PDA

View Full Version : (VC) Miss the Bloodlines?



Master Vampire
05-02-2009, 20:54
Greetings,

I've just returned from some time of absence. I started the discussion on Carpe Noctem (http://www.vampirecounts.net) about this question:

Do you miss the 6th edition format of the Bloodlines compared to 7th edition?

The general consensus is that the background got hurt pretty hard. Bloodlines have been shoved into the books, and not into gameplay. Except the Powers, that is. It is accepted that the army book is focused on von Carsteins.

VC have become a powerhouse, something agreed upon on many other race-specific forum now. It has been said VC are very hard to beat. The VC traded their background for tactical prowess.

Note for people who don't possess the VC AB (and don't know this): Bloodline Powers existed in 6th edition. A Vampire had to choose a Bloodline and all of them had to be of that one. You could only pick Powers for that Bloodline, which is not the case in this edition (furthermore, we also had characteristic changes in 6th).

So what is your opinion about this? Did GW do a good job mixmatching Bloodline Powers, or shouldn't they have done this at all?

-MV

Malorian
05-02-2009, 21:01
Well the fact that they got rid of all but one of the Lahmian powers really sucks. I was really looking forward to doing them and now the only thing I can do is not take armor if I want to keep with the theme. No more controlling your opponent or not letting him attack *sniff*

The new system is fine, but I think they should have gone half way and kept specific powers if you wanted a theme, or allowed you to take general powers if you don't. (Example only blood dragons could get red fury but even common vampires could be a dread knight.)

Reinnon
05-02-2009, 21:08
I personally feel the new power system is the equal to the old one. The system works quite well, it allows you to create vampires to suit your army very well, either from a magical powerhouse (master of the black arts) through to combat (red fury). Plus the mastery powers and ghoulkin allow for themed armies to work, and some like the flying and scouting allows for some imaginitive use of the list.

In all, i think the system is a success. The old system however was better because they got the feel of the vampires quite well. I liked the old system alot, but the new one works just as well in my opinion.

shredshredxx
05-02-2009, 21:11
while a lot of the cool powers are gone,

it's still pretty simple to adhere to one of the bloodline archetypes if you want to.

for instance, i do an all blood-dragon army, i don't touch a single arkayne power on a single vampire.

if you wanna be a power gamer and hoard power dice like a crack fiend while you sport your dreadlance/red fury combo in the same army,

the gods of fluff will surely damn you for all eternity,

but go for it.

it provides some nice options, as those of us that DO miss the bloodlines can still stick with them more or less, while those of us that dgaf can do whatever we please.

sulla
05-02-2009, 21:36
Well the fact that they got rid of all but one of the Lahmian powers really sucks.

Considering how the lahmian powers pretty much sucked (especially vs the everpresent immune to psyche troops everywhere today) and it was generally idiotic that only blood dragons and VonC thralls knew how to wear armour, surely the new rules allow VC players to make more functional vampire characters.

I mean, why wouldn't a necrach master craft himself some magical protection? Why couldn't a strigoi be wearing a magical talisman or the magical remnants of his ancient armour? If they're smart enough to wear a loincloth, they are smart enough to use a shield or breastplate.

So if vampires are more functional and most of what you lost was just window dressing what have you really lost in terms of quality?

Caine Mangakahia
05-02-2009, 23:27
The only real problem I have with the new bloodlines is that the Magic Bunker Caster lord is a real no brainer.
Its a lot riskier to throw your Lord into combat now as many other Lords (and Heroes) out there are easily a match for him, and he doesnt quite have the protection and combat prowess that was available to ,say, a Blood Dragon.
The Caster Lord with the Helm however can be just as great (if not more) an asset to the battle sitting safely in a deckchair in the shade, sipping on a cocktail and operating his army by remote control. He's a lot less of a risk(considering your army dies when your General does,Stupid Rule!!!) and it's the reason why he's in so many of the power builds.
You CAN however create characters which balance combat and casting ability more than was possible in 6 edition, which is what the Goal should be. But the risk factor, is still a bit too real I guess.
I liked the fact that in 6 Edition, that picking a combat or Magic bloodline changed a VAmpires stats/ability to reflect his dedication to that particular path, and made him better at it.

W0lf
05-02-2009, 23:34
i think they lost almost all character with the change.

Infact i hate the 7th book so much it stopped me doing vampire counts.

