Poll: What units require priority attention for the Vermin Swarm

  • Nicreap wrote:

    mograine wrote:

    Nicreap wrote:

    mograine wrote:

    I don't think the concept of "high risk high reward" is protected by GW IP...
    No, high risk-high reward falls under the impossible to price so it is being removed, because otherwise it is simply priced absurdly high.
    Then perhaps it is time to take a good hard look at these pricing guidelines.
    It's not going to happen. After 2 years it has become very clear that if you make a high risk-high reward item, it will ALWAYS be priced assuming the high reward is always occuring, otherwise it runs the risk of being game breaking. So high risk-high reward is a failed deign concept within the constraints of this project.
    we need creative ways to do this.

    I'm thinking a random/risk where everything can be useful, but in certain instances or combats, it could be more useful than others.

    So the risk is that you may not get what you need, or you may.

    But from a pricing standpoint they are more or less equal (it depends on the particular matchup of each situation to determine the usefulness)
  • See, that's bull excrement.

    Battle Focus is not priced as if the unit had three times as many attacks. Units with different weapon skills are not all priced the same because they could all roll sixes on all their attack rolls. Something with 2d6 attacks is not priced as 12 attacks.

    Everything in this game is random.
    Rakatoi Academy: Machinists of Avras
    Some call it shameless Wishlisting! Some call it an Unplayable Mess! Some ask what is the Point of This! Is it an Auxillary Book? A Copy-paste Ripoff? A Fan Version of an existing Book? See for yourself, citizens!
  • Eldan wrote:

    Battle Focus is not priced as if the unit had three times as many attacks. Units with different weapon skills are not all priced the same because they could all roll sixes on all their attack rolls. Something with 2d6 attacks is not priced as 12 attacks.
    But you are not speaking of high risk high reward design items, just regular old randomness.

    If that's what you want, battle focus and random attacks can be made more prevalent. But nothing I have seen from the VS forum has ever given the impression that is what VS wants.

    The constant request is for things like the doom rocket, or dreaded 13th, or the old lightning cannon, which aren't just random. They are things where if you roll well you can straight up delete units, those things do not even begin to compare to battle focus or random attacks, because the probability of utterly destroying a unit is far higher for things like the doom rocket or a lightning cannon then it is for battle focus, and for that higher chance of massive game ending damage they get priced through the roof.

    Every single time the VS TT has tried implementing any kind of high-risk high-reward element it's either straight up shot down, or it is priced to high heaven. The high-risk element has basically no impact on the pricing, so the entirety of such designs are paying almost solely for the high reward portion.

    You can dislike it as much as you want, but that will not change the reality that it has been made abundantly clear that such design directions aren't really going to be tolerated, and in the few instances they are, they aren't priced to be usable.

    So if you wish to continue spending your time wish-listing for things the project is not going to provide, you are more than welcome to keep doing so, just know you will continue to be disappointed if that is the approach you take.
    “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

    UD Army Community Support

    Playtester

    Supreme Death Cult Hierarch

    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • No. You know what everyone wanted? The old ratling gun. The one where you could keep rolling until it blew up.
    Managed risk. Escalation. Good design. Flavourful.

    And as I have also said, if you wouldnt keep cherrypicking my posts, is that we would also appreciate other flavorful mechanics, if you had any suggestions. But you don't. You just shoot down other people's ideas and never add anything of your own.
    Rakatoi Academy: Machinists of Avras
    Some call it shameless Wishlisting! Some call it an Unplayable Mess! Some ask what is the Point of This! Is it an Auxillary Book? A Copy-paste Ripoff? A Fan Version of an existing Book? See for yourself, citizens!

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

  • Eldan wrote:

    You just shoot down other people's ideas and never add anything of your own.
    Talk about cherry-picking.

    I put your wishlisting into context. There is a lot of hate for what VS was, and there are a lot of design rules and approaches that mean a lot of things aren't going to happen. You can keep ignorign me and the other ACS when we tell you repeatedly what you keep wishlisting isn't possible, or you can use that feedback to create ideas that actually work within the design constraint the army faces.


    Eldan wrote:

    No. You know what everyone wanted? The old ratling gun. The one where you could keep rolling until it blew up.
    Managed risk. Escalation. Good design. Flavourful
    And maybe when the VS book gets the warrior of the dark god treatment stuff like that will be added back. But as you have been told repeatedly those changes are highly unlikely to occur before then, and yet every time we have to remind you of it you throw a little tantrum.

