PDA

View Full Version : Ghouls vs Skeletons



alpha_dude
12-03-2008, 02:21
Is it me, or do ghouls look to be much better on paper now? I can see them becoming the mainstay of the VC army.. a role formally held by Skeletons and Zombies.

They still have better stats than Skeles, but can now be raised...and are the same cost!
How many VC players out there favour them over Skeletons now?

Petey
12-03-2008, 02:33
Here's the thing, ghouls can't get full command. The skellies do, and they can have 25 point banners being long dead warriors. The combination of those two factors make them better than ghouls, but they ll cost more.
If you just want a unit that ll have a necromancer in it as a tiny bodyguard, or you just care about model count, then ghouls are superior.
There's combinations that the book provides with each troop type though.

Like the first turn vampire charge with the ghouls, or the vampire/wight king with tomb blade for skellingtons.

There s a lot of metagame concepts and combos in the new VC book, I hope all the books to come take a page from it.

Unlike the high elf book, the VC book was all we could have asked for and more.

Ganymede
12-03-2008, 02:34
Here is an example of the numbers.

A weapon skill three and strength three (a huge volume of troop types) attacker has a 1/6 chance of wounding both a skeleton (in the front) and a ghoul in clse combat.

A weapon skill four plus model with strength three (elves, swordsmen, gors) will wound the ghoul slightly more often than he will wound the skeleton.

A weapon skill three model with strength four (orcs, ogres, spear armed fast cavalry) will wound skeletons slightly more often than ghouls.

A weapon skill four plus model with strength four will wound ghouls slightly more often than skeletons.

A weapon skill four plus model with strength five will wound skeletons slightly more often than ghouls.

Overall, the defensive advantage of a 4+ save to the front is similar to the defensive advantage of toughness four and weapon skill three. The difference in the ability to wound the two is marginal at best (though ghouls tend to fare better against stronger attacks and weapon skill three attacks).

Overall, you'll have to weigh whether or not the advantage of two poisoned attacks is comparable to the ability to get full command and a magic banner.

gorenut
12-03-2008, 02:43
They're so close in effectiveness that I would personally just go for which models I like more. Skeletons by a long shot.

benccowan
12-03-2008, 02:48
but remmember any standared thats you can get for 25 points is best used as a little wight king boost or for a better unit that could do alot more with it for instance a small unit getting the ''outnumber'' and causing fleeage and the extra attacks with ghouls realy makes a big difference

Mireadur
12-03-2008, 03:18
metagame concepts

what does this mean in game therms? sorry i am no english speaker.

Thanks!

Kerill
12-03-2008, 04:07
I've found ghouls to be generally tougher, there are a surprising amount of WS3 attacks out there (almost every cavalry steed for a start) and T works against everything whereas an armour save can be adversely affected easily (handguns, RBTs, certain magic missiles). Also ghouls are far more powerful offensively, 2 attacks and poison (and maybe Ws6/7) is pretty damn good and can take down ogre class infantry, normal infantry, monsters and medium/light cavalry easily. As such ghouls can help take down some of the big threats to vampires (ogres, minotaurs, kroxigor etc). Also ghouls have I3 which means they have a chance at striking first in the next round (and would therefore strike before all ogre class infantry unless some madman takes minotaurs with additional weapons).

I can see me taking one unit of Grave guard (banner of strigos and character) one unit of skeletons (banner of double US) and the rest as ghouls. I'd probably go for small initial units (that can operate as powerful flankers, unlike skeletons) and have at least 1 vamp with the ghoul raising power and black periapt somewhere so that one or more ghoul units could be boosted to 20 or more.

Skeletons do get the full command but then they are paying to get it as well making them slightly more expensive. One unit with magic banner (double US or warbanner) would by fine but otherwise its ghouls all the way.

slayerofmen
12-03-2008, 08:50
nah you take a unit of 15-20 skeletons full command (spears optional) and give them the banner "Cursed Pennant of Mousillon". used it against my orc and gobo mate fight between my skellies and his savage orcs, sure in the end he won but them fled due to the banner killing like five members

Arnizipal
12-03-2008, 08:50
but remmember any standared thats you can get for 25 points is best used as a little wight king boost or for a better unit that could do alot more with it for instance a small unit getting the ''outnumber'' and causing fleeage and the extra attacks with ghouls realy makes a big difference
Two words: War Banner.

I rest my case. ;)

CaptScott
12-03-2008, 09:56
Have you considered deploying your ghouls 7 wide, thats 15 poisoned attacks...

Ixquic
12-03-2008, 13:46
Have you considered deploying your ghouls 7 wide, thats 15 poisoned attacks...

I think a really wide unit of ghouls would be great as a flanker. On their own you'd need a ton of them to get that wide and have enough ranks for CR due to their lack of command.

Overall I think skeletons are better, but when you are up against Empire or Dwarf shooting, their armor save is gone anyway so ghouls make a great caster pit.

SuperBeast
12-03-2008, 14:07
what does this mean in game therms? sorry i am no english speaker.

Thanks!
Metagaming is 'knowing you are playing a game', in essence.

Read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame).

forgottenlor
12-03-2008, 15:23
I think skeletons are best in large blocks and with a character in them, since they profit from static cr, and a banner (probably) that gives them addition static cr bonuses. Ghouls can actually do damage, so I would tend to use 20 or so on the flanks. Thats just me.

de Selby
12-03-2008, 16:20
what does this mean in game therms? sorry i am no english speaker.

Thanks!

The metagame in the sense it is most commonly used here is the 'game of games'; the decisions that one might take outside of the game (force selction for tournaments, for example) in order to maximise the chance of winning an average game. Typical considerations are things like what armies others will play, and which types of units will perform best against them.

EndlessBug
12-03-2008, 18:19
Metagame - as others have said, I'll try to expand on. Where you will tweak your list to give it the best chance of winning knowing what your enemy has. E.G. knowing you're fighting a heavy magic army so giving all mages 2 scrolls, or knowing your opponent has no magic so giving mage power stones or no scrolls whatsoever. Most people do this to some extent which is ok. Others will change their list entirely when they face different opponents.

So in this case, coming against an empire gunline and changing your skeleton units to ghouls. Then in the next game switching again.

skank
12-03-2008, 18:50
The ghoulkin vamp upgrade swings it for me, marching before the game starts is an amazing ability. Skellies look a LOT better though.

Mireadur
12-03-2008, 20:37
Much thanks for the responses and sorry to everyone for changing the intended discussion of the thread. I understand now what metagaming is :)

Petey
12-03-2008, 20:46
@Skank
The even better combo is taking a vampire with flight and killy magic weapons and having him deployed with the ghouls you march out. First turn he can charge most of your enemy's units, including in many cases, his warmachines.

DeadjesterX
13-03-2008, 02:21
I find ghouls can only really be superior when the army is built around character abilites like Ghoulkin and Summon Ghouls. Otherwise, I find them to be great flankers but not as good as skeletons when used as the main core.

My reasoning can be summed-up in three words: Combat resolution damage.

Since ghouls count as "undead" now, they have the potential to take more wounds after losing combat. Now while the same can be said with skeletons, skeletons can take a full command thus reducing the number of potential wounds they could be taking from losing combat. Couple that with some of the magic banners available, and I see skeletons as being more reliable than ghouls.

Now ghouls can be raised like skeletons under the new rules. However, once again, I must bring up combat res damage. With the full command (and magic banners), the skeletons bring a little bit more relief to your vamps/necros in terms of how many they need to bring back to bring the unit back up to full strength. It also gives the vamps/necros a couple more power dice to cast some of the other spells.

Johnnyfrej
13-03-2008, 03:40
From what I can see they are units that can't be compaired directly. It seems that Ghouls are much better as flankers and assisting your army rathar than Skeles who seem to be made to be the core rank 'n file of a VC army. I would probably use them both. Skeles march up the middle with Ghouls guarding the flanks.

-Private Jon

ILOVEYOU.TXT.vbs
13-03-2008, 06:15
For models, and models alone, skeletons win.

Everything else the ghouls are better at. They are better WS, better S, and better A. Assume the skeletons don't buy a musician or a standard... putting the units on totally equal terms and the choice is clear to everyone.

But the skellies can buy a musician and banner. Ok. So that makes the skeletons more expensive to start. But it does produce an auto +1 CR and maybe a few bonuses if you magic it up for a few more points.

Even with a 25pt magic banner, in most combat situations the ghouls will live longer if not equal to the skellies, and do more wounds... probably by more than a factor of 1 CR, which is all they need to match the more expensive skellies w/ standard. Best of all, the ghouls are causing more wounds to the other guy... which is what core VC units are all about: attrition.

And if it is a hopeless matchup, where the poor VC unit is sure to crumble to nothing, the ghouls give up no VP for the banner.

But plan your army around winning, not losing. Plan on doing wounds, making the fight better for you every round, not just treading water and hoping for a single +1 CR to save you. So much stuff nowadays is immune to fear that you can't just hope to win by outnumbering. If that happens, great, but try to grind the other guy down by doing wounds every round... something the ghouls do better.

But yeah, the skeletons are gorgeous.

Latro
13-03-2008, 09:52
But plan your army around winning, not losing. Plan on doing wounds, making the fight better for you every round, not just treading water and hoping for a single +1 CR to save you.

You do know that you got things backwards, right? It's Ghouls that have to hope for good combat results while Skeletons know they'll have an extra +2 static CR (magic banner) and a musician on top of their combat results.


:cool:

eleveninches
13-03-2008, 12:47
Skelly advantages:
5+ armour save (4+ in combat)
Full Command
Magic Banner

Ghoul advantages:
2 poisonned attacks
T4

T4 (compared to T3) is comparable to 5+ armour (which WILL be easily negated).
The 2 poisonned attacks are IMO a LOT more useful than FC and a magic banner, which will make the unit cost more anyway

plantagenet
13-03-2008, 14:07
I agree but as others have said Skellies look great so they will maintain there position in the army.

Cacodemon
13-03-2008, 15:11
Skelly advantages:
5+ armour save (4+ in combat)
Full Command
Magic Banner

Ghoul advantages:
2 poisonned attacks
T4

Ghouls also have a better Weapon Skill, which increases their survivability even more.

Malorian
13-03-2008, 15:12
Another thing to keep in mind is the spears. Spears are 1 more point, but will give the unit as many attacks as a ghoul unit. However, if charged there is a better chance you will get attacks back with the spears.

This might be a minor point, but it's still important in a battle of atrition where they keep dispelling your ASF.

For me I found them to be pretty equal, but the thing that decided it was the ghoulkin ability. It gets me to the enemy sooner, and if you placed scouts out of my LOS I can turn towards them and take them out if I get first turn.

The banners can be a big deal, especially the one that gives you magical flaming attacks if you are fighting WE.

Latro
13-03-2008, 17:52
Skelly advantages:
5+ armour save (4+ in combat)
Full Command
Magic Banner

Ghoul advantages:
2 poisonned attacks
T4

T4 (compared to T3) is comparable to 5+ armour (which WILL be easily negated).
The 2 poisonned attacks are IMO a LOT more useful than FC and a magic banner, which will make the unit cost more anyway

Don't forget, these units do not operate in somekind of vacuum. Being part of a VC line of battle they will have the benefit of:

- WS boost (which negates a previous Ghouls advantage)
- Strike First (very handy for Skeletons with spears)
- re-rolls to hit/wound

A VC army with strong magical powers can provide a serious boost to their regular grunt ... which negates a lot of the advantages the Ghouls had.


:cool:

AlexCage
13-03-2008, 17:59
Also Staff of Damnation. Seems to work for spears, but only 1 attack for ghouls, thus you get twice as many extra attacks for Skeletons (which would normally only get the same amount of attacks as the ghouls). A minor thing, but a consideration none-the-less. Especially if you really like that staff...

Pawksatawny Phil
13-03-2008, 18:01
Okay, this is my first post, so I doubt my words will have any weight whatsoever, but, I've played two games with the new list now and imo - Ghouls are better than Skeletons, and it's not even close.

On paper - Ghouls are better.
On the charge - Ghouls are better than skellies, twice the attacks with better WS and poisoned is great (and I'll try the 7 wide idea, it has merit).
Taking charges - I generally fled my old ghouls when they were charged. Ghouls now have real static CR in the form of ranks, they don't flee, their toughness will not be negated by 4+ str attacks, like armour saves. Not that I have a choice, but at least I'm not as worried to take a charge. Plus I can re-raise them.

Skeletons are now armoured zombies that don't necessarily strike last. Ghouls eat 'em for breakfast.

Now Grave Guard vs Ghouls, that's a good question. Is the cost of GG's worth it, or should you take more ghouls? Take something else?