-Grimgorironhide-
06-02-2009, 06:45
i think they lost almost all character with the change.

Infact i hate the 7th book so much it stopped me doing vampire counts.

I agree, it stopped me too. Sure they have good flexibility now but the old system really gave character and theme to your vampires. I would say in the next ed allow normal mundane equipment without the need to by the avatar or dread knight power. Second change avatar to say +2 WS and +1 attack.
Change dread knight to +1 str on the charge. This gives us back blood dragon character.
Other things in the powers should be.
-Arkayne: Line of the Necrach: +1 to cast and dispel, -1 to Ws, A and S. (There's necrach)
-Bestialle: Massive monstrosity: +1 Wound and regeneration, cannot take any magic weapons or magic armour and can only join ghoul units. (Strigoi)
-Courtly: Quickblood: ASF (Lamnian)

Also bring back the vampire lord but restrict him to only one per 2000pts.

cheers.

Jerak
06-02-2009, 11:55
I agree! Although i like how the new book makes our army alot more tacticly flexible it makes it harder to do single goal armys, except for magic that is. I miss my blood dragon combat lord so much the new ones just dont cut it especialy when the only combat powers we have is red fury (which i think kinda sux) and infinate haterd (which is good), same goes for the flying circus and the Lamian lists.

its a shame they didnt keep the lord entry as well! he was so much fun :(

Jerak

gunners
06-02-2009, 13:54
I have to agree, the whole concept is solely based on the carsteins which is just plain dumb, and show lack of originality. The bloodlines made the whole army more special and unik, instead of just the combat combo OR the magic... true you could mix the powers, but in all fairness the vast majority of players go with cc or magic..
I also kind of miss the necro lord, or just some ability to make the necromancer just a bit more bad. specially compared to "normal" empire wizards.

Miss the theme creating VC army, and some of the possible in depth game variations it created.:skull:

sroblin
06-02-2009, 15:44
I was sad to see a lot of the distinct bloodline fluff get canned with the 7th edition book. It's understood that they still exist in the background per se, but why not dignify them with a few paragraphs and maybe a special power or two.

Certainly there were problems with the old setup, and maybe GW didn't like having to sell five sets of vampire models to represent every archetype. It was also too bad that the powers were exclusive to a particular bloodline, and there wasn't supposed to be mixing.

Yet the old system was very characterful, and allowed you to field a wide range of characters. The new book has cool options too, but they mostly enable mobility or magic. Even the combat options are reduced down to a broken combo (dread lance + red fury), but are otherwise a bit lackluster.

I think Malorian's suggestion for a system of both general powers and bloodlines powers would have been better, especially if you could combined different bloodline vampires for additional diversity.

vamp
06-02-2009, 22:54
Lost all character in the change?


I couldn't agree less. Im new here and new to fantasy but thats what validates my view point on this. As a new gamer who never played under the 6th edition vampire counts ( though I own the book so know what its all about). Ehehm anyways as a new gamer coming in I see that the Vampire counts behave exactly as I would expect them to. Some are ravenous demons in combat. While other more ancient ones are completey dominating casters. All have mastery over undead. Can summon zombies when needed ( this feels exactly like the way an undead army would fight using the dead to fight for them...using the spirits of the lost to fight for them aka wind of death).

I think the Lore and theme is very strong, and personally think the fact that they have focused on one family in particular rather then half heartedly covered many is a way better way to go.. I simply see this as a case and point of liking what your used to and fearing change. To someone who has read both books and played neither editions I largely prefer the 7th edition and it has everything to do with character and flavor of the army now.

I mean come on. How cool are the corpse carts and ethereal cair wraiths? How sick is it to rank up your ghouls?? I prefer this style of play way over the other list. And not just the style of play ( death star gaming...how do u death star game when your fielding corpse carts?) I prefer the atmosphere to 6th.

I think someone like me would be the least biased of anyone since I have never played both...but own and have read both editions 6th and 7th. That and my name is Vamp for hell's sakes!

W0lf
06-02-2009, 22:59
Oh and also my bigger problem with the book is seeing 4 vampires in a 2K game.

In my own mind a vampire army would be a VERY powerful lord, possibly an apprentice and a few necromancer underlings.

4 vampires with 50 other model dosnt feel/look right imo.

