PDA

View Full Version : Have Undead lost their identity in 8th?



tw1386
18-08-2011, 07:20
(This is not a rant thread, but more of a discussion of the topic.)

I do play both Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings and I have a fascination for undead for some odd reason, but that's beside the point.

Ever since the launch of 8th edition, have Vampire Counts and recently, Tomb Kings lost their iconic value of being undead? When are the enemy soldiers going to start crapping their pants again at the site of us?

From the games I've played for the past year with my Vampire Counts, and more noticeably with the new Tomb Kings, we are no longer the force that strikes terror and fear into the hearts of our enemies. We no longer stick around like the implacable horde that we are meant to be. The Undying legions of skeleton warriors, or the hordes of zombies... they just go poof!

What I mean to say is, yes they are still undead but are they really the undead that we read about in the fluff of army books, and the novels gameplay wise?

I know 8th is here to stay for quite some time, but is it going to be a rough time for us Undead players? I guess they over nerfed fear because of what it did to 7th edition, but was it really that necessary to just reduce WS? To only allow Terror check when charged? To make steadfast useless for Undead? If the new Tomb Kings are anything to go by, I think the Vampire Counts are in for some shock therapy when they do get redone. I guess I just miss the days when being Undead was the best points denial army in the game. VC can still do this, but only because of one item. The Drakenhoff banner, and I'm fairly certain this item will get severely nerfed, or just go the way of the dodo bird.

They obviously missed the boat with Tomb Kings ( I do adore the model though) by not compensating us with Troops that can actually stand a chance without magic. It's like they wanted undead to not have to rely on magic, but forgot to buff everything else so it doesn't have to. I know undead are magical beings by nature, so then why the reliance on the random magic phase? We SHOULD dominate the magic phase because that is OUR phase, but they nerfed it way too hard, if you roll double ones for winds of magic. Whoops, you just lost that turn points wise (most likely).

I guess I just miss of the days of previous editions when psychology actually mattered. I wish we could have the psychological warfare back into Warhammer. I understand they don't want armies to panic off the board turn one, but was it really necessary?

Here are some ideas of what I think should be done to help us out.

- BSB rerolls should not of been a rule for all leadership tests coupled with steadfast.I think you should have to choose between one, or the other, but not both.

- Fear should reduce Initiative as well as Weapon skill. How quick can you really be when you poo your pants?

- Make steadfast mean something for undead (besides combat reforms) like taking half crumble tests (round up), or just only allow it to effect one combat. E.G. splitting the wounds across units involved in that combat. Undead also need a BSB rework, but I have no idea what that would entail.


Anyways just some thoughts to help the two undead factions keep their identity of being the fearsome armies that they so rightly deserve.

falcone
18-08-2011, 07:28
I agree, steadfast screwed the Undead twice. We can no longer beat the enemy with psychology, which was the only way to beat them because with steadfast the enemy never breaks. But steadfast also gives no bonus to Undead, because they are unbreakable to begin with. So, it gives the enemy a bonus that negates our strong suit, and gives us no bonus, screws us twice.

Late
18-08-2011, 07:32
The Undead lost their identity when they were split into VC/TK. Vampires degenerated even more with the removal of the bloodlines. In general, this has happened with many Warhammer armies.

I laughed out loud when I read in the current issue of WD, some guy hyping SoM wrote: "I've always loved the idea of a combined force of Chaos Warriors and Daemons of Chaos marching to war as one in service to their infernal masters. Fortunately, Storm of Magic allows me to do just that!"

hahahahaha

Scammel
18-08-2011, 07:43
TK are fine. They haven't really changed since the last book, plenty of skellies supported by more esoteric troops, but combos, characters and tactics need to be used to get the most out of them. VC are just old, written in an edition when fear was king.


by not compensating us with Troops that can actually stand a chance without magic.

Yep, so exactly like they were before.

Purplenewt
18-08-2011, 08:09
Though I dont play undead I have played against vampire counts a lot. I do tend to win most games with my dark elves. I like your idea of fear dropping initiative as wellas WS, and we will try that soon as we do enjoy close games (which is why I dont use the hydra due to it being overpowered and undercosted). Next time I get a chance to play a big game against him we might try that and see how it turns out.

Wesser
18-08-2011, 08:49
Identity bah.

Quite the contrary. In the past winning combat by just a single point was the only concern of an undead player. There was no concern for the possibility of second rounds, as long as everything was stacked towards a first round win. Armies was invariably using the same same tactics each and every time and since fear could mean that your priced heavy cavalry could stand quaking in their boots instead of charging you were whipped into buying items and units to counter fear/ethereal/magic.

To be competitive against Vampires involved 5-6 dispel scrolls, taking any troops with Immune to psychology and every item you could muster that boosted leadership.

It was not funny, and the fear change is a good one. As for steadfast... undead suffer far less from it than for example bretonnians does, so quit bellyaching.

Tomb Kings have a few misses like the Ushabti (overpriced) and teh Tomb Scorpion (incredibly lame concept), but is an interesting army that now features tactics. Enjoy

shelfunit.
18-08-2011, 08:51
The Undead lost their identity when they were split into VC/TK. Vampires degenerated even more with the removal of the bloodlines. In general, this has happened with many Warhammer armies.

I laughed out loud when I read in the current issue of WD, some guy hyping SoM wrote: "I've always loved the idea of a combined force of Chaos Warriors and Daemons of Chaos marching to war as one in service to their infernal masters. Fortunately, Storm of Magic allows me to do just that!"

hahahahaha

Could not put it better.

Scammel
18-08-2011, 10:07
Everything Wesser said, and also


Vampires degenerated even more with the removal of the bloodlines.

Let's be honest, they weren't really removed. Characters from all the bloodlines embodying the usual traits all appear in the fluff, they just aren't outright called 'bloodlines'. You also have plenty of very cheap, very powerful abilities to customise your vamps, much like in the old book. The bloodlines might not be there in name, but they're still lurking in both fluff and on the tabletop.

SunTzu
18-08-2011, 12:20
Let's be honest, they weren't really removed. Characters from all the bloodlines embodying the usual traits all appear in the fluff, they just aren't outright called 'bloodlines'. You also have plenty of very cheap, very powerful abilities to customise your vamps, much like in the old book. The bloodlines might not be there in name, but they're still lurking in both fluff and on the tabletop.

Sure, but before, it was both more characterful and fairer in gameplay terms to limit the vampire powers by bloodline. Playing as Necrarchs? Then you'll have strong magic but your combat will be weaker! Playing as Lahmians? Then you'll be subtle and devious, but fragile! (All within the limits of what the army as a whole offers, of course, but there was a real sense of theme, and specialisation).

Now: you want to be a Level 4 Wizard, and have heavy armour and a great weapon, and let all your Ghouls march 8" before the start of the game? All on the same vampire? Sure, why not! Have all the good bits you want, with no drawbacks. How very bland. (I don't claim "overpowered". Just bland).

I don't think that's much to do with 8th Ed, though. They lost character with their most recent army book, and lost tabletop effectiveness (for all but one build) in 8th Ed. I don't think 8th Ed did anything to their character.

Novrain
18-08-2011, 12:48
Ha! I rememer in the bad old days of 7th, when I would spend literally 100's of points "fear-proofing" my Dwarf Army because of the number of VC armies!

