After about 2 years our group is going to play Vanguard again. I checked out what’s new, we have not played according to the 1.5 rules yet and would like to use them in a campaign we intend to start. It is really nice to have all the profile cards in one pdf file updated now. I looked at the Neriticans which is my warband choice for the campaign and found some issues. First of all how many wounds the Otter Bevy should have. I see 3 on the card but there are only 2 in the Easyarmy AB. What number is correct. In addition, the Riverguard profile appears twice in the pdf while Riverguard Treeleaper and Sentinel are missing there …
Otter bevy should have two wounds, according to the master sheet we use to track everything before it gets turned into PDF and Easy Army. The profiles for the missing units got dropped off accidentally in an update. They’re there in the March 21 Warband PDF if you have that archived somewhere (although the otter bevy still incorrectly has 3 wounds). If you don’t have the old PDF I’ll upload it to the files section of Vanguard Fanatics on Facebook
Nice, many thanks for a prompt response!
It looks I found some more differences between the card profiles and Easy army. On its card the Dambustler Sentinel does not have the Riverguard in its name which may be relevant for the Combined fire ability on other Riverguard profiles. However, it keeps its Riverguard on Easyarmy. And there is also a difference between Inspiring and Very Inspiring on EA and on the card, respectively.
Very Inspiring (Riverguard (all types) only) is correct.
Because plain Riverguard “combined fire” only mentions Riverguard and Riverguard Sentinels, not “Riverguard (all types)”, it doesn’t include other models with Riverguard in their name. Only those two specific profiles. ie: the ones that have Combined Fire. So Riverguard Dambuster Sentinel missing Riverguard isn’t a big deal. If for some reason I am not noticing the fact it’s missing “Riverguard” actually does matter, then count it as having that in the title as that’s what the master sheet says. I suspect it’s only missing from the PDF due to print layout space constraints.
We are still intending to get the PDF fixed up (there are a lot of things people have questioned over the years) and aligned to Easy Army, so keep the feedback coming!
Many thanks again, really appreciated!
Our group was involved in Vanguard playtesting before the covid came but our interest in it died out due to social life restrictions and also because we moved on playing Armada aside of KoW. We may have more to say when we start playing a campaign with the updated rules now.
More people playing vanguard would be ace, it’s my main game! I might try and log my next campaign with my son in here.
I have restarted playing Vanguard two weeks ago. Two games with the revised rulebook and I got to say… it’s brilliant! A friend of mine got hooked and has bought some Orcs. More games to come.
Aaand I work on a Dungeon Saga campaign with a grand finale in Vanguard. It’s mostly finished, hardest part will be meeting up with my friends and find the time to olay
I have modified the title of the topic, so it covers a broader range of problems we encountered, not necessarily related to the Trident realms warband.
We have had a game on Saturday and got some questions related to the “Fallback!” as specified on page 33 of the v1.5 rulebook. The second paragraph states:
Models that Fallback! may not have Heroic Effort or Special Abilities played on them during their Activation. Power may be spent to give a model a Heroic Effort Action later, however, without having to make another Fallback Check.
So, is the Heroic Effort action allowed or not? I guess it should be Fatigue action there in the first sentence, not Heroic Effort.
And another question on the same matter. When the Fallback! action is completed, may the player choose the facing of the retreating model. My opponent thought that as the model is running to the edge, it should keep its front side facing this edge of the board. However, as it is a Run movement and one can decide on a facing of the model at the end of any movement action I think the model can face any direction after completing the Fallback.
And just for a record, my Trident realm warband faced Nightstalkers and we agreed with my opponent and another friend who was observing our game that the Nightstalkers seem well overpowered. My warband had less power dice, less numbers of attacks and worse armor and nerves. Especially the very good nerves (only 3-4 over the band played by my opponent) caused me a problem as even my water elemental with CS(2) had difficulty to kill warrior class models … Though, this has to do more with a balance of the game than with the rules.