Valtiel
06-02-2009, 23:05
Am I the only one who thinks they are doing this to several armies? Chaos in general has been changed a lot to just a bunch of undivided bleh much like the VC book I guess. Lizardmen has lost Spawns. All of these old fluffy options are fading away as GW simplifies the rules. While I like better rules, dismissing the rules that could make each army unique really annoys me and makes me sick and tired of Fantasy these days.

Voss
07-02-2009, 00:23
Am I the only one who thinks they are doing this to several armies? Chaos in general has been changed a lot to just a bunch of undivided bleh much like the VC book I guess. Lizardmen has lost Spawns. All of these old fluffy options are fading away as GW simplifies the rules. While I like better rules, dismissing the rules that could make each army unique really annoys me and makes me sick and tired of Fantasy these days.

Huh. My irritation with fantasy is actually the layer upon layer of special rules that get piled onto everything. Every army is _so_ unique some of them aren't even playing the same game anymore. This is particularly true of the VC, who don't really have to bring an army to the table. They arrive with a small force, several tooled up characters and conjure an army in the magic phase.
So I actually find the lack of spawnings in the Lizards book an advantage- its a solid army with out the additional layer of customizing to tweak the army from good to utterly ridiculous.

But back to the original question- I don't mind the loss of the bloodlines, they frankly hadn't been around enough to make any impact on me and were fairly bland and generic in any case. The problem with the VC book is the powers are a little too good, too customizable and the fact that they can be combined with a full complement of magic items pushes the characters out into the lands of completely ridiculous. And into downright absurdity with the special rules (and ridiculously low casting values) for necromancy spells.

Hun
07-02-2009, 15:50
No. The bloodline rules were far too restrictive and after playing Undead since 5th edition I disliked being pushed to define my vampire character's background and army theme through the bloodlines.

vamp
08-02-2009, 00:40
The problem with the VC book is the powers are a little too good, too customizable and the fact that they can be combined with a full complement of magic items pushes the characters out into the lands of completely ridiculous. And into downright absurdity with the special rules (and ridiculously low casting values) for necromancy spells.


I actually disagree with what is said above. The heroes and lords are amongst the most modestly powered heroes and lords in the game. Its their ability to replace and build lost and new units of undead that makes undead so powerful......that and they causefear and are immune to psychology. The actualy special characters are largely weak in comparison to say any of the lords in the new lizardmen codex and others.


If you can't beat something the way you want to fine. But to call that army unfair because it won't be deystroyed with the tactics you'd prefer to use is very erroneous.
Change your tactics! You will find a list that works.




Remember this. These guys playtest this stuff endlessly and throw every army at it with all manners of combinations before releasing it. They would no better then any of us. You come away with only one view, your own, on why they are not fair. But consider the fact that they have playtested this stuff for hundreds of games. Im sure for many of these playtested games the VC were defeated. Otherwise they wouldn't put the stamp of officiality upon the product. ANd if the playtesters can find a weakness and defeat the VC then you can too. Maybe you are being to narrowminded in the way which you battle the army. Change your tactics up. It may involve pursuing a less glorious road to victory without the high level lords but a win is a win.

Stmr5000
08-02-2009, 01:13
I won't lie, I didn't like the bloodlines. I was still kind of new when I was considering the VC, and the extra layer confused me.

Wulfrik
09-02-2009, 15:29
I tihnk I would miss them more if they had been aorund longer... or even been what was "originally intended" with Vampires.

Dating back to ye olde Undead army book, there was mention of the bloodlines but they didn't really affect play at all- and that's when I started. (I still miss my necros riding on carrions!) The bloodlines and their powers didn't really come into play until the Undead book got separated. Much like Hun said, anyone who wasp laying them before the Bloodlines came to the forefront had to do some rethinking to field their armies.

Every redux of an army book/codex will, by its nature, change some aspect of what was present in the army before it. Many people will like the changes, some won't. That's kinda just the nature of progress I guess.

Necromancer2
09-02-2009, 16:26
Yes I miss the 6th edition VC. Nerfing Necromancers stopped me as well.

Aunshiva
09-02-2009, 19:09
The Necromancer nerf was a big deal to me, but then Vamps were not powerful enough to justify their expense. The power of the undead army was keeping your crappy troops on the board through magic. Vamps never brought enough CR to the board to justify their use. Not when I could use those points on more skeletons or ghouls. Necromancers, on the other hand... Much more worth while for their points.

I liked Necrarchs, but the cost/benefits just did not work out. Blood dragons were viable, but only just. Once more, with only a pair of necros for your magic power, most people were shutting down what was a truly vital magic phase.