Sexiest_hero
18-08-2011, 16:22
Yeah, VC were OP in 7th for a long time (Bar skaven daemons and DE). It was so much so that I don't mind the slight nerf we got. VC are still fine, and are the only army that's gotten a free extra unit added to thier army book in a long time. We also just got back our banshee and wraith heroes, what more do you want.

tw1386
18-08-2011, 17:05
I know Undead, mainly VC were over the top in 7th edition.

I'm not wanting that back, what I am wanting is for the psychological aspect of our armies to be meaningful again. I don't want to auto break you, but I sure as heck don't want to be just like any other army but with crappier stats. AS I stated in the OP they over compensated for the mistake they made with Vampire Counts from the transition from 7th to 8th edition.

Vampire counts are fine with one build and variations of rare choices. Gravegaurd Deathstar with regen banner. You call that fine? Taking 3-4 choices out of the army book so you don't get smashed into oblivion? I won my first 7th edition tournament by not taking this things, but in 8th we are practically forced to in order to have competitive pay in a competitive environment.

How many people take skeletons, or even zombies anymore?

Now the issue of Tomb Kings is that they are a magical based army and designed around that point. Yet where the problem lies is with the magic phase. If Tomb Kings don't have a successful magic phase they are pretty much toast, no questions asked. Our troops can't last long enough without buffs from both Nehekhara and the Lore of Light. Now they did give us the Casket and the Heirotitan, but is 310 points plus the costs associated with character? 700ish points in the army just to have a somewhat successful magic phase? We NEED the magical dominance in order to be successful unfortunately but even with all those toys its only a boost, not dominance.

Wesser
18-08-2011, 17:14
Sure, but before, it was both more characterful and fairer in gameplay terms to limit the vampire powers by bloodline. Playing as Necrarchs? Then you'll have strong magic but your combat will be weaker! Playing as Lahmians? Then you'll be subtle and devious, but fragile! (All within the limits of what the army as a whole offers, of course, but there was a real sense of theme, and specialisation).

Now: you want to be a Level 4 Wizard, and have heavy armour and a great weapon, and let all your Ghouls march 8" before the start of the game? All on the same vampire? Sure, why not! Have all the good bits you want, with no drawbacks. How very bland. (I don't claim "overpowered". Just bland).

I don't think that's much to do with 8th Ed, though. They lost character with their most recent army book, and lost tabletop effectiveness (for all but one build) in 8th Ed. I don't think 8th Ed did anything to their character.

Ah but lets not forget that the dice gods favor:

- Painted armies

- Fluffy and not enemy-tailored armies

- Characters with ...well character

Besides.... people who arent overly tempted to stay with a theme just lose half the fun.

eron12
18-08-2011, 17:32
It seems like you are combining identity with power.

BigbyWolf
18-08-2011, 17:59
I find VC work fine without magic.

As for losing identity. Since the army has split, I would say that the two separate factions have gained identity (although reducing the bloodlines in the latest book does take VC back a little bit, you can still customize your vamp more than your could with the old Undead army). Character-wise for the most part they've just reduced Liches and Necromancers from main characters to support ones (more so in the case of the 'mancer).

tw1386
18-08-2011, 18:26
Yes, and no.

I guess what I'm ultimately trying to say is I wish undead were the points denial army they have always been. The ultimate army of you get stuck in with me you aren't going anywhere until it's redead. Right now there are armies that do this better, and cheaper. I want us to be the undead we read about in the novels again. Hordes of troops who just move every forward, albeit slowly with some maniac cackling in the background.

Like I said, I don't want a return to the 7th edition ways, but i do want things to last without gimmicks. Aka: Drakenhoff banner nad helm of commandment.

montanarugby
18-08-2011, 18:50
Well the tomb kings book does what you want it to do. You don't want your opponents steadfast? Say hello to cheap skeletons that can buy ranks if you have enough miniatures. You want opponents crapping their pants? Take that terror facemask that negates BSB rerolls and gives a minus to leadership. Once you get a new book and they reduce your vampire skeletons to half their current cost like Tomb King skeletons you'll be fine.
My bigger problem is the crumbling/instability damage rules. With the greater damage done by additional ranks in 8th addition those rules are just brutal and seem downright silly. My supposedly uncaring, unfearing shambling horde is melting away like a snowball in hell from combat resolution. I think to kill a skeleton you should have to smash it to the ground and break it into pieces....small pieces. Not kill 4 and watch another 4 vanish into never-never land. Also how could you make BSB's even more worthless? Seriously does anybody take an Army BSB in a Tomb Kings army?

innerwolf
18-08-2011, 19:18
Now: you want to be a Level 4 Wizard, and have heavy armour and a great weapon, and let all your Ghouls march 8" before the start of the game? All on the same vampire? Sure, why not! Have all the good bits you want, with no drawbacks. How very bland. (I don't claim "overpowered". Just bland).


I used to joke with a VC-playing friend of mine, nostalgic of the old, flavourful bloodlines:
"Look, my Vampire Lord is very aristocratic and elegant, but savage and primal, war-obsessed and completely dedicated to magic studies; he is so beautiful and alluring that he is a horrendous abomination. He is also agile and martial, while being a hulking muscle-bound monster."
That would be the description of a vampire usually fielded in the current armybook lists.

stashman
18-08-2011, 20:42
Learn to play 8th Ed.

It's not about "pitched battles" but diffrent scenarios. Don't tell me that V.C have problems with all 6 scenarios.

Maoriboy007
18-08-2011, 21:10
Learn to play 8th Ed. Most rubbish answer I hear the most often.
Played it learned it, doesn't change the facts.


It's not about "pitched battles" but diffrent scenarios. Don't tell me that V.C have problems with all 6 scenarios.
No army can have difficulty in all 6 scenarios considering one of them is pitched battle.
Watchtower is an awful scenario, most people modify it, undead in particular are worse off in buildings.
Blood and Glory means you need to take skeletons and zombies

nurgle5
18-08-2011, 22:20
We NEED the magical dominance in order to be successful unfortunately but even with all those toys its only a boost, not dominance.

I don't think this a necessity for TK. The odd buff helps quite a bit but dominating the magic phase seems a bit of an overkill 'requirement', especially when they get the shooting phase that VC don't and have shiny new monsters and monstrous calvary to help do more damage.

VC can still have consistent magic phases thanks to their bloodline powers. While we're on the bloodline powers, I believe the reason for not making them bloodline specific was because the current book focuses on the Von Carsteins, rather than Vampires worldwide. It also gives the chance for players to create vampires from lost or their own bloodlines. Who knows, maybe there is a bloodline of vampires out there who are warrior scholars, unsettlingly pretty and savagely aristocratic. Though in the fluff, all vampires are agile, even the hulking ones :p.

Fear isn't completely pants, you force your opponent to take more LD tests he's gonna fail more. With fear you hit easier and you're harder to hit, basically it's a buff now rather than an autobreaker. I do think the reducing Initiative thing has potential but a WS penalty is suitable enough and works better for the undead.

I know hierotitans and bloodline powers don't come cheap but if you want to dominate a phase you gotta be prepared to sink points into it.


Most rubbish answer I hear the most often.