Yes, it’s supposed to be Fatigue first, and Heroic Effort second. When we updated the book to v1.5, we changed the old Forced Fatigue to be Heroic Effort, to try and avoid confusion between regular Fatigue actions and Forced Fatigue. Looks like we changed a regular Fatigue there by mistake.
You are correct, at the end of a Run you can choose any direction to face. Think of it as the model checking back over its shoulder or scanning around to see if it is still in danger. It won’t just mindlessly ignore the sounds behind it of onrushing enemies!
Nighstalkers have amazing Nerve. You want to double-tap as much as possible. Gang up on models, when one puts them down, the next finishes them off. Remember, models that are Knocked Down don’t roll Nerve checks if they lose their last Wound. They’re automatically removed.
Yes, that’s exactly what I thought. Many thanks again!
Regarding the OP of Nightstalkers I have heard claims by other people of quite the opposite!
I hear a lot about the balance of vanguard but I rarely hear people talk about it the same way round, which implies it’s is perhaps better balanced than people think!
I’ve played with goblins, northern alliance, forces of nature, undead and (just once) abyssals. I just find you have to play differently with them all and some are better at some scenarios than other. The biggest difference for me so far is probably between NA and Goblins. NA are typically high cost, hard to kill, goblins are easy to kill but get swarming abilities. My favourite thing about the game is how different all the factions are to play with.
It looks I have another question to ask. How exactly does the Tongue Lash (2) ability on Dambuster’s profiles work. I have played it as it requires a short action to use (as it is a ranged attack) but I am not so sure about it now after checking the general rules on abilities that use power dice. I mean can the Dambuster e.g. run in his turn (or use two short actions) and then use the ability without getting fatigued. And can it be used while engaged with an enemy model. I would say no on both but would like to have it confirmed not to handicap myself in the games.
“Use during the model’s Turn to make a Ranged attack as follows: Range 9”, 2D8. Any model hit by the attack is not wounded but is moved directly (the shortest route) into base contact with the Dambuster’s front arc and marked as Fatigued. The model’s front arc and base should be flush with the Dambuster’s. Models that were Knocked-down remain so. If it is not possible to move the model, or it is Large, the attack has no effect.”
Reads like it is as you suspect. Short action. That’s certainly how I would play it. It is a little ambiguous as written though.
Yes, I know, thanks for checking the wording. What makes me confused is this text at the end of page 22:
Special Abilities do not count towards any other restriction on the number of actions per Turn
unless specifically mentioned otherwise (e.g. as a Group Action).
We could probably be a bit tighter with the wording and more consistent effect wording templating. But it’s a ranged attack action. So follows the normal rules of a ranged attack, and an action.
Good, thanks for the clarification!
It looks I am still finding some questions. Here is another one. How exactly the Break Away action works. In the v1.0 rules, the breaking model had to pass an armor save, now the v1.5 rules state:
Any Standing enemy models Engaged with the model wishing to Break Away may immediately make one free Melee action against the model Breaking Away.
Does it really mean that if the enemy model has 3 melee dice, these 3 dice (plus a potential another one for 1 power) are rolled as an attack against the breaking away model? It looks so to me …
However, how does it combine with the Net ability on e.g. Naiad Lurker. There, the old v1.0 wording is still assumed: 2 dice for an Armour roll instead of 1. And what about the Riptide spell. Does it mean an engaged enemy model that is pushed away suffers nd (and +1 for power) melee attacks.
Yes. Wherever you’re breaking away and would have triggered an armour roll under the old rules, you now trigger a free melee attack from the model you were engaged with. Effects that modified the armour roll dice or values etc now modify just whatever armour rolls result from that melee attack. So in the Naiad Lurker net, the Naiad gets to make a melee attack. If they do, and there are hits, roll two armour dice instead of one for each hit, with each failure causing a wound.
Wow, that sounds like a real boost for the models having the Net ability or when pushing the engaged enemy models away with the Riptide spell. Many thanks!