Does Vanguard need streamlining?

[DarkBlack]

If it were up to me I would change the following:

Standardise similar rules.
Being able to generalise how things work makes it easier to remember.
“All situational advantages give an extra d8”, for example.

Separating the combat mechanic from situational advantages should be fine though.
I hit with my Me stat (minus your special rule), plus d8(s)for clever thing I did (like supporting model).
I wound/you save against De stat (minus your special rule), plus d8(s) for clever thing (like making you cross terrain).
Preferably always add rather than remove dice.
From that: bracing or any kind of defensive position gives an extra d8 for saves as well as denying an extra d8 for shooting in the open (but not melee).

Replace the knock down mechanic with a nerve test similar to KoW.
We’re already tracking wounds, so one less thing to keep track of.
Also means that the try and try again to kill something potential NPE (IMO) is eliminated. Tubthumping enemies are incredibly frustrating. With an Ne system you get closer at least.
Having it quite swingy is great though, so a d8+damage vs Ne stat. 1 always passes and 8 gives a fatigue, maybe?
Can give similar odds. Ne 2 means that any damage needs a 1 to survive (give grunts a chance!). Ne 7 means that a model that takes 2 damage has a 50% chance (as is the case with 2 wound models now) but a very slim chance of going down from 1 damage. Ne of more than 8 for large models never go down in one hit.

Speaking of swingy being fun: DEFINITELY KEEP EXPLODING 8’S!

I would drop, or at least limit, power. It feels “gamey” (i.e. anti-immersive) and randomly disadvantages warbands that need it on some turns. Plus it’s a layer of complexity in a game with too many.
Maybe a set number of heroic actions per turn, as mentioned above?
The same resource management can be done using activations and fatigue. Special warband abilities might as well be “once per turn”.

I really like the fatigue mechanic; the thematic image of a warrior desperately pushing themselves… just… a… little… more… is great. Borrowing from the future is an interesting and risky choice.

Power seems popular and fatigue is something to keep track to though. The argument can certainly be made that it’s better to dump fatigue in favour of power despite my preference.
Either way, I would definitely choose one over the other.

Drop the restriction on taking the same action twice.
Means actions can have an action cost (which might come from fatigue/power) and no need for long action rules.
Charge then becomes a move and attack for an action. If a model is far or wants to move around an obstacle then it doesn’t get as many attacks when it gets there.

Rear arcs, group moves and retaliation are cool, but I’m not sure the extra rules complexity is worth it.
I would dump warband morale, a bloody struggle to the end sounds more like it.
A cap on duplicates and/or warband size mould probably be necessary to limit activation spam though.
Having cheap stuff die easy to models that can attack more than once a turn might help though.

[generalsloth]

My wishlist for Vanguard 2.0. Some are streamlining, others not so much.

1. Rules Templating

• Rules text should follow standardized language and formatting. Frequently recurring rules snippets should be keyworded. Get rid of +/-1 modifiers, stick to dice pool mechanics.

2. Rules Reduction

• As time has gone by, factions have gotten increasingly complicated with more and more special rules & keywords being used. Less is more.

3. Fatigue/Heroic Effort/Activations/Knocked-Down/Fatigue Removal

• Individually, these all interact in a very cool action economy and managing it is, IMO, the real strategic heart of Vanguard (in addition to Power management). But it’s ugly and clunky and needs to be more elegant without cutting out the strategic richness. I would consider combining Fatigue and Activations into one token called “Effort”. Mechanics can add, subtract, or count these tokens.

4. Lean More Into Narrative Play
   Unless dramatically overhauled, Vanguard is not a great tournament system. And I think that’s a good thing. Vanguard is about small elite teams doing dangerous things with tons of flavor, and the game should really lean into that. I look at the scenarios in War of the Ring or even gasp Age of Sigmar and they are way, way cooler than the Vanguard scenarios.

5. Asymmetric Play
   Related to narrative play. I want to climb over castle walls and assassinate the guards to throw open the gates. I want a desperate stand on the bridge to buy time for reinforcements. I want to steal the jade idol from the salamander lair deep in a volcano. I want to avenge Grugnar Stone-eater by ambushing Rukk Snotflinger in the ruins of a Dwarfhold. Many of these aren’t “warband vs warband” but asymmetric covert ops.