    Nothing has changed, none of the redesigns currently on the books from now until VS gets a complete overhaul will be of a scope to change things to the level you want. You just need to accept that fact.
    “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

    UD Army Community Support

    Playtester

    Supreme Death Cult Hierarch

    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • Eldan wrote:

    Why should I? Whenever I hear anyone who has any kind of passion left talk about the internal processes of the ninth age, it's always "We wanted to make this cool thing, but we were told no."
    Because you're just a rat with a picket sign otherwise.

    I understand. You don't want the responsibility of the job, you just want to pick fights and blame the publicity people and decision makers. Understand this doesn't make us want to listen to your concerns.


    Find me on Twitter! - twitter.com/SkavenInAZ
  • SkavenInAZ wrote:

    Eldan wrote:

    Why should I? Whenever I hear anyone who has any kind of passion left talk about the internal processes of the ninth age, it's always "We wanted to make this cool thing, but we were told no."
    Because you're just a rat with a picket sign otherwise.
    I understand. You don't want the responsibility of the job, you just want to pick fights and blame the publicity people and decision makers. Understand this doesn't make us want to listen to your concerns.
    If you come into the team with an open mind, you can make an impact.
    You have to be willing to find common ground, consensus, and compromise; but if you don't add your own opinion and voice internally, you'll never dilute the influence that you dislike in the game.

    @hasker maybe you can better explain the process (also so that others understand) that goes into the ADT decision making? So that others can see why some decisions get made, but also how even a small voice of constructive dissent can help impact the process?
  • BWe were talking about either risk-taking or some - any - other rule and theme that would make the Republic less boringly generic.

    Nicreap wrote:

    that has already been implemented, look at the dreadmill, that is what risk taking looks like.
    But here is the problem, for the new dreadmill , "you" (whoever it was) took away the shooting bit that opponents hated (and we mitigated) and then went a step too far and removed the flavour part entirely by removing random movement. Queue bland chariot cannon unit entry with absolutely no resemblance to the old flavour.
    Give it back random movement and you've got the half-way point where fluff and reasonable power meet and everyone accepts it as the change we had to have.

    Now we look at the Supercharge: I can get a tiny range benefit for a chance to do more wounds on a misfire. Perhaps if instead we were to swap 3 shots for one of S8 with the same multi-wound on misfire then we could talk. Actually make me think about shooting a monster at a higher strength VS three shots at lower strength. Whatever the change, make it a choice rather than "he's out of range so I'll take the risk" because target or no target ain't a choice.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • New

    I sometimes get a feeling that this community driven project is really not community controlled or driven but some shadowy elitist council somewhere makes decisions and kinda treats community like g-dubs of old.
    That is what I think of when I read phrases like "project's scope and limitations" or "established pricing guidelines".
    Sorry for going off topic.

    I started as VS player but now but all my heart is with OK which somehow are still flavorful and fun to play.
  • New

    Selvas666 wrote:

    I sometimes get a feeling that this community driven project is really not community controlled or driven but some shadowy elitist council somewhere makes decisions and kinda treats community like g-dubs of old.
    That is what I think of when I read phrases like "project's scope and limitations" or "established pricing guidelines".
    Sorry for going off topic.

    I started as VS player but now but all my heart is with OK which somehow are still flavorful and fun to play.
    It really isn't.

    We have the ASAW (as much as I have issues with it), Pricing Guidelines, Scope and limitations, so that as people come and go in the project, as different personalities get involved, we have a consistency in design and balance.

    The last thing we want is for VS to be balanced according to the Whim of 1 person, and DH to be balanced according to completely different whims of another person. Thats how you end up with the horrific balance GW had.

    From Rules design philosophy

    Calisson wrote:

    Rules creation and modification is an all-favorite topic for discussions.
    But behind the rules, there are many constraints! This post is intended to help interested people understand why we made some decisions about rules.
    Some are obvious, others are better explained than left to guess. Here there are.

    -=-=-
    The game The Ninth Age was created with several constraints and goals, which - of course - partially contradict each other…

    Legacy.
    One overarching concern was that T9A at its start wished to cover most of the needs of existing players, owning large existing collections, which often included old models which had been very popular in the past.
    Additionally, rules needed to remain reasonably close to player's expectations.
    Basically, the first version of T9A had to provide immediately to players the feeling that it was "their" game, addressing "their" needs.
    See also: Existing and new models usable with The 9th Age

    Clarity, simplicity, no ambiguity.
    The greatest care was taken to avoid the frustration that comes from badly written rules, which would result in the need for numerous FAQs and erratum. A permanent focus is to get a simple system that is easily understood. One of our overarching design goals for the 9th age is "simplicity, without removing tactical depth".

