PDA

View Full Version : VC - why are zombies useless?



Demoulius
14-07-2011, 12:22
Hello,

Read a few topics on VC army lists and every says that people shouldnt take zombies in their list and just summon them. Can anyone explain me why this is? As far as I can tell all VC core troops are pretty mediocre but zombies at least got big numbers and you can raise more pretty easily, keeping the unit from getting killed off :confused:

Spider-pope
14-07-2011, 12:26
Hello,

Read a few topics on VC army lists and every says that people shouldnt take zombies in their list and just summon them. Can anyone explain me why this is? As far as I can tell all VC core troops are pretty mediocre but zombies at least got big numbers and you can raise more pretty easily, keeping the unit from getting killed off :confused:

I think you have answered your own question. They can be raised easily so why waste points on buying a regiment when you can get them for free in a magic phase or two?

Demoulius
14-07-2011, 12:27
Well you can get every core unit for free... The unit cost is always the same as well but with zombies you can get more bodies for (IIRC) the same price. If your opponent has to hack through more models you might be able to stop him from overrunning the unit?

scarletsquig
14-07-2011, 12:29
Zombies just plain die if you so much as look at them, especially in 8th edition. Even skavenslaves and goblins will casually walk over them.

They're not worth their points at all you're better off taking more ghouls, but they are worth summoning.

It's not a case of hacking through more models either, with zombie ld values, the enemy will hack through a few, then the rest of the unit will disintegrate. They're no good at supporting other units because they bleed CR, their only main use is as cannon fodder/ speedbump/ misdirection units, as soon as they hit combat, they tend to die.

Unless of course you go for a crazy build like the buffed-up 100-zombie horde, but even then, there are much harder deathstars than that in vampire book.

They simply need a points reduction. They are priced for 7th edition when you could use their numbers + the damage from something else in the list that can actually kill things to autobreak a unit.

Lord Zarkov
14-07-2011, 12:30
For every zombie that dies another will die from combat resolution, so their numbers are meaningless.

Skellies however (while still overpriced) at least have an armour save and either a 6+ ward in combat or extra attacks so will lose much less. Also WS2 and S3 is a big difference over WS1 S2, so skellies might actually kill something as well - further reducing casulties. And they can be joined by characters who could tip the balance with their kills.

Ghouls are awesome - they even mince things like bloodletters.

Demoulius
14-07-2011, 12:31
Wait zombies are S2? I thought they were S3 as well? Ah that explains why noone likes them :D

Ok thanks, cant believe I missed that ><

McBaine
14-07-2011, 12:35
Wait zombies are S2? I thought they were S3 as well? Ah that explains why noone likes them

Ok thanks, cant believe I missed that ><

They're also T2 and WS1 so they are the easiest to kill unit in the game. No one needs them except for tactical summoning.

Algovil
14-07-2011, 12:36
Because they always lose combat, lose many men and never kill anything back. Compared to the other undead core, all stats are lower. Basically, if the opponent unit attack you with say 20 attacks, you will lose almost 20 units, and since you will not kill much back, you will crumble almost as much in addition, from CR. If they are in multiple combat they are free CR for your opponent, who attacks them for CR and crumble all your units in that combat.

The way I can find Zombies useful is in raising small units and Vanhel them into the flank or rear, or just in place them infront of flanking units, to delay them. They will most likely lose combat, and if in the flank the enemy will reform and slaughter them, but it will but you a turn at least. You can also get a big unit and cover your flank with it. But even 50 zombies will die very fast, it is often better to get other core, since all undead can fill the role of tarpits. And half the amount of ghouls or skeletons often last just as long IMO.

SideshowLucifer
14-07-2011, 13:12
Quantity is a quality all it's own. Zombies are cheap and easy to raise and a unit of 50+ takes up a lot of space and blocks a lot. I use zombies in every game and have had a lot of success with them. They hit on 5's and usualy wound on 5's, but in a horde agaisnt other core, they tend to do enough damage to pay for themselves.

I especially like throwing them agaisnt units like swordmasters or executioners, units with crap saves and one attack at high strength. They have to kill so many zombies that even a few casulties will hurt them.

Scythe
14-07-2011, 13:59
Zombies are cheap

No, they aren't. 4 pts for a statline that even a skink or gnoblar wouldn't trade with, combined with the unstable rule is terrible. The unbreakable/unstable rule actually puts them at a disadvantage compared to other cannon fodder like goblins and skavenslaves. They will be testing on steadfast Ld9/10 with BSB reroll while tarpetting, while you suffer double casualties every time you lose. Did I mention the goblins/slaves are tougher to kill, do more damage and cheaper pts wise as well?

TK skeleton warriors are currently 4 pts, and somewhat worth it. They blow VC zombies out of the water. Current stat zombies shouldn't cost more than 2 pts per model (which still wouldn't make them great).

TsukeFox
14-07-2011, 14:03
Cause zombies do not spread there disease when they bite people which is lammme. Once that happens and some point reductions- then they will be worth while.

AlphariusOmegon20
14-07-2011, 14:50
Zombies are not a bad unit if you:

A.) summon them instead of actually paying the points for them.

B.) Use them to pop ranks with a Danse fueled flank charge, paired up with a Skellie or Ghoul front assault on the same unit. That's Combat res most units can't stand up to. When used in conjunction with a front assault on the same unit, Zombies aren't that bad, due to most units will only get at most 5 attacks on the Zombies.

Zombies are really a unit you have to know when to use and when not to, highly situational in their uses.

artisturn
14-07-2011, 16:18
The fact that characters can no longer join Zombies was a set back for them.

They are no longer able to be a bunker and when ever I had a duel combat with Zombies and any other VC unit my opponent would simply focus on killing the Zombies which would cost me the combat.

AlphariusOmegon20
14-07-2011, 16:28
The fact that characters can no longer join Zombies was a set back for them.

They are no longer able to be a bunker and when ever I had a duel combat with Zombies and any other VC unit my opponent would simply focus on killing the Zombies which would cost me the combat.

If you're getting the flank charge with them, you shouldn't be losing, provided the unit is big enough to weather any CC attacks on them from an enemy before you cast Danse.

Ville
14-07-2011, 16:58
Even summoned Zombies are NOT free, they eat your precious power dice with which you could have buffed your other units are zapped the enemy. It is usually not a good idea to throw them into a combat with any other friendly unit involved in, as Zombies will drag down the combat resolution and eventually cause crumbling damage. Bye bye Varghulf, bye bye Black Coach.

It's just sad. I like my Zombies so much more than my Ghouls.

AlphariusOmegon20
14-07-2011, 23:04
Even summoned Zombies are NOT free, they eat your precious power dice with which you could have buffed your other units are zapped the enemy. It is usually not a good idea to throw them into a combat with any other friendly unit involved in, as Zombies will drag down the combat resolution and eventually cause crumbling damage. Bye bye Varghulf, bye bye Black Coach.

It's just sad. I like my Zombies so much more than my Ghouls.

See my previous post about what units to use in the front of a combat.

Vargulfs and coaches are nice, but I wouldn't risk them that way, personally. Zombies tend to be reliable enough when you have any equal sized skellie or ghoul unit with a few ranks in the front of a combat.

SideshowLucifer
14-07-2011, 23:04
No, they aren't. 4 pts for a statline that even a skink or gnoblar wouldn't trade with, combined with the unstable rule is terrible. The unbreakable/unstable rule actually puts them at a disadvantage compared to other cannon fodder like goblins and skavenslaves. They will be testing on steadfast Ld9/10 with BSB reroll while tarpetting, while you suffer double casualties every time you lose. Did I mention the goblins/slaves are tougher to kill, do more damage and cheaper pts wise as well?

TK skeleton warriors are currently 4 pts, and somewhat worth it. They blow VC zombies out of the water. Current stat zombies shouldn't cost more than 2 pts per model (which still wouldn't make them great).

Cheap is a relative term. They are cheaper then anything else we can throw at enemies. If a unit of 50 can kill 15-20 elf spearmen, then I'm pretty happy. I'm much hapier when a unit of 50 kill off about 10 great weapons or single attack/low AS elites.
I do't know why people think the zombies have to kill a whole unit. They just need to weaken it to pay for themselves.

The bearded one
14-07-2011, 23:40
Cheap is a relative term. They are cheaper then anything else we can throw at enemies.

Most people agree a large part of the VC units are now overcosted due to the nerfing they received from 8th edition though, so being cheaper isn't such an accomplishment. They can be beaten up by skinks in combat, which is truly a testament to how weak they are. Even in the flank they'll quikly be dragging down combat resolution.

Algovil
15-07-2011, 00:03
Cheap is a relative term. They are cheaper then anything else we can throw at enemies. If a unit of 50 can kill 15-20 elf spearmen, then I'm pretty happy. I'm much hapier when a unit of 50 kill off about 10 great weapons or single attack/low AS elites.
I do't know why people think the zombies have to kill a whole unit. They just need to weaken it to pay for themselves.

Did some math just for fun, because honestly I did not know how this would work out, with fragile high strength low AS elites: White Lions.

White Lions vs Zombies:

45 Zombies vs 15 White Lions both 5 wide, no command.

White lions pass Fear test for this calculation OK.

10 attacks, Hit on 3+ = 6 2/3 hits
Reroll to hit = additonal 2 2/9 hits
Total 8 8/9 hits
Wound on 2+ = 7,41 wounds, rounded down to 7.