[Mikes]

Great ideas, especially with the nerve tests. I’m just not sure if I’m sold on the 1D8 for a nerve test coupled with immediate model removal.

In KoW nerve tests work that great because the 2d6 make the extreme results especially rare and the middleground results more likely, overall giving you a relative predictable range where units will “most likely” still be fine or in trouble.

With a single dice it would be extremely random and imho too difficult to differentiate between units in “severe trouble” and units that are “still doing fine.”

[DarkBlack]

Fair enough, it does sound brutal and bloody.
That’s the intention though.

I would like to reiterate that Vanguard currently has a 1d8 vs nerve test. It’s statistically similar, but without the “down, but not out” mechanic if a model passes the Ne test and isn’t removed.

[DreadNort]

5. That’s where I’m at. I’m not interested in tactical depth or tournament suitability. I want the game that was promised to me by Mantic - the pre-battle game of Black Ops and derring do that precedes the big battle.
   Quick and simple, 45 mins to an hour to play, with minimal rulebook poring. Which is def not what we have atm.

[DarkBlack]

Definitely agree with 1, 2 and 4.
3 seems to be the heart of the issue.
5 sounds fun.

[screamingaddabs]

Well if we’re summin gup and playing “if I were in charge…” then here are my top tips that are mainly streamlining - nothing too major needed, just lots of tweaks!

1. “To hit” always extra dice, “to save” always buff on stat. Why? Minimal changes to crushing strength and piercing for a start and I think it just works well with the idea it being possible to reduce armour through hitting harder!

2. Down but not out only applies if near enough to “inspiring” characters. Some models are just too hard to kill!

3. Once “down but not out” if you are shot then that kills you (same as melee!)

4. You can’t clear fatigue with power. Makes fatigue way more tactical. May need to reduce the amount of power dice floating around to stop too much power being available

5. Get rid of hindered charges, too much fannying about - if I can run there then I can charge. Only allowed to engage in the arc you started in.

All of the above points make the game quicker and cleaner (in my opinion) without any large changes whatsoever. No loss of tactical options (in some ways fatigue becomes more tactical), less looking at the rule book.

An additional one that is just because I will never use it otherwise…

6. Make bracing a short action

Now the list of things to (in my opinion definitely KEEP.

1. Exploding 8s (yes please! Get on the 8 train!), and d8s in general.
2. Fatigue AND Power - with my suggested changes I reckon they will play nicely together
3. Campaigns and narrative play - I love the idea above of a metric sh*t tonne more scenarios, including asymettric ones. There could be a “tournament set” and a “narrative set” if required
4. Cool faction specific rules and spells - yes these could maybe neatened up but I love the difference between playing Goblins or Forces of Nature for instance!
5. links to KoW and Dungeon saga - maybe more of this please! Perhaps run a reprint of dungeon saga alongside or shortly after the vanguard release?

Some other points:

• Promote the crap out of a version 2! Get people playing and on board earlier - there is a huge market of KoW players who have everything needed to transition across easily.
• Link releases to KoW (Why no halflings yet for vanguard )
• “Game in a box” release. The big reason I will probably give Deadzone a go in the new year is because I buy one box for not a huge amount of cash and I have everything. Scenary, special dice, rules, lists, the works!

My final point - The game at version 1.1 is still great! Thanks to all involved in it, it has rekindled hobbying for me after 20 years. My son and daughter both play now (despite being 8 and 6!) and long may it continue!

[generalsloth]

Wow, I never have leftover Power at the end of a Round except for maybe rounds 1 & 2 when I’m closing/maneuvering!

[screamingaddabs]

I only ever have an odd number, as 2 is essentially a free short action (heroic action pay off the fatigue)!

[screamingaddabs]

That odd number being 1…

[generalsloth]

Shooting is incredibly hard to balance in Vanguard and can be pretty OP. I know why they made melee and shooting work differently - they wanted shooting to be about disrupting and degrading the enemy, but the actual feel of the game should be dramatic melee battles. It’s hard to get right, and lots of games struggle with it…

[salem]

@DreadNort

I haven’t got the v1.1. Having spent out on the Kickstarter and received two books, I’m loathe to pay money for something that has a tiny amount of new material in it (bought Ice and Iron at the time). So that explains why I hadn’t seen that rule!