    Balance, both internal and external.
    External balance (all armies of equal power level) is something we value highly. As you can probably imagine, balance is a very difficult thing to get right without extensive play testing; the search of balance is a never ending task, and the more the factions and options, the harder it becomes.
    Internal balance (choices within the army of equal power level) is something we also value highly. No unit in any army book should be auto-include, and every unit or option in the army book should be useful at least in some builds. This means that all units should have a role to fill in the army.

    Appropriate risk reward; controlled randomness
    Randomness is a part of the game. But the result of the confrontation should not be decided by a single, all-important dice roll! We strive to reduce the worst random elements (not all, just the most game-breaking effects of completely random stuff that the players have minimal control over). We value better educated tactical choices taking into account risk.

    Background, customizability and diversity.
    Beyond a desire for perfect balance, what makes the charm of this game is its diversity. Each Army Book must have a unique feeling, as reflected in its background. Of course, if the background described a unit or a faction to be so skilled as to be nearly invincible, that would not be playable; but a part of that "invincible" flavor would need to be (mildly) reflected in the rules.
    We strive to allow more than one play style for each faction. On a related note, we also want to limit so called RPS (Rock-paper-scissor) effects, i.e. very matchups dependent lists. We don't want a game where the outcome of a match is determined before armies are even deployed. To achieve this, we are looking at making very one sided armies (pure gunlines, flying circus etc.) less attractive.
    A great fun is to create customized army lists. The more the options, the happier the player. We will maintain this flexibility as much as we can. However, this is to be balanced against the necessity to test out all the possible options as much as possible.
    See full detail here: Armybook design philosophy #1, Armybook design philosophy #2

    Community-driven.
    The game is made for the community. Unfortunately, it is not practically possible to achieve a high quality game in open discussion forums, where anyone could try to influence the outcome. On top of this, larger groups tend to work slower. This is why most of the work is made in hidden forums, where authors are relieved from the popular pressure.
    Nevertheless, the community input is made in two ways:
    First, in multiple threads where authors are kept in touch with the community, informing the community of the developments and intentions, asking the community for its feedback and opinion. This can go a very long way. Example, in contrast to most game developing projects, we have decided to keep the public in the loop for Playtesting the Beta.
    Second, by the recruiting the authors from the community, and ensuring in T9A boards a wide diversity, geographic or representing various parts of the Hobby.

    Further developments.
    Once all factions will have their own army book, the job will not be considered completed for eternity.
    Rules may evolve for more simplicity or greater tactical finesse.
    Special named characters or units will be introduced for each army. Scenario rules will be introduced (possibly siege, naval battle…), as well as variants (most likely beginners, or skirmish game…).
    Some new armies will be introduced (very slowly, as it makes balancing more complex), some new units may be introduced to allow cool models to be played (provided that at least two companies proposed such models).
    Some existing models or units may find new roles, if they have no specific role to fulfill, or if they are no longer supported by any miniature manufacturer (in that case they would be merged with a sustained unit).

    EDIT: The path to 2.0.
    Please find a very practical, first-hand testimony about how army books are updated to 2.0: Dispatches from the front: a Marshal's view of the 2.0 update so far

    EDIT: Changes for legal reasons.
    One constraint I did not mention is the necessity to base the game on sound legal grounds.
    We do not want our game, along with the thousand hours spent to develop it, to be under the threat of any legal action.
    This has forced us, in particular, to examine closely every bit of rule which could be questionable.
    This was explained at length when we moved from 1.1 to 1.2 version: Version 1.2 - Why Change From Version 1.1?
    You may wish to read as well: The Grand Summary of the legal explanations for T9A


    With these explanations, I hope that you will have a greater understanding and patience with the rule creators, who have to find the best balance among these many - and contradicting - constraints and principles.


    Bolded sections my emphasis.

    The project never shied away from their aversion to certain things we want. We need to find an appropriate middle ground here that matches our desire for risk-reward, while also matching the design philosophy of the project.

    I wanted to join the project to speed up the release of the 2.0 beta, so i joined the lectoring team. Now I run the Lectoring team.
    I wanted to improve the 'intro/beginner' part of the game, so I joined the QS team.

    do some digging, ask around, and join the project!