How is that a rubbish answer? Suggesting that a person adapt to the new rules seems sensible. People need to get into a different mind set, you can pine for the days when fear autobroke or you can think about how the fear WS debuff could be used in combo with the helm of commandment. Don't get the comment on not changing facts though. Changing the core rules changed quite a few things, as this thread itself is testament to.

Andy p
18-08-2011, 22:27
I say we put the dead back in undead......by beating any vc or tk player we happen to meet......oh and in the game too.

Maoriboy007
18-08-2011, 23:19
How is that a rubbish answer? Suggesting that a person adapt to the new rules seems sensible.. It not an answer at all it merely implys a whole lot about the other person without much to back it up,and I find that to be one hell of an assumption.
I've been playing 8th since the rules have been available, and I can admit that I've had to change my mindset and have even become accepting of many of the new facets of the game, but there are some that are just really really terrible, and that can't be dealt with or adapted to because they are part of the base rules of the game.
Quite frankly some armies got to cream it this edition and others, undead in particular (WE as well), didn't.


[COLOR="Lime"]
People need to get into a different mind set, you can pine for the days when fear autobroke.It has been stated repeatedly by most VC players that autobreak was a stupid rule that should have been gone a long time ago. However fear causing units should have been compensated with something at least, a 1+ to CR is not overwelming yet contsant, seems fair enough.


[COLOR="Lime"]
or you can think about how the fear WS debuff could be used in combo with the helm of commandment..How? WS 1 needs 5 to hit just about everything anyway regardless of what you buff the undead unit up to anyway (except zombies). The thing is its really hard to fail a fear test so you end up paying for a rule that rarely comes into play.


[COLOR="Lime"]
Don't get the comment on not changing facts though. Changing the core rules changed quite a few things, as this thread itself is testament to.The facts are most of the VC army has been rendered pretty much overpriced and/or undesirable, hance a real trend towards the boring all Ghoul Graveguard list that our opponants hated/hate to see, because those are the only real practical options.


I don't think this a necessity for TK. The odd buff helps quite a bit but dominating the magic phase seems a bit of an overkill 'requirement',.Dominate is the wrong word here I think. The reliable magic phase was taken away and what TK got in return was quite frankly inadequate, especially as the intention seemed to be to keep the reliant on said magic phase - a good point has been mad that to make it practical the TK player has to spend 700 odd point over and above that of any other army just to compensate.


especially when they get the shooting phase that VC don't and have shiny new monsters and monstrous calvary to help do more damage.,.TK have many inbuilt limitations for thier trouble, and the shooting phase , while always a nice aspect of the TK army, isn't particularly powerful, str 3 for the most part.


I know hierotitans and bloodline powers don't come cheap but if you want to dominate a phase you gotta be prepared to sink points into it..,.Fair enough, but how many points are you expected to sink into flogging a dead horse?

nurgle5
19-08-2011, 00:30
How? WS 1 needs 5 to hit just about everything anyway regardless of what you buff the undead unit up to anyway (except zombies). The thing is its really hard to fail a fear test so you end up paying for a rule that rarely comes into play.

The fear test has to be taken every round now, so it increases the likelihood of it being successful, but I never said it was a sure thing. Hitting 3's rather than 4's and getting hit on 4's rather than 3's does make a difference, I think you'd agree that it is still a useful buff when it works. The helm would make it 5's to hit the unit if it needed a little more survivability.


The facts are most of the VC army has been rendered pretty much overpriced and/or undesirable, hance a real trend towards the boring all Ghoul Graveguard list that our opponants hated/hate to see, because those are the only real practical options.

I'd agree that some of the units are overpriced, zombies especially. I think skeletons have gained a advantages on ghouls thanks to musicians, the sword shield parry save and obviously the Blood and Glory scenario. I can see how things like ghoulkin lead people to take ghouls as their prime core choice, but I think skeletons are more desirable now than in 7th ed.


Dominate is the wrong word here I think. The reliable magic phase was taken away and what TK got in return was quite frankly inadequate, especially as the intention seemed to be to keep the reliant on said magic phase - a good point has been mad that to make it practical the TK player has to spend 700 odd point over and above that of any other army just to compensate.

I've only played half dozen games with my TK this edition, but they seem to be less reliant on magic than they were before. With the new combat rules, stuff actually gets to strike back and can actually do damage rather than being dependent on maintaining numbers. I like how troop resurrection is combo'd with buff spells, so it's kinda a 2 for 1 deal, meaning less spells to actually cast, which is great in an edition when magic is meant to be anything but dependable.


the shooting phase , while always a nice aspect of the TK army, isn't particularly powerful, str 3 for the most part.
The fact that most TK ranged units ignore modifiers makes them quite powerful. Against rank and file, it's fairly sub par, but it's fantastic against things like skirmishers in hard cover or single characters.


Fair enough, but how many points are you expected to sink into flogging a dead horse?

It's the price anyone pays when they opt to focus on dominating a particular phase. Choose to put one of the movement, magic, shooting or combat phases above the others and the other phases are likely suffer for it.


It has been stated repeatedly by most VC players that autobreak was a stupid rule that should have been gone a long time ago. However fear causing units should have been compensated with something at least, a 1+ to CR is not overwelming yet contsant, seems fair enough.

I was really just using autobreak as an example of a rule change rather than a frequent complaint from VC players, it was just the first thing that popped into my head. I can't recall fear being a constant effect, but at the moment it works every round rather just the first like it did in 7th. A +1 CR might work well with undead, but how would it effect other fear causing armies like daemons? I couldn't see that going down too well :angel:

tw1386
19-08-2011, 01:07
Well the difference with Undead and Deamons is that even if the deamons lost that combat, they can still benefit from being steadfast.

Unstable hurts undead so much this edition that cheap anvils such as Skeletons or Zombies do not work at all anymore. From the TK perspective you cannot throw skeletons into a combat unit with your hard hitters without buffing the skeletons to kingdom come with augments. No other army has to do this, we don't really have an anvil unit to speak of without the risk of crumbling all of our hammers into oblivion.

Yes, the new Tomb Kings have a few units who do relatively well on their own, but they can't win you the game.

I took a no casket, no heirotitan list to an indy GT and got clobbered as I thought we didn't have to rely on our magic because of the stuff liek snakes and sphynxes. I wish I had. It's like they wanted Tomb Kings to be able to not have to take them, but didn't really compensate us for it. It's a rough road for competitive Tomb Kings players. Now VC on the other hand have the tools and the options to go magic light and still do really well with their ghoul / gravegaurd build.






It's the price anyone pays when they opt to focus on dominating a particular phase. Choose to put one of the movement, magic, shooting or combat phases above the others and the other phases are likely suffer for it.



That's the thing, I wish I could agree with you about Tomb Kings on this one. We can't focus dominating on any of these phases without investing a lot into the magic phase. It's a double edged sword for Tomb Kings players because if we got magic light and only take one level 1 heirophant, the army is just a bunch of mediocre initiative 1-3 bodies to chop through.

Let's take for example our "elite" unit of Tomb Gaurd, who are pretty average by themselves. With halberds they are a whopping 13 points a pop. WS 3 In 3 To 4 Str 4 1 attack. Now compare them to a Great Weapon carrying Marauder and you'll see what i mean. Now if you can get the right buffs off on this unit, then it becomes a close combat monster.