The biggest problem with bloodline powers was that they counted towards your magic item total, making their inclusion difficult against some very nice magic items. I never liked Van Carstien fluff, and as a WoD player, appreciated differences amongst vamps.

In so far as power level, it is nice that I can do physically capable vamps that are also magic users. But the mighty necro nerf still hurts. But I wouldn't care if I could mount vamps on Corpse Carts... heheheheh.

RossS
09-02-2009, 22:31
The abandonment of the bloodlines, coupled with the loss of my necromancers, has really lessened my interest in my VC army. Whoever pointed out that 4 vampires in a list is rubbish was right on.

The bloodline regulations were an interesting system that forced players to make difficult choices with their army. They were perhaps a tad too restrictive, but they were much less damaging to game fairness than this new abomination/giant list of powers.

vampires are cool!
09-02-2009, 23:11
The Blood Lines have been abandoned? Sorry gents, you've been given a licence to create your own. You can command some of the most versitile models in the game. GW has taken you out of the box of Von Carstiens, Lahmians, Blood Dragons, Strigo and Necrachs and let you loose in the wild lands of your own imagination exept that many of you have fallen at the first hurdel, blinded by the dazzeling light of possibility and mistrustful of the concept of lateral thinking.

I hear a lot of players saying, "Oh no, now my army is ruined because i have to rely on my integrity in order to be able to paly the army i used to have. How will i ever cope in the face of overwelming presure to upgrade my models?" Grow a pair.

Yes, the stat loss was irksome, but the powers and items make up for it. If you want to talk about no brainers then talk about how some people are frightened of change.

I'm sorry for thinking that 4 vampires in a VAMPIRE army was a little risque. The nerfing of necromancers was, at first, perplexing, and then exilerating, a new and wholy unique change, giving us access to cheap casters. I've tried it and i can testify that a necromancer army is still playable and fun. Not as competative as some may like but... well, by now most of you know my thoughts on that.

Character of an army is what you make of it. I've always played von Carstiens sinse the i'll fated 4th and have had to endure countless renditions of "but their the borning ones." Let me tell you; nothing is boring unless you make it so.

W0lf
09-02-2009, 23:12
They needed revision but tbh i liked the fact my Strigoi vampire got a natural ward but no armour for his Toughness and was more hitty with +1 attack and hatred.

Or that my 'frail' necrach cpuldnt be tooled up to be a uber wizard with protection.

And yep was me, 4 vamps in an army is stupid. I really like vamps and am thinkign of giving them another go but i love strigoi and find it hard to stick to a stigoi army with so many options :P


I'm sorry for thinking that 4 vampires in a VAMPIRE army was a little risque.

good logic. Why dont lizardmen get 4 slaans in a SLAAN army?... sheesh. So you think that 4 vampires comanding 40 seletons with a unit fo vampire blood knghts and some wraiths is a good vision of a vamps army? ARMY? More like stag do..

Sifal
09-02-2009, 23:13
I have kept the bloodlines in my head. I only choose vampiric abilities from one of the different sectionsfor each vampire... i.e - The Arkayne, the Bestialle, the courtly etc.. normally at 2000pts i have a vamp lord and thrall (both necrach style) and two necromancers. I have fluff OCD and couldn't justify fielding 4 vampires fighting together using all different random bloodlines. similarly i couldn't field blood and black knights in the same army or a shaggoth with a giant etc.... just doesn't seem right.

vamp
10-02-2009, 03:14
Slaans? Not one vampire is even close to the equivolent of a Slaan. Give me a break. Your talking about an army comprised of one vampire with between 3 and 5 wounds and and maybe 3 or 4 other vampires each with 2 wounds apiece. None come close to the casting prowess of a Slaan.

Neckutter
10-02-2009, 03:22
Necromancers, on the other hand... Much more worth while for their points.