10 attacks back, hit on 5+ = 3 1/3 hits
Wound on 5+ = 1 1/9 wounds
Armour Save on 5+ = 0.741 wounds, rounded up to 1.

CR
Zombies have 3 for ranks +1 for kills = 4
White Lions have 1 for ranks + 7 for kills = 8
Result: Zombies Crumble 4

Total one round of fighting, 11 Zombies were killed to 1 White Lion. That is about 3 times as many points. This was also rounded in favor of the zombies. The White Lions can reform and get 4 extra attacks next round. Later the kills might decrease the number of attacks. But the zombies will not last that many rounds. Sure they kill maybe 3-4 in total, but that never make up their points.

The only reason to use zombies would be to tarpit the unit for some genius reason =) the other core units would probably work better though, you get some kills in return, so you crumble less.

If you tarpit a really big unit of say white lions, you could keep them from combat for a while. But, then you need a lot of zombies, and... the lions can reform into horde, getting 21 attacks, that is a lot of CR and crumbling and points right there.

Maybe there are other units this could work better against, but white lions are quite optimal, expensive, few attacks, low toughness. Most other units would be a worse matchup for the zombies IMO.

Sorry but I can not see zombies worth it right now. Even when I raised units to halt my brothers Empire knights from smashing into my flank for a turn or two, the free 50vp for destroying a raised unit, can really add up, and they did in this case.

Jagosaja
15-07-2011, 00:10
Cheap is a relative term. They are cheaper then anything else we can throw at enemies. If a unit of 50 can kill 15-20 elf spearmen, then I'm pretty happy. I'm much hapier when a unit of 50 kill off about 10 great weapons or single attack/low AS elites.
I do't know why people think the zombies have to kill a whole unit. They just need to weaken it to pay for themselves.

Hold on now. You make 15-20 kills on elf spearmen with 50 zombies?

50 Zombies can make maximum 30 attacks in horde formation 5x10 (most probably less as HE spearmen will form a more narrow block due to striking in more ranks, but what the heck), so let's do the math.

One HE spearmen is 9 pts so you get for an equal value 22 spearmen, but let us round it down to 20. They strike first, all of them in any formation, and they pass fear (trust me they will):

20 x 8/9 x 2/3 = 12 kills approx.

There are still enough zombies to do all 30 attacks:

30 x 1/3 x 1/3 x 2/3 (light armour + shield) = 2 kills approx.

Most probably they will have the same number of ranks now, so lets put that aside. Due to combat resolution 10 more zombies die. Now it is 28 zombies againts 18 spearmen. Elves strike first:

18 x 8/9 x 2/3 = 11 kills approx.

There are now 17 zombies left to strike:

17 x 1/3 x 1/3 x 2/3 = 1 kill approx.

At least 10 more zombies will die due to combat resolution. In the next round of combat zombies will not get to strike as they are all down.

So, 50 zombies have killed 3 spearmen while dying to the last by a unit of en even less value. Let's not get into what happens when they meet swordmasters. I don't know how you manage to kill 15-20 elves, even with failed fear tests, zounds more ranks, rear charge or whatever. Zombies still get minced at minimum cost.

edit: ninja'd

WoodElfGeneral
15-07-2011, 00:44
Because by raising them you can put them in a more strategic and unexpectd place than if i can watch you send them across the board from your deployment zone. This way your opponent won't get victory points for them either.

The bearded one
15-07-2011, 00:49
a unit of zombies, no matter how many there are in the unit, is worth 50 VP. that's 12.5 zombies worth of VP, and the maximum zombies you can raise with the raise dead spell is 7, or 12 with the sceptre de noirot.

Algovil
15-07-2011, 01:43
a unit of zombies, no matter how many there are in the unit, is worth 50 VP. that's 12.5 zombies worth of VP, and the maximum zombies you can raise with the raise dead spell is 7, or 12 with the sceptre de noirot.

But you can IoN them after raising, isn't that d6+4 /cast for zombies? Still 50vp so that is a plus, btw can you raise zombies over starting strength??

rocdocta
15-07-2011, 01:48
Cause zombies do not spread there disease when they bite people which is lammme. Once that happens and some point reductions- then they will be worth while.

:) lol maybe a new VC rule!

The bearded one
15-07-2011, 01:50
But you can IoN them after raising, isn't that d6+4 /cast for zombies? Still 50vp so that is a plus, btw can you raise zombies over starting strength??

IoN raises D6+4 models when cast on zombies, instead of the normal D6, and they can be increased beyond their startersize. Regardless of the size the raised unit gets, they are still only 50 points. Sadly they are so pathetic at fighting that it's too much to ask from a unit of zombies to earn back 50 points. They are worthwhile for roadblocking and redirection, so a large unit is not required.

Drasanil
15-07-2011, 03:28
Cause zombies do not spread there disease when they bite people which is lammme.

That's because in Warhammer zombieness is not a disease. Which I like, it sets them apart from those horrid hollywood zombies that always seem to win by the virtue that just about every one in the movie gets handed an idiot ball.

They should be made cheaper, defenitely, but I love the fact even goblins can hold their own against them. Seems fitting given that zombies really should be next to useless, being as they are the equivilent of necromantic training wheels.

Brother Alexos
15-07-2011, 05:03
I would like to apologise for my earlier comments on here, and to re-affirm my opinion.

The reason Zombies are useless now is because someone who has never seen a zombie movie in his life on the GW design team decided that Zombies were going to be the only unit that can't benefit from the Horde rule. Zombies are Horde. You can't have a zombie outside of a Zombie Horde. It's rediculus.

Demoulius
15-07-2011, 11:59
Why wouldnt zombies be able to fit into a horde formation? Is there some rule im not aware off? :confused:

To be fair the only good use for zombies I can see is holding off a different unit... OR if summoned:

1: Raise them behind (or in front of) warmachine crew and prevent them from shooting at more important stuff. If they survive to get into combat raise them so they dont die and you wont surrender the 50 pts

2: Flank protection. Might be used the saem way if you bought them from the get go. Put them against a better unit (so any other unit will do) so they cant get flank charged. Unit would need to be big to avoid whomever charges from bursting through in a single turn though :wtf:

3: wizard hunting. if your opponent has a wizard not in a unit, he would make a perfect target. Most wizards only have 1 attack as far as im aware of so their low toughness and no save wont be that bad :) might actually kill something as well! yay

And...thats the only uses I can see for them to be honest. Only thing they got going for them is the fact that they are cheap. Skeletons are much more likely to do damage and take damage but you pay twice as much for them (if memory serves...currently at work now) And those can be raised as well and you can join them their units with characters :cool:

Can you put a corps cart in a unit of zombies? Might make it even easier to raise large numbers...

Last thing i want to comment on. Avarage dice rolls are hardly agood indication to go on I feel. I played an ork player in 40K a while back who rolled more 6+ armour saves then you can inmagine. Same goes for his shooting, it did alot more damage then youd expect. Large numbers means lots of POTENTIAL damage. Sometimes the dice gods smile on you and that unit of zombies suddenly becomes menacing :p

Sames goes for the fear test btw... Ive only seen calculation with the LD test succeeding so far. Can you guys redo those calculations with the fear test failed?

Aluinn
15-07-2011, 14:08
Other people have gone into more detail and showed some math, but comes down to this:

Zombies are designed to be a tarpit unit, but due to their statline (i.e. the extreme ease with which they die and the extreme difficulty with which they kill anything, even compared to, say, a Skavenslave or Goblin), and Unstable, they are not an effective tarpit. They in fact vanish very rapidly.

For comparison: An enormous unit of Goblins does not lose additional models for losing combat, but rather sticks around due to Steadfast, the BSB, and the General's Ld. It is also better at combat than Zombies, and will actually kill meaningful numbers of enemy models in many cases in spite of losing combat. Zombies, on the other hand, lose more models due to having T2 and no saves or any kind, THEN lose approximately double that due to Unstable, and kill very, very little, and this for a similar points cost.

So, yes, you can easily get 100 Zombies. They are about as effective as 30 Night Goblins. Weeeee.

T10
15-07-2011, 14:29
Zombies are really a unit you have to know when to use and when not to, highly situational in their uses.

Zombies can be used as mobile terrain to slow down the enemy by forcing them to waste their move: Summon a new unit of zombies in front of an enemy unit at an awkward angle and the enemy is faced with a lot of no-win choices:

1. Remain still or attempt to move past. Either way you're not going to get far, and you still need to deal with the Zombies somehow.
2. Charge the zombies, wipe them out chose either a disadvantageous overrun or a reform (Frenzied units must overrun!)

Other than this zombies are also good if you just need the presence of a unit, e.g. to claim a table quarter or a building, or force the enemy to take those Ld tests to make a march move.

-T10

SideshowLucifer
15-07-2011, 16:26
They need to change them to T4 and S1. That would make them a bit more resillient. Never understood why zombies had such a low T. They keep comming at you even after you chop limbs off. They need a higher T to reflect that.

vinush
15-07-2011, 19:59
I suppose that 20 of them would be good to hold a Watchtower in that scenario...

Wait, hear me out, stick them in to start with, and then raise away to your heart's content. Good luck defeating the 400 zombies now residing inside the building, and combat res won't even touch them really.