    To bring this back to the main topic, I think we have to work to find a middle ground - We don't want random or 'risk/reward' to be the lynchpin, but we do want it to be an option. No game should rely on a single ratling gun overcharging its shots to win, nor should my opponent rely on my ratling gun blowing up from overcharge.

    There is a middle ground here, and it may not be as much risk/reward as some of us want, but I think we can still work to make sure it fits the parameters the project has laid out.
  • New

    SkavenInAZ wrote:

    The path we're following now is bringing this book into like with the rest of the project in terms of balance primarily. Fun is definitely still important, but we have to go away from the game of yesteryear.

    When the full rewrite gets done, all bets are off -but I'd still predict things change away from the high risk high reward motto of GW.
    Okay, I think we need to get back to my earlier question, because it wasn't satisfactorily answered. Let's sum up what I think:

    "Balanced" is not an army theme. What is the theme of our army? Ignore fun. Ignore fluff. Just answer me this. What will our army do that no other army can do? There's at least two other gunline armies. There's at least two other horde armies. What is our unique thing?
    Rakatoi Academy: Machinists of Avras
    Some call it shameless Wishlisting! Some call it an Unplayable Mess! Some ask what is the Point of This! Is it an Auxillary Book? A Copy-paste Ripoff? A Fan Version of an existing Book? See for yourself, citizens!
  • New

    Eldan wrote:

    SkavenInAZ wrote:

    The path we're following now is bringing this book into like with the rest of the project in terms of balance primarily. Fun is definitely still important, but we have to go away from the game of yesteryear.

    When the full rewrite gets done, all bets are off -but I'd still predict things change away from the high risk high reward motto of GW.
    Okay, I think we need to get back to my earlier question, because it wasn't satisfactorily answered. Let's sum up what I think:
    "Balanced" is not an army theme. What is the theme of our army? Ignore fun. Ignore fluff. Just answer me this. What will our army do that no other army can do? There's at least two other gunline armies. There's at least two other horde armies. What is our unique thing?
    I really would want to have plagues and toxic as our 'thing'. Basically we have little of this. And this should be a focus in a future reworked armybook if you ask me.

    Desired toxic effects:
    • killing with low strength highly armored enemies
    • doing multiple wounds
    • possibly some sort of area effects (see our catapult)


    Desired plague effects:
    • decrease enemy stats based on different diseases
    • increase own stats but with risk (infections are dangerous!)
      • e.g. R&F models gain +1 Strength for one turn but loose at the end of the turn W6 wounds without any saves allowed
    This is my vision where I want to see this army as a basic concept.

    This can be achieved by:

    • introducing a new magic lore "Plague"
    • (de-)buff wagons
    • area effects on units (e.g. if you are 6" close to plague disciples you suffer -1 WS)
    • Items giving appropraite effects
    • special army rules
    • etc.


    Then we can even have low stats on armor, strength etc. making us week against shooting and magic armies (as nearby area effect would normally not effect them) while being strong in close combar situations.
    :VS: The Vermin Swarm is not mad, madness is to kill a dragon with your very last shot - Rattnarök Dragonslayer

    Global Translation Coordinator

    Translation-Team DE

  • Poll: What units require priority attention for the Vermin Swarm

    New

    The skaven feel is willingness to sacrifice others to get ahead in the World. Callous is great in this regard. Together with the maniacal shooting bit. Fine.

    But i would like some more emphasis on pulling enemies down to our level. By debuffing Them, or even debuffing us and Them simoltaneously but they Lose more relatively because theres always more rats. This bit is a bit lacking imo. And should be more present for our close Combat section. If that be toxic, plague, Bell effects thats All fine but right now they are weak sauce if You ask me. (Toxic being powerfull but is more an attack attribute than bringing others down to our level type og deal.)

    Season that with rat ninjas and mutation to taste.

    Sendt fra min TA-1021 med Tapatalk
  • New

    I have the impression that the meaning of this post is really to see how people with a color bar under the username are fighting and discards opinions and ideas of users without a color bar. And I'm not saying that the fault lies with any specific user, but what do you want to hear here? You already know what people wants, and there are all negative to implement it.