I liked Necrarchs, but the cost/benefits just did not work out. Blood dragons were viable, but only just. Once more, with only a pair of necros for your magic power, most people were shutting down what was a truly vital magic phase.
.

needless to say i disagree wholeheartedly with your statements. i played a von carstein lord the whole time with my old VC, and i think i lost 4 or 5 games out of 50ish. when they SoC book came out with the carstein sylvanian list it lost once to a blood dragon army(minor loss) because on turn 4 he charged and challenged me and i was stupid enough to think the 4+ ward was enough to save me from being KB'd. i converted a TON of sylvanian zombies and skeletons with crossbows which now sit around and do nothing. i played this army about 20-30 times before the SoC book was nerfed.

i always considered the necro a quite weak caster. a 2nd gen slann, or a tzeentch lord caster(staff of tzeentch) would ALWAYS win the magic war against you. and those two characters were the best wizard builds before their armybook was redone.

now i play with my vamp lord who knows all the vampire spells, is a lvl 4 wizard and can recast the hell outta the necromancy spells. ill take the current armylist, please.

@vamp. its a slann mage priest. or i would have accepted a slann magwe priest as well. slann. /wink

TheDean04
10-02-2009, 04:20
Sorry, I ran ran a heavy necromancer list too and their viability will be missed for years! It sucks because I dont even bother with a necro anymore and they used to be be one of my favorite parts to the vamps army.

Jagosaja
10-02-2009, 07:27
Actually, I like the new book. I loved the old one, and the new one is excellent as well. I won't lie to you, I was also dissapointed bloodlines were "lost", but one truly can make a bloodline with given powers.

Necroes are good now too, maybe even better. Come on people, you can have Vanhel's as a choice, can it be any better? A scroll caddy which can cast Vanhel's, for just 95 points, what is bad about it?

The only thing I don't like is that focus on Von Carsteins made all the special characters be of their bloodline, and I truly hoped for Abhorash to appear. IMHO, our special characters suck (though "Mannfred the old" can be good) in comparison to the other races, although I never use any special characters.

And yes, I miss the old Vampire Lord, since our generals are more fragile now, but you can't just have it all. There has to be a downside as well. How sick would it be to have the old Blood Dragon Vampire Lord with the armour that gives +1T (bringing his WS to 7, but that really does not matter), giving him WS7, S5-7, T6, W4, A5, good AS and probably a Ward Save too. And he can cast magic, so give him those two extra power dice to compensate that one lost becase he is Blood Dragon, give him Walking Death and Infinite Hatred and make him level 3 mage. And just for the cherry on the top give him Helm of Commandment. Too much for a non-special-character Lord, isn't it? That is why the book is fine to me as it is.

Sifal
10-02-2009, 11:37
necros weren't nerfed just given a different role imo. having the guarantee of vanhel's is is worth taking necromancers and they are cheaper than cheap. I use them all the time, not forgetting that nitro necromancers are a horrible surprise when you reveal all those extra powerdice on the last turn of the game.

kramplarv
10-02-2009, 11:58
What I find very amusing is that players need rules to have their flavor...
The 7th ed VC book has more coolnes going around than last edition.
And a fantasy player needing rules to have their uberkillervampire being a blooddragon? geeez...

W0lf
10-02-2009, 13:08
And a fantasy player needing rules to have their uberkillervampire being a blooddragon? geeez...

No but i find it stupid to see a lvl 4 blood dragon and a strigoi vampire with a 2+ save or on a steed. Likewise the combat diffrence between a Necrach and a stigoi vamp is pretty minimal.

PARTYCHICORITA
10-02-2009, 13:56
I personally feel the new power system is the equal to the old one. The system works quite well, it allows you to create vampires to suit your army very well, either from a magical powerhouse (master of the black arts) through to combat (red fury). Plus the mastery powers and ghoulkin allow for themed armies to work, and some like the flying and scouting allows for some imaginitive use of the list.

In all, i think the system is a success. The old system however was better because they got the feel of the vampires quite well. I liked the old system alot, but the new one works just as well in my opinion.

I agree with this statement

RossS
10-02-2009, 18:30
What I find very amusing is that players need rules to have their flavor...
The 7th ed VC book has more coolnes going around than last edition.
And a fantasy player needing rules to have their uberkillervampire being a blooddragon? geeez...

Human nature being what it is, players need regulations in order to ensure game balance. People on these forums are constantly bemoaning the fact that players are constantly seeking ways to undermine the core rules to their best advantage. The bloodline system was a good way of preventing this. Back in those heady days of yore, the gamer really couldn't create vampires that could do it all. Sure you could create a beast that would outmagick nearly anything, but he/she was invariably rather fragile. Similarly, you could create a character that would be able to slaughter every other character in the game with ease, but he/she was doomed to magical impotence.