That could be a use for them.

plantagenet
15-07-2011, 22:57
Hmm only reason to take zombies in your army is currently because you like the fluff. 50 of them cost alot

How to make them better

I have said it before poison representing the fact a bite from a zombie always gets you. A rule that for every model you kill you get a zombie back as when a zombie kills you then you are a zombie. The points need to be halved at least

Gillburg
15-07-2011, 23:15
Funny thing is that im making a zombie army.

Hear me out. 250 zombies = 1000 pts + raising. You can such a large army it would be impossible to kill them all.

Units of 50 + raising. My vampire lord will be behind the mass zombie horde impossible to be fought. He will be using the magic item that makes any unit WS 7, Use lore of beasts to buff and serveral corpe carts to get them extra buff.

1000 pts zombie, 600 pts of charcters then leaves me with 400 pts for hitty units.

Horde with 30 A's, Strike First WS7 S3 T3, Zombie POWERHORDE!

Lord Zarkov
15-07-2011, 23:16
One way that could work to have tarpit zombies actually do stuff is keep the, no character joining, and keep the rubbish stats, but either remove Unstable from them, or (perhaps better as it fixes the multiple combat problem) make zombie casualties not count towards CR. That way they'll still die in droves, but will actually be able to tarpit, and have a different function to skellies.

So VC would have a tarpit-only core (zombies), that can't do anything else; a fairly cheap unit with good SCR and that can still deal out a few wounds, and can hold magic banners etc (skellies); and a slightly more expensive, but more killy unit (ghouls).
Three different tasks, for three different units - unlike now where zombies are just inferior skellies.

Drasanil
16-07-2011, 00:17
I have said it before poison representing the fact a bite from a zombie always gets you. A rule that for every model you kill you get a zombie back as when a zombie kills you then you are a zombie.

You said it before and you were wrong, saying it again doesn't make you any more right, those changes don't represent warhammer zombies. With likely exception of something Nurgly and therefore not VC related, there is no 'zombie virus' in warhammer, you're more likely to catch something from poor drinking water or a rat bite than you are from a zombie.

Gitten bitten by a zombie in warhammer is not an automatic death sentence, an infection may set in if the wound isn't treated but it would be a normal disease, it would take time and would not amount to anything resembling a poisoned attack.

AngryAngel
16-07-2011, 05:09
Yeah zombies are damn near the worst things in the world. Or they may still be the worst things from what I'm hearing. Pains my soul to admit such, as I love the idea of zombies. I love the feel of zombies. If I could I would be the zombie lord of the Vampire Counts, but they are beyond lowly.

Perhaps one day, they'll be cheap enough, or have interesting ability, even the ability to by wounds or attacks or anything be able to say replenish their ranks in combat without magic due to infection ? Perhaps have a statline a little bit out of the dumpster, really anything. How about some kinda regen for like a feel no pain thing ? They are zombies for gosh sakes.

Please, support a local zombie today and perhaps one day, we can all get together, hitch a ride on our corpse cart of choice into a bright, zombie filled future, together.

"This add brought to you by vault tec, vault tec offering a bright future, underground. 100% zombie free since 2045.

FerranMac
16-07-2011, 07:35
Zombies are a great Ogre wall. In my experience nothing can tie up my ogre units better than zombies, usually due to my bad luck with dice, the zombies can restore their ranks just as fast as I can kill them, Keeping my units tied up in combat all game and making me dependant on my specials or rares to win it for me. The Idea that an Army can finish the game larger than it started is demoralizing in my mind.

El_Commi
16-07-2011, 20:03
Zombies are a great Ogre wall. In my experience nothing can tie up my ogre units better than zombies, usually due to my bad luck with dice, the zombies can restore their ranks just as fast as I can kill them, Keeping my units tied up in combat all game and making me dependant on my specials or rares to win it for me. The Idea that an Army can finish the game larger than it started is demoralizing in my mind.

Nothing can tie up another unit than zombies. Cheap and rubbish units, that you can use to protect your more important units from flank attacks.
I'm not sure how they are in the new edition tho- the last game I played was about 4-5 years ago at least, but I can still remember how valuable a wall of zombies can be :P

rodmillard
16-07-2011, 20:08
Large zombie units can be worth using (and by "large" I mean 50+ models) - either as tarpits or mobile terrain to block line of sight on your more valuable units. Anything smaller than that you are better off raising in game.

Nkari
16-07-2011, 20:33
49 zombies die to a model being charged by 2 hydras, with only 1 flaming.. nuff said..

The bearded one
16-07-2011, 20:47
49 skeletons with spears would die to a model too when charged by 2 hydra's with only 1 flaming.


Nothing can tie up another unit than zombies. Cheap and rubbish units, that you can use to protect your more important units from flank attacks.
I'm not sure how they are in the new edition tho- the last game I played was about 4-5 years ago at least, but I can still remember how valuable a wall of zombies can be :P

their status has been taken over by skaven slaves, that are half the cost, won't crumble from combat res, are actually stronger in combat than zombies, and can be taken in such insane numbers that they are almost always steadfast, and almost guaranteed to stay standing with a general and BSB in range.

shelfunit.
16-07-2011, 21:07
Cause zombies do not spread there disease when they bite people which is lammme. Once that happens and some point reductions- then they will be worth while.

See, this would be a cool mechanic - every casualty they cause, they regain 1 of their number, and can go over their original starting size. I can't see much reason for a points change for them, just a few tweaks to their abilities.

The bearded one
16-07-2011, 21:12
See, this would be a cool mechanic - every casualty they cause, they regain 1 of their number, and can go over their original starting size. I can't see much reason for a points change for them, just a few tweaks to their abilities.

I see a reason for a points change, for a couple of the VC units in fact. TK skeletons have identical crumble rules as VC skeletons and zombies, but are 4 points. Zombies are 4 points too. And zombies are worse fighters than skaven slaves. On top of that crumbling isn't as beneficial as it used to be because living units are better tarpits than them when they're steadfast. Zombies definately need to be cheaper in their current incarnation as they're not just weak, they are abysmally pathetic in combat. They can be slaughtered by average infantry like goblins and skaven in the same manner as chaos warriors with halberds would slaughter the average infantry.

They either need better rules, or a lower pointcost.

theJ
16-07-2011, 22:02
bah... pointcosts would only help 'em if they were in the negative.. and even then, only just.

The unit is broken, plain and simple. It's supposed to be a tarpit and little/nothing else. While other roles could be added, that shouldn't be bothered with until their main role is reinstated.
As things stand, removing their unstable, possibly only under certain conditions (when close to a vampire/necromancer/corpse cart?) could go a long way to fixing the unit. Either that, or something along the same lines should (imho) be the first step taken.

Once that is fixed, other tricks could be added in. I'd imagine a zombie unit that could take a single "necromantic enhancement" could be great fun to play both with and against - "necromantic enhancements" being things such as poisoned attacks, the mentioned "zombie plague", stealing the "acid blood" from 40k tyranids, etc. Something to add flexibility, and give enemies second thoughts about charging them.

This is coming from a high elf player :p so sick and tired of seeing ghouls everywhere...

The bearded one
16-07-2011, 23:27
something like upgrading the zombie unit to 'plague victims' and granting them poisoned attacks? (Or for every zombie slain in combat the enemy sustain a poisoned ws1 str1 hit or something?)

I like zombies. I've got a unit of 30 standing here, even though I don't play VC :p They are supposed to be amass of undead that are pathetic individually, but are so numerous they drown their opponents in an endless tide.

Nkari
17-07-2011, 01:34
For zombies to have any use at all they need not to die in droves.. that means T3+ or a save or some sort.. call it " we will be back " or what ever.. at the current rules 1pt a model is still to much, since you need a unit of 100 to even stand a chance to tarpit anything..

The bearded one
17-07-2011, 01:50
2 points (or maybe 1 point) would be fine. Then they would cost as much as skaven slaves, and skaven slaves are overpowered for their cost in combination with the steadfast rule, so not really a good ground for comparison anyway.

mrtn
17-07-2011, 10:01
What do people think about taking a big unit with a standard just to get another fortitude point in the banner scenario? I don't have any skeletons in my army, only ghouls.

Ville
17-07-2011, 10:20
What do people think about taking a big unit with a standard just to get another fortitude point in the banner scenario? I don't have any skeletons in my army, only ghouls.

I use a unit of 30 mainly to get another standard (Ghouls here, too...). A couple of Invocations later the unit is big enough not to die immediately when charged, and may actually be given some petty tasks if I'm lucky.

The bearded one
17-07-2011, 10:22
Isn't a zombie unit with banner roughly as expensive as half that number of skeletons with banner?

mrtn
17-07-2011, 10:31
Isn't a zombie unit with banner roughly as expensive as half that number of skeletons with banner?

Possibly, but since my army is a themed counts-as army anyway I thought that my nurglings would fit better as zombies than as skeletons, since they don't have any shields or armour.

Ville
17-07-2011, 10:48
Isn't a zombie unit with banner roughly as expensive as half that number of skeletons with banner?

Sure it is, but with Skellies you don't get to say: BRAAIIINSS!!!:o

sninsch
17-07-2011, 11:16
their status has been taken over by skaven slaves, that are half the cost, won't crumble from combat res, are actually stronger in combat than zombies, and can be taken in such insane numbers that they are almost always steadfast, and almost guaranteed to stay standing with a general and BSB in range.