All in all, my biggest issue is Psychology esentially being a nonfactor, and the untable rule for Undead.

Aluinn
19-08-2011, 01:20
Well I'm quite fine with Unstable. The fact that Undead should have to consistently win combats and kill significant numbers of enemy models in order to win games is not something that I find bothersome; it only seems right. If Undead units were flat-out always Unbreakable without such a drawback, it would be painfully easy to tarpit anything one wanted for the full duration of a game, or near enough as made no difference, and I think Skavenslaves have taught us all how potentially broken that can be :).

As for the changes to Fear, I support them on the basis that the old Fear rules were broken, but I have to admit I don't like them in the sense that they so rarely come into play at all. It's quite often that an entire game will transpire with no one failing a Fear test, and obviously that's not satisfying at all. I would much have preferred if it required each individual model (you could roll for identical models as a group of course) to pass the test on their own unmodified Ld, with no re-rolls from the BSB. In this case it would work about 1/3 of the time or so, which seems about right.

In general, though, I think the rules for Undead do an adequate job of making them "feel" like Undead.

catbarf
19-08-2011, 02:03
On the subject of Fear: I always thought it strange that Undead had such massive bonuses in the form of Fear and other psychology effects. The undead may be terrifying, but in a world populated by monstrous Orcs, hordes of rat-men, seven-foot-tall armor-covered Chaos warriors, and demons of hell itself, surely walking skeletons can't be that special.

As for Fear being nerfed as a rule- as an Ogre player, I feel your pain. Steadfast is a big problem for Fear-causing units now.

Jolly Puggles
19-08-2011, 02:30
The Undead lost their identity when they stopped being "Undead" and became "Vampire Counts" and "Tomb Kings". Every other race gets to pick and choose from amongst the various factions that exist within their society (or approximation of, at least), so why do the Undead have two separate lists that don't even cover all of said factions? Greenskins are allowed Orcs AND Goblins, Skaven are allowed Clan Pestilens AND Clan Skryre, Daemons can have Khornate and Slaaneshi troops fighting alonside each other without flinching and High Elves can pick and choose units from every elite fighting cadre extant in Ulthuan, but an Undead army can't have Mummies fighting alongside Vampires, Ghouls supported by Skeleton Archers or Wraiths backed up by a Chariot. Nor can an Undead player field a Necromancer with a backbone, an army of Wights fresh from their barrows that are actually led by other Wights or any other Undead army that isn't pigeon-holed by the two rather narrow themes we're stuck with now.

Fear having less impact in the current rules is the least of our worries regarding 'identity'...

Late
19-08-2011, 07:03
^Exactly Mr.Puggles.

Seems like people, mostly the pocket calculator-wielding min/max crowd, mistinterpreted identity with game prowess.

Scammel
19-08-2011, 07:39
The Undead lost their identity when they stopped being "Undead" and became "Vampire Counts" and "Tomb Kings".

So, taking one generic, all-encompassing book, dividing it into two distinct themes with their own variations within them, expanding on two said themes and giving them a playstyle with some similarities but with some important distinctions causes a reduction in identity? I think it rather does the opposite.

tw1386
19-08-2011, 08:03
Heh, you guys have mistaken me entirely but that is my fault for not wording it properly it my original posting.

I personally believe fluff wise our identity has grown stronger, and even more so with the split army books. I never did understand why the two undead factions who pretty much hate each other were in the same book. I guess it could be said the same for Chaos. Anyways, I digress.


Now I'm a huge fluff junky, yet I'm also a competitive player. What I want is for undead to be represented in game terms like they are in the fluff. An army of mindless skeletons / zombies who shamble forward relentlessly. Every fluff story I have read about undead, this is how they are portrayed,minus the stories of Blood Dragons and their like.

All in all Fluff wise our identity is still there because well, its the fluff. On the tabletop though? I don't think it exists anymore. Maybe when the rest of the armies get updated for 8th edition, it will return but for now I think I can say RIP for my ideas of what playing the undead factions mean.

I just hope that the current Tomb King book is not a sign of things to come for our fellow Vampire Counts, but I am probably being too optimistic.

Ville
19-08-2011, 08:22
I'm waiting for the day we get good rules for our Zombies, after that my every game will be like a George A. Romero film!

I think the two Undead races have pretty strong, different identities. Tomb Kings have efficient, tactically advanced armies, while Vampires command smelly shambling hordes (much better IMO :skull:).

AlexHolker
19-08-2011, 08:33
Who knows, maybe there is a bloodline of vampires out there who are warrior scholars, unsettlingly pretty and savagely aristocratic.
If there is they need staking. It sounds like something Stephanie Meyer would write.

SunTzu
19-08-2011, 08:38
The Undead lost their identity when they stopped being "Undead" and became "Vampire Counts" and "Tomb Kings". Every other race gets to pick and choose from amongst the various factions that exist within their society

Yes, just like those Elves have Witch Elves and Swordmasters and Waywatchers all in the same list; and those Humans have Cannons and Grail Knights and Pikemen all in the same list.

Simply being Undead doesn't necessarily make you any more alike to another Undead than a High Elf is to a Wood Elf.

shelfunit.
19-08-2011, 09:47
Yes, just like those Elves have Witch Elves and Swordmasters and Waywatchers all in the same list; and those Humans have Cannons and Grail Knights and Pikemen all in the same list.

Simply being Undead doesn't necessarily make you any more alike to another Undead than a High Elf is to a Wood Elf.

Hmmm, because elves all used to have a single combined army list :rolleyes: . Up until (around) 6th edition there were no "vampire counts" or Tomb Kings", there was just "Undead". You could build your army to whichever "theme" you wanted.
Quick history lesson - Brets did use to be able to take cannons (but not pikemen) - and war altars.

greensea
19-08-2011, 09:53
I dont think undead have lost their identity, maybe it used to be better but with the tk
and wc being enemies to the bone so to say it makes sense they are different armies.

Or maybe this is cause i tend to play against tk with vampires that it feels to me they are epic enemies

SideshowLucifer
19-08-2011, 11:45
Ive been thinking recently about fear. I think it should cause enemies to have instability to represent fear causing some members of the unit to break when beaten in combat. Seems a nice comprimise to auto-break and makes undead seem scary again.

SunTzu
19-08-2011, 12:27
Hmmm, because elves all used to have a single combined army list :rolleyes: .

Undead used to. Now they don't.


Quick history lesson - Brets did use to be able to take cannons (but not pikemen) - and war altars.

Used to. Now don't. You don't need to give me history lessons, I was there (man!!!).

OK, but is this about "used to"? Surely it's about "should"... should Bretonnians have cannons? No. Should Undead be one united force? IMO, no.

"Used to" has nothing to do with it. The poster I was responding to said "all other races" are united into one list each so Undead should be too, when really he just meant Orcs and Goblins, and Skaven. Elves, and Humans, aren't united... and neither are Undead. Even though they once were.