The point is, it was hard to have your cake and eat it too. Not so anymore, especially now that GW has decided that gamers can be trusted to behave when, for all intents and purposes, there are no limits on their character expenditures.

vamp
10-02-2009, 18:45
NEckutter do you play with Count Manfredd Von Carstien? If so what size game would be the minimum you would wan't to field him in? I so wan't to field him as my army general but everyone say's it isn't practical in a 2250 game.

innerwolf
10-02-2009, 19:20
What I hate more is when you have your perfect Vampire o' Doom all pimped up with the best in-game abilities, then you realize... He is extremely ugly and terrific, but at the same time beautiful and alluring. He spend all his days studying arcane knowledge, but he also loves battles and is better trained on swordmanship than any other being in the Old World :rolleyes:

You can restrain yourself from mixing and matching the best abilities to keep the Bloodline flavour intact, but it's so rare to find a not-maxed out vampire that I don't even consider it as happening. The old Bloodlines and all their flavour is dead and buried.

You can't even replicate most of the old Bloodlines aspects.
Where is the extra strenght and resilience from Strigoi? It dissapeared. You can have a guy which is very frightening, who is very good at lurking behind the enemy or that knows how to make Ghouls move their ars*s toward the enemy.
The fast reflexes but nimble physique of Lahmians? Gone. You can have the alluring aspect( with some weird rules to represent it, IMHO) and nothing more.
And the amazing duellist skills of Blood Dragons? You won't find them, but you can replicate them with an ability that turn them into infantry meatgrinders( completely opposite from the fluff, but who gives a ****?)

The only ones that can be nicely represented are Necrarchs. I really think it's the reason for all vampires you can find in VC armies recently boost 13-14 power dices :rolleyes:

vamp
10-02-2009, 19:54
I say again as a player who owns both codex's and and has played neither...I say...who cares?

Not I. The new codex has more taste style and flavor then any of 6th edition vamps. It also represents the regenerating quality of the undead horde better then the old book, and ist just a better army build all around. This is clearly a case of liking what your used and fearing change. Give it a chance.

madival
10-02-2009, 20:05
The options of the 6th ed vamps and the lack of options in 7th ed really is hurting VC. Now the only two really viable vamps are the magic protected lord, or the redfury dreadlance lord. I remember the strigos vamps were hilarious, No one wanted to fight the ws8 str 6 6 attack beast. combine that with hands of dust and everyones gotta watch out.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
11-02-2009, 03:49
"The problem with the VC book is the powers are a little too good, too customizable and the fact that they can be combined with a full complement of magic items pushes the characters out into the lands of completely ridiculous. And into downright absurdity with the special rules (and ridiculously low casting values) for necromancy spells."


I actually disagree with what is said above. The heroes and lords are amongst the most modestly powered heroes and lords in the game. Its their ability to replace and build lost and new units of undead that makes undead so powerful......that and they causefear and are immune to psychology. The actualy special characters are largely weak in comparison to say any of the lords in the new lizardmen codex and others.


If you can't beat something the way you want to fine. But to call that army unfair because it won't be deystroyed with the tactics you'd prefer to use is very erroneous.
Change your tactics! You will find a list that works.




Remember this. These guys playtest this stuff endlessly and throw every army at it with all manners of combinations before releasing it. They would no better then any of us. You come away with only one view, your own, on why they are not fair. But consider the fact that they have playtested this stuff for hundreds of games. Im sure for many of these playtested games the VC were defeated. Otherwise they wouldn't put the stamp of officiality upon the product. ANd if the playtesters can find a weakness and defeat the VC then you can too. Maybe you are being to narrowminded in the way which you battle the army. Change your tactics up. It may involve pursuing a less glorious road to victory without the high level lords but a win is a win.

First off, GW playtesting is notoriously poor.

Second, Vampire lord and hero choices are hardly "amongst the most moderately powered" in the game.

Finally, the problem with "finding a list that works" is that it is not possible in all situations- ex. tournament, or certain campaigns. VCs are regarded as one of the top tier armies [along with Daemons] at the moment and that fact that one needs to tailor a list to these types of armies [high magic, ItP, non-breaking] is part of the reason why.

-Grimgorironhide-
11-02-2009, 04:46
What also annoys me about the loss of the BL's is while reading the WD when the 6th ed Vamp's were released the designer stated that the designer's thought it stupid that no matter what powers you gave your vamp's they all had the same stats (i.e a BD and a necrach having the same attacks and Ws). They also said that ghouls should have skirmish so they are really contradicting alot of what they thought was right in 6th ed vamps.

cheers.