But thats not the mistake of zombies. To compare them with undercosted things like skavenslaves makes them looking more rubish as they are. Skavenslaves need to be 3 points per modell (or S/T 2)and something has to be done with the steadfast, especially in their case. With other special rules they can go from LD2 to LD10 which is stupid(i play skaven and rarely use them).

I think the problem are the unstable and steadfast rules. They need to be fixed. The first one unbalance a lot of undead units and charakters and dosn't work in 8 editon where the damage output is nearly doubled. undeads should be bad fighting tarpits, at the moment living things with steadfast are a lot better and pay nothing for the new rule.

Zombies aren't that bad at the moment, but they suffer a lot more from those two rules. Fix both and they will be all right. They seem to cost much but they pay for the easy way to raise them in high number. And a lot people forget that they are designed to hold against strong enemies. Versus chaos warriors with halberd, a lot of elite infantry and monsters they die the same way as a lot of more expensive troops. Because against those targets it dosn't matter if you are T 2 or 3, have non save or a 5+.

One of my regular gaming friends use them with success. Summon them in close by a warmachine and hold them up or even kills the crew after some rounds. Very big units with magic support hold against monsters until the game is over.


So it has to be done something, but I think the right way is to fix steadfast and unstable.

rodmillard
17-07-2011, 11:39
So it has to be done something, but I think the right way is to fix steadfast and unstable.

A fairly simple fix would be for crumbling to go back to the old instability rules - so you roll leadership (applying any benefits like the battle standard reroll, characters in the unit, steadfast, etc) and remove the number of models you lost by. It makes it more about the willpower of the necromancer keeping them going, and means we would get a benefit from being steadfast beyond just denying it to our opponent.

DeathlessDraich
17-07-2011, 12:44
1) I always have 2 units of Zombies - with great success :D.

2) It's what they are used for that counts. They are meant to die but will successfuly deflect charges, lure and bait, etc etc. I also use Dire Wolves which can do the same but in different situations.

3)
the free 50vp for destroying a raised unit, can really add up, and they did in this case.

This is why I never summon them. Easy 50VP; whereas increasing the size of an existing unit requires less PD and guarantees at least 2 or more ION successes every turn.
:)

NerZuhl
17-07-2011, 14:30
If zombies didn't crumble, would they do their job at their current cost?

yabbadabba
17-07-2011, 14:40
Wait until the VC book gets updated. I reckon Zombie hordes will be back on the books. The trick for me will be GW making them a difficult decision with Skeletons and Ghouls, rather than anyone of them being an auto-choice.

The bearded one
17-07-2011, 17:26
Wait until the VC book gets updated. I reckon Zombie hordes will be back on the books. The trick for me will be GW making them a difficult decision with Skeletons and Ghouls, rather than anyone of them being an auto-choice.

Indeed, that is a good design philosophy and I think they succeeded quite well with the tomb kings book. Apart from the casket I see almost no no-brainers.

jtrowell
17-07-2011, 22:16
Indeed, that is a good design philosophy and I think they succeeded quite well with the tomb kings book. Apart from the casket I see almost no no-brainers.

Well, as there are plenty of other good choices in the TK rare selection that you could want to field before it in some lists, I would say that even the casket is not totally a no-brainer, but I agree that it come very close.

However, if I love most of the new TK book and find it fairly well balanced, I must say that they didn't really resolve the problem of unstable on weak units making them less useful than they should be in 8th edition: they just used other rules like "My will be done" to make even basic skeletons fight more like elves than goblins. With WS5 or 6, even skeletons won't lose many fights by too much.

However if you take unsupported skeletons, you fall back to the same problem, even with the cost halved from the previous army book, that they cannont make very effective tarpits.

I would have loved if they had just used the demonic unstability rules for undeads armies, but as they didn't do it in the new rule book, nor in the TK new book, i don't expect them to change it when VC will be updated.

Oh, they will surely lower the costs and add some rules or options making zombies and skeletons more effective (maybe poisonned attacks as an option, better targeted raising, etc ...) but you will probably still have to use them with caution and almost never as a combined charge tactic from fear of giving too much CR.

Scythe
18-07-2011, 07:54
If zombies didn't crumble, would they do their job at their current cost?

They would do better, but would still be overpriced I think. Their combat stats would still be vastly inferior to cheaper goblins, and ItP/fear doesn't really make up enough for that in the current edition.

sninsch
18-07-2011, 09:19
Indeed, that is a good design philosophy and I think they succeeded quite well with the tomb kings book. Apart from the casket I see almost no no-brainers.

casket a no-brainer? I'm sorry 135 points for D3 energy dice is far away from a auto include. The bound spell has the same problem as all bound spells and didn't do much against the combination of BSB and general. Sure you can aim at targets outside of the bubble but this units often aren't the problem you want to deal with. And I hate this stupid rule that the casket explodes, this costs me some games. Sure I can deploy the casket far away from my units but than he is a easy sacrifice for all warmachine hunters. I used it in a lot of games and be highly disapointed. It's sad that khemri is so dependent on the magic phase, so I can understand why people uses the casket.

Spinocus
18-07-2011, 17:10
The fact that you can raise Zombies anywhere hardly makes them useless. They're certainly useless at fighting (especially in the absence of the Helm of Commandment) but completely useless? Hardly.

How much cheaper do people expect Zombies to get? Cheap crap or not they are Unbreakable. That's more than can be said for Skaven Slaves, Gnoblars, Goblins and other cheaptastic troops that can panic or break thanks thanks to their mediocre Ld (especially rolling for those tests outside the general's Ld bubble). And everyone is conveniently forgetting that Zombies can also get WS7 thanks to the Helm of Commandment. Also unlike their TK counterparts the little shambling darlings are not reliant on magic in order to march (provided of course there's a Vampire nearby).

Given that 8th ed has dramatically boosted the combat power of Ghouls & Tomb Guard I just don't see Zombies getting much love when the new VC book is released. At best I could see a single point price drop to 3pts/model or a single point stat boost to a single trait (S3, T3 OR WS2). Keep in mind GW can't boost Zombies too much otherwise Skeletons will be kicked to the curb altogether. Furthermore if GW considers implementing anything like the TK's 'My Will be Done' rule for the 8th ed VC book then a price drop or stat boost would be absolutely ridiculous.

If there's one VC unit that really deserves a price drop it's Skeletons and I'd sooner bet on them getting serious love for their 8th ed book. But again, given the presence of Ghouls & TG I wouldn't be surprised if GW refrains from setting them at the same low price point as their TK counterparts.

Last but not least we're talking about VC which is by no means a crippled or problematic army. VC may not be firmly entrenched in the top tier any more but it's still a solidly upper middle/lower top tier army.

The TK's Casket of Souls may not be a no-brainer choice but those D3 power dice are fantastic. Sure, war machines pose a serious problem to the Casket's heath but hopefully a TK player has deployed correctly to minimize LOS or has more dangerous targets on the tabletop that can draw fire away from it.

The bearded one
18-07-2011, 17:57
casket a no-brainer? I'm sorry 135 points for D3 energy dice is far away from a auto include. The bound spell has the same problem as all bound spells and didn't do much against the combination of BSB and general. Sure you can aim at targets outside of the bubble but this units often aren't the problem you want to deal with. And I hate this stupid rule that the casket explodes, this costs me some games. Sure I can deploy the casket far away from my units but than he is a easy sacrifice for all warmachine hunters. I used it in a lot of games and be highly disapointed. It's sad that khemri is so dependent on the magic phase, so I can understand why people uses the casket.

You answered your own question/objection. The tomb kings are very dependant on the magic phase in order to make their troops worthwhile and to raise models. Low rolls for the winds of magic are highly dangerous for tomb kings so any extra powerdice are welcome. ANY extra powerdice.

Also the boundspell is very dangerous for enemy monsters, warmachines or small units. Monsters operating outside the Ld and BSB bubble are easy pickings. Just do your magic phase and when you burned your way through your opponent's dispel dice, use your last 2 dice to cast the boundspell.

Lord Solar Plexus
18-07-2011, 18:11
casket a no-brainer?

Yep. Self-evident fact.

wizbix
18-07-2011, 18:54
Cause zombies do not spread there disease when they bite people which is lammme. Once that happens and some point reductions- then they will be worth while.

YOu lad have been watching too many 21st century zombie flicks.

These Zombies, along with the traditional ones, are animated by magic. They are not humans that are turned in to flesh eating zombie like animals like 24 hours or whatever film you wish to choose. So why would they pass on their disease that they dont have in the first place?

the Nurge
18-07-2011, 19:06
They need to change them to T4 and S1. That would make them a bit more resillient. Never understood why zombies had such a low T. They keep comming at you even after you chop limbs off. They need a higher T to reflect that.

I agree entirely with this. The zombie's lack of skill in combat is already covered by their abysmal WS. However, a zombie shrugs off most attacks that would kill a person. They should at minimum be as tough as a man, probably T4 though IMO. I would feel happy paying a cost for them equal to their toughness. So currently, I think they are worth about 2 points. At T4 I'd take them as well. The higher survivability would make them worth it.

A zombie is easy to hit, and a zombie is fairly weak, but a zombie is pretty hard to kill.

Glabro
18-07-2011, 20:08
Cause zombies do not spread there disease when they bite people which is lammme. Once that happens and some point reductions- then they will be worth while.

What disease? It's necromancy that gets them going, not a zombie virus.

