Are you motivated to play with the new VS book?

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

  • Baldin wrote:

    Davian wrote:

    Why does a VS army have to use 60 legionaires in a unit?
    why would you? Biggest unit I have seen was 50 of them.
    Because the black lancer used them as an example to why the VS army didnt work for him at the table.

    arwaker wrote:

    Davian wrote:

    Why does a VS army have to use 60 legionaires in a unit?
    Well, I interpret your question more in terms of "Why are additional models for Legionaries so cheap and therefore effective, compared to the starting cost of the unit?". Is this interpretation correct? Do we really need to answer?
    No, it was a literal question. :) Black lancer used 60 as an example of why he didn't like the army on the table. In my head I don't understand why one has to use 60 models in a single unit instead of say 2*30 or 2*25 and so on. Why does a unit have to be the maximum size at the table. :) that is the question.


    edit: in my head when doing armies I like to use a mighty phalanx made by blackrats and park it in the middle of the table. All other units are there to delay the enemy or take objectives etc. The phalanx would most of the time just walk forward and daring opponents to charge it, while smaller units of 30ish legionaries are flanking it to prevent disruption.

    and then have some guns in the back to try and shoot out big threats which the blackrats can't manage.

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

  • skipschnit wrote:

    The names are not likely to change. Some of us tried to nudge things in a different direction, offered up puns, and/or presented many WIP names as suggestions. These did not fit the vision of the BGT and/or writers for VS. Whether it’s right or wrong, weird or familiar…time will tell. However, if they fit the BGT and they are comfortable with the naming, then the Task Team accepts it. We’ve had our internal discussions and said our piece. We move on and develop the mechanics. The community will eventually need to follow suit by accepting it and playing games. The background team is building a world and that is much bigger and more involved than just one book. So things have to fit better for them to cover the past, present, and future of the creation. So, whether I like a name or not, I have to respect it and assume that it fits into the grand scheme.
    In my opinion it is still the biggest problem of this project, that this super big, well discussed and extremely detailed background with which we all will be overwhelmed with, is still not publicly published! Background driven design is fine, if the background is published. If not, it is a kind of super ivory tower. Over 90 % of suggestions (obviously estimated) of the community are shut down with this argument, it is just super silly, not to release it, because you then will get for sure better suggestions

    I am, and I'm sure I'm not alone, now waiting for years for a published background compedium, that is always coming soon. (For years now...) If I think about the possibility, that I could have been waiting many years for this document and I consider it possible it could be just another collection of letters et al, it is sooo discouraging, I can't describe it in english.

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

  • I completely agree with this and I'm quite surprised of the difference of project's organisation between the rule conception part and the background part.

    Furthermore I'm really worried about something that I've read sometimes in this forum : The idea that background is almost finished.

    What I'll say may be chocking but : it can't be done. Has for the rule conception, this will never be finished. Background has to evolve all the time. Trying to "finish" the background sounds terrible to me.
  • I don't care about if and when the background is coming out. The designers has said that the roman theme is here, it is going to stay and that is it. So I think people should move on and stop arguing about the roman theme. Regardless of the state of released fluff. We got a really long and comprehensive answer from whammewhamme earlier. That should settle it. (that and all the other comprehensive answers in all the other threads as well)


    If people want more BG to be released, I suggest they apply for the BGT and help out. The more people which can do things the faster it is released.
  • JeroBeam wrote:

    In my opinion it is still the biggest problem of this project, that this super big, well discussed and extremly detailed background with which we all will be overwhelmed with, is still not publicly published! Background driven design is fine, if the background is published. If not, it is a kind of super ivory tower.
    The option then is not to share any Alpha or Beta progress and release the Gold books when it's all done. This would give you a cohesive, holistic look of the faction but on the other hand, you would not be able to give any feedback or try out the LAB concepts so that it could be improved for the Gold release.

    arwaker wrote:

    Well, if you want to improve the situation, apply for BGT and write some texts. We all are aware that there is a big discrepancy between Background / Art teams capacity (number of people willing to contribute) and rules teams.
    Always this. Given that some BGT members are heavily involved with the core LAB production, we have maybe half a dozen people - tops - to write the meat of any given LAB.