Jericho
11-02-2009, 07:38
Was it the same guy writing the book back in 6th edition? Probably not I would imagine.

Anyway after talking to some of the higher-ups and people in the know at Games Days and whatnot, one of the ruling philosophies at GW is that changing the status quo is a good thing. Stagnation leads to apathy and poor sales, whereas change can be invigorating. If the 7e Vampire book was exactly the same as the 6e book, people wouldn't have any reason to change their armies and they wouldn't attract many new players to the army either. By making things different, they appeal to a different (not necessarily larger) set of gamers, and people will either a) start a new VC army, b) adapt an old one, or c) move on to a different army if they don't like the new VC book.

In the end you get people trying new things, buying new product, and having new and different experiences with their games. Is the death of bloodlines going to turn off some players? Of course! Some people will be happier with the current system, and some people won't give a crap one way or the other. At the end of the day the army is new, it's got a different feel, and it's not the same old thing. Let's face it, we'd be having an equal number of threads complaining about the army book if nothing changed.

Neckutter
11-02-2009, 07:43
NEckutter do you play with Count Manfredd Von Carstien? If so what size game would be the minimum you would wan't to field him in? I so wan't to field him as my army general but everyone say's it isn't practical in a 2250 game.

the only special character i ever played with was arkhan the black from 4th edition. since then, i only use generic lords/heros for my vampire list.

the young mannfred is quite good for the points. 2000 pt games are enough points for any lord, especially since Vc has super cheap core units.

Sifal
11-02-2009, 08:58
Was it the same guy writing the book back in 6th edition? Probably not I would imagine.

.


The 6th Edition VC book was written by Alessio Cavatore who also lead the writing of the 7th edition WHF rulebook (BRB). Both of these were good publications with well thought out rules/options/configurations etc imo. 7th edition VC was written by gav thorpe. It must be remembered though that there is a large development team and many contributors for each major GW publication.

Also i'm not a 100% but i'm pretty sure the writers of the O&G book and the Daemon book were both new inexperienced developers.... it can sometimes really show.

-Grimgorironhide-
11-02-2009, 10:00
The 6th Edition VC book was written by Alessio Cavatore who also lead the writing of the 7th edition WHF rulebook (BRB). Both of these were good publications with well thought out rules/options/configurations etc imo. 7th edition VC was written by gav thorpe. It must be remembered though that there is a large development team and many contributors for each major GW publication.

Also i'm not a 100% but i'm pretty sure the writers of the O&G book and the Daemon book were both new inexperienced developers.... it can sometimes really show.

Mat ward did both. I'm guessing after he saw that he made the O&G's underpowered (Which annoys me alot) he went overboard when creating his next book (which was of course deamons) to try and cover his mistake.

cheers.

Sifal
11-02-2009, 11:06
Mat ward did both. I'm guessing after he saw that he made the O&G's underpowered (Which annoys me alot) he went overboard when creating his next book (which was of course deamons) to try and cover his mistake.

cheers.

Well there you go, and he ended making two mistakes. two wrongs do not make a right kids..... I'm sure Matt Ward is a lovely guy but i really hope he doesn't write any new army books.

W0lf
11-02-2009, 11:19
lmao!

Matt ward wrote OnG!?! WHy hadnt i seen this... oh dear writing the weakest and then the most broken 7th edition books.. lmao im finding that hilariously dire.

On topic: I think jericho has hit the nail on the head with why they did it.

The Red Scourge
11-02-2009, 12:06
4 vampires with 50 other model dosnt feel/look right imo.

Nothing stops you from doing it differently. How about a Vamp lord, a hero, a Wight King and a Necro.

You've got 4 different character choices, each with a unique feel and purpose. And you aren't forced to use all your character options neither.

You won't have 17 PD and win all the time, but you might just have some fun - and that might be worth something too ;)

W0lf
11-02-2009, 16:43
I play in a power-gaming enviroment and tournment scene.

Also as much as i hate to admit it i dont like losing. Im not a bad loser it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth (i try best to not show it).

noneshallpass!
11-02-2009, 20:53
I remember when there was Undead, the Vampires was Nagash faithfull generals, and there was no bloodlines at all. I don't care that much if there is a fluff change. I haven't read the new 7th ed fluff, as I'm happy with the old :)

But the 6th ed book is far superior to the new one to me as I liked the rules better, and allso the look/design/layout on the book itself. The new GW books look and feel cheap in a way. I do not deny that the new book is stronger.