The bearded one
18-07-2011, 20:20
I agree entirely with this. The zombie's lack of skill in combat is already covered by their abysmal WS. However, a zombie shrugs off most attacks that would kill a person. They should at minimum be as tough as a man, probably T4 though IMO. I would feel happy paying a cost for them equal to their toughness. So currently, I think they are worth about 2 points. At T4 I'd take them as well. The higher survivability would make them worth it.

A zombie is easy to hit, and a zombie is fairly weak, but a zombie is pretty hard to kill.

A zombie is a body that has been rotting in/on the ground for a while. They're really not that tough. A good hit against a zombie and other bodyparts should simply fall off from the impact.

jack da greenskin
19-07-2011, 02:24
A zombie is a body that has been rotting in/on the ground for a while. They're really not that tough. A good hit against a zombie and other bodyparts should simply fall off from the impact.

A zed without an arm is just as much use, because the only known way to kill them is to destroy the brain or remove the head.

The bearded one
19-07-2011, 02:48
Hollywood zombies maybe. Current VC fluff makes no mention of having to remove the head of a zombie to kill it. You kill undead with strikes that'd kill the living.

SideshowLucifer
19-07-2011, 03:38
Not exactly true, Vampires Wars talks about how tough they are to finish off.

That said, maybe a rule that represents the true horror a zombie is to those fighting them is in order. They tend to be loved ones, friends, family. Maybe they just need a rule to make them harder to strike agaisnt. I know fear is there, but that rarely works and still doesn't make them that hard to hit.

The bearded one
19-07-2011, 03:45
I think zombies having pathetic combat skills suits them, as being the most numerous and easily raised of the undead. Making them tougher and stronger basically turns them into skeletons. Making them even tougher basically makes them wights...

They're big pieces of rotting meat, with little in the way of coordination or speed, or even weight or muscle to put behind blows, and little body to sustain enemy attacks, let alone tough body, as they're nothing but rotten meat.

Skywave
19-07-2011, 05:14
How much cheaper do people expect Zombies to get? Cheap crap or not they are Unbreakable. That's more than can be said for Skaven Slaves, Gnoblars, Goblins and other cheaptastic troops that can panic or break thanks thanks to their mediocre Ld (especially rolling for those tests outside the general's Ld bubble). And everyone is conveniently forgetting that Zombies can also get WS7 thanks to the Helm of Commandment. Also unlike their TK counterparts the little shambling darlings are not reliant on magic in order to march (provided of course there's a Vampire nearby).

Given that 8th ed has dramatically boosted the combat power of Ghouls & Tomb Guard I just don't see Zombies getting much love when the new VC book is released. At best I could see a single point price drop to 3pts/model or a single point stat boost to a single trait (S3, T3 OR WS2). Keep in mind GW can't boost Zombies too much otherwise Skeletons will be kicked to the curb altogether. Furthermore if GW considers implementing anything like the TK's 'My Will be Done' rule for the 8th ed VC book then a price drop or stat boost would be absolutely ridiculous.

If there's one VC unit that really deserves a price drop it's Skeletons and I'd sooner bet on them getting serious love for their 8th ed book. But again, given the presence of Ghouls & TG I wouldn't be surprised if GW refrains from setting them at the same low price point as their TK counterparts.


But Unbreakable is less impressive when you combine it with Unstable, and kinda worthless when you add the stats line of a Zombie.

There's only so few option to make them usefull, you can either leave them like they are but drop the points (2pts each and then maybe some people will use them), or can boost their stats somehow to make them representative of what GW what with their Zombies (wether they want them to be tough or not, etc.). Since Zombies are established as the weakest of the undead, they need to be cheaper than Skeletons, who are now at 4pts base in the TK book. We can expect the same with the VC in the next book, with points adjusted with the gear they come standard with.

If they want them to be the crapiest fighter, but still hard to kill, I second the toughness boost to 4, because severing an arm or leg will not bother a Zombie and they'll continue to try to chew on you. Or they could add something like they always fight as if they were in horde formation even if not 10 wide, would be a nice nod to the old rule of "always lap around" they had before, would also represent well a horde of bodies pushing foward to engulf the enemies. Not sure it would make them better at all, but it would add a little flavor to them I think!

anthioram
19-07-2011, 06:06
I think zombies having pathetic combat skills suits them, as being the most numerous and easily raised of the undead. Making them tougher and stronger basically turns them into skeletons. Making them even tougher basically makes them wights...

They're big pieces of rotting meat, with little in the way of coordination or speed, or even weight or muscle to put behind blows, and little body to sustain enemy attacks, let alone tough body, as they're nothing but rotten meat.

Rotting meat eh... maybe they could have the 'cloud of flies' special rule, giving a -1 to impact hits to any enemy unit in contact with them??
Actually i quite like it, maybe give them back R3 and i would field them again at 2-3 points...

Scythe
19-07-2011, 07:23
The fact that you can raise Zombies anywhere hardly makes them useless. They're certainly useless at fighting (especially in the absence of the Helm of Commandment) but completely useless? Hardly.

How much cheaper do people expect Zombies to get? Cheap crap or not they are Unbreakable. That's more than can be said for Skaven Slaves, Gnoblars, Goblins and other cheaptastic troops that can panic or break thanks thanks to their mediocre Ld (especially rolling for those tests outside the general's Ld bubble).

AND unstable, as mentioned. Unstable effectively makes them disappear twice as fast as other cheap troops (and even more, due to their terrible combat stats).


And everyone is conveniently forgetting that Zombies can also get WS7 thanks to the Helm of Commandment. Also unlike their TK counterparts the little shambling darlings are not reliant on magic in order to march (provided of course there's a Vampire nearby).

WS7, S2, T2 troops are still inferior to WS2, S3, T3 troops.

Given that 8th ed has dramatically boosted the combat power of Ghouls &


Last but not least we're talking about VC which is by no means a crippled or problematic army. VC may not be firmly entrenched in the top tier any more but it's still a solidly upper middle/lower top tier army.


VCs are currently not a bad army, but suffer from a crippled army selection. Only one core unit is really worth fielding. Special is dominated by Grave Guard. The most effective general is the supportive vampire caster. While VCs might be competitive, they are not really diverse or fun to play currently.

ihavetoomuchminis
19-07-2011, 09:48
I think that now, zombies are worth 1,5-2 points. No more. Maybe if they had poisoned attacks.....

-Loki-
19-07-2011, 13:35
What disease? It's necromancy that gets them going, not a zombie virus.

I think that was his complaint - Warhammer Zombies are not flesh eating undead that spread their condition through contact, but corpses reanimated by Dark Magic. Personally, I think it's better, differentiating them from the rest of the zombies out there.

jtrowell
19-07-2011, 14:52
Myself I would like to have zombies get T4 or better W2 to represent the fact that they still got some flesh and are hard to destroy fully.

With W2, they would be very hard to kill with BS shooting (appropriate, imagine the pincushion), and lose less than usual from templates (just imagine a zombie whose upper half has been removed by a catapult shot and it is still moving). In close combat, they would still lose by many points, but less bodies would be lost to crumble.

With this change, you could let them with the current cost (or even add 1 point), this would put them in skaven slaves points cost per wound, while being different and more manageable than using huge blocks would be if you just halved their cost.

If they don't want to have a core infantry unit with 2 wounds, then T4 (with still S2) would be an acceptable alternative, less unique but still enough to defferentiate them from skeletons.

kaulem
19-07-2011, 15:26
If we are going to do the games development route here's my suggestions:

Upgrade to T3, S3.

Add Special Rule:
The magic that brings the zombies back to a semblance of life sticks around them, reanimating nearby corpses.

Every model slain in a HtH that includes Zombies are added to the Zombie unit on a roll of 4+. This roll happens after all attacks are resolved (including stomps) but before the crumble on the Zombie unit if any. Each model reanimated this way reduces the crumble that zombies suffer by 1.

Dan_Lee
19-07-2011, 15:46
My possible fixes (I definitely wouldn't want all at once):

Any unit that is unstable and is also steadfast ignores the unstable rule as long as they remain steadfast. - Actually helps fix the problems with all undead tarpit issues.

Zombies gain regen 5+ but keep T2 - sort of represents them being harder to kill but is more interesting than making them T3+. Regen 4+ would be too good, and regen 6+ wouldn't be worth it.

Zombies (or possibly all undead) apply their rank bonus as a Ld penalty to their opponents fear test as they are truly horrifying to fight against. Essentially making fear a bit better, but not as powerful as it was in 7th Ed.

Maybe zombies get WS2, just to give them a better benefit when their opponent fails a fear test. Zombies are only WS1 - it's like they're afraid of everyone!

The Low King
19-07-2011, 16:13
the fear thing is a bit ott.....a lot of troops would really struggle to pass fear tests

The bearded one
19-07-2011, 16:39
Upgrade to T3, S3.

You just turned them into skeletons.

the Nurge
19-07-2011, 16:54
A zombie is a body that has been rotting in/on the ground for a while. They're really not that tough. A good hit against a zombie and other bodyparts should simply fall off from the impact.

Zombies are partially rotten, however, they are freshly dead corpses, so they aren't just falling to pieces. It's not as if they are walking piles of hamburger meat. Zombies have skeletons inside of them, so why shouldn't they be at least as tough as a bare skeleton? I'd like to see them T3 or T4. One way around that would just be to give them regenerate. This might make more sense, as they are easy to wound but, shrug off attacks that sever limbs or pierce their bodies.