Chainaxe07
19-08-2011, 12:56
Hi, well, in my club ALL ex-vampires lost an astounding amount of battles, since the 6th edition i think.
It has nothing to do with ghouls/zombies/skeletons or whatever, but rather to the odd undead rules, that enable you opponent to basically autowin if he kills you general. We did that so many times, our vamp player (and there were quite a few, actually...) got so frustrated they simply moved to other armies. It got worse over the years, with vamp losing 1 wound and generally becoming easier to kill, and nasty things like killing blow, heroic killing blow or autokill/vas damage dealing spells and or attack types becoming very common.
No way you can protect a single model in Warhammer, not even in the old heroehammer days, actually.
Our only "vc" players converted all his chaos warriors to look like blood dragon vampires, his marauders are flagellant/zombie things and he uses blood knights as chaos knights. Of course he uses the WOC rules, so you cant really count him as a VC player anylongher, can u?

nurgle5
19-08-2011, 14:52
I just hope that the current Tomb King book is not a sign of things to come for our fellow Vampire Counts, but I am probably being too optimistic.

I don't think the current Tomb Kings is all that bad, they have a wider spread of better, cheaper units than before and don't have to invest as much points in magic because of that. I understand that buffs and resurrecting troops is useful but could you explain why you feel Tomb Kings are so dependent on it (apart from teh free move one, that's a given :p)?

I reckon VC will be less dependent on magic, they're going to have to be, as magic is so unpredictable. However, I'd bet that things like the corpse cart would work innately like the cauldron of blood rather than as magic.

The current fear rules represent psychology on the battlefield quite well IMHO. People are used to fighting scary things in this world, so while they might be frightened enough to run away, they're not going to be fighting at their best.

Lord_Squinty
19-08-2011, 15:15
Blood and Glory means you need to take skeletons and zombies

OMG! The insanity of it all!
Imagine having to take skeletons and zombies in a Vampire Counts army!...

:rolleyes:

Daniel36
19-08-2011, 15:20
I laughed out loud when I read in the current issue of WD, some guy hyping SoM wrote: "I've always loved the idea of a combined force of Chaos Warriors and Daemons of Chaos marching to war as one in service to their infernal masters. Fortunately, Storm of Magic allows me to do just that!"

hahahahaha

Whahahaha.... That is classic. Because we all know that
A: It wasn't ever like that, and
B: It would otherwise be beyond impossible to just throw two different armies on the table without suffering extreme pain.

On topic, Undead indeed lost their identity when the Vampire Counts came out. And, as already stated, lost even more than just their identity with the removal of the bloodlines, which was already flawed to begin with anyways.

Warhammer as a whole is losing more and more of its identity anyways.

Woodsman
19-08-2011, 16:39
On topic, Undead indeed lost their identity when the Vampire Counts came out. And, as already stated, lost even more than just their identity with the removal of the bloodlines, which was already flawed to begin with anyways.

Warhammer as a whole is losing more and more of its identity anyways.

Why?

Not trying to just be a pain in the ass :evilgrin: but wondering why undead lost identity when they split and why warhammer as a whole is loosing it?

I can see the fear thing but to be honest I like fear a lot more now. I do sometimes look at games and wonder if wholesale BSB re-rolls isn't a little OTT.

However, I think the other complaints can be put down to an old book in a new edition. VC happened to be hit in several areas

Scammel
19-08-2011, 17:05
I'm not sure all of the heartache over the bloodlines is justified considering the 'identity' of one of them was little more than a hackneyed version of Dracula's extended family - it was like Christopher Lee was on the table with you.

Malark
19-08-2011, 17:20
I'm not sure all of the heartache over the bloodlines is justified considering the 'identity' of one of them was little more than a hackneyed version of Dracula's extended family - it was like Christopher Lee was on the table with you.

Cristopher Lee on the table with you?? Omg now that would be something! Imagine if only he would narrate battles or better yet, inspire your troops with his awesome voice :D "LEAVE NONE ALIVE"

Gliderrider
20-08-2011, 01:48
Personally, I think undead should have been split with Counts and Necro's. Both would have Zombies and skellies, but counts have the "Transilvanian" themed undead units such as direwolves, while the necromancers get more exotic undead from a more fantasy theme. Oh, wait.....

My only problem with Tomb Kings is the overly Egyption/Skorpion king feel, IMHO, they didnt have that far out a feel if you were leading them with necromancers way back in the day.

I wont go as far as say it spoils it, I rather like the idea of a horde of half human half dog egyptian skeleton horde, its just that the way it used to be was more of a classic fantasy feel, rather than from a 2nd rate film about an indiana jones wannabe.

Jolly Puggles
21-08-2011, 09:50
Yes, just like those Elves have Witch Elves and Swordmasters and Waywatchers all in the same list; and those Humans have Cannons and Grail Knights and Pikemen all in the same list.

Simply being Undead doesn't necessarily make you any more alike to another Undead than a High Elf is to a Wood Elf.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally averse to having "Faction" books rather than "Race" books...as you point out Elves and Humans are both catagorised by faction rather than race. What bugs me about the way they split Undead is the way they did it. When you look at Elves, you have High Elves (the Good), Dark Elves (the Bad) and Wood Elves (the Ugly, I suppose ;) ), which each have a distinct role/theme and between those three factions, you've pretty much got every Elf in the Warhammer World covered.

For an army like Skaven or Orcs&Gobbos, the differences between their factions is not distinct enough to warrant a separate Army List, so no complaint there.

When I look at the Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings books, however, I'm seeing gaps in the potential of the Undead "race". The old unified Undead book covered them by generalising the fluff, but by 'expanding' the fluff by writing the VC/TK books, they've marginalised the scope. I see the same gaps in the Human race too...there's definitely a potential niche for Estalia/Tilea (which I kind of see as the "High Elves" of the Human race in play/army style), Kislev (can I extend the metaphor to make a Wood Elf comparison?) and the far east (notably Ind and Cathay). However, the gaps in the Human race have never really been filled...those factions have always been margin-notes rather than main text...so I don't kick up a stink about them.

On the other hand, the lack of the "Necromancer" army is such a glaring hole and it's such an easy one to cover whilst maintaining a definitive and distinctive theme between the Undead armies. To expand;

Vampire Counts : The army of the night...Vampires, Ghouls, Direwolves, Giant Bats.
Necromancers : The shambling hordes...Zombies, Skeletons, Wights and Wraiths
Tomb Kings : The exotic mysteries of the desert...Mummies, Ushabti, Sphinxes and all the 'egyptian' themed stuff.

Aluinn
21-08-2011, 10:35
^Exactly Mr.Puggles.

Seems like people, mostly the pocket calculator-wielding min/max crowd, mistinterpreted identity with game prowess.

Or, you know, it's that the OP seemed to be talking more about rules ("... in 8th Ed.", etc.) than fluff, or, to be more specific, how well the rules reflect what we're meant to imagine happening on the battlefield.

I've written far too much on how lame it is that VC absolutely must be led by a Vampire to be accused of disregarding fluff. I would kill for a Necromancer army option; it just didn't seem to be what this thread was about. 8th Ed. didn't change fluff, after all, nor did it exactly bring new army books (though granted TK have had one during it, but the fluff there is fairly close to what was presented in the previous TK book). The main change for Undead that 8th Ed. brought was the change to Fear, i.e. a mechanical change.

Please think for a moment before calling most people in a thread min-maxers based on the fact that they dared to discuss mechanics.

Darkmaw
21-08-2011, 13:21
I don't think so.

Undead troops are still "scary" as in they have not lost their Fear rule.
Ghostly troops still have ethereal.
Zombie hordes, Skeleton hordes can be done without breaking any rules.