Tadite
13-03-2008, 18:53
I think it just depends on style. I like the ghoul models so they are going to be my core 3 blocks and I'll be running them 6 wide. 7 is a nice idea but it gets a little difficult to manufer on the battlefield.

But frankly Grave Guard are everything you could want in a infantry unit. WS3, ST4, T4, Heavy Armor, Shield, Death Blow Hand Weapon, Full Command + Great Magic Banners. All for only 12pts each.

It is simply amazing how much you get for 4 pts more then a skeleton. I think we are going to see alot of armies with a Grave Guard theme....

Scythe
13-03-2008, 19:07
The 2 poisonned attacks are IMO a LOT more useful than FC and a magic banner, which will make the unit cost more anyway

Not really true. A magic banner means the skeletons get +2 combat resolution the ghouls will not receive. The best thing about this, they don't have to do squad for it.

Even in the best case scenario for ghouls (they charge and strike first), a standard 5 wide ghoul unit will only generate 11 attacks. Do the maths, that is not enough to equal the +2 combat resolution score against basic T3 4+ save infantry (actually, it scores 1.8 or something). That is even WITHOUT taking the skeletons attacks into account.

In the case your ghouls aren't charging (and that's quite likely, to be honest), they'll lose hitting power fast for every ghoul which goes down. Taking two or tree kills reduces you to a mere 5-7 attacks back. The skeletons take those kills as well, but they can still rely confortably on their +2 combat resolution bonus, which always works.

Finally, adding a character to a unit of ghouls affects the effectiveness of the ghouls more (as they lose 2 poisoned attacks, while skeletons only lose a single attack in the front rank).

Ghouls are nice as flankers, and against some lightly armoured high T troops I would even consider them as ranked units, but generally, my core remains skeletons.

DeadjesterX
13-03-2008, 20:32
A lot of the pro-Ghoul argument seem to be under the impression that the Ghouls will get the charge and also that they will win combat.

Well, let's first take into consideration what would happen if an enemy unit charged.

A WS3 S3 unit will hit the Ghouls half of the time and wound on about a third of those hits. By rounding up they are essentially looking at two wounds. Those are two wounds the ghouls will just have to take. While skeletons would, in theory, suffer more wounds than this due to lower WS and T, they at least get an armor save to fall back on to negate some of those wounds. If it's a S4 attack then the ghouls will probably suffer even more wounds, wounds they have no protection aganist. Sure the skeletons save is reduced, but at least they get a chance to save.

Now let's assume that, when all is said and done, the ghouls/skeletons lose combat. The ghouls take the loss much harder than the skeletons. A unit of ghouls will lose combat res by an extra point every single time compared to the unit of skeletons that has a command. The end result is that, when faced with combat res damage, the ghouls are always going to lose at least one extra model more than the skeletons. This isn't taking into consideration any magic banners the enemy infantry unit has which can mean even more losses for the ghouls or any magic banners the skeletons have to further reduce the amount of combat res damage.

I'll admit that ghouls can dish out more damage than skeletons, but skelentons by far can soak up damage more, both from combat res and combat itself. As a result the only way I can see ghouls as effective main core is by tailoring an army around them. Skeletons on the other hand I can see as a better "all-purpose" main core due to how durable they are by comparison.

W0lf
13-03-2008, 23:31
Both hold merit and tbh the diffrence is negible.

Personal choice wins out. But why choose? take one of each, i know i will!

alpha_dude
14-03-2008, 00:10
yeah i shall be taking at least one of each..see how they do after a few battles and decided from there!

Goose
15-03-2008, 01:49
I have to agree with the Grave Guard comment. That and I love the look of the new Grave Guard.

The fluff I made for my Vampires seems to suggest he will be followed around my ghouls (being a searching wanderer, just roaming the world), but I don't like Gollum like ghouls.

Yet I do like Skellies and Grave Guard. To me its the models that win it. I'll probably get some ghouls but if I don't like them in real life skellies I think will be my mainstay with a lot of grave guard.

szlachcic
15-03-2008, 03:34
I have to agree with the Grave Guard comment. That and I love the look of the new Grave Guard.

The fluff I made for my Vampires seems to suggest he will be followed around my ghouls (being a searching wanderer, just roaming the world), but I don't like Gollum like ghouls.

Yet I do like Skellies and Grave Guard. To me its the models that win it. I'll probably get some ghouls but if I don't like them in real life skellies I think will be my mainstay with a lot of grave guard.


I have to say I felt the same way about the new Ghoul models as you do. However, I changed my mind after seeing them in person. I feel that the GW paint scheme doesn't really do them justice and I would like to see a more realistic skin tone on them.

mudcow304
15-03-2008, 10:20
Why have a core that is made up of only one type? Why not mix things up a bit, have a bit of both. That way you increase your tactical flexibility and also double the interest when painting/modelling!

eleveninches
15-03-2008, 12:30
- WS boost (which negates a previous Ghouls advantage)
- Strike First (very handy for Skeletons with spears)
- re-rolls to hit/woundYou realise that rerolls to hit are a lot better for POISONED ghouls than they are for skellies.


Even in the best case scenario for ghouls (they charge and strike first), a standard 5 wide ghoul unit will only generate 11 attacks. Do the maths, that is not enough to equal the +2 combat resolution score against basic T3 4+ save infantry (actually, it scores 1.8 or something). That is even WITHOUT taking the skeletons attacks into account. are you forgetting that ghouls have poisonned attacks?


Why have a core that is made up of only one type? Why not mix things up a bit, have a bit of both. That way you increase your tactical flexibility and also double the interest when painting/modelling!Quite simple. To be effective in raising them, your summoning vamps need to have the ability that effects invokation cast on that core choice. If you have both ghouls and skellies, that means that you have less space for other useful bloodline powers.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
15-03-2008, 13:29
Well, I intend to use Skeletons for taking on enemy infantry, whilst the Ghouls get to go play with enemy Cavalry.

Most Cavalry hits around S5, and my Ghouls are a twice as likely to survive that as a Spear armed Skeleton. Plus, the Poisoned Attacks ought to provide extra pressure on the Cavalrys armour saves.

Horses for Courses gentlemen!

Scythe
15-03-2008, 15:35
are you forgetting that ghouls have poisonned attacks?


Nope, taken into account. Just to get things strait, the maths of ghouls versus T3 4+ save troops:

normal wounds: 11 * 1/3 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.92
poisoned wounds: 11 * 1/6 * 1/2 = 0.92

Total wounds: 1.84

That's lower as the +2 static resolution skeletons get. And, keep in mind, this is the absolute BEST case scenario ghouls are going to get.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
15-03-2008, 15:40
Huh? How can it be a best case when you are working on averages?

Latro
15-03-2008, 15:57
Huh? How can it be a best case when you are working on averages?

Wrong choice of words probably ... the fact remains though that the Skeletons already have (+ any additional CR from combat) what the Ghouls have to trust the dice for.


:cool:

Scythe
15-03-2008, 16:01
Best case in the sense that you are assuming the ghouls are charging, and no characters are present. If either condition is not true, the odds shift further down to the skeletons.

Yeah, the way I stated it was a bit confusing.

But again: I am not even taking into account anything that the skeletons might kill.

Jack of Blades
15-03-2008, 16:05
I'll field my Ghouls 7 wide, not 5, Scythe... of course they're going to do poorly when you're not using them to their full potential.

Now, give them a Helm of Commandment boost and 15 attacks, then see.

Against WS3 T3 4+, that's:

8 hits + 2 poisoned hits.
4 + 2 wounds.
3 wounds caused.

Now, let's say we get 4 poisoned hits and he fails two saves. That's two more wounds, which beats the Skeletons because 5 + 1 = 6 and the Skeletons have 3 + 1 + 1. This doesn't really happen once in a blue moon either.

Add in a rank bonus and you're looking at a CR of 4. Now this is indeed worse than the Skeletons, but only on average. The thing is that Ghouls can do very good, but they can also do nothing or little, compared to the Skeletons that can only do decently. For example, against Swordsmen, Skeletons still lose because of their poor stats, while Ghouls are more open to winning.

Though this mostly comes down to personal taste. One thing the Skeletons have going for them, is that the various stuff you can help your troops with benefits them more than the Ghouls. Rank them up 7 wide, throw a Van Hel's on them, give them Spears and get the Staff of Damnation through. 28 Attacks hitting on 3+ with re-rolls (though this will not benefit the Staff of Damnation, as it doesn't take place in the CC phase, so you get 14 3+ re-roll ASF attacks and 14 normal attacks).

Scythe
15-03-2008, 17:48
Add in a rank bonus and you're looking at a CR of 4. Now this is indeed worse than the Skeletons, but only on average. The thing is that Ghouls can do very good, but they can also do nothing or little, compared to the Skeletons that can only do decently. For example, against Swordsmen, Skeletons still lose because of their poor stats, while Ghouls are more open to winning.

Though this mostly comes down to personal taste. One thing the Skeletons have going for them, is that the various stuff you can help your troops with benefits them more than the Ghouls. Rank them up 7 wide, throw a Van Hel's on them, give them Spears and get the Staff of Damnation through. 28 Attacks hitting on 3+ with re-rolls (though this will not benefit the Staff of Damnation, as it doesn't take place in the CC phase, so you get 14 3+ re-roll ASF attacks and 14 normal attacks).

This is what is boils down to I think. I am a planner, I am not a great fan of big risks. The skeletons performance is very reliable to me, while ghouls are unreliable. This makes planning easier for me, as it gives me a better indication of were units end up after a few rounds of combat.

Still, keep my point that ghouls do very poorly if they don't strike first and take a few casulaties is mind.

Negafex
16-03-2008, 06:48
it depends on the army your using really. if your using a rank and file slow march type list then go for skellies definitely. but if youve got lots of flankers and cavalry like dire wolves, black knights, blood knights, and varghulfs then take ghouls along witha vampire with ghoulkin. its highly possible, terrain willing, to get a charge by turn one or two with a list like that.

Hellebore
16-03-2008, 07:01
To me the ghoul typifies what I would consider a 'true' Vampire Counts army.

Skeletons are too Tomb Kings for my tastes. Vampires should have dregs and thralls willing to do whatever they want working for them, not skeletons.

Zombies I can accept, but skeletons just don't fit my concept of a Vampire's minions.

Hellebore

Dux Ducis
16-03-2008, 07:20
You're kidding me, right? Skeletons have been associated with the undead and vampires longer than zombies, which are a recent mythical invention.

Hellebore
16-03-2008, 12:49
You're kidding me, right? Skeletons have been associated with the undead and vampires longer than zombies, which are a recent mythical invention.

So Count Dracula had skeletons at his beck and call?:eyebrows:

Exactly where does your assertion come from? The only servants I've ever seen a vampire have are igors, Renfield thralls, and entranced slaves. Apart from Warhammer exactly WHERE are these skeletons?

I have not however seen a Vampire in history associated with a skeleton, let alone actually raising one from the dead.

Hellebore

Ozorik
16-03-2008, 13:14
I have not however seen a Vampire in history associated with a skeleton

There are historical vampires? Theres me thinking that they are just a myth created by the unfortunate side effects of the symptoms of porphyria.

Hellebore
16-03-2008, 13:22
There are historical vampires? Theres me thinking that they are just a myth created by the unfortunate side effects of the symptoms of porphyria.

You'll find porphyria is a common urban legend with regards to vampires:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyria#Culture_and_history

And by historical I meant vampires based on past folklore and tradition, not modern popculture. Even then Buffy never had vampires raising the undead, let alone skeletons...

Hellebore

advinius
16-03-2008, 15:30
I'm in the camp of using some of each. I'm planning for a sizeable unit of skellies as a fairly solid and reliable axis for my line to move around. I don't have my book handy, but assuming that I'm remembering the cost correctly, they'll be packing the screaming banner, to hopefully get enemy units to freeze up on attempted charges, thus setting up my heavier hitting units for a charge. Even if the enemy gets to me, I'll almost certainly have some of my skellies still around after combat. That's when a unit of flanking ghouls will get stuck in. I'll have a vampire in it to add extra stompyness to the mix and ensure I see off my guests in style. :skull:

I think i'll need to try out that ghoulkin/flying vampire first turn charge on the war machines gambit though, as my home store has a lot of gunline armies being made right now by the current crop of new kids. we'll call it a valuable tactical lesson. :angel:

Mad Doc Grotsnik
16-03-2008, 15:34
I can see Ghouls being an excellent Skirmisher/Fast Cavalry discouragement device. Lots of attacks, decent numbers, and of course Poisoned attacks.

Fairly unusual unit really, and as others have said, not particularly great as your mainstay.

Karhedron
16-03-2008, 20:45
I thought that Ghouls occupied a nice niche as Skirmishers in 6th edition and I was quite disappointed to see this changed in 7th.

