. I don't see how that can be fun for either one of the players.

    Also I see a lot of "it's fluffy and so it's fun" arguments. I really wonder how it's always really powerful rules that gather fluff arguments in their favour.

    Can't remember many fluff arguments defending Feldrak Ancestors dying embers rule or favour of wrath. Both introduce a downside to the unit but to me at least both have more flavour than S10, AP10, D6 MW, +1att and Divine attacks weapon. Dying embers especially is really flavourful. But no fluff arguments praising those designs.
    I would agree that if something is so powerful the only strategy against it is to avoid it. But this is not true. There are a few, rare and terrifying units in the game who may take on the doomblade and win. These units may not initially come to mind due to their pure and unadulterated power blinding the mind of the thinker; I therefore provide a brief list here:
    -Skeletons
    -Regular Orcs
    -Goblins
    -Vermin Velites
    -Elf Spearmen
    -Virtually all dwarf infantry
    -Barrow Guard
    -All Beast Herd infantry
    -Zombies
    -Barbarians
    -Chaos Warriors
    -Virtually all infernal dwarf infantry
    -Peasants
    -Saurian Warriors
    -Temple Guard
    -Necropolis guard
    -Scraplings
    -Virtually every R&F infantry unit in the game.

    Read this list closely, for your army may even include one of these arcane units capable of felling the doomblade.


    As to fluff and fun arguments, they tend to praise designs that are extreme rather than powerful. The Doomblade gives you five strength ten, AP ten, Divine Attacks, but you'll have res three and a four up armour save. This is not so much powerful, as extreme. The fluffiest thing in the game (IMO) is the Maw of Arkaan and it regains wounds rapidly whenever it does wounds. This is extremely powerful against lots of units, but trash against bad units because it blows itself up when it eats too much. This effect is again, not ridiculously powerful, but introduces extreme advantages and disadvantages that other units simply do not, as a general rule, have.