The units still have their rules which make them identifiable with being undead.

Undead have not lost their identity.

theunwantedbeing
21-08-2011, 13:36
Here are some ideas of what I think should be done to help us out.

- BSB rerolls should not of been a rule for all leadership tests coupled with steadfast.I think you should have to choose between one, or the other, but not both.
I see the problem more as the general's inspiring presence working with steadfast. In anycase, it's not that big an issue for VC's.


- Fear should reduce Initiative as well as Weapon skill. How quick can you really be when you poo your pants?
Yeah that would have been a handy alteration, but being reduced to ws1 is pretty nasty. The only issue is that with the BsB and general nearby, it's a re-rollable ld9/10 test to fail before you get reduced to ws1. Which means fear is largely irrelevant as a result, rather than being too weak.
The BsB shouldn't allow a re-roll of everything.


- Make steadfast mean something for undead (besides combat reforms) like taking half crumble tests (round up), or just only allow it to effect one combat. E.G. splitting the wounds across units involved in that combat. Undead also need a BSB rework, but I have no idea what that would entail.
Undead unit's now need to outrank the other guy, one thing that would be handy is if you ignored the first rank (same as you do for disruption and rank bonuses) to get steadfast. Fear no longer auto-breaking due to the removal of unit strength wasn't that crippling to the undead as they rarely outnumbered anyway. VC armies were tiny 30-50 man things usually and TK's were too pricey and relied more on hitting hard and their secondary movement phase to work.

So no, Undead haven't lost their identity in 8th edition.
If anything, the reliance on big number units and lots of ranks have meant that the Undead have regained their lost identity from 7th edition where armies were super elite things with fewer numbers than everyone bar ogres and chaos.

Maoriboy007
21-08-2011, 21:32
The problem is that all you see now are pretty much the same lists because the rules as they are have them at such a disadvantage that it is more practical to play a stock standard list of troops you can actually rely on to perform relatively well. That is the identity loss that has been suffered, the majority of the VC book is rarely seen much on the tabletops only troop types the offset the usual disadvantages of being undead are regularly played.

falcone
22-08-2011, 06:16
I would kill for a Necromancer army option

I don't see why you can't. Use a Vampire Lord with all casting abilities, no combat abilities. Use a Necromancer model and call it a Necromancer.

SideshowLucifer
23-08-2011, 03:19
You pay way too many points for that base WS and S and T then a necromancer would have, which would leave more room for your army.

Maoriboy007
23-08-2011, 03:56
OMG! The insanity of it all!
Imagine having to take skeletons and zombies in a Vampire Counts army!...

:rolleyes:

I can imagine it all to easily, and then imagine how much the army sucks because of thier inclusion.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of skeleton and Zombie hordes, but I dropped skeletons from my army because it cost me too many games because of their inclusion, and Zombies were pretty terrible even in 7th without enough support in magic to make them nearly redundant.
Is'nt that one of the main issues really, you should be able to include them and keep that competitive edge.

falcone
23-08-2011, 10:49
you should be able to include them and keep that competitive edge.

You can. I only use skeletons, no ghouls. And my army has remained competitive.

falcone
23-08-2011, 11:25
You pay way too many points for that base WS and S and T then a necromancer would have, which would leave more room for your army.

I think you need to look at the point values again. There's very little points being wasted for a Vampire's stats. There are no Necromancer Lords so approximations are made to come up with these numbers. We'll start with the Vampire Hero since it the same level of character as a Necromancer. The Vampire's base cost is 100 points. We won't take into account the upgrade possibilities because all of them could be used for casting upgrades, which don't effect the cost you are paying for Vampire's combat stats. The Vampire Lord is about twice as many points, so it's reasonable to assume that a Necromancer Lord would be twice as many points as a Necromancer Hero. Since the Necromancer costs 55 points, the Lord would cost roughly 110 points. That's only a difference of 95 points from the Vampire Lord. So at the most you are only paying 95 points for the Vampire's combat ability. It's realistically lower than this however. But I'm having a hard time finding the words to explain why, so we will just call it 95 for the sake of argument. The 95 points would only buy an extra 11 Ghouls or Skeletons, which is not that many.

Eternus
23-08-2011, 12:31
Undead haven't lost their identity, it's just that the rules and list don't currently reflect that identity. Speaking as a Vampire Counts player (and I've effectively been a VC player since the time of the 'Undead' book) the thing lackng from the army is what we read about in every bit if VC fluff there is: Hordes. 'The horde of armoured skeleton warriors advanced implacably toward the foe'....'The horde of moaning zombies shambled into the enemy lines, flowing around and over them like a tide of corpses'.

This just doesn't happen. Any issues I have with the changes to Fear and the introduction of Steadfast and always striking in Initiative order with VC's come down to one thing - points cost. How can you have a horde when skeletons cost 8 points? How can you represent a horde of Zombies when they die so rediculously quickly, between T2, no armour, almost always striking last and being almost incapable of harming the enemy? Blocks of 40/50 last only a couple of turns in combat, because they lose a truck load to the enemy attacks, then the same again to crumbling. Skeletons and Zombies took a major knock when those three things changed, and all that needs to happen is for their points values to be adjusted accordingly, just like TK Skeletons - skeletons should drop to 4 points, zombies to 2 points (or 3 points but increase their toughness to 3 to represent the fact that you can chop bits off them and they keep coming) and every other VC core model should be dropped by at least 1 point. This would allow us to represent the hordes we keep reading about in the fluff without having to mess about with the main rules. Identity properly represented, issues with the current VC core units solved IMO.

Memnos
23-08-2011, 12:57
I have several concerns with the OP:

1) Undead losing identity - This is silly. Not having a rule that says 'Bloodlines' doesn't make you lose identity. The Bloodline powers enable you to create various bloodlines perfectly. The fact that you can combine bloodline powers just means you can make the exceptional being. Only if you feel that only Necrarchs are super-powerful magically(Look at Manfred), only Blood Dragons are incredibly skilled Martially(Look at Konrad) and only Lhamians are sexy beasts(Look at Vlad) do you find that they have lost 'character'.

If you want a character that has character, when you create him, give him character.

2) Vampire Counts need to take one particular style of army - Bulldookey. That's the most popular army, but it isn't the only viable one. I play Beastmen. Thinking like this has made Beastmen one of the least played army as everyone says how weak they are. If you don't want to play the standard army, don't play the standard army. You can make it work. They just tend to require far more forethought and a battle plan that you stick to. They tend to be less forgiving than the 'fire and forget' army builds.

T10
23-08-2011, 14:03
If you are unsure of your skeletons' identity, use dental records.

Okuto
23-08-2011, 14:24
I only have two grievance with my TK....

-You figure for a civ that was obsessed with maintaining their life they'd be able to heal one another.....

-I miss the "reliable" modest magic.......miscast with my TK is a foreign word to me

But generally I find the undead to be ok...the new TK book was a good first step to the undead's new position in 8th

T10
23-08-2011, 14:43
Yes, but "healing" in the case of TK is "maintaining death"...

Okuto
23-08-2011, 14:46
indeed thats why I think its silly characters cant be healed

Spiney Norman
23-08-2011, 16:21
(This is not a rant thread, but more of a discussion of the topic.)