I remember back in 6th ed VC review, one of the designers explained that they made Ghouls into skirmishers because VCs already had 2 units of large unbreakable infantry and they didn't need a third. Now with 7th edition they have chucked this prefectly sound reasoning out of the window leaving us arguing over marginal differences between rank-and-file units.

Of course we all know the real reason Ghouls have lost the skirmish ability. GW would never sell enough of the new plastic Ghouls unless they needed to be fielded in decent sized untis. :rolleyes:

W0lf
16-03-2008, 21:51
yeah it was such a stupid move by games workshop to make them ranked.

Skirmished, non-immune to psy added a hell of a lot to the army.

Scythe
17-03-2008, 18:27
It was a dissapointment, I admit. However, it turned out to be not as bad as I feared. At least there is point in taking any of the 3 core infantry units, as they all fullfill different roles. I feared ghouls moving to ranked infantry would make them completely obsolete...

Jack of Blades
17-03-2008, 18:32
They can at least negate ranks now, not that bad.

Lordmonkey
18-03-2008, 02:35
I think that a more offensive rank and file unit actually adds to VC's strategic arsenal. While they lack the full command group, they are a cheap, undead, resurrectable block unit that will stay there and, due to the mass of poisoned attacks, will keep killing things until they all die. Consider them in combination with the corpse cart's Miasma of Deathly Vigour, Vanhel's Danse Macabre or the Helm of Commandment, in comparison to skeletons.

Having said that, I do miss the skirmishing ghouls, and since they got rid of the slavering charge ability of dire wolves, it's difficult to know what to do about flanks. I think I will be taking a unit of both skeletons and ghouls, for tactical flexiblity.

Zethal
18-03-2008, 09:20
To throw another few ideas into the discussion.
Ghouls benefit quite a bit more from the SF bound spell of the Corpse Cart then skeletons.

Also not all of the skeleton units are going to be able to bring along that warbanner. So the difference isn't really 2 static CR in most cases its 1.

If you add spears to the unit of skeletons and give them a warbanner your not really comparing like units anymore, since your increasing the cost of the Skeletons by 25%

Scythe
18-03-2008, 18:16
To throw another few ideas into the discussion.
Ghouls benefit quite a bit more from the SF bound spell of the Corpse Cart then skeletons.

Not really. In most cases, you will either be:

a) charging, in which case you do not need the bound spell
b) being charged, in which case you cannot cast the bound spell as it is the enemies turn

The only moment it really comes into play is in further combat rounds in your own turn. As ghouls cannot really survive a war of attrition as well as skeletons, those occasions aren't all that common as people think they are (keep track of it in a battle if you like; most combats are decided in the first rounds).


Also not all of the skeleton units are going to be able to bring along that warbanner. So the difference isn't really 2 static CR in most cases its 1.

One unit takes a warbanner, one takes the banner of endless nightmare. You usually won't be fielding more than 2 skeleton units really meant to get stuck in, so +2 combat resolution is a fair assumption.

Malorian
18-03-2008, 18:21
Not really. In most cases, you will either be:

a) charging, in which case you do not need the bound spell
b) being charged, in which case you cannot cast the bound spell as it is the enemies turn

The only moment it really comes into play is in further combat rounds in your own turn. As ghouls cannot really survive a war of attrition as well as skeletons, those occasions aren't all that common as people think they are (keep track of it in a battle if you like; most combats are decided in the first rounds).



One unit takes a warbanner, one takes the banner of endless nightmare. You usually won't be fielding more than 2 skeleton units really meant to get stuck in, so +2 combat resolution is a fair assumption.

The ASF lasts until your next turn so if they charge you, you are still going first.

Although you can give skeletons fancy banners it is also 1. More expensive and 2. A banner that can be captured and worth more points to your opponent.

Scythe
18-03-2008, 18:26
Although you can give skeletons fancy banners it is also 1. More expensive and 2. A banner that can be captured and worth more points to your opponent.

But worth it. Check out my maths a few pages back. Losing 3 models for +1 combat resolution is an amazing deal.

Malorian
18-03-2008, 21:22
3 models for a banner is good, but not if those 3 models lose you a rank, and not if those new models are easier to kill in combat.

Against shooting you will be better off with ghouls, and in combat the results are mixed and it really depends on who attacks first, what WS, what Str, what toughness, but in the end they are generally even.

The main thing to remember is that these models are suppose to die. They are to run up, tie up the enemy, and hold them until the anvils move in.

Ghouls will get there faster, will take less losses from missiles, and cost less (compared to skeletons with full command). Sure you can get fancy banners, but I'd rather use those points on putting those fancy things on the grave guard or black knights, or getting more nasty units. (A banner and warbanner may get you +2 CR and a musician helps in a tie, but for the same points I can get a unit of direwolves that will take away their ranks and give me +1 CR for a flank plus the kills they beat the enemy by).

Latro
18-03-2008, 22:07
3 models for a banner is good, but not if those 3 models lose you a rank, and not if those new models are easier to kill in combat.

Against shooting you will be better off with ghouls, and in combat the results are mixed and it really depends on who attacks first, what WS, what Str, what toughness, but in the end they are generally even.

The main thing to remember is that these models are suppose to die. They are to run up, tie up the enemy, and hold them until the anvils move in.

Ghouls will get there faster, will take less losses from missiles, and cost less (compared to skeletons with full command). Sure you can get fancy banners, but I'd rather use those points on putting those fancy things on the grave guard or black knights, or getting more nasty units. (A banner and warbanner may get you +2 CR and a musician helps in a tie, but for the same points I can get a unit of direwolves that will take away their ranks and give me +1 CR for a flank plus the kills they beat the enemy by).

Some thoughts:

- Even if those three models you pay for the banner costs you a rank, you still break even ... Warbanner = Rank, remember? And to be frank, with the current powerful Necromancy we can safely assume that the main Skeleton/Ghoul units will always arrive at full-strength in combat if you want them to.

- The Ghoulkin speed-boost opens the door to some interesting tactics, but is not very helpful when it comes to the traditional tarpit/flank attacks. Ideally you want the enemy to meet you halfway on the battle-field which gives your support/hammers more room to move ... you don't want to lock him in his original position with battle-line intact (unless it's a gun-line of course).

- As it is, Ghoul units will have a hard time winning a combat by themselves. Skeletons have a better chance with their inherent CR advantage at that. Everytime the Ghouls lose combat, they will also lose more models to crumbling than Skeletons, run a bigger risk at dropping below maximum CR efficiency and require more magical maintenance to make up for that. Most of the time it takes only one won round of combat for the Undead to break the enemy ... Skeletons have a better chance to pull that off and are better at resisting the enemy while waiting for that one round.

- Never say "that will take away their ranks" ... because what you are really hoping for is that the enemy will let your fragile flanking unit move in unharmed. Dire Wolves are great units with a lot of uses ... but a succesful flank attack into an important combat is very hard to pull off against a competent opponent.


:cool:

Scythe
20-03-2008, 19:54
The main thing to remember is that these models are suppose to die. They are to run up, tie up the enemy, and hold them until the anvils move in.


Just to add to Latro's comments, with which I agree mostly, I just want to point something out here: Skeletons and Ghouls are NOT supposed to die. If you need a unit to keep enemies occupied, you should be fielding zombies. They give you literally twice as many models. Skeletons and ghouls are simply to expensive to throw away. And, with character support, they will be winning combats, and they will break enemies, even without further flank charges.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
20-03-2008, 20:03
Just to add to Latro's comments, with which I agree mostly, I just want to point something out here: Skeletons and Ghouls are NOT supposed to die. If you need a unit to keep enemies occupied, you should be fielding zombies. They give you literally twice as many models. Skeletons and ghouls are simply to expensive to throw away. And, with character support, they will be winning combats, and they will break enemies, even without further flank charges.

Indeed. Thats why Undead are great. With any other army, you either need an unlucky opponent, or a convincing win in combat to see them off. Undead can win by one point and send the enemy heading for the hills most of the time, so having poop troops isn't that big a drawback. If anything, it's a balance!

Malorian
20-03-2008, 20:05
Just to add to Latro's comments, with which I agree mostly, I just want to point something out here: Skeletons and Ghouls are NOT supposed to die. If you need a unit to keep enemies occupied, you should be fielding zombies. They give you literally twice as many models. Skeletons and ghouls are simply to expensive to throw away. And, with character support, they will be winning combats, and they will break enemies, even without further flank charges.

The problem with using zombies is that it's like trying to hold back a bull with a wet tissue. They may be half the points but they are WAY worse and simply die TOO fast.

GranFarfar
20-03-2008, 22:28
The problem with using zombies is that it's like trying to hold back a bull with a wet tissue. They may be half the points but they are WAY worse and simply die TOO fast.

Against 1 attack models, which is most of them, even 20 zombies will stick around for a couple of rounds. Even against real slayers like Swordmaster, a unit of 30 will slow them down for a while.

mudcow304
21-03-2008, 09:05
Mad Doc, I reckon that you have come up with a great expression there "poop troops". Can mean either a unit that is weak or the Plumbers Militia, brilliant!

Zethal
21-03-2008, 10:05
Some thoughts:

- Even if those three models you pay for the banner costs you a rank, you still break even ... Warbanner = Rank, remember?
At what point is the price difference relevant?
The +2 CR bonus is certainly nice and music can be but at the cost of 37 points. Which is 3 points shy of a 5 strong wolf unit, which could in theory flank charge my opponent negating his ranks add, +1CR for flank, adding 10 US for outnumber, and a unit that can pursue 3d6 giving me great chances of catching an infantry opponent or a chance of catching a cav one. Not to mention the extra versatility and tactics that the wolf unit brings to the table.

Now you have a skeleton unit which with +2CR.
And I have a ghoul unit and a wolf unit which can net me +4CR plus the other benefits for 3 points different.

This is before even bringing up that you need to have 3 core units and only one of your skeleton units is going to have a warbanner. Sure one can take the endless night banner and the other say the dead legion to help autobreak something, but now I have 3 units of ghouls and 3 units of wolves for 9 more points. Certainly the better option.

If you don't want to give magic banners to the other skeleton units to save on points your argument about them getting +2 is irrelevant. Since you need to take 3 core units, zombies are a joke only worth summoning to divert, flank, march block or otherwise impede. And with vampires needing to take the Master abilities to really be efficient at summoning it only makes sense to stick with one type of core unit.

Then just a tad more icing on the ghoul cake, they don't get worse if they are flank charged.
Edit: oh and as someone mentioned if i kill your skeletons I net my self an extra 100 VP's for the banner making your Skeleton unit worth 305 points compared to the ghouls being worth 168 45% more points for mathematically an almost identical unit./Edit

Ghouls are the superior choice.

To bad the skeleton models are much better, but hey this is what we expect from GW right? poor design among troop choices.

him_15
21-03-2008, 10:54
I think ghoul is only useful when you wanna make a 24" charge in the first turn (ghoulkin, march and dance). GHHHH....

Blood_Pact
21-03-2008, 17:17
Ghouls aren't so superior if you're facing an army that has a lot of poisoned attacks, like Lizardmen Skinks. The higher Toughness will not help at all, at least skeletons have armour. And you can field a lot of Skinks if you want to, making for a lot of poisoned ranged attacks.

And those 5 strong units of Direwolves you're so proud of using for flank attacks can be anihilated with shooting so very easily. You don't think an opponent might realize their purpose and remove them from the table because of it?

Zethal
21-03-2008, 19:03
Ghouls aren't so superior if you're facing an army that has a lot of poisoned attacks, like Lizardmen Skinks. The higher Toughness will not help at all, at least skeletons have armour. And you can field a lot of Skinks if you want to, making for a lot of poisoned ranged attacks.
I don't play with tailored lists.
If your playing lizardmen and are worried about the ranged poison attacks, play with skeletons. But really any non-stone thrower ranged attacks are going to be almost completely ignored by undead if your shooting at any unit they have the masters skill for.

If you want the unit that is simply better in 90% of the situations go with ghouls.


And those 5 strong units of Direwolves you're so proud of using for flank attacks can be anihilated with shooting so very easily. You don't think an opponent might realize their purpose and remove them from the table because of it?Because a unit may attract my enemies attention is a reason to take a unit, not the other way around.

Scythe
21-03-2008, 19:14
At what point is the price difference relevant?
The +2 CR bonus is certainly nice and music can be but at the cost of 37 points. Which is 3 points shy of a 5 strong wolf unit, which could in theory flank charge my opponent negating his ranks add, +1CR for flank, adding 10 US for outnumber, and a unit that can pursue 3d6 giving me great chances of catching an infantry opponent or a chance of catching a cav one. Not to mention the extra versatility and tactics that the wolf unit brings to the table.