That wasn’t one of the things we cleaned up in 1.1 rear attacks have always been like that, since the Kickstarter hardcover

[salem]

@Mikes

This is also a huge issue with Undead … which you can’t kill at all by shooting as long as they’re in their leader bubble

Back from the Grave only works on STANDING models. If you knock them down (whether through shooting or otherwise), if you shoot them and wound them, they still have to take a nerve check and can be removed if they fail.

[screamingaddabs]

Absolutely, shooting can easily be over-powered and if it is then fighting becomes rather pointless! Perhaps if fatigue can’t be cleared by power then the difficulty in killing off those down but not out via shooting is less of an issue as on the next go all the down but not out model would be able to do is stand up, so if the shooters are not neutralised by some other model they can pin models in place even if they are not killed.

I have had the case where a model was down but not out from melee with two archers very nearby. I could have shot the model with the archers but the model was inspiring and had nerve 3+, so instead had to charge archers in to kill the model, but obvioulsy they are crap at fighting and so failed to kill him anyway.

It felt a bit silly that they would charge in - if I had a bow and saw an enemy knocked down in a fight I’d shoot the sh*t out of him whilst he lay prone on the ground and fully expect to be able to kill him.

[screamingaddabs]

I’ve been thinking some more about the issues with vanguard and finally got round to listening to the old counter charge episode about it.

I’m beginning to think that an opposed dice roll like in dungeon saga may be good, with aggressive buffs adding dice and defensive buffs adding to defence. The DS opposed roll is different to the deadzone one. Both players roll and the number of hits is the number of times the attacker beats a defender’s dice & beats the armour (or “defence”) score. The difference here would be keeping d8s and exploding 8s.

I agreed with the podcast that it suits a more narrative style but needs speeding up and that “down but not out” is too frequent. I’ve now come to the opinion that down but not out should only apply if you reach zero wounds (and still need a nerve check). It keeps the dramatic hero surviving narrative but by making it less common place it becomes more dramatic!

I would still ban buying back fatigue with command points (or possibly make it cost 2 command points). Makes using fatigue more strategic!

I would also make brace a short action.

A final thing that could be considered is the concept of models having “reach”. That would mean anyone within their reach can be fought in melee, which would achieve two things:

1. Any base size could be used
2. Less bunching of models, many of which have overhang!

If facing rules were removed then any base of any shape could be used! This last one (reach) I’m not 100% on, I’d be interested to hear what others think.

[screamingaddabs]

Just to add that a lot of the above is to speed things up a little. The main thing that would help that is a reorganisation of the rule book.

Oh, and I’d say charges are hindered only if you couldn’t see the target at the start and that walking into combat let’s the opponent attack first (you can then retaliate if you so wish)

[salem]

@screamingaddabs

I agreed with the podcast that it suits a more narrative style but needs speeding up and that “down but not out” is too frequent. I’ve now come to the opinion that down but not out should only apply if you reach zero wounds (and still need a nerve check). It keeps the dramatic hero surviving narrative but by making it less common place it becomes more dramatic!

Do you mean exactly zero wounds? so if you get reduced to negative wounds, you’re just out of action automatically with no check?

[KptKeno]

@screamingaddabs

The main thing that would help that is a reorganisation of the rule book

They did already. The new rulebook is much smoother to read and use while gaming.
I’ve started to play Vanguard after a long break and was surprised how smooth it went, giving my first experiences with it.
There is of course a lot more to do, a proper imdex for example.

[screamingaddabs]

Yup, that’s right. Basically if you just get them to zero then they get their nerve check. If you get them to -1 then they’re dead. The difference between heavily stabbed and head cut off really

[screamingaddabs]

I’ve only ever had the reorganised one I think (with ice and iron in it and in paperback).

It’s not awful, but why are spells in two different places? Why is the fluff (I love me some fluff) in the middle, rather than at the end like in deadzone?

And don’t get me wrong, I really like vanguard (my favourite game in fact!), But having listened to criticism of others and looking at some niggles of my own my thoughts on possible changes have evolved.