I do play both Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings and I have a fascination for undead for some odd reason, but that's beside the point.

Ever since the launch of 8th edition, have Vampire Counts and recently, Tomb Kings lost their iconic value of being undead? When are the enemy soldiers going to start crapping their pants again at the site of us?

From the games I've played for the past year with my Vampire Counts, and more noticeably with the new Tomb Kings, we are no longer the force that strikes terror and fear into the hearts of our enemies. We no longer stick around like the implacable horde that we are meant to be. The Undying legions of skeleton warriors, or the hordes of zombies... they just go poof!


I think you're overstating the problem, Tomb Kings certainly do have more raising power in their 8th Ed book than they did in their 6th Ed book where raising was very limited and almost never your best choice of incantation to attempt. Instead you can cast 2-3 spells a turn which, if successful raise models into every unit within 12", thats pretty impressive, even by VC standards.

Fear is the biggest kick in the crotch, it literally means nothing, even in the unlikely event of your enemy failing his Leadership test he's now fighting at WS1 while your core infantry are striking him from the dizzying heights of WS2. Wow, so no-one actually cares about being attacked by an animated skeleton anymore then???

They should have made it auto-hit and negates steadfast for units affected by fear, but even so, its more of a fluff annoyance than actually making undead unplayable. I'm pretty pleased with how my Kings have worked so far under the new book.

Eternus
23-08-2011, 16:45
Hmm, maybe Fear should reduce WS to 1 and the fearful unit counts as having zero ranks? This would effectively make them Disrupted and negate Steadfast at the same time.

eron12
23-08-2011, 18:26
Fear is the biggest kick in the crotch, it literally means nothing, even in the unlikely event of your enemy failing his Leadership test he's now fighting at WS1 while your core infantry are striking him from the dizzying heights of WS2. Wow, so no-one actually cares about being attacked by an animated skeleton anymore then???


As someone else pointed out, within a fantastic setting animated skeletons aren't that exceptional. When you have animated trees, hulking green warriors with giant axes, giant dinosaurs, 7 foot tall barbarians encased in black plate armor and literal demons walking around, a skeletion isn't that scary.

IcedCrow
23-08-2011, 18:28
Except that if you are tagged with "fear" that means that you are saying by the rules it is more scary than normal things.

Lotl Botl
23-08-2011, 19:01
while their are big hulking varieties of griblies wandering around in the world, undead are supposed to exert a semi-magical aura of fear unlike an orc. Also, if i saw a hooded cloaked skeleton flying around with a scythe in real life vs lets say an angry bigfoot i think id be less scared of the bigfoot because i can kinda rap my head around bigfoots existence versus something super natural. That being said i think a demon would be even scarier than a ghost

Lathrael
23-08-2011, 21:36
Zombies : Regen 5+ and T3. So they will be tarpids as they should be. And fits the theme that a zombie can ignore a chopped off arm or a chest wound. Kill it with fire or cut its head off!

Skeletons: Should be 5 points, as their TK counterparts.

Then we will be able to see something core and not Ghoul on a VC army...

tehhelios
26-08-2011, 21:02
I play vampire counts, or rather I did last edition.

They made my whole army unplayable, ghouls are the only viable core and you cant even have characters in zombies, which somehow managed to get worse which i thought allmost impossible.

I have no interest in playing "ghoul kings". Vampires are suppost to be noble, atleast the majority of the bloodlines.

eron12
27-08-2011, 00:28
while their are big hulking varieties of griblies wandering around in the world, undead are supposed to exert a semi-magical aura of fear unlike an orc. Also, if i saw a hooded cloaked skeleton flying around with a scythe in real life vs lets say an angry bigfoot i think id be less scared of the bigfoot because i can kinda rap my head around bigfoots existence versus something super natural. That being said i think a demon would be even scarier than a ghost

In Warhammer the supernatural is mundane. If the real world was perodically wracked by large invasions of undead monsters and ghosts I think you would have an easier time wrapping your head around the concept.

malisteen
27-08-2011, 02:36
I haven't read through the TK book - hardcover codex prices being too high for me for the armies I don't play - but I'm not too worried about vamp counts. Yeah, some of the units got way too terrible with the shift to 8th, but I trust that such will be addressed.

The fear nerf was overkill - it really doesn't matter much now. Better if it just caused disruption or some such. Whatever. Sadly, that won't be fixed till 9th edition, but I trust the points costs at least will be adjusted - being undead used to be a major upgrade for lesser troops, but now it just isn't, and they'll need to be adjusted down in cost. Further, with step up attacks and multirank fighting, some of the bad units have become way too bad and will need to be upgraded. Zombies could get +2 toughness and they'd still be the junky tarpits they should be.


I do miss the necromancers though. They used to be the core of the undead fluff back in the day. Since then they've been completely marginalized. Imagine if the lizardmen army were split into two codexes - Saurus Counts and Skink Kings, and Slaan were just dropped from lizardmen fluff altogether, perhaps continuing only as a hero only mage option restricted to level 1 in the saurus book. That's what the VC/TK split feels like to me. Necromancers were the iconic masters of the undead, and Nagash was the unbeating heart and blackened soul of the undead fluff. It's not that TK or VC are bad in and of themselves, but the best part of the warhammer undead is just gone.

malisteen
27-08-2011, 02:39
In Warhammer the supernatural is mundane. If the real world was perodically wracked by large invasions of undead monsters and ghosts I think you would have an easier time wrapping your head around the concept.

In that case, just dump the fear special rule from the game, don't make models pay for an 'upgrade' that isn't.

That said, I think the game would lose something if you did.

eron12
27-08-2011, 05:16
In that case, just dump the fear special rule from the game, don't make models pay for an 'upgrade' that isn't.

That said, I think the game would lose something if you did.

Fear isn't useless, it's just not as powerful as it used to be. Hopefully a new VC book will take that into account.

I don't think fear should be dropped from the game, but I'm not convinced by the fluff argument that animated bones would be extra frightening compared to many of the other things in the Warhammer World.

nagash42
27-08-2011, 06:41
Well I do think they're quite boned agaisnt the new ogre book with bull charge dozens of attacks, stomp and finally combat rez i can see undead units vanishing very quickly. They need a new book fast.

Late
27-08-2011, 07:52
I do miss the necromancers though. They used to be the core of the undead fluff back in the day. Since then they've been completely marginalized. INecromancers were the iconic masters of the undead, and Nagash was the unbeating heart and blackened soul of the undead fluff. It's not that TK or VC are bad in and of themselves, but the best part of the warhammer undead is just gone.

Agreed 100%, since Necromancers are so sucky nowadays, I have no use for Heinrich Kemmler, one of the coolest special characters of old. The model itself is too epic to be a lvl1 Thrall Necromancer :D

falcone
27-08-2011, 08:12
but I'm not convinced by the fluff argument that animated bones would be extra frightening compared to many of the other things in the Warhammer World.

I think they are. All creatures in Warhammer, including daemons and monsters, can be killed. They may be scary but you still know you can get a lucky swing in and it will fall dead. The Undead however, are already dead, so you can't kill them. You may be able to knock them down or break them apart but the magic can just raise them back up. Knowing you cannot kill an enemy is scarier in my opinion.

malisteen
27-08-2011, 11:09
Like daemons, undead are wholly unnatural beings, creatures of dark magic that shouldn't be, something altogether different from an orc or a gor or a skaven.