Now you have a skeleton unit which with +2CR.
And I have a ghoul unit and a wolf unit which can net me +4CR plus the other benefits for 3 points different.

This is before even bringing up that you need to have 3 core units and only one of your skeleton units is going to have a warbanner. Sure one can take the endless night banner and the other say the dead legion to help autobreak something, but now I have 3 units of ghouls and 3 units of wolves for 9 more points. Certainly the better option.

If you don't want to give magic banners to the other skeleton units to save on points your argument about them getting +2 is irrelevant. Since you need to take 3 core units, zombies are a joke only worth summoning to divert, flank, march block or otherwise impede. And with vampires needing to take the Master abilities to really be efficient at summoning it only makes sense to stick with one type of core unit.

Then just a tad more icing on the ghoul cake, they don't get worse if they are flank charged.
Edit: oh and as someone mentioned if i kill your skeletons I net my self an extra 100 VP's for the banner making your Skeleton unit worth 305 points compared to the ghouls being worth 168 45% more points for mathematically an almost identical unit./Edit

Ghouls are the superior choice.

To bad the skeleton models are much better, but hey this is what we expect from GW right? poor design among troop choices.

You are making a ton of assumptions here, most of which are very dubious at best. Depending on a unit of 5 dire wolves to flank the enemy is the kind of thinking which loses you battles. Why?

1) Dire wolves die extremely easily. Sure, this can be avoided, but it limits your flexibility. However, way more importantly:
2) Getting of a flank charge is NOT trivial. If you play against a decent opponent, you should hardly be getting any flank charges of, due to units protecting each other.
3) Even suppose you get a flank charge, the enemy only has to kill 3 dire wolves to get his ranks back. Against WS3 T3 creatures, that is quite easy to achieve, especially when a character is located at the corner of the unit. What's worse, the enemy just got himself a nice +3 combat resolution from kills against the wolves.

The point is, and I cannot stress this enough, is that you can RELY on skeletons. Day or night, rain or sunshine, you are always getting that +2 CR. Ghouls rely on a ton of other factors to make them work as effectively, and you cannot control them all.

Core units is not a problem at all. You don't have to field all your cores 20+ strong for them to be effective. My 2 skeleton core blocks will be flanked by units of 10-14 ghouls (2 ranks). It focusses on what skeletons do best (generate static combat resolution) and on what ghouls do best (generating kills). It is the best of both worlds.

Aside from that, zombies are good value for their money. The average opponent will kill about 50% more zombies as he kills skeletons or ghouls. Concidering zombies are half the point cost of skeletons/ghouls, this is a good deal. Against strong opponents, like swordmasters or knights, the extra toughness or save of skeletons and ghouls hardly matters anymore, and zombies become way superior in the tarpit role.

Not to mention that due to numbers, zombies remain their ranks and outnumbering bonus for a longer time, and can also be healed back more easily.

Zethal
22-03-2008, 00:02
You are making a ton of assumptions here, most of which are very dubious at best. Depending on a unit of 5 dire wolves to flank the enemy is the kind of thinking which loses you battles. Why?
I'm not assuming anything.
I said plain stated that Wolves flanking is an ideal situation.
But that does not mean that it does not happen, and just your skeleton troop doesn't even have the option to try.
Besides flanking the wolves have a whole barrel of things they can do being mv 9 Fast cav. Diverting, march blocking, archer/warmachine hunting. All of which are very useful.

Ghouls + Wolves gives you much more tactical diversity.
The ghouls by themselves are less reliable then the Skeletons, but almost identical to the standard warbanner skeletons on average.

1) Dire wolves die extremely easily. Sure, this can be avoided, but it limits your flexibility. However, way more importantly:
2) Getting of a flank charge is NOT trivial. If you play against a decent opponent, you should hardly be getting any flank charges of, due to units protecting each other. Flank charges happen, just because they are difficult to get doesn't make them not worth trying.
Adding the wolf unit gives you options, one of them being a chance to flank.

3) Even suppose you get a flank charge, the enemy only has to kill 3 dire wolves to get his ranks back. Against WS3 T3 creatures, that is quite easy to achieve, especially when a character is located at the corner of the unit. What's worse, the enemy just got himself a nice +3 combat resolution from kills against the wolves.
...
Stop throwing stawman arguments.
If your character is attacking my wolves instead of skeletons they are still going to get the same number of wounds. Most characters are going to be hitting both on 3's wound both on 2's and the only difference is the skeletons might get a 6+AS if the character is only S5.

Then you didnt even address the other benefits that Wolves add, bonus to numbers, the static CR for flanking, the expected 1 wound the Wolves will do, and the ability to pursue further.

The point is, and I cannot stress this enough, is that you can RELY on skeletons. Day or night, rain or sunshine, you are always getting that +2 CR. Ghouls rely on a ton of other factors to make them work as effectively, and you cannot control them all.
Yup, your trading reliability at the cost of tactical diversity, I get it.
I just think your reasoning is flawed.
Its not like Ghouls are rolling 1 D6 to see if they do anything.
They roll lots of dice, while there is a chance to fail, with the number of dice being rolled expecting an average is 1.8 wounds is not unreliable just not as reliable.
Heck ghouls are almost as likely to do 3 wounds as they are only 1.


Aside from that, zombies are good value for their money. The average opponent will kill about 50% more zombies as he kills skeletons or ghouls. Concidering zombies are half the point cost of skeletons/ghouls, this is a good deal. Against strong opponents, like swordmasters or knights, the extra toughness or save of skeletons and ghouls hardly matters anymore, and zombies become way superior in the tarpit role.
All they can do is tarpit get them in combat with anything else and they are likely to give up so much active CR that you are going to have lots of problems winning.

And at being a tarpit they are not even that good.

Take Empire Free company, these guys suck! Yet still average 4.8 wound against Zombies.
Or 1.8 wounds against Skeletons, and skeletons do 1 wound back.
Assuming they both have an equal Static CR.

Not to mention that due to numbers, zombies remain their ranks and outnumbering bonus for a longer time, and can also be healed back more easily.
Zombies lose 40 points in troops and need to raise back 10 models, which takes on average 4 Power dice.

Skeletons Lose 16 points in models, and take 1.333 power dice to raise 3.5 models.

So no they don't keep their ranks longer, You need to have nearly 50 zombies before they lose their second rank slower then skeletons, and this is against Empire Free Company...

And they don't raise back quicker easier, due to the sheer number of zombies that die compared to skeletons, and Lord of the Dead.

Scythe
22-03-2008, 19:55
I'm not assuming anything.
I said plain stated that Wolves flanking is an ideal situation.
But that does not mean that it does not happen, and just your skeleton troop doesn't even have the option to try.
Besides flanking the wolves have a whole barrel of things they can do being mv 9 Fast cav. Diverting, march blocking, archer/warmachine hunting. All of which are very useful.

[QUOTE]Ghouls + Wolves gives you much more tactical diversity.
The ghouls by themselves are less reliable then the Skeletons, but almost identical to the standard warbanner skeletons on average.

That is simply not true. Again, I redirect you at some basic comparisons I did in the first pages of this thread. Even if everything works in the ghouls favour, they are not better than skeletons as ranked unit except versus some very specific targets. In the vast mayority of the cases, skeletons are simply better.


Flank charges happen, just because they are difficult to get doesn't make them not worth trying.
Adding the wolf unit gives you options, one of them being a chance to flank.

Wolves are sure usefull, but we are drifiting of topic here. Taking a unit of skeletons does not mean you cannot take a unit of wolves as well. Comparing the ghoul to the skeleton unit, the skeleton unit will be slightly smaller due to spending points on a (magic) banner, but this does not suddenly mean you cannot take wolves when you have skeletons.



Stop throwing stawman arguments.
If your character is attacking my wolves instead of skeletons they are still going to get the same number of wounds. Most characters are going to be hitting both on 3's wound both on 2's and the only difference is the skeletons might get a 6+AS if the character is only S5.

Irrelevant. Most units get 3 models attacking back extra, usually at better stats. You have weight the added value of the 5 wolves attacks and the flank bonus against that. Indeed, it can be a good idea in some occasions. I was merely pointing out that it is hardly the auto-win button you make it out to be. But anyway, we are drifting of topic. Let's focus on skeletons versus ghouls.


Yup, your trading reliability at the cost of tactical diversity, I get it.
I just think your reasoning is flawed.
Its not like Ghouls are rolling 1 D6 to see if they do anything.
They roll lots of dice, while there is a chance to fail, with the number of dice being rolled expecting an average is 1.8 wounds is not unreliable just not as reliable.
Heck ghouls are almost as likely to do 3 wounds as they are only 1.

Not at all. I play to units strenghts. The strenght of skeletons lies in providing static combat resolution. Hence they come in big units. The strengt of ghouls lies in their multiple poisoned attacks. Hence I take them in units of 10-14 models (2 ranks) as support units, to rank up kills. This adds to my tactical diversity, it does not reduce it one bit.


Take Empire Free company, these guys suck! Yet still average 4.8 wound against Zombies.
Or 1.8 wounds against Skeletons, and skeletons do 1 wound back.
Assuming they both have an equal Static CR.

Why would you ever want to tarpit units that suck? Let's make some different, more sensible comparisons:

versus Swordmasters (7 in front rank, 15 attacks, inc champion):
zombies: 8.33 kills, 33,33 pts lost
ghouls: 6.66 kills, 53,33 pts lost

versus Grail knights (7 attacking, 14 attacks total):
zombies: 7.77 kills, 31,09 pts lost
ghouls (or skeletons): 7.77 kills, 62,16 pts lost


Zombies lose 40 points in troops and need to raise back 10 models, which takes on average 4 Power dice.

Skeletons Lose 16 points in models, and take 1.333 power dice to raise 3.5 models.

So no they don't keep their ranks longer, You need to have nearly 50 zombies before they lose their second rank slower then skeletons, and this is against Empire Free Company...

Which does not hold true any longer if you stop using a tarpit unit against a unit which sucks. Tarpits are there to keep enemies like elite knights (chosen, dragon princes, grail knights etc) or elite infantry in place for a while (you know, those units which kill a skeleton or ghoul almost just as easily as a zombie). If you are using zombies to combat empire free company, something went wrong in your battle plan.


And they don't raise back quicker easier, due to the sheer number of zombies that die compared to skeletons, and Lord of the Dead.

Again, depends on where you use your zombies against. Play to your armies strenghts, and don't use troops in unfavourable matchups (as much as possible, of course ;)). Small note: not every vampire has lord of the dead or summon ghouls, either.

But I think neither of us is going to give in here, right? To prevent this discussion from going around in circles too much, maybe we should agree to disagree?

nurgle_boy
22-03-2008, 20:21
Right, despite my planning of a ghoul based army at the moment, my opinion isnt too biased, as I have only picked the book up thursday, and finished flicking through it today.

I too have been musing over skeletons or ghouls, to fill out the list a little, and it seems that compared to ghouls, skeletons are somewhat lacking... The pro's for them, are static res bonuses, and an armour save, and potential for more attacks with spears (assuming they are charged though). their cons are low WS, T, I, and LD (all of which can be somewhat negated by various magical doohickeys)

Ghouls seem to be superior for combat situations, now they are undead (and thus lose a few models and tarpit, in teh worst circumstance). their bonus attacks with poison, weapon skill of 3 (meaning more 4+ rather than 3+ to hit them), and considerably high toughness, as well a a better LD (so they dont go kaput as quickly if and when the general goes), and I3, for good luck. they only seem to be lacking, however, due to the lack of the full command, or armour. Unfortunatly, these are not so easy to correct like the flaws with skeletons.

Both of these units also seem to excel at different tasks. ghouls for either big monsters, or little gribblies, and skeles with their static res, against mainstay units.

Now, I always have, and always will do rely on that glorious static res over the risky act of having to hurt things, but as long as a ghoul unit has the 3 ranks and outnumbering, it seems they can win a combat, with their basic of 4, and the addition of what they can bring fdown. They are also considerably faster than skeletons, assuming a ghoulkin character is present, and one has a degree of magic.

Gah... I'm rambling a little now... never a good sign...

The balence in effectivness from either unit appears to come with the addition of a character. For skeletons, this will be a vampire or wight king, and ghouls, it seems a vampire (or potentially a BSB, although it seems a little uncharacterful). for skeles, the boost come from magic banners, or another 'sit and refuse to die' model in the unit, which can fling out some hurt, wheras for ghouls, the addition of a character (potentially with the +1 combat res power) really makes them good. the character offers I higher damage potential, as well as potential static res, and makes the unit more effective on the whole, and due to the high strength of vampires, the unit can even cause some hurt on heavily armoured models (in theory).