Let me stress that I do not think zombies need a strength boost, just better survivability. Higher T (3 or 4) or regenerate would make the unit worth its point cost, and be fluffy at the same time.

Ideally I'd like to see any of these options:
S2 T2 - 2 pts
S2 T3 - 3 pts.
S2 T2 regen(4+) - 4pts
S2 T3 regen(5+) - 4pts
S2 T4 - 4pts

IMHO these all seem to be pretty fluffy and balanced ways to make them worthwhile. :skull:

artisturn
19-07-2011, 17:14
Drop the zombies point cost to two points but keep their current stats ,that way Skellies are still better.

Also allow certain characters to join Zombies again, that way they can be used as bunkers for necromancers .

Maoriboy007
19-07-2011, 21:37
Zombies should be T4 and be allowed to have Characters or just Necromancers join them.
Pricing would be as issue though, even at T4 Zombies would still be barely worth 4 points (they are that awful) but if skeletons are dropped to 4 points (which they should be) then they would be competing for the same spot, with the skeletons possible losing out with zombies being the better choice.
Ghouls are only just worth the 8 points you pay for them now (I personally thought they were underpriced by about 2 points in 7th) but it would be wrong to overprice them just to make zombies and skeletons the more attractive choice.


Indeed, that is a good design philosophy and I think they succeeded quite well with the tomb kings book. Apart from the casket I see almost no no-brainers.It should be noted that the casket is not a no brainer because it is so good, but because the TK magic phase is set up so badly. Considering that the TK are dependant on having several spells cast just to be competitive, the casting levels are ureasonably high (amazingly so in action) , you are actually forced to pay extra points your opponant doesn't, just to stay in the game.

Malorian
19-07-2011, 22:55
Give skeletons access to great weapons. Done!

Zombies... only a price drop makes any sense. Athough giving them scout or ambush could be interesting.

The bearded one
19-07-2011, 23:13
Athough giving them scout or ambush could be interesting.

* shuffle shuffle *

o, no, look hanz! The zombies outmaneouvred us! Damned be their unholy stealthiness!

:p

Daniel36
19-07-2011, 23:20
Zombies arent useless... Think of the modeling opportunities. The club night my mate and I first started creating conversions for his unit is the stuff of legends. That night is hushed about everywhere. I think I literally fell off my chair and had to gasp for air when we built some of the stuff.

yabbadabba
19-07-2011, 23:47
Zombie: 4:2:2:2:4:1:1:1:5
Cause Fear.

Brain dead: Zombies cannot be lead by characters, nor can they use the General's Leadership
Unstoppable horde: Zombies are at the best when in masses. Zombies may add their rank bonus to their leadership value for leadership tests
Braaaiinnss: Zombies crave living flesh. Before movement (but not charges) Zombies need to take a leadership test to move. If they fail they must move towards the nearest non-undead unit, reforming if necessary.
Zombie Shuffle: Zombies are almost unstoppable in their movement, and once awaken they will not stop moving until they reach food. Zombies charge 3+d6.
Feeding Frenzy: In a single combat Zombies gain +1I accumulative for each round of combat they win. They reset to I1 when they leave a combat.

Hopefully that should create something which should be encouraged to be fielded in hordes, and cannot be ignored or underestimated.

-Loki-
20-07-2011, 11:51
Now that is a zombie unit I'd field in a block of 50. IoN to bring it to 100, and watch it tarpit.

McBaine
20-07-2011, 12:17
* shuffle shuffle *

o, no, look hanz! The zombies outmaneouvred us! Damned be their unholy stealthiness!


Damn, those zombies waited buried under the ground and we unawarely walked over them... Damn those unholy undead ! ;)

I would prefer Zombies T3 and a weaker Regen (5+ seems fine). As they are now they are hardly worth 4 points... more like 1 or 2 points. Also, as for the horde aspect they could get a rule to fight with an extra rank, so fighting in 3 ranks normally and in 4 ranks when they are a horde (ten wide).

-Loki-
20-07-2011, 12:57
I don't think they should have a form of regeneration, especially when any vampire on the table can add D6+4 with a quick 4+ spell. That's where the 'getting back up' is meant to come from, the vampires and necromancers keeping them moving.

Ville
20-07-2011, 13:51
Now that is a zombie unit I'd field in a block of 50. IoN to bring it to 100, and watch it tarpit.

These Zombies don't have the Newly Dead rule, so no IoNs beyond starting size.;)

DeathlessDraich
20-07-2011, 17:18
I'm quite happy with the VC army as it is but for those clamouring for a Zombie change ,

Here's a challenge:

What is the minimum 'acceptable' change, i.e. the minimal change in rules, that would make Zombies more favourable as a Core choice? (excluding a single drastic point reduction or ludicrous changes e.g. T10 or Ld10)

I'll kick this off with my suggestion

Zombies are Swarms of 6 current models i.e. 6A 6W at 24 pts (6X current cost) - Hence 666! :D

yabbadabba
20-07-2011, 17:20
These Zombies don't have the Newly Dead rule, so no IoNs beyond starting size.;) Think they should?

Ville
20-07-2011, 18:26
Think they should?

Hmm, if those Zombies were dirt cheap, I think a specific Vampiric Power should be required to raise beyond starting size. Otherwise, spam spam spam...

Maoriboy007
20-07-2011, 21:12
Hmm, if those Zombies were dirt cheap, I think a specific Vampiric Power should be required to raise beyond starting size. Otherwise, spam spam spam...

I would think Power dice limits and Loss of concentration mean that your opponant is far happier if you expend your efforts on raising crappy zombies rather than more powerful spells, after all they're still zombies that won't beat anyone.

SideshowLucifer
21-07-2011, 03:35
Well, I'd rather them make zombies useless in combat but give them T4 and Str 1 or something. I'd also rather ghouls go back to being a skirmish unit raher then the main body of a vampire army. That should be the skeles and zombies.

Scythe
21-07-2011, 07:49
Zombies are partially rotten, however, they are freshly dead corpses, so they aren't just falling to pieces. It's not as if they are walking piles of hamburger meat. Zombies have skeletons inside of them, so why shouldn't they be at least as tough as a bare skeleton?

Toughness of undead doesn't really represent physical toughness, but rather the strength of magic binding them (which also explains wights T4, for example). As the Liber Necris explains, the magic binding skeletons is quite different from the magic binding zombies.


Well, I'd rather them make zombies useless in combat but give them T4 and Str 1 or something. I'd also rather ghouls go back to being a skirmish unit raher then the main body of a vampire army. That should be the skeles and zombies.

Agreed. Ghouls as a main ranked core unit never felt right to me. Turn them back to skirmishers, and return skeletons and zombies to viable good mainstay units for the VCs.

yabbadabba
21-07-2011, 08:13
Agreed. Ghouls as a main ranked core unit never felt right to me. Turn them back to skirmishers, and return skeletons and zombies to viable good mainstay units for the VCs. If I remember right skirmishing ghouls are a more recent e=invention - 6e I think. They were rank and file in 4e.

But I am old....

Balerion
21-07-2011, 08:27
I can't see the point of turning Ghouls back into skirmishers, post-8th edition. Tradition and fluffiness are one thing, but doesn't having a viable unit that actually sees use trump everything else?

If Skeletons and Zombies both improve how could they make skirmishing Ghouls stay appealing? They don't shoot, so they get nothing from that part of the skirmish rules. Their offensive output isn't great without being in a horde, which they won't be if they're skirmishers, and with that plus the lack of rank bonus they become mediocre flankers. You'd be better off summoning Zombies for flank disruption, or using Varghulfs/Wraiths for flank CR generation.

What made skirmishing Ghouls worthwhile in past editions? Just that they could run without a nearby Vampire, thanks to not having the Undead rule? Simply restoring that advantage would not cut it in 8th edition.

If they had Scout or some kind of outflanking rule they'd be good (and join the club of poisonous war machine hunters).

Scythe
21-07-2011, 08:34
If I remember right skirmishing ghouls are a more recent e=invention - 6e I think. They were rank and file in 4e.

But I am old....

True, they were also rank and file in 5th. But the reasons for making them skirmish in 6th edition were sound, and they added a lot to the army in a unique way back then.

To answer Balerions points, making them alive again would indeed go a long way into redefining their role. Scouts or outflank would be a nice optional upgrade, but even without it they would be an interesting, different unit compared to the other VCs core.

yabbadabba
21-07-2011, 08:45
but even without it they would be an interesting, different unit compared to the other VCs core. Chances are that's why they will stay skirmishing. We have to remember as well in 6e and 7e skirmishers became far more effective than in previous editions. They aren't so now in regular games - but they maybe in expansions we don't know.

MLP
21-07-2011, 12:08
I don't this has been mentioned before but in the new big red book in the vampire count section is states:
"the vast bulk of the vampire armies are comprised of shuffling, moaning zombies; incomplete bodily remains given a revolting semblance of life and reinforced with wood, rusted metal and the occasional spare limb."
It goes on a bit more about them pulling siege engines their sheer weight of numbers so going by that I'd say they'll get a good work over.

the Nurge
21-07-2011, 15:15
How about this? Current statline, but T3 for 3 pts. I know I'd be much more likely to field some. Minimal change, still not great, but better. No one can argue that's too OP.