    So, for the sake of easy maths, that's five people who are regularly available to write, review, re-write an entire LAB. The ID LAB had some 70 pages worth of fluff and we're currently working on four LABs: DE, VS, KoE, SA. So that's about 50 pages per person, just to write. That's not taking into account discussing, hashing things out, naming things or giving feedback on other people's texts. All in their spare time.

    And that's just the BGT. Then there's freaking art!


    Now, it's perfectly fine and valid to criticize us for being slow. We know we're slow. However, as any good developer knows, we can give anybody anything they want, with two of the three following qualities: Cheap, Fast and Good. Pick which two you want.

    There is one solution to being slow, though. And that is to join the effort and help out. Complaints will get us nowhere. And if you can't help out, that's fine, but you can help us spread and promote. The more players we have, the more who can join staff. Know a player with skills?Send him this link!

    At the end of the day, we're a community project and only players can make this game happen.
  • Davian wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    Why force people to a different playstyle?
    This is the very nature of a game with 10+ different armies. Even a game which is based on historical armies would have this dilemma.If different armies exist, different playstyles are the things that seperates them. All armies can not have all playstyles, unless all armies are exact copies of each other.

    rolan wrote:

    So why should we be forced to play your vision, we will not force you to play ours.
    Because "my" vision (which I am in no position to enforce btw) is based on the principle of different armies will have different playstyles. And someone, somewhere, has to make a decision on what kind of playstyle army X has. And some people will not like it, some people will like it.
    but the general design principles of making armies different from each other creates the necessity for some playstyles to be included and som to excluded.
    I can think of a lot of things to separate factions in addition to different playstyles. Playstyles do not have to be THE thing. Also, all factions can have all playstyles without them being exact copies of each other.

    Why not give everything to every faction? People will anyway choose the units they want to play, no army will have everything. I cannot see how forcing unnecessary asymmetry on faction level is making the game any better.

    This would mean emergent playstyles with the individual model collections of players defining them. The decision(s) of how I want to play my army would move from choosing a faction to choosing the units.
  • arwaker wrote:



    In more particular sense this affects the clan themes of the old Skaven and early vermin. I like the decision to give less room for plague theme in the book representing the regular vermin army. But I really see no obstacle to a plague themed supplementary book.
    I think you overestimate the relevance of supplementary books.
    Those things are mostly illegal at tournaments, so you can only play them privately. I can play anything privatly, the only time I care about the official rules is at tournaments, and there I cannot use supplementary books.
    So there is no use pointing to those addons, they do nothing to solve the problems players have with the restictions of the new books.
  • Hombre de Mundo wrote:


    Now, it's perfectly fine and valid to criticize us for being slow. We know we're slow. However, as any good developer knows, we can give anybody anything they want, with two of the three following qualities: Cheap, Fast and Good. Pick which two you want.
    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
  • rolan wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    In more particular sense this affects the clan themes of the old Skaven and early vermin. I like the decision to give less room for plague theme in the book representing the regular vermin army. But I really see no obstacle to a plague themed supplementary book.
    I think you overestimate the relevance of supplementary books.Those things are mostly illegal at tournaments, so you can only play them privately. I can play anything privatly, the only time I care about the official rules is at tournaments, and there I cannot use supplementary books.
    So there is no use pointing to those addons, they do nothing to solve the problems players have with the restictions of the new books.
    We (in Sweden) have lots of (usually smaller) tournaments were Supp-books are OK. We had one 2 weeks ago, we have another one in 2 weeks.

    Don't blame the project for your lack of TO's with imagination.
    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
  • dragonravioli wrote:

    Why not give everything to every faction? People will anyway choose the units they want to play, no army will have everything. I cannot see how forcing unnecessary asymmetry on faction level is making the game any better.