The balence is also changed by the presence of a corpse cart, and magic dominence, as both affect the units greatly, as does the gloriously useful helm of command, and I personally feel that with these stacking bonuses, ghouls become a tad better than skeles, although I have yet to fiddle around and play at all...

In conclusion, I think for army character, and potential damage causing, I will go with ghouls for the majority, although some skeletons may be added depending on how the ghoulies perform...


aaaaanyway, that was my (rather long) tuppence!

thanks, NB

Latro
22-03-2008, 21:34
The balence is also changed by the presence of a corpse cart, and magic dominence, as both affect the units greatly, as does the gloriously useful helm of command, and I personally feel that with these stacking bonuses, ghouls become a tad better than skeles, although I have yet to fiddle around and play at all...


:confused:

... actually, all the things you just named remove the disadvantage of the Skeletons (lower WS and I) and bring them to the same level of the Ghouls (if they have the same magical support). So it makes the Skeletons even stronger compared to the Ghouls.


:cool:

Zethal
23-03-2008, 00:26
Wolves are sure usefull, but we are drifiting of topic here. Taking a unit of
skeletons does not mean you cannot take a unit of wolves as well.
Not to far off topic. You're saying your 205 points of skeletons is better then my 168 points of ghouls, which I will concede the point of, although not by a substantial amount certainly not 25% better.

Now I take those 40 points and get myself a unit of wolves.

Saying your more expensive unit is better, does not persuaded me very effectively.

Comparing the ghoul to the skeleton unit, the skeleton unit will be slightly smaller due to spending points on a (magic) banner, but this does not suddenly mean you cannot take wolves when you have skeletons. I just means I get both for the same price, and the Ghoul unit is barely worse then the skeleton unit, and the Ghoul unit + the Wolf unit is certainly better as a general rule. In some cases it is more worthwhile to bring the skeletons, against specific opponents or in a specific list that wants to utilize the static CR, Like if you add a vampire with walking death to the unit as well as the warbanner it becomes hard as nails with a static CR of 7. Even then your spending 235 points for for 20 skeletons and its only 240 points for 20 GG, which are likely to make up the static CR by active CR denial.

But in general, when not talking about tailored lists or specific combos the ghoul unit will before better then the skeletons.


Irrelevant. Most units get 3 models attacking back extra, usually at better stats. You have weight the added value of the 5 wolves attacks and the flank bonus against that. Indeed, it can be a good idea in some occasions.Some occasions? Pretty much the only time its not is against High Elves. Even if charging into Witch Elves, with full ranks -which doesn't happen- they kill a witch, take two wounds back, and still come out 2 CR ahead.

Its not only in some occasions, its in almost every -95%- occasion.

I was merely pointing out that it is hardly the auto-win button you make it out to be. But anyway, we are drifting of topic. Let's focus on skeletons versus ghouls.
I was not trying to sell it as an auto win button if that is how it came across.
There is certainly no auto winning with Undead Wolves and basic undead infantry. They are damn close to some of the worest units in the game as far as stats.

What I was trying to sell is their ability to perform better then skeletons.

Not at all. I play to units strenghts. The strenght of skeletons lies in providing static combat resolution. Hence they come in big units. The strengt of ghouls lies in their multiple poisoned attacks. Hence I take them in units of 10-14 models (2 ranks) as support units, to rank up kills. This adds to my tactical diversity, it does not reduce it one bit.
Lets not try to oversell ghouls active combat res here.
They are not good at it, 2 WS3 S3 poisoned attacks is no where close to good at active CR. But yes also make better flankers then skeletons.

What these attacks do accomplish is on average creating a extra active CR where Skeletons have a static CR in their banner option.

Against most troops in the game they get this on average extra active CR.
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/6505/ghoulsvsskelexq8.png

As shown by the above chart, the only time ghouls do not get at least one more active CR on average is against units with a 3+ or better save. Which is the minority, and its not like Unbreakable undead units need help against cav, this is already where they perform best. Then in most of the cases where ghouls do not get the full extra active CR they are damn close with .7-.9. Plus Ghouls take .9 less wounds against WS3 S5 attacks, which most cav are.

Making ghouls better in the majority of the situations. Add a warbanner to your skeletons and yes they look better on that chart, but now for the same price I also get a unit of wolves.

versus Swordmasters...versus Grail knights
Your right, against units that ignore all the benefits of the skeletons or ghouls, zombies perform better, but those are the minority in units, not the majority.

I'm not saying zombies are worthless, I'm saying zombies are worthless as a core choice. They are still amazing being that they can be summoned up and used for all sorts of things, and that raise dead is a the number 1 spells so all mages can get it.

They just are not worth purchasing 20 of to fill a core req.
10 Ghouls is just more useful to me, due to most of the reasons we have covered and very specifically that if my general has summon ghouls those units are not limited to 10.

Again, depends on where you use your zombies against. Play to your armies strenghts, and don't use troops in unfavourable matchups (as much as possible, of course ).Good point.

But I think neither of us is going to give in here, right? To prevent this discussion from going around in circles too much, maybe we should agree to disagree?Its does seem to be a matter of preference.
You want reliability, and this is something very important in warhammer.
I want tactical flexibility, a cheaper unit, and all my core to be the same.

nurgle_boy
23-03-2008, 02:46
:confused:

... actually, all the things you just named remove the disadvantage of the Skeletons (lower WS and I) and bring them to the same level of the Ghouls (if they have the same magical support). So it makes the Skeletons even stronger compared to the Ghouls.


:cool:

My mistake. bad wording on my part. IIRC, earlier in the post i said that various units and abilities can get rid of the skele disadvantages. same gear as stated above. the main issue was the helm of command, and rerolls to hit from vanhels on the ghouls, giving them a huge number of hits, with poison. they seem fairly equal though after a once over, but have different purposes as I stated.

Although now it comes down to army theme above all else :p

najo
23-03-2008, 08:25
I am going to have to go with the Skeletons being superior because of reliability. I think the ghouls have more hitting power but look at the skeletons this way:

1) With Corpse Cart and a unit of skeletons with spears the skeletons have equal attacks to the ghouls.

2) Almost all of the 25 point or less banners makes the skeletons better. Not losing casualties if the general dies, double unit strength, always able to march, attacks are magical, up to +4 rank bonus. Each of these is as good as the warbanner in their own way.

3) Skeletons can have a musician. Musicians wins ties, which happen enough. Undead benefit from winning combat at any cost because of fear, having to stick it out another round is the worse thing for the undead.

4) Tomb Blade.

The ghouls do get stronger when you build your vampires around them. The skeletons do fine with just giving a vampire or two lord of the dead. With a ghoul based army your spending 25 points for your ghoul units to make one march move. This is a big deal, and has alot of strength tactically, but now your vampire is down 25 points worth of powers. That could have been Infinite Hatred, Walking Death, Dread Knight, Supernatural Horror etc. That is a tough choice to make.

Ghouls are better at the rush in, strike fast and hit them in the soft spots. Skeletons are the stronger tactical, reliable option.

Zethal
23-03-2008, 12:56
I am going to have to go with the Skeletons being superior because of reliability. I think the ghouls have more hitting power but look at the skeletons this way:

1) With Corpse Cart and a unit of skeletons with spears the skeletons have equal attacks to the ghouls...
2) Almost all of the 25 point or less banners makes the skeletons better...
3) Skeletons can have a musician.
Now your skeleton unit is 225 points, while the ghoul unit is still 168. A full third more, and its worth 325 points if killed. Your no longer comparing like terms, and sure skeletons do have these options that ghouls do not, but for the points I would rather get wolves a book of ahrkan, hand of dust, rod of flaming death, or a large variety of other things in the army.

The ghouls do get stronger when you build your vampires around them. The skeletons do fine with just giving a vampire or two lord of the dead. Same with the ghouls, they do not need ghoul kin to be useful. They are mathematically superior is the vast majority of the situations that undead care about with out any support at all, and are cheaper unit at the same time.

It is just hard to argue with the math. Skeletons are better in a very specific situation, however unless your in that position ghouls are simply the better buy, due to being better in all others.

Ghouls are better at the rush in, strike fast and hit them in the soft spots. Skeletons are the stronger tactical, reliable option.
The math disagrees. Ghouls are the stronger tactical option.

Latro
23-03-2008, 14:31
Same with the ghouls, they do not need ghoul kin to be useful. They are mathematically superior is the vast majority of the situations that undead care about with out any support at all, and are cheaper unit at the same time.

I'll keep that in mind then ... should I ever have the urge not to use the Helm of Commandment, forget all the combat support spells and refuse to summon any new minions into my tarpit units, I'll be better off with Ghouls.

:rolleyes:



It is just hard to argue with the math. Skeletons are better in a very specific situation, however unless your in that position ghouls are simply the better buy, due to being better in all others.

The math disagrees. Ghouls are the stronger tactical option.

Because I'm a curious guy, let's see what happens with the type of unit I'm planning to use: 7-wide Skeleton units with spears and full command plus a Warbanner ... and compare it to a 7-wide Ghoul unit.

Undead v. Swordmen

Swordmen hit first: 6 attacks, 4 hits, 2 wounds = 1.33 kills after saves
Skeletons hit back: 14 attacks, 7 hits, 3.5 wounds = 1.75 kills after saves
Skeletons win with +3 CR

Swordmen hit first: 6 attacks, 3 hits, 1 wound = 1 kill
Ghouls hit back: 13 attacks, 6.5 hits, 3.8 wounds = 1.9 kills after saves
Ghouls win with +1 CR

Ghouls hit first: 15 attacks, 7.5 hits, 5.85 wounds = 2.2 kills after saves
Swordmen hit back: 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 0.5 wounds = 0.5 kills
Ghouls win with +1 or 2 CR (depending on rounding up/down)

Now the same situations with magical support (WS 6 and Strike First)

Skeletons hit first: 15 attacks, 10 hits, 5 wounds = 2.5 kills after saves
Swordsmen hit back: 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 0.75 wounds = 0.5 kills after saves
Skeletons win with +4 CR

Ghouls hit first: 15 attacks, 10 hits, 5.85 wounds = 2.9 kills after saves
Swordsmen hit back: 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 0.75 wounds = 0.5 kills after saves
Ghouls win with +2 or 3 CR (depending on rounding up/down)


Feel free to add more examples!


:cool:

Scythe
23-03-2008, 14:54
Latro, it should be noted that the skeletons are more expensive compared to the ghouls in that setup. However, even taking that into account, it does indeed not make up for the fact that the ghouls are 2 or 3 points down in combat resolution (assume the skeletons lose a rank for simplicity for example, or are deployed 5 wide, usually a setback of 1 pt of combat resolution).

You'll come to the maths I showed a few pages earlier; skeletons are just superior to your average rank and file human or elf. Sure, against an Ogre or Orc, the odds might shift a bit, but this works both ways: ghouls quickly lose effectiveness against opponents like Dwarves, Knights of any kind or other elite infantry choices.

Latro
23-03-2008, 15:13
Latro, it should be noted that the skeletons are more expensive compared to the ghouls in that setup. However, even taking that into account, it does indeed not make up for the fact that the ghouls are 2 or 3 points down in combat resolution (assume the skeletons lose a rank for simplicity for example, or are deployed 5 wide, usually a setback of 1 pt of combat resolution).


True, but in this case it's not all that relevant. First of all the Undead have the very handy and reliable option of raising more troops during the battle ... so it doesn't really matter if I take less Skeletons at first, with enough magic I can be sure they will be at full CR efficiency when it matters. Second, this is not comparing two different armies as a whole, but just two unit types for a single task. The first criteria will always be if the unit can reliably perform the task it's supposed to do ... if it can't, who cares how cheap it is.

The tasks I'm basing my judgement on is:

- hold enemy charges
- lock enemy in combat
- grind down and defeat enemy unit, preferably on their own

Both Ghouls and Skeletons have no problem with the first task, this is where Ghouls have the edge with their higher toughness against charge bonus and whatnot. Skeletons are better at the second task, the CR advantage trumps the poison advantage and reduces the amount of raising needed as well. The third task is also better done by Skeletons ... in almost all cases the CR bonus will be better than the benefit of poison. A lot of Ghoul advocates forget that Skeletons also have attacks ... and the difference between 15 poisoned attacks and 15 non-poisoned attacks is very small (0.4 kills against the average opponent).


:cool:

DeathlessDraich
23-03-2008, 18:00
A name from the past
Hello Latro
Nice to see you discussing your favourite vampires.

On the original question after playing a hectic game using my ghoulkin army against an established Ogre player:

1) The difference is small but I definitely prefer Ghouls especially since I do not have Command groups (see**) in my core units. Losing 1 model in my core units per round is perfectly in keeping with my general strategy and army composition.

2) Ghouls' Poison and T4 outweighs the skellies armour saves in both shooting and combat.