Having a melee unit with low WS and T2 is terrible. If they were 2 points I'd say fine, but for 4? No way. It's too expensive to build a unit that will last, and in 8th, it's hard to get more than 1 or 2 invocations off a turn. So just raising some is hard to pull off. The units will be too small to last more than 1 round of combat, due to crumbling. I want a tarpit, not a speedbump or redirector.

Von Wibble
21-07-2011, 17:37
They need to change them to T4 and S1. That would make them a bit more resillient. Never understood why zombies had such a low T. They keep comming at you even after you chop limbs off. They need a higher T to reflect that.

I agree. I would also give regeneration (5+). Then you have a unit that is a true tarpit- very hard to kill for the points (I'm thinking 3 maybe 4 per model) but won't kill much itself.

yabbadabba
21-07-2011, 17:48
I agree. I would also give regeneration (5+). Then you have a unit that is a true tarpit- very hard to kill for the points (I'm thinking 3 maybe 4 per model) but won't kill much itself. And then it becomes a no-brainer for the vast majoirty. The unit needs to be competitive within the list, not a lazy easy choice.

Balerion
21-07-2011, 18:00
I don't like the sound of cheap T4 tarpits. Toughness is probably the most coveted/important stat, particularly for a unit that is just meant to sit their and absorb attrition without breaking.

T4 plus 5+ regen would be insane. They would need a price increase
at that point.

People keep saying "but they can't kill anything".... well, no, they can't, but the important thing is that it doesn't matter. You didn't pay their points for them to kill stuff; you bought them to hold up units you didn't want to deal with, and get in the enemy's way. At 4 points with T4 and regen they become far too effective at that. They would be more aggravating than Skavenslaves.

And I play both VC and Skaven, fwiw.



To answer Balerions points, making them alive again would indeed go a long way into redefining their role. Scouts or outflank would be a nice optional upgrade, but even without it they would be an interesting, different unit compared to the other VCs core.
Unfortunately "interesting and different" doesn't do anything to guarantee a unit's usefulness. Night Runners would be a good example of this.

theunwantedbeing
21-07-2011, 18:18
4pts for a 3+ to hit, 3+ to wound no save unit that fights last and cannot persue or have character's join them
8pts for a 3+ to hit, 4+ to wound 5+/6+ save unit that usually fights last
or
8pts for a 4+ to hit, 5+ to wound no save unit with two poisoned attacks each that doesn't always fight last

Zombies are just too easily killed and have too many drawbacks to be that effective in 8th edition compared to their opposing choices. The big problem is that ghouls are at the moment, just too good compared to them. Skeletons are about even.

Perhaps they need a rule similar to what skaven giant rats get, whereby they can fight in an extra rank than normal because they swarm over each other to get to the enemy. Forcing enemies to take a dangerous terrain test when fleeing from zombies that outnumber them would be handy as well.

Von Wibble
21-07-2011, 19:22
And then it becomes a no-brainer for the vast majoirty. The unit needs to be competitive within the list, not a lazy easy choice.

Actually, yes I'd agree 3/4 is too cheap on second thoughts.

But they only get a 5+ regenerate over ghouls and lose WS, A and poison. Considering ghouls and skeletons are overpriced ( you have to think they will go down to be in line with TK prices) then 4 points with just T4 and no regeneration is probably better (I see ghouls going down to 7 and skeletons being 4 points for comparison purposes).

To get around them being a no brainer choice (an interesting choice of words considering teh subject matter), how about ruling that when zombies are raised they can only be added to a unit that is already on the. This combined with the fact characters can't join them would ensure people take skeletons and ghouls, and would ensure tarpits can't be simply raised.

Finally, minimum unit size 30 to prevent too much spamming of cheap units.

The bearded one
21-07-2011, 22:12
Tough zombies just doesn't fit with their whole vibe, appearance etc. They just need to be fraking dirt cheap 1-2 pts each, so that their combat ability is absolutely worthless, but you just throw 40 at an enemy unit at a whim to keep them busy for 2-3 turns. They're supposed to be an endless horde of the recently deceased, easily raised but terrible fighters, whereas skeletons are the bones of soldiers from ages past, with proper weapons. A handweapon isn't a straight up +1 strenght, but I like to think that actually having a decent weapon is an important aspect of getting to str 3 (or 4). Zombies barely have weapons, just grasping hands, twigs, sticks etc.

yabbadabba
21-07-2011, 22:17
Again, I am not certain but I am pretty sure they were T4 in 4th Ed. Back when it was wet n dry undead. But I could be wrong. Anyway that is neither here no there. Zombies as nothing more than a tar pit are a waste. They need to have something else.

The bearded one
21-07-2011, 22:22
Just like skaven slaves?

yabbadabba
21-07-2011, 22:24
Just like skaven slaves? They aren't just tar pits mate.

The bearded one
21-07-2011, 22:30
they're good tar pits :p

What are you specifically referring to? Their ability to possibly kill a couple enemies with str3? Clanrats-light?

By making them dirt cheap, they can provide the (rotting) meat of the VC army, to bring in large numbers as most of the VC army is actually really pricey.

yabbadabba
21-07-2011, 22:40
they're good tar pits :p They can have spears and shields if I remember right. That's a bit more offensive than Zombies with dirty nails.

What are you specifically referring to? Their ability to possibly kill a couple enemies with str3? Clanrats-light? Nothing wrong with S3. My Empire is littered with it.

By making them dirt cheap, they can provide the (rotting) meat of the VC army, to bring in large numbers as most of the VC army is actually really pricey. Still doesn't mean they should be useless and good for only one thing.

The bearded one
21-07-2011, 22:55
What should they be good at then?

I think they should stay the same but cost 1 point per model, maybe a rule allowing them to strike in multiple ranks like giant rats, as they claw over eachother in a crazy undead horde. The difference between str2 and str3 is they need to roll 1 higher in order to wound, and from T5 and upwards they both wound on 6+. At the most they could be str3, but tougher than a living man? Never.

Algovil
21-07-2011, 23:30
If they were 2 points they would be fine IMO. But with the current GW prices, I would frankly never be able to afford them in the quantity necessary. But I do not find it unbelievable that GW will do just that change.

I would like to see them improved instead. I like the idea of them beeing tarpits. How could this be accomplished then?

Unstable, really destroy undead units, and I would not like to see that removed, since it is a fundamental part of the undead. And improving toughness to 4 or other changes in their stats really do not make sense.

What about this crazy idea:

Let Corpse Carts join units of Zombies, the same way the skaven bell or furnace does. When the Cart is in the unit, the unit get regeneration, increased regeneration, say 5+ without, and 4+ or even 3+ with a corpse cart in the unit. Another option could be a rule that removes the unstable rule if there is a Corpse Cart in the unit, otherwise the unit would be very vulnerable to fire. To protect the Corpse Cart, maybe it can not be singled out from ranged attacks, like a character, or maybe even stay in second rank, to protect it from close combat, I do no know the exact details.

I like the basics of this idea, but it really need refining.

I am also quite fond of the idea of the enemies killed by zombies are raised back as zombies. This could be an ability added with a Corpse Cart.

The bearded one
21-07-2011, 23:35
I quite like that idea. It looks visually appealing as well.

Algovil
22-07-2011, 00:01
Actually I am going to Houserule that idea, since the units are kind of useless normally. I think I am going with:

Corpse Cart can join units of Zombies
It displaces Zombies, but count for rank and files, count as ten models, 2x5
If the Cart is used as a mount for a necro, it can not join a unit.
When a Corpse Cart joins a unit of Zombies, the following rules apply:

Zombies get regeneration(6)
The Corpse Cart can not be attacked, or killed, but is removed as soon as all zombies in the unit are destroyed. Representing the Corpse Cart being a part of the unit more than a single model.
All kills made by the Corpse Cart or the Zombies are raised back as Zombies to the unit in the end of the close combat. Counting for CR.

For example:

If a unit kills 7 zombies, and the zombies kill 2 in return. Two zombies would be raised back. And the attacking unit would get 5 CR for kills, while the zombies would get 2.

Balerion
22-07-2011, 02:04
Yeah, that's a great idea.

edit: It should not be immune to targeting in close combat, though.

Also, lol at the idea that Skavenslaves are "more" than tarpits. They can take spears, but they still won't do any damage with them. That's why nobody pays to give them spears, unless they're wysiwyg hardliners using the IoB rats as slaves.

They do, however, fulfill a function that other tarpits cannot, allowing ranged attacks to be brought to bear against the units they are fighting.

The bearded one
22-07-2011, 02:18
I use em with shields :)

The IoB models have shields, I don't wanna buy 80 slaves seperately when I can get 80 from 2 IoB kits. I still love the thought of some crazy monsters fighting them and a slave parrying his attacks ^^

Balerion
22-07-2011, 03:09
I use em with shields :)

The IoB models have shields, I don't wanna buy 80 slaves seperately when I can get 80 from 2 IoB kits. I still love the thought of some crazy monsters fighting them and a slave parrying his attacks ^^
Well, I intentionally avoided mentioning shields, because they are a valid decision. But spears are another story altogether.

SideshowLucifer
22-07-2011, 04:13
Corpse cart in the unit would be neat and actualy let me use the kewl model that was a pain in the butt to put togather.
What if each rank of zombies gave a single dice for the magic phase that worked just for the cart?

The bearded one
22-07-2011, 04:34
then you would have a superpowered boundspell to cast with a bazillion powerdice, that would most likely end up having no effect on the combat whatsoever (the boundspell gave ASF IIRC).