    This is my prefered way to design things. :) I want everyone to have access to everything. But that makes the designprocess more complex and in the end, most of everything will not be used. :) In warfare, gaming or real, there is a trend of using "good enough" as the base of combat principles. The combination of effectiveness vs cost.

    So the vast majority of tools available to an army of the modern day will not be used except in very specialized RPS situations. The same would be true with the "everything to everyone" approach. Some things vill be more cost effective than others and these are the ones which will be chosen. And all T9A armies (as well as IRL armies) will have roughly the same organization and equipment. :)
  • Lagerlof wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    I think you overestimate the relevance of supplementary books.Those things are mostly illegal at tournaments, so you can only play them privately. I can play anything privatly, the only time I care about the official rules is at tournaments, and there I cannot use supplementary books.So there is no use pointing to those addons, they do nothing to solve the problems players have with the restictions of the new books.
    We (in Sweden) have lots of (usually smaller) tournaments were Supp-books are OK. We had one 2 weeks ago, we have another one in 2 weeks.
    Don't blame the project for your lack of TO's with imagination.
    I think high prestige tournaments like the ETC or Masters are perfectly suited for banning supplements but your standard tournaments run perfectly fine with them. Swedish tournaments are a freaking blast!
  • Lagerlof wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    In more particular sense this affects the clan themes of the old Skaven and early vermin. I like the decision to give less room for plague theme in the book representing the regular vermin army. But I really see no obstacle to a plague themed supplementary book.
    I think you overestimate the relevance of supplementary books.Those things are mostly illegal at tournaments, so you can only play them privately. I can play anything privatly, the only time I care about the official rules is at tournaments, and there I cannot use supplementary books.So there is no use pointing to those addons, they do nothing to solve the problems players have with the restictions of the new books.
    We (in Sweden) have lots of (usually smaller) tournaments were Supp-books are OK. We had one 2 weeks ago, we have another one in 2 weeks.
    Don't blame the project for your lack of TO's with imagination.
    Then why not simply make them part of the official canon? If they are so balnced that so many tournaments allow their use (in your area it seems), why tell us we need to talk about their use at all? Why not have them just as official as the, well, oficial army books?
    If those things were sipmply useable without special allowance from organizers, yes, I would understand that most armies have supplement lists in addition to the normal book.
    I would even be really glad if that was done, and i think the reasons for complaints would be greatly diminished.


    But as long as you make them inofficial, please don't tell me I would live in the wrong part of the world, that is as helpful as telling me to not go to tournaments, or to make my own rules...
  • I would love to see that “disclaimer” removed from Supplement Books. It forces a Catch 22, where you can’t get data because nobody plays them…and when nobody plays them, you can’t get any data for improvement.
    The only Supplement that has seen regular “allowance” here has been the Giants Supplement. That’s sad, because the other Supplement Books have a lot to offer.
    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:

    I would love to see that “disclaimer” removed from Supplement Books. It forces a Catch 22, where you can’t get data because nobody plays them…and when nobody plays them, you can’t get any data for improvement.
    The only Supplement that has seen regular “allowance” here has been the Giants Supplement. That’s sad, because the other Supplement Books have a lot to offer.
    How odd. It's the exact other way round here. Makhar, Asklanders and co are happily allowed, but the giant book is heavily looked down upon.

    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:

    skipschnit wrote:

    I would love to see that “disclaimer” removed from Supplement Books. It forces a Catch 22, where you can’t get data because nobody plays them…and when nobody plays them, you can’t get any data for improvement.
    The only Supplement that has seen regular “allowance” here has been the Giants Supplement. That’s sad, because the other Supplement Books have a lot to offer.
    How odd. It's the exact other way round here. Makhar, Asklanders and co are happily allowed, but the giant book is heavily looked down upon.
    :facepalm: Humans are so hard to figure out.
    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