3) ** Definitely not Skeleton Spearmen - that's 25 additional points in a unit of 25 plus 20 pts for the command group.
That's 5.6 additional skeletons i.e.
Using just skeletons w/o spears and command, I could afford to lose 5 or 6 skeletons or 1 skeleton for 5 rounds of combat.
The +1CR is negated effectively.
An additonal 100 pts if the banner is also lost - definitely not worth it.

Lordmonkey
23-03-2008, 18:11
A lot of Ghoul advocates forget that Skeletons also have attacks ... and the difference between 15 poisoned attacks and 15 non-poisoned attacks is very small (0.4 kills against the average opponent).

There a bit more to it than that. Ghouls have 2 attacks apeice, skeletons only have one. Ghouls have ws3, skeletons have ws2. And finally, ghouls have I3, skeletons I2. Versus softer targets, ghouls win with the massed attacks generating a greater combat resolution. However, if you look at elite defensive infantry such as dwarves, the skeletons are superior with their static combat reoslution.

Let's compare a straight fight between ghouls and skeletons versus a standard rank-and-file unit, such as empire soldiers. Assuming the first round of combat is non-decisive, you now have ghouls striking simultaneously with the empire soldiers, with a frontage of 5 this is 13 poisoned attacks in the front:

13 attacks on a 4+ to hit = 2.16 wounds (p to roll a 6), + (6.5 - 2.16) normal hits.

4.34 hits to wound on 4+ is 2.17 wounds.

2.17 + 2.16 = 4.33 wounds.

Assuming a matching rank bonus, and a 4+ save (shield, hand weapon) the ghouls will inflict 2.165 wounds on the enemy. Thats 2.165 combat res.

Now lets look at the skeletons:

Assuming that the skeletons get lucky and lose no models due to having a lower initiative than the empire soldiers:

6 attacks on the front (champion) at 4+ to hit, is 3 hits.
3 hits to wound on 4+ is 1.5 wounds. Str3 so saves as normal.

Assuming a matching rank bonus, and a 4+ save (shield, hand weapon) the skeletons will inflict 0.75 wounds on the enemy. Thats 0.75 combat res, plus 1 for having a standard = 1.75.

So even discounting the face that the skeletons will probably not even get 6 attacks, they are less potent vs the average trooper. Increase the armour of the enemy, and the static combat resoluton generated by the skellies becomes more significant. Reduce it, and the ghouls win through.

Bearing this in mind, I would call skeletons far more reliable all-rounder core block, able to deal with most enemy infantry reasonably well. On the other hand, ghouls are excellent for hunting softer targets, flanking, and lets not forget, big beasties (poison!).

Jack of Blades
23-03-2008, 18:28
You missed out on 4 poisoned attacks too, as most probably field them 7 wide (which in either case is optimal for a unit relying on kills).

najo
23-03-2008, 18:30
Then throw in the effects of a magic banner and musician and the skeletons are right back on top. Another +1 for three of the banners. Winning ties with the musician.

Skeletons are superior and less random. Ghouls are a shock troop.

Latro
23-03-2008, 18:40
A name from the past
Hello Latro
Nice to see you discussing your favourite vampires.

On the original question after playing a hectic game using my ghoulkin army against an established Ogre player:

1) The difference is small but I definitely prefer Ghouls especially since I do not have Command groups (see**) in my core units. Losing 1 model in my core units per round is perfectly in keeping with my general strategy and army composition.

2) Ghouls' Poison and T4 outweighs the skellies armour saves in both shooting and combat.

3) ** Definitely not Skeleton Spearmen - that's 25 additional points in a unit of 25 plus 20 pts for the command group.
That's 5.6 additional skeletons i.e.
Using just skeletons w/o spears and command, I could afford to lose 5 or 6 skeletons or 1 skeleton for 5 rounds of combat.
The +1CR is negated effectively.
An additonal 100 pts if the banner is also lost - definitely not worth it.

Hey Draich! Sometimes I'm distracted by other games for a while, but even when I'm not posting I'll probably be lurking. Too many games, not enough time ... :(

Just for you ... some number crunching on Ogres:


Undead v. Ogres (unit of 4, two hand-weapons and light armour)

Ogres hit first: 16 attacks, 10.56 hits, 6.97 wounds = 5.8 kills after saves
Skeletons hit back: 9 attacks, 4.5 hits, 1.49 wounds = 1.2 wounds after saves
Skeletons win with +1 CR (or draw if the Ogres have a banner ... musician?)

Ogres hit first: 16 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds = 4 kills
Ghouls hit back: 7 attacks, 3.5 hits, 1.54 wounds = 1.3 wounds after saves
Ghouls win with +1 CR (or draw if the Ogres have a banner)

... in other words, the Ogres need their impact hits to win the battle. Impact hits damage Skeletons easier, but are not that hard to avoid.

Now with magical support (WS 6 and Strike First)

Skeletons hit first: 15 attacks, 10 hits, 3.33 wounds = 2.8 wounds after saves
Ogres hit back: 12 attacks, 6 hits, 4 wounds = 3.3 kills after saves
Skeletons win with +6 CR

Ghouls hit first: 15 attacks, 10 hits, 4.41 wounds = 3.7 wounds after saves
Ogres hit back: 12 attacks, 6 hits, 3 wounds = 3 kills
Ghouls win with +5 CR


... and believe it or not, them vulnerable Skeleton Spearmen pull it off again!


:D

(PS I don't plan on losing a Skeleton unit so the extra VP cost doesn't worry me!)

Latro
23-03-2008, 18:51
There a bit more to it than that. Ghouls have 2 attacks apeice, skeletons only have one. Ghouls have ws3, skeletons have ws2. And finally, ghouls have I3, skeletons I2. Versus softer targets, ghouls win with the massed attacks generating a greater combat resolution. However, if you look at elite defensive infantry such as dwarves, the skeletons are superior with their static combat reoslution.

Let's compare a straight fight between ghouls and skeletons versus a standard rank-and-file unit, such as empire soldiers. Assuming the first round of combat is non-decisive, you now have ghouls striking simultaneously with the empire soldiers, with a frontage of 5 this is 13 poisoned attacks in the front:

[insert some math stuff]



You didn't really read my previous post on this, did you? I did the same fight, but with the much better formation of a 7-wide Skeleton Spearmen formation and compared them to how a 7-wide Ghoul unit would do:


Undead v. Swordmen

Swordmen hit first: 6 attacks, 4 hits, 2 wounds = 1.33 kills after saves
Skeletons hit back: 14 attacks, 7 hits, 3.5 wounds = 1.75 kills after saves
Skeletons win with +3 CR

Swordmen hit first: 6 attacks, 3 hits, 1 wound = 1 kill
Ghouls hit back: 13 attacks, 6.5 hits, 3.8 wounds = 1.9 kills after saves
Ghouls win with +1 CR

Ghouls hit first: 15 attacks, 7.5 hits, 5.85 wounds = 2.2 kills after saves
Swordmen hit back: 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 0.5 wounds = 0.5 kills
Ghouls win with +1 or 2 CR (depending on rounding up/down)

Now the same situations with magical support (WS 6 and Strike First)

Skeletons hit first: 15 attacks, 10 hits, 5 wounds = 2.5 kills after saves
Swordsmen hit back: 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 0.75 wounds = 0.5 kills after saves
Skeletons win with +4 CR

Ghouls hit first: 15 attacks, 10 hits, 5.85 wounds = 2.9 kills after saves
Swordsmen hit back: 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 0.75 wounds = 0.5 kills after saves
Ghouls win with +2 or 3 CR (depending on rounding up/down)

So far the Skeletons perform better than Ghouls ... feel free to add more math examples between 7-wide Skeleton Spearmen and 7-wide Ghouls against the various opponents. The more numbers we crunch, the more info we have to base our builds on.


:cool:

StefDa
23-03-2008, 20:16
I say go for both, because they are both cool. Buy the two powers that lets you raise beyond starting size both skeletons and ghouls, together with a powerstone or two.

Zethal
23-03-2008, 20:39
I'll keep that in mind then ... should I ever have the urge not to use the Helm of Commandment, forget all the combat support spells and refuse to summon any new minions into my tarpit units, I'll be better off with Ghouls.
Awesome job of taking my post out of context kudos!

Because I'm a curious guy, let's see what happens with the type of unit I'm planning to use: 7-wide Skeleton units with spears and full command plus a Warbanner ... and compare it to a 7-wide Ghoul unit.

Undead v. Swordmen

Swordmen hit first: 6 attacks, 4 hits, 2 wounds = 1.33 kills after saves
Skeletons hit back: 14 attacks, 7 hits, 3.5 wounds = 1.75 kills after saves
Skeletons win with +3 CR

Swordmen hit first: 6 attacks, 3 hits, 1 wound = 1 kill
Ghouls hit back: 13 attacks, 6.5 hits, 3.8 wounds = 1.9 kills after saves
Ghouls win with +1 CR
W/wolves support, since I can get that and still have 20 points to spare.
Wolves do 1 wound. Take .5 back.
Ghouls + wolves win with +5.5 CR.

Ghouls hit first: 15 attacks, 7.5 hits, 5.85 wounds = 2.2 kills after saves
Swordmen hit back: 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 0.5 wounds = 0.5 kills
Ghouls win with +1 or 2 CR (depending on rounding up/down)
+ Wolves, +6 CR.

Now the same situations with magical support (WS 6 and Strike First)
Skeletons hit first: 15 attacks, 10 hits, 5 wounds = 2.5 kills after saves
Swordsmen hit back: 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 0.75 wounds = 0.5 kills after saves
Skeletons win with +4 CR

Ghouls hit first: 15 attacks, 10 hits, 5.85 wounds = 2.9 kills after saves
Swordsmen hit back: 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 0.75 wounds = 0.5 kills after saves
Ghouls win with +2 or 3 CR (depending on rounding up/down)
+ Wolves win with + 7 CR.

Feel free to add more examples!
Don't need to since you won't read them!

KotBK w/standard and strigos
Knights hit first: 15 attacks, 13.33 hits, 11.2 wounds = 11.2 kills after saves.
Horses: 5 attacks, 3.75 hits, 2.5 wounds = 1.6666 kills after saves
Swordsmen: all dead no attacks back
KotBK win with +8 CR.

Obviously the best choice take them, and I didn't even field them 7 wide, or with champ!.


Edit:
Heck and this is even without getting into how tactically flawed a 7 wide Static CR unit is.
And I'm ignoring the fact that all undead care about is outnumber and winning, how much is irrelevant against the majority of opponents.

Ganymede
23-03-2008, 21:05
:cool:

It looks like Ghouls and Skeletons, barring the use of the war banner, end up with virtually identical end results in those situations.

Zethal
23-03-2008, 21:10
It looks like Ghouls and Skeletons, barring the use of the war banner, end up with virtually identical end results in those situations.
Oh man, your destroying the propaganda. Quick! RUN...hide.

Latro
23-03-2008, 21:10
Awesome job of taking my post out of context kudos!

In my defence: I did add a smiley (which you didn't include) to indicate it shouldn't be taken too seriously.


Edit:
Heck and this is even without getting into how tactically flawed a 7 wide Static CR unit is.
And I'm ignoring the fact that all undead care about is outnumber and winning, how much is irrelevant against the majority of opponents.

That's soooooo last edition. If we can reliably add a huge WS boost and possibly a Strike First advantage, why should we limit ourselves to just static CR and wait for other units to decide the fight? These Skeletons are quite capable to grind away a rank of enemies each round untill they win ... they can even take down Ogres and the likes.

Things have changed ... it's time to wake up and smell the ... uhm ... rotting corpses!


:cool:

Zethal
23-03-2008, 21:30
You'll come to the maths I showed a few pages earlier; skeletons are just superior to your average rank and file human or elf. Sure, against an Ogre or Orc, the odds might shift a bit, but this works both ways: ghouls quickly lose effectiveness against opponents like Dwarves, Knights of any kind or other elite infantry choices.
But ghouls do not lose their effectiveness vs knights.
Their offense superiority is certainly weakened, although they still stand a 60% chance of doing a wound.
But they also take 1 less wound from WS3 knights.
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/5548/vcwstakenqr4.png

DeathlessDraich
23-03-2008, 21:37
... and believe it or not, them vulnerable Skeleton Spearmen pull it off again!
:D
(PS I don't plan on losing a Skeleton unit so the extra VP cost doesn't worry me!)

Slightly off topic - with your permission hopefully alpha dude.

For the record, my Ghoulkin army was massacring the Ogres until I overlooked the Killing Blow ability of Gorgers - One KB destroyed my lord and another destroyed another Vampire in turn 4.
Still could have salvaged a draw but the Ogre Bonecruncher could not be dispelled in turn 6 and destroyed the vampire and the remnants of the blood knights. Lost but great game nevertheless.