Scythe
22-07-2011, 07:34
I don't like the sound of cheap T4 tarpits. Toughness is probably the most coveted/important stat, particularly for a unit that is just meant to sit their and absorb attrition without breaking.

T4 plus 5+ regen would be insane. They would need a price increase
at that point.


Never fought Night Goblins with nets? Effective T4, the equivalent of a 5+ armour save, and a 6+ parry save (or an extra rank of spear attacks). Costs 3 pts per model, plus 35 for the unit. Assuming units of at least 40-50 models, that's less than 4 pts per model.

Balerion
22-07-2011, 08:25
Never fought Night Goblins with nets? Effective T4, the equivalent of a 5+ armour save, and a 6+ parry save (or an extra rank of spear attacks). Costs 3 pts per model, plus 35 for the unit. Assuming units of at least 40-50 models, that's less than 4 pts per model.
Good point, but by the same token I've always considered the NG net upgrade to be significantly underpriced. Plus the NGs aren't unbreakable fear-causers on top of all that, which Zombies will always, necessarily, be (even if the built-in cost of those abilities should be less in 8th than it was in 7th).

yabbadabba
22-07-2011, 08:36
That's why nobody pays to give them spears, unless they're wysiwyg hardliners using the IoB rats as slaves. Ah that good old internet broad brush at work again. Statements like this make discussions very difficult.

They can take spears, but they still won't do any damage with them. Another beauty.

If we are going to resort to lazy reasoning then the argument falls apart I'm afraid.

mrtn
22-07-2011, 10:27
If they were 2 points they would be fine IMO. But with the current GW prices, I would frankly never be able to afford them in the quantity necessary. But I do not find it unbelievable that GW will do just that change.

Check out Mantic's zombies. They are (IMNSHO) much better looking than GW's, and cheaper.

Balerion
22-07-2011, 18:40
Ah that good old internet broad brush at work again. Statements like this make discussions very difficult.
Another beauty.

If we are going to resort to lazy reasoning then the argument falls apart I'm afraid.
Spears (a.k.a. five extra attacks) don't turn a unit of lame fighters into an offensive resource. If me saying that is "bad reasoning" then you flatly claiming that slaves are "more than just tarpits" is no reasoning at all.

You are coming from a completely incoherent place at the moment. There are dozens of units that can be equipped with spears and still fail to comprise an offensive threat.

yabbadabba
22-07-2011, 19:10
Spears (a.k.a. five extra attacks) don't turn a unit of lame fighters into an offensive resource. If me saying that is "bad reasoning" then you flatly claiming that slaves are "more than just tarpits" is no reasoning at all. Spears are more a defensive unit, as you know. In addition it would be more than likely 5-10 additional attacks. And having had Empire Swordsmen bump off goblins and night goblins before I am more than happy to say yes that can make a difference.

You are coming from a completely incoherent place at the moment. There are dozens of units that can be equipped with spears and still fail to comprise an offensive threat. No. When you deal in the limited aspect of a tournament mental style of approach to a game then this holds true; but its not the whole picture Balerion. Its a mathammer, bang for your buck position. My Empire spearmen act as a fine defensive/offensive unit, especially now they can horde, and have also performed more than adequately on the pure offensive.

You are making broad brush statements which aren't true and are entirely dependent on situation. Being more specific (ie "In a tournament situation I have rarely found skaven slaves with spears worth the points, but it is an ultra competitve arena") would be maybe more accurate. I have found that some of the advice on Warseer just doesn't match up with the reality of my playing experiences, mostly because some of it is based on reading a book, and some on extremely limited range environments. In essence saying taking spears won't let anyone cause any damage is not only factually wrong, but for me wrong via experience.

Hence why I call such statements as lazy reasoning.

the Nurge
22-07-2011, 20:02
At the most they could be str3, but tougher than a living man? Never.

Well, if you shoot a living man in the chest with a couple arrows, or chop off both his arms, or disembowel him, he's probably not going to keep trying to attack you. Sounds to me like they should definitely be tougher than a living man.

I'd settle for current stats and regen, OR T4. They should certainly at least be T3, IMO. I really don't think they need higher strength though. They should be weak but harder to kill than they are currently.

If they were down to 1 or 2 points I'd take them as is, though.

The bearded one
22-07-2011, 20:25
Spears are more a defensive unit, as you know. In addition it would be more than likely 5-10 additional attacks. And having had Empire Swordsmen bump off goblins and night goblins before I am more than happy to say yes that can make a difference.

My saurus use spears.

The spears sucked almost every time compared to handweapon-shield, and it saves me over 24 points better spent elsewhere.

Balerion
22-07-2011, 22:00
Spears are more a defensive unit, as you know. In addition it would be more than likely 5-10 additional attacks. And having had Empire Swordsmen bump off goblins and night goblins before I am more than happy to say yes that can make a difference.
How exactly are we distinguishing a "defensive unit" from a "tarpit" in this situation? After all, the comment that kicked off this whole tangential discussion was that Skavenslaves were something more than a tarpit. What defensive purpose do Skavenslaves perform that goes beyond the catch-all of "tarpitting"?

I can think of the 20 slaves w/shields unit for watchtower scenarios, and sacrificial min-sized units used as blockers (though Giant Rats are much better for this, meaning it should not be considered a primary function of Slave units).


No. When you deal in the limited aspect of a tournament mental style of approach to a game then this holds true; but its not the whole picture Balerion. Its a mathammer, bang for your buck position. My Empire spearmen act as a fine defensive/offensive unit, especially now they can horde, and have also performed more than adequately on the pure offensive.

You are making broad brush statements which aren't true and are entirely dependent on situation. Being more specific (ie "In a tournament situation I have rarely found skaven slaves with spears worth the points, but it is an ultra competitve arena") would be maybe more accurate. I have found that some of the advice on Warseer just doesn't match up with the reality of my playing experiences, mostly because some of it is based on reading a book, and some on extremely limited range environments. In essence saying taking spears won't let anyone cause any damage is not only factually wrong, but for me wrong via experience.

Hence why I call such statements as lazy reasoning.
FWIW I've never played a tournament in my life. I do believe in the importance of mathhammer, because it is objective evidence of what a unit can achieve, on average.

Again, let's please recall the statements that set this whole thing off -- that Zombies should be more than a tarpit, and more importantly, that Skavenslaves were somehow an example of this type of unit.

Kallstrom
22-07-2011, 23:43
Well, if you shoot a living man in the chest with a couple arrows, or chop off both his arms, or disembowel him, he's probably not going to keep trying to attack you. Sounds to me like they should definitely be tougher than a living man.



To me it sounds like you are saying that they actually need more wounds. Because one can slice off an arm from a zombie, disembowel him or even cleave him into two but he will still carry on. In other words, one can hurt them many times over and they won't stop until they literally can't attack you anymore because of lack of body parts.

If they were tougher, they would be more resistant to damage. They would survive an attempt on their (un)life because the attack would completely or partially be resisted.

As an example (from a lore'ish point of view):

A zombie with more wounds get attack by an stubborn dwarf, the dwarf chops off one of the zombie's arms and then continues to violently beat the living corpse to a bloody pulp until the corpse could walk no more.

A zombie with high toughness gets attack by the same stubborn dwarf, the dwarf tries to chop off one of the zombie's arms but the axe got stuck halfway through the arm. The zombie then continues to eat the surprised dwarf's brain.


Ah well maybe the zombie would not eat his brain, but you get the picture right? Zombies are tougher to kill than mere humans, but mostly because there is a will, whether the will of a necromancer or a vampire, that forces the body to move forward. The corpse is as easy to break as any other living counterpart, but unlike their living counterpart they are harder to kill since the loss of a limb is something the living find disturbing while the dead do not. :skull:

artisturn
23-07-2011, 17:36
Now what if they let Zombies be immune to crumbling from combat resolution.

they would still take plenty of wounds due their weak stats so there would still be a fair chance of the opponent taking them down but not just fast .

And it would allow Zombies to fulfill their job as a tarpit unit.

Kayosiv
07-08-2011, 11:43
Now what if they let Zombies be immune to crumbling from combat resolution.

they would still take plenty of wounds due their weak stats so there would still be a fair chance of the opponent taking them down but not just fast .

And it would allow Zombies to fulfill their job as a tarpit unit.

This is probably the best way to go about it if they're going to keep their terrible stats.

Lord Zarkov
07-08-2011, 12:43
Now what if they let Zombies be immune to crumbling from combat resolution.

they would still take plenty of wounds due their weak stats so there would still be a fair chance of the opponent taking them down but not just fast .

And it would allow Zombies to fulfill their job as a tarpit unit.
This is similar to a suggestion I put forward a while ago:

That dead zombies should not cause unstable wounds (or possibly contribute to CR at all).
(but should maintain their rubbish stats, perhaps even with M3)

o This allows them to tarpit - they die quickly to enemy attacks, but will never break and you have to kill all of them with your attacks
o It allows Zombies to fairly support other units (with a flank charge, or by holding up the front) - it won't allow enemies to shred decent units simply by slaughtering zombies, but also means that zombies will crumble if in a combat where there is something capable of shredding more fearsome units.
o It give all three block core units different roles (Ghouls for attacks and damage output; Skellies (with a suitable points break) as a cheap mainstay with the ability to take magic banners etc, but still deal some damage; and zombies as a tarpit that can add some SCR but not deal any damage.