I dead the day Wood Elves get a new book. The current one is a beauty, and the rules are great.

W0lf
11-02-2009, 21:03
Come to think of it...

- Empire book 6th > 7th. Handgunners lost their cool special rule and hellblasters got nerfed to oblivion.
- Orcs N Gobbos 6th > 7th. were better and i prefered magic items alot more.
- Dwarfs 6th ? 7th. No idea.
- High elves and DE are undisputedly better
- SoC daemons > 7th daemons. were not ridiculously broken, but still plenty hard (really hard)
- Hordes >>>>> Woc. Weaker book but far more character/flavour and supported mono-god *see khorne/Tz for example*
Vampires 6th > 7th. reasons already listed.

I think that alot of the 7th books are a step backwards. shame.

Altho i think i will do 7th edition vamps and it is more powerful then any 6th strigoi list... still less cool.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
11-02-2009, 21:15
Come to think of it...

- Empire book 6th > 7th. Handgunners lost their cool special rule and hellblasters got nerfed to oblivion.
- Orcs N Gobbos 6th > 7th. were better and i prefered magic items alot more.
- Dwarfs 6th ? 7th. No idea.
- High elves and DE are undisputedly better
- SoC daemons > 7th daemons. were not ridiculously broken, but still plenty hard (really hard)
- Hordes >>>>> Woc. Weaker book but far more character/flavour and supported mono-god *see khorne/Tz for example*
Vampires 6th > 7th. reasons already listed.

I think that alot of the 7th books are a step backwards. shame.

Altho i think i will do 7th edition vamps and it is more powerful then any 6th strigoi list... still less cool.

You missed the biggest nerf to the Empire book- Pistoliers.
I preferred Hordes to Warriors as well, but I liked Chaos when one could mix Daemons/Beasts/Mortals [and suspect it will come back eventually].

Dwarfs is bit hard to say as their revised book came out at the end of 6th edition. There is some interesting stuff in the Dwarf book, but in the end Dwarfs are still Dwarfs and most of their 'neat' stuff ends up overpriced because their movement limits their tactics and ability to deliver the 'neat' stuff to the best targets.

Keller
16-02-2009, 18:07
I have somewhat mixed feelings on the loss of bloodlines.

For the most part, I am very happy with being able to make my own vampires based on whatever powers I want. I like being able to mix a few types in to control various aspects of my army. I can make a strigoi-based vamp to accompany my infantry while having a commanding general who does more than just bash things. I like the scouting vamps who can cast tons of magic at the cost of their own protectoin. Most of all, I like the flexibility of being able to try new set ups.

I do miss the blanket traits that the bloodlines got, even beyond their powers selection. Having the option have take high WS or I or magic casters was a lot of fun and made things interesting.

j-k-martin
17-02-2009, 04:44
I have a strict policy of not caring more about the fluff then the people who write it. GW has gone out of its way to remove fluff army list restrictions in all of its books. This is good for them because they sell more models that way, but it is also good for us. It means we are free to create what ever army we want and that the only restrictions are the ones we put on ourselves. Want to make the super tournament list of doom for your power gaming shop? You got it. Want to restrict yourself to fluff based vampire builds for your storyline campaign crowd? You can do that too. Everyone gets what they want without having to play a separate army book. Sounds like a deal to me.

madival
17-02-2009, 04:48
Nothing stops you from doing it differently. How about a Vamp lord, a hero, a Wight King and a Necro.

You've got 4 different character choices, each with a unique feel and purpose. And you aren't forced to use all your character options neither.

You won't have 17 PD and win all the time, but you might just have some fun - and that might be worth something too ;)

This is the biggest flaw with VC atm though. I cant take a lord level charecter that isnt a vampire. while a vampire can fill combat/caster rolls, What happened to the herohammerness of some of the more expensive vamp lords of sixth. I remember telling my Beast of a strigo vamp (6 W T A) to go walk over a unit with this unit fo stuff and he coudl do it. Now A lord can desimate a unit but not with the same feel to it.

Lord Dan
17-02-2009, 04:51
I play in a power-gaming enviroment and tournment scene.

Also as much as i hate to admit it i dont like losing.

Most of the power-gaming community hates to lose, which is why it's no coincidence that they power-game.

I'm impressed you admit it, though.