Can I ask, Latro, what in your opinion are the main tactical differences for the new VC compared to the old.

Latro
23-03-2008, 22:16
Can I ask, Latro, what in your opinion are the main tactical differences for the new VC compared to the old.

A lot of things changed, but the most fundamental change (IMHO of course) is the role of the humble undead grunt:

- The new Vampire special rule (and certain items) make marching a lot easier. The army functions a lot better now when the General is somewhere else.

- The new and improved Necromancy is especially effective at supporting the army ... and not so much at killing things.

- Several new items (Helm of Commandment being the best) and units (Corpse Cart) are also meant to support the troops in the field.

In the old situation the undead grunt had only the option bracing for impact and try to die as slowly as possible. Compare that to the new Skeleton Spearmen unit (with support) ... that's 10 strength 3 hits before the enemy can do anything. Numbers like that can grind down most units they face.

... and the same goes for the Ghouls (Skeletons are just better at it ;))


:cool:

Zethal
24-03-2008, 00:28
In my defence: I did add a smiley (which you didn't include) to indicate it shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Because that is what the rolling eyes smiley ensues. My bad I thought it allowed the poster to try and feel superior while try making the other person in the discussion feel belittled.
...
So your just going to ignore all the math, tactical diversity and logic behind all of my arguments?


That's soooooo last edition. If we can reliably add a huge WS boost and possibly a Strike First advantage, why should we limit ourselves to just static CR and wait for other units to decide the fight? These Skeletons are quite capable to grind away a rank of enemies each round untill they win ... they can even take down Ogres and the likes.
Who said anything about waiting for units to decide to fight you?
Even with WS6 and Strike first, both of which are very conditional.
Skeletons are still a incredibly weak active CR unit.
Your adding another 100 points to a skeleton unit to get a possible bonus of 2 CR.
Now you have a skeleton unit that costs essentially, 350 points, 450 if it dies, and you need to leave a vampire out of CC -who btw will create more active CR then the skeletons will with WS6- and successfully cast a power level 3 bound spell the turn before your opponent wants to charge you.

Not to mention every other tactical draw back this unit has. Now your adding a large amount of unreliability to a unit your using simply because it is reliable.

So what I am NOT doing is limiting my self to just static CR, what I AM doing is spending my points in a more efficient way. By taking ghouls, a unit of Black Knights, and a unit of wolves for the same price as that skeleton unit. I can almost get a unit of 4 KotBK and the ghouls for the price your paying for those skeletons.
If you really believe that your skeleton unit is going to perform better then that...nothing I or others can say will change your mind. But the least you can do is stop giving players looking for legitimate advice false information.

Lordmonkey
24-03-2008, 02:08
You didn't really read my previous post on this, did you? I did the same fight, but with the much better formation of a 7-wide Skeleton Spearmen formation and compared them to how a 7-wide Ghoul unit would do

I did read it, but I wasn't talking about spearmen. I was comparing 8pt troopers against one another - spearmen are 9pts. Regardless, a 7 wide formation of skeleton spearmen, maximising CR with 4 ranks is too many points, and something I would never consider investing in - especially as they sacrifice defence, and therefore CR. However, this is just a personal preference.

However, as both you and Jack of Blades have said, a 7 wide ghoul formation does sound like a good idea. Perhaps 3 ranks to keep the points down, and the master power for later reinforcement?

Latro
25-03-2008, 09:54
Almost lost track of this discussion. Anyway, since almost all that could have been said, has been said ... I'll just stick to a final few comments:

The price I'm planning to pay for a unit like that is roughly 222 points (just a tad less than the 450 points some people talk about). That gives me a unit of 21 Skeleton Spearmen with a standard bearer and the Warbanner. The rest can (and will be) summoned later. Having 21 to start with means I can deploy them 5-wide fully-ranked if I face a big and fast threat, or go for 7-wide and summon the final ranks otherwise.

Do I think it's worth it compared to a cheaper Ghoul unit? Yes!

Will I put my money where my mouth is? Yes!

... so if you'll excuse me, I have several Skeletons to buy/assemble/paint.


:cool:

Zethal
25-03-2008, 13:29
The price I'm planning to pay for a unit like that is roughly 222 points (just a tad less than the 450 points some people talk about)...Do I think it's worth it compared to a cheaper Ghoul unit? Yes!
Rofl.
Isn't spinning fun.
Politicians and media can get away with it, and I haven't destroyed your argument on this page yet so you may to.

The goal of forum should be to produce useful information and stats for a community. Backhanded slights, misinformation, and straw man arguments certainly don't do this. Why comment on a discussion if your goal is to win rather then be useful, this is not a debate.

Your of course entitled to your opinion, but bring that to the table backed with tactical information, logical arguments, and data to help people understand your reasoning so everyone can share in good discussion and insight. When you do not bring any substantial information and refuse to even take note of what others have mentioned it doesn't help anyone, and makes your point quite weak.
But hey you added a smiley, and it was the cool guy one this time. You win.

Huw_Dawson
25-03-2008, 13:36
THEY ARE AS GOOD AS EACH OTHER.
Thats why this supplement is probably the best so far this edition. All of the choices are logical, well balanced points wise and equally effective. You will get the same amount of mileage out of a block of ghouls as a block of skellies - ghouls hit harder, skellies survive better.

Can we agree that they are both as logical as each other to take? Lets not let this topic devolve into mud slinging.

(Oh, and by the way, Spin is just a fancy word for putting things in a different way to make them sound different. Everybody is guilty of it.)

- Huw

GrogsnotPowwabomba
25-03-2008, 13:41
Ghouls are better at just about every situation in the game. The only thing Skeletons surpass them at is withstanding low strength attacks (S3 or less). Ghouls are more survivable against higher strength attacks and missle fire, and obviously have better offensive potential.

Their only true downside relative to Skeletons is the lack of command. This can somewhat be negated by a Vampire with Walking Death, although not completely.

And Skeletons do look WAY better than Ghouls. Thus I choose Skeletons... :p

Scythe
25-03-2008, 20:14
But ghouls do not lose their effectiveness vs knights.
Their offense superiority is certainly weakened, although they still stand a 60% chance of doing a wound.
But they also take 1 less wound from WS3 knights.
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/5548/vcwstakenqr4.png

Do you think so? To be honest, kinights should be charging a unit of ghouls or skeletons about 80% of the time. Against a charging unit of knights, you can expect to lose your entire front rank more often than not, making the offensive abilities of little consequence. Even should you get the charge somehow, you are not likely to do any wounds against a 2+ save knight (about 0.7 kills on average, assuming a 7 wide frontage), which is outpreformed by a banner skeletons have.

Sure, you might take one less wound against WS3 knights (again, compensated for by the banner), but how common are those? Out of my head, I can only think of Knights Errant, Saurus Cavalry and Boar Boyz atm, and neither of those choices is really popular in their respectable army.


Ghouls are better at just about every situation in the game. The only thing Skeletons surpass them at is withstanding low strength attacks (S3 or less). Ghouls are more survivable against higher strength attacks and missle fire, and obviously have better offensive potential.


A S3 attack has the following chance of killing a:
skeleton: 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
ghoul: 0.33

S4:
Skeleton: 0.67 * 0.67 = 0.44
Ghoul: 0.5

S5:
Skeleton: 5/6 * 5/6 = 0.69
Ghoul: 0.67

S6 and up:
Skeleton: 0.83
Ghoul: 0.83

So ghouls are only (slightly) more survivable against S5 attacks. Sure, possible factors like less armour vs shooting, possible armour piercing and their increased defensive potential in combat against WS3 opponents is not taken into account here. ;) (but also not things like poison, which is more effective vs ghouls)

Zethal
25-03-2008, 20:30
THEY ARE AS GOOD AS EACH OTHER.
Thats why this supplement is probably the best so far this edition. All of the choices are logical, well balanced points wise and equally effective. You will get the same amount of mileage out of a block of ghouls as a block of skellies - ghouls hit harder, skellies survive better.
Except that skeletons do not survive better in most situations.
Only against ws 4+ s3 attacks do the skeletons take less wounds.
The do a extra wound to make up for the lack of banner against every opposing unit until the opposing unit as a 3+ save or better, often more then one wound. Both of these stats are proved by the charts I posted earlier.
And against WS3 S3 Knights, ghouls take on average 1 less wound.
So only against, WS4+ Knights -and undead have no problem dealing with knights- and hard infantry, like Grave guard or Dwarves.

In the large large majority of the situations ghouls either do 1+ active CR or deny 1 active CR compared to skeletons. Making them better then skeletons with a banner due to being cheaper, skeletons are worth an extra 100 points if destroyed. If you add a magic banner to the skeleton unit, now the skeleton unit is as expensive as a ghoul unit + a wolf unit, which I believe to be superior to a skeleton unit with a warbanner, of course that is a matter of preference.

Additionally due to the masters powers it only makes tactical sense to take one kind of core unit.

So, If you are looking for the unit that is going to perform best from a tactical and numbers perspective, Ghouls are it.

Granted the difference is not a huge amount and skeletons are a viable option, and there are reasons to choose them instead of ghouls. Fluff, models, and that a shambling horde of ghouls is kinda lame.

Edit:
These are all numbers GW should of had before they released this book, but seemingly chose to ignore.
Then they charge skeletons an extra point for spears. Your welcome to look around about the math of Spear Shield skeletons vs HW/S skeletons. But the general consensus is that HW/S is better. So GW could of given skeletons spears for free, allowing them to choose between spears and HW/S depending on the situation, give the option and tactical diversity possibly balancing out their weaknesses compared to ghouls. But hey its GW I'd be lying if I expect them to pay this much attention to their product.
:/Edit

But -one more time- Ghouls are superior.

Zethal
25-03-2008, 20:51
Do you think so? To be honest, kinights should be charging a unit of ghouls or skeletons about 80% of the time. Against a charging unit of knights, you can expect to lose your entire front rank more often than not, making the offensive abilities of little consequence. Even should you get the charge somehow, you are not likely to do any wounds against a 2+ save knight (about 0.7 kills on average, assuming a 7 wide frontage), which is outpreformed by a banner skeletons have.
But undead are not going to win when they are charged by good knights anyway, also they are not going to break. So the only round that matter are past the first. In which ghouls have the same survivability, and a better then average chance of doing a wound. At worest they are only losing an extra 1 model the first round of CC, but are better during the rest.

A S3 attack has the following chance of killing a:
All your math is wrong, your forgot to add in the chance to hit with the attack.
The correct math is there on the chart you quoted.
Which shows that the only time were ghouls actually take more wounds is against WS4+ S3 attacks. Where skeletons take .1666 and ghouls take .222.
All other times they take the same or less.



So ghouls are only (slightly) more survivable against S5 attacks. Sure, possible factors like less armour vs shooting, possible armour piercing and their increased defensive potential in combat against WS3 opponents is not taken into account here. ;) (but also not things like poison, which is more effective vs ghouls)
Sure but, armor piercing attacks, ranged attacks in general, and opponents with WS3 are are far more common then poison.

Here are those charts attached again.

GrogsnotPowwabomba
25-03-2008, 21:03
So ghouls are only (slightly) more survivable against S5 attacks. Sure, possible factors like less armour vs shooting, possible armour piercing and their increased defensive potential in combat against WS3 opponents is not taken into account here. ;) (but also not things like poison, which is more effective vs ghouls)

Those numbers are meaningless if you don't factor in the increased weapon skill and the reduced armor save with regards to missle fire. You can factor poison in as well, although I don't think its nearly as common as the first two items you omitted.

Latro
25-03-2008, 21:50
I'm more interested if there are any situations in which the slight Ghoul advantage (shown by those numbers) are enough to off-set the +2 CR advantage by the Skeletons.

The combat examples I've number-crunched so far all show the same: slightly better performance by the Ghouls, but never enough to get a better result than the Skeletons.

As an interesting side-effect: if the Ghouls attack last, they tend to lose so much of their attacks (-2 attacks per kill) that the Skeletons start performing better due to lower losses (-1 attack per kill).


:cool:

GrogsnotPowwabomba
25-03-2008, 21:58
Treeman comes to mind. I'm sure there are other examples.

Latro
25-03-2008, 22:11
Treeman comes to mind. I'm sure there are other examples.

Skeletons v. Treeman (4 in base contact, spears)

Treeman hits first: 5 attacks, 3.3 hits, 2.7 wounds = 2.7 kills
Skeletons hits back: 6 attacks, 2 hits, blah blah ... to low to matter
Skeletons win by +3 CR (stubborn, so doesn't matter)

... adding WS-boost and/or Strike First doesn't really matter, Skeletons keep winning but chances of wounds are very low.