    What should the army's ASAW be? because I do not understand it. A mass army? There are better armies for that. An army with a good shot? There are better armies fo that. An army with good magic? Currently VS seems to me one of the armies with worst channel option of the game (doombell?), and no longer access to shamanism for buffs in combat, and hederitary spell is a joke compared to ice and fire (cosmology). I collect EoS apart from VS and it seems to me that EoS is all that VS you want to be, but simply better. Better combat, better magic, better shot and more mobility.

    The big question I ask myself is: if the army's personality is suppressed in exchange for the balance, if you ignore what people wants as you are doing, why should we choose VS against another army? As it is the armybook right now I find no reason.
  • New

    Fenrir wrote:

    I have the impression that the meaning of this post is really to see how people with a color bar under the username are fighting and discards opinions and ideas of users without a color bar. And I'm not saying that the fault lies with any specific user, but what do you want to hear here? You already know what people wants, and there are all negative to implement it.
    I know what the loud few want. They do not necessarily represent what the entire VS community wants. In theory, we all want the same thing - a unique, fun book with diverse playstyles. However, we seem to disagree on how those things align or are implemented.

    I'm not looking for anything here - I simply try to guide the conversation away from the most negative responses, and educate where I can. I think the more pertinent question is what do you all want here? Making demands of me isn't changing anything (I don't have a vote in the process, remember) and we've explained why some of the things you want aren't able to happen (randomness). So, what are we trying to accomplish at this point?


    Find me on Twitter! - twitter.com/SkavenInAZ
  • New

    Fenrir wrote:

    I have the impression that the meaning of this post is really to see how people with a color bar under the username are fighting and discards opinions and ideas of users without a color bar. And I'm not saying that the fault lies with any specific user, but what do you want to hear here? You already know what people wants, and there are all negative to implement it.

    What should the army's ASAW be? because I do not understand it. A mass army? There are better armies for that. An army with a good shot? There are better armies fo that. An army with good magic? Currently VS seems to me one of the armies with worst channel option of the game (doombell?), and no longer access to shamanism for buffs in combat, and hederitary spell is a joke compared to ice and fire (cosmology). I collect EoS apart from VS and it seems to me that EoS is all that VS you want to be, but simply better. Better combat, better magic, better shot and more mobility.

    The big question I ask myself is: if the army's personality is suppressed in exchange for the balance, if you ignore what people wants as you are doing, why should we choose VS against another army? As it is the armybook right now I find no reason.
    Well, considering myself, @Fleshbeast , @FWehning are all openly critical of the current book I'm not sure what you're getting at.
    Staff is not some monolithic user that shares a hive mind, we all disagree.

    and I do not envy @SkavenInAZ being ACS to a bunch of angry rats.

    I think the issue is something I posted in another thread; we have to seperate the VS from the Skaven right away due to legal reasons (a sucky but real problem); but we do not as of yet have a flushed out 9th age fluff.

    We are in a situation where we know what we are not/cannot be, but we're in a bad state of limbo where we do not know what we are either.

    This is why we are constantly discussing personality, fluff, flavour, etc... that hasn't been decided yet; we just know what we can't be.
    Given the limited volunteer resources, this means that we're stuck in limbo for a forseeable future.

    What I think people need to understand is that these decisions are not malicious. @SkavenInAZ isn't plotting with ExB and ADT to destroy the soul of our list - we had to change and alter the list based on a rough ASAW, and a legal need to not be skaven anymore.

    What the whole point of this thread, and poll was is to may try and show what units need some flavour to help hold us over. What would a stopgap patch need to cover in the interim.

    It was supposed to help the ACS team take more information back to the designers, not make them feel hated and unappreciated.
  • New

    kisanis wrote:

    [...] not make them feel hated and unappreciated.
    And I really hope that this will be so even if the discussion gets a little passionate. But passion can be the start for great ideas! At least so long we all trust each other of working on this project to make it absolutely great.

    And we have already some very important information in this and some other threads:

    • Skaven are not Vermin Swarm --> let them die
    • The Vermin Swarm needs a completely new identity
    • Suggestions are welcome but please keep in mind the army building guidline (can someone post the link again? Cannot find it anymore)
    • ASAW is a guideline and important but not strictly set in stone
    PS: And sometimes it is important that even some colored people on this forum state their mind openly so the 'normal' user see that not everything is spoken and discussed and decided in secret chambers ;)
    :VS: The Vermin Swarm is not mad, madness is to kill a dragon with your very last shot - Rattnarök Dragonslayer

    Global Translation Coordinator

    Translation-Team DE