Ghouls v. Treeman (4 in base contact)

Treeman hits first: 5 attacks, 3.3 hits, 2.7 wounds = 2.7 kills
Ghouls hits back: 3 attacks, 1.5ish hits, blah blah ... to low to matter
Ghouls win by +1 CR (stubborn, so doesn't matter)

... adding WS-boost and/or Strike First doesn't really matter, Ghouls keep winning but chances of wounds are very low.

So where exactly are the Ghouls being better here? Both times the combat will go on untill the Treeman fails its stubborn break-test (though the Ghouls have a smaller win-margin).


:cool:

Zethal
25-03-2008, 22:39
I'm more interested if there are any situations in which the slight Ghoul advantage (shown by those numbers) are enough to off-set the +2 CR advantage by the Skeletons.

Ok still, skeletons do not have a +2CR advantage, you need to pay points for that, increase the cost of the unit by 22%/37 then ghouls, basically a unit of wolves.

Anyway...
Its not like a chart is very hard to read, and mine answers your question for you if you bothered to look.

This chart tells you that ghouls will create 2 more active CR against the following types of units:

All T3/T4 units with no armor: plague monks, witches, squigs
WS5 T3/T4 6+ AS: Wardancers

They do 1.5 or more wounds against the above plus:
WS5 T4 5+ AS: chaos warriors.
WS5 T3 5+ AS: pretty much all elite elves.
T3/T4 6+ AS: orcs

Although its not on the chart they do 3 wounds against the following skeletons do 1:
WS2 T3 5+ AS: skeletons, goblins.

So just the active CR of the ghouls gets you the same amount of CR as skeletons w/FC warbanner for 37 points cheaper, against pretty much the whole O&G army, most elves, other undead, and random other troops. This is before discussing any defensive bonus they likely have.

The combat examples I've number-crunched so far all show the same: slightly better performance by the Ghouls, but never enough to get a better result than the Skeletons.

You mean never found a result in which the ghouls perform as good as 37 point more expensive skeleton unit. Of which there are quite a few as presented above.

Latro
26-03-2008, 10:13
Ok still, skeletons do not have a +2CR advantage, you need to pay points for that, increase the cost of the unit by 22%/37 then ghouls, basically a unit of wolves.

Anyway...
Its not like a chart is very hard to read, and mine answers your question for you if you bothered to look.

This chart tells you that ghouls will create 2 more active CR against the following types of units:

All T3/T4 units with no armor: plague monks, witches, squigs
WS5 T3/T4 6+ AS: Wardancers


I've seen the chart and it's all very true if you look at it as a single unit. I wont contest that. My point is that you have to look at them as part of your army ... how are you going to use them:

- A 7-wide Skeleton Spearmen block with a +1 CR magic banner. The extra cost I'm willing to pay because in my opinion this set-up is more reliable for defeating and breaking enemy units than Ghouls + Wolves.

- I agree that Ghouls + Wolves are more flexible and offer more options/tactics, but due to a lot of experience I've come to the conclusion that Wolves can't be relied on to provide a flank-charge in important combats ... it's too easy for a competent enemy to stop.

- In short: I want the Skeleton Spearmen to do one job and do that very well while I use other means for things they can't do. (Example: diverting by summoned zombies).

So, while keeping that in mind, how will Skeletons and Ghouls perform against Witch Elves (who are, according to the chart, their nemesis):

note: The Undead can use a wider formation than the Witch Elves because they have the option of reforming before the Witch Elves can charge, while the Frenzied Witches have to charge when in range.

Undead v. Witch Elves

Normal situation:

Witch Elves hit first: 16 attacks, 10.56 hits, 6.16 wounds, 4.1 kills
Skeletons hit back: 11 attacks, 3.63 hits, 1.8 wounds and kills
Skeletons win unless the Witches are fully-ranked with banner (not likely)

Witch Elves hit first: 16 attacks, 10.56 hits, 4.7 wounds and kills
Ghouls hit back: 5 attacks, 2.5 hits, 1.5 wounds and kills
Most likely a draw or narrow Witch Elf victory

With a WS-boost:

Witch Elves hit first: 16 attacks, 8 hits, 4.66 wounds, 3.1 kills
Skeletons hit back: 12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds and kills
Skeletons win by a large margin (+6 CR most likely, Witches with 1 extra rank)

Witch Elves hit first: 16 attacks, 8 hits, 3.6 wounds and kills
Ghouls hit back: 7 attacks, 4.62 hits, 2.7 wounds and kills
Ghouls win (+2 CR in the same conditions as the Skeletons)

With First Strike as well:

Skeletons hit first: 15 attacks, 10 hits, 5 wounds and kills
Witch Elves hit back: 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 0.88 wounds, 0.6 kills
Bye bye Witch Elves ... a +9 CR Skeleton win

Ghouls hit first: 15 attacks, 10 hits, 5.9 wounds and kills
Witch Elves: 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, 0.7 wounds and kills
Bye bye Witch Elves ... a +8 CR Ghoul win


Every time the Skeletons come out ahead of the Ghouls. The Ghouls will be better if Wolves provide a flank-charge, but I don't think that can be relied on. Most interesting is that Skeletons perform best (compared to the Ghouls) if both units are all on their own.


:cool:

Zethal
26-03-2008, 18:55
So, while keeping that in mind, how will Skeletons and Ghouls perform against Witch Elves (who are, according to the chart, their nemesis):
Witch Elves are the best unit to make skeletons look good compared to ghouls. Lots of S3 WS4+ attacks where skeletons do best defensively compared to ghouls, additionally the Witches have poison which helps negate the ghouls strength even more.


Witch Elves hit first: 16 attacks, 10.56 hits, 6.16 wounds, 4.1 kills
Skeletons hit back: 11 attacks, 3.63 hits, 1.8 wounds and kills
Skeletons win unless the Witches are fully-ranked with banner (not likely)

Your assuming Witches are only 5 wide, many players prefer a wider unit.
I don't use witches 7 wide, but at the same time my witch unit is about 100 points cheaper then your skeleton unit. You said look at how it plays with the whole army, and your the one ignoring how expensive your unit is.

Also due to how wide you are now, I can charge multiple other units into the fight as well. I can fit a fully ranked spearmen unit, and a chariot.
Now the DE units win by a very large margin. Plus I'm likely to do 10+ wounds, destroying your whole unit in CR.


Every time the Skeletons come out ahead of the Ghouls.
And they should your comparison is still rigged. Your spending significantly more on the skeleton unit, you even add spears to yours, making the unit 57 points more expensive a full third more then the ghouls, and they don't actually perform better in reality.

In all the situations where the ghouls are likely to win, they win by less. But who cares! You outnumber and cause fear. the Witches auto-break in every situation. You wasting 57 points in this scenario to acquire an irrelevant win margin.


The Ghouls will be better if Wolves provide a flank-charge, but I don't think that can be relied on. Most interesting is that Skeletons perform best (compared to the Ghouls) if both units are all on their own.
Of course skeletons perform better when 1/3 more expensive then the ghouls, and both are alone. But why would they be alone? You as the army builder get to add units because the skeletons are so much more expensive and are not actually giving you a higher chance of winning.

Petey
26-03-2008, 19:02
/agree with Latro

A couple of points to bring up. The ghouls/skellie debate seems just like the handgun/xbow debate for Empire. Both have good uses if you design the army to take advantage of it.

Skellingtons should always have a banner, it s what makes them worth their points. Do you want a cheap unit to act as a Necrosleepy's bodyguard? Then take ghouls. Do you get a king or thrall with a tomb blade? Then you must have skellies. Want to get a free march? Get ghouls.

And the banners they have access to are amazing. Double Unit Str., extra rank bonus, ect. They usually mean victory for my skellies, even when flying solo

It's all dependant on Tech and Metagame. You go in with a plan for how things work and build combos around that. You have a lot of options with VC and none of them suck. Except maybe those stupid giant bats and bat swarms (hideous models too), they can work but i don't think they're worth the points.

Scythe
26-03-2008, 20:51
But undead are not going to win when they are charged by good knights anyway, also they are not going to break. So the only round that matter are past the first. In which ghouls have the same survivability, and a better then average chance of doing a wound. At worest they are only losing an extra 1 model the first round of CC, but are better during the rest.

Ghouls maybe not, but skeletons have a very good chance. 3 ranks, a magic banner and outnumbering adds up to +6 combat resolution before any dice are thrown. Sure, multiple attack cavalry can still win (at least in the first round of combat, mind), but most basic cavalry cannot win reliably at all with 6-7 knight and 5-6 horse attacks.
Btw, again, how many WS3 S3 knights do you see regularly on the battlefield?


Which shows that the only time were ghouls actually take more wounds is against WS4+ S3 attacks. Where skeletons take .1666 and ghouls take .222.
All other times they take the same or less.


And against WS4 S4:
skeleton: 4/6 * 4/6 * 4/6 = 0.30
ghoul: 4/6 * 3/6 = 0.33

And against WS2 S3:
skeleton: 3/6 * 3/6 * 3/6 = 0.125
ghoul: 3/6 * 2/6 = 0.167

And against WS2 S4:
skeleton: 3/6 * 4/6 * 4/6 = 0.22
ghoul: 3/6 * 3/6 = 0.25

In fact, only against WS3 opponents or against S5 opponents ghouls come out on top. Sure, those are not uncommon at all, but not more common as the combinations I mentioned.


Sure but, armor piercing attacks, ranged attacks in general, and opponents with WS3 are are far more common then poison.


Sure, point conceded. I stated it was merely to illustrate the calculations didn't take everything into account.

KingOfStarcraft
08-05-2008, 02:49
Alright let me test a combat:

28 Skeletons, full command, war banner, spears 299 pts (deployed 7x4)

VS

36 Ghouls, Ghast (296 pts) Deployed 9x4

Ghouls strikes first (I3)

Ghast issues a challenge.
Challenge: Ghast has a 1/2 in inflicting a poison wound and 3/4 chance of inflicting a normal wound. This means that there is about 80% chance that skeleton champion dies before striking back. this means that the skeleton champion has 0.2x2 attacks = 0.4, 0.4 attacks hits 0.2. to wound 0.2x1/3 = 0.067% chance of him wounding.

Rest of combat:
8 ghouls strikes first. 16 attacks of which 2.67 is a poison wound. this means there are about 8 more hits in combat from ghouls of which 4 will wound. 6.67 wounds total of which skeletons saves 2.223 = 4.45 wounds. Skeetons strikes back with 14 (-champion and 4.45 skeletons) skeletons. 8.55 attacks. 4.275 hit. 1.425 wounds.

Combat round up.
Ghouls combat resolution = 0.8 W on champion, 4.45 wound on skeletons, 3 ranks, outnumber = combat resolution 9.25

Skeletons combat resolution: W on ghast 0.07 rounded up + 1.425 total of 1.5 if being nice. +3 ranks, standard, war banner. Total = 6.5 combat resolution.

Skeletons lose with a average of 3. This means that the skeletons will be down to 20 models on next round of combat, ghouls 34.5. Skeletons will quickly perish

Arnizipal
08-05-2008, 11:18
This thread died a month ago but whatever...

About your calculations:
I don't think the point of this thread is to find out whether Ghouls or Skeletons would win fighting each other. It's about who can last the longest while fighting an enemy unit.

Why use spears on skeletons? They're cheaper with handweapons and shields and have a better save in close combat to boot. The extra attacks hardly matter as skeletons are just there to provide static combat res, not kill stuff. That's what characters are for.

Which brings me to my second point: Why deploy skeletons 7 wide? They're terrible fighters, so their formation should be as deep as possible without sacrificing rank bonus. This could have the added advantage that enemy attackers that are deployed in wide units can't get their entire front rank in the fight.

Lordmonkey
08-05-2008, 12:02
Which brings me to my second point: Why deploy skeletons 7 wide? They're terrible fighters, so their formation should be as deep as possible without sacrificing rank bonus. This could have the added advantage that enemy attackers that are deployed in wide units can't get their entire front rank in the fight.

Because you can use them in combination with things like the Helm of Commandment, or the corpse carts Miasma of Deathly Vigor, or both! Suddenly, they become better than Elf Spearmen...

Arnizipal
08-05-2008, 18:17
Even with high WS and ASF , they still only have Str 3 which means they won't kill a lot.
Still not worth the extra cost of equipping them with spears IMHO.

the_raptor
08-05-2008, 22:24
Even with high WS and ASF , they still only have Str 3 which means they won't kill a lot.
Still not worth the extra cost of equipping them with spears IMHO.

Have you considered 6-7 wide with Staff of damnation?

The benefit of VC is wide and deep units are not prohibitively expensive thanks to raising above starting size powers.