Likewise, there's the uncanny valley effect - wherein a moving corpse is the most disturbing creature possible. This is a primal, instinctive reaction, it isn't a rational fear based on actual danger, and it could most certainly still exist even in a world fraught with other dangers and monsters.

Autobreak from fear was too much, but what we currently have is too little. It doesn't feel worth the time to roll the check, especially with how largely unfailable those checks are these days. Fear is an effect that shows up maybe once every second or third game? Is it a big enough effect to be worth all the extra rolling at that rate? I don't really think so, myself.

kramplarv
27-08-2011, 11:37
In Warhammer the supernatural is mundane. If the real world was perodically wracked by large invasions of undead monsters and ghosts I think you would have an easier time wrapping your head around the concept.

actually not. Reading fluff etc gives the picture that supernatural are just that. Spernatural. 99% of the times an soldier fights it will be against "mundane" enemies. Beastmen, orcs etc.

most of the none soldiering parts of the inhabitants won't see anyting supernatural their entire life, save for the occasional magician or warrior priest coming to town.

Neckutter
27-08-2011, 18:25
"I've always loved the idea of a combined force of Chaos Warriors and Daemons of Chaos marching to war as one in service to their infernal masters. Fortunately, Storm of Magic allows me to do just that!"

hahahahaha

yeah that guy shoulda played 7th edition mortals of chaos/beasts of chaos. duh.

H33D
27-08-2011, 18:36
Fear should be against a unit's unmodified leadership without inspiring presence or bsb rerolls. They are to focused on pooping their pants to notice their leader(s) nearby.

The bearded one
27-08-2011, 18:53
"Run away hanz! It's a unit of overcosted zombies, whom we outnumber, that burst apart after a single blow!"

eron12
27-08-2011, 18:55
actually not. Reading fluff etc gives the picture that supernatural are just that. Spernatural. 99% of the times an soldier fights it will be against "mundane" enemies. Beastmen, orcs etc.

most of the none soldiering parts of the inhabitants won't see anyting supernatural their entire life, save for the occasional magician or warrior priest coming to town.

Because mutated manbeasts are certainly natural. And most armies don't march to battle with the aid of wizards, shamans, etc. Fluff might say the average soldier never sees anything supernatural, but if so the fluff is totally divorced from the "reality" of the Warhammer world as seen through the game.

Afterall, one of the games 4 phases is completely dedicated to the supernatural.

The bearded one
27-08-2011, 19:03
I think with 'supernatural' he means more "beyond simply physical". A big hulking orc is a physical threat. An undead or demon is beyond just physical. It's unnatural and magical and fighting it might doom your soul.

Seriously though, if empire troops can blindly charge into a unit of chosen warriors of chaos without a second thought, animated skeletons might still be scary, but nothing more than a slight shudder.

eron12
27-08-2011, 20:38
I think with 'supernatural' he means more "beyond simply physical". A big hulking orc is a physical threat. An undead or demon is beyond just physical. It's unnatural and magical and fighting it might doom your soul.

Seriously though, if empire troops can blindly charge into a unit of chosen warriors of chaos without a second thought, animated skeletons might still be scary, but nothing more than a slight shudder.

That's why I argued against beastmen as an example not orcs. Orcs are clearly a physical threat, and even a natural one. Beastmen being warped and mutated by the power of chaos goes beyond the natural world, and unless Chaos follows the laws of physics it would go beyond the physical as well into the metaphysical.

I would say Orcs are physical and natural, but demons, undead, and beastmen are both supernatural and metaphysical.


Fear should be against a unit's unmodified leadership without inspiring presence or bsb rerolls. They are to focused on pooping their pants to notice their leader(s) nearby.

I like this adjustment. I also like fear reducing I as well as WS. In fact, I think you could combeing the I reduction and the unmodified leadership without it being overpowered.

Scribe of Khorne
27-08-2011, 21:07
Eh, beastmen follow laws of nature though. They bleed, breath, drink, get wasted....I would certainly stack them along Orcs as a more "natural" threat then Undead/Daemons.

eron12
27-08-2011, 22:23
Eh, beastmen follow laws of nature though. They bleed, breath, drink, get wasted....I would certainly stack them along Orcs as a more "natural" threat then Undead/Daemons.

Though they exist via an unatural process. I would agree they are less supernatural than Undead/Daemons, but I would still place them closer to Undead/Daemons than to Orcs.

The bearded one
27-08-2011, 22:28
Only barely. The very first generations of beastmen were warped, mutated and spawned from other creatures, but since then they have became a race of their own, are born and grow just like humans. A portion of beastmen is mutants, though it is still in a very different league of metaphysical as daemons and undead. Daemons and undead are saturated by unnatural forces and are animated by them or exists from them. (some) beastmen come into being by mutating powers of chaos, but that's all. They're furry orcs, basically.

tw1386
27-08-2011, 22:45
You also have to take into account the rarity of it. I mean, Undead invasions are probably one of the most rare invasions in the world. I would rather fight Beastman, Orcs, Skaven and whatever else there is than I would the Undead from the realms of Sylvania.

I would honestly be more terrified during a battle where my brothers, friends, father, and whoever else just got killed next time, and is now in turn trying to kill me. I mean, I think it would be alot harder to stab the face of a loved one than a monster looking thing. On top of that, the stench would be awful and of course you have the fact that it would be as black as midnight due to the foul magicks of the Vampires.

Tomb Kings? Meh, just a bunch of dry bones. :-)

snottlebocket
27-08-2011, 23:31
Because mutated manbeasts are certainly natural. And most armies don't march to battle with the aid of wizards, shamans, etc. Fluff might say the average soldier never sees anything supernatural, but if so the fluff is totally divorced from the "reality" of the Warhammer world as seen through the game.

Afterall, one of the games 4 phases is completely dedicated to the supernatural.

People face horrible beasts all the time. Wolves, bear, beastmen, orcs. There's no shortage of things that want to kill you.

But at least most of them don't look like dearly departed uncle bob. They don't haunt the places you bury your parents. And fighting orcs doesn't mean there's a good chance you'll forfeit your eternal rest as your corpse rises to try and murder your children.

SideshowLucifer
28-08-2011, 03:16
I agree on fear needing something. I really like the idea of fear causing extra casualties representing people frozen in terror or fleeing from battle.

Nubl0
28-08-2011, 03:52
While I will agree that daemons are unatural and unsetteling to fight, I would actually stick undead in the mundane camp with orcs and beastmen. Sure it's not right that its a dead thing lurching at you but honestly do you expect me to believe that a soldier would be more scred of a human skeleton in scraps of armour shambling at him, than a huge savage orc roaring at him?

GreenDracoBob
28-08-2011, 05:14
Well, this is just getting circular. :eyebrows: One person says, "Undead are super/unnatural, and cause fear magically." The next, "Yeah, but wouldn't you be more scared of a big ol' roaring orc?" Ad nauseam.

It seems there is no convincing people. In the end, Undead cause fear because that's how they were designed mechanically. There's a million and one things people can be afraid of, but I don't see common things like heights or spiders getting worked into the game. Fear is first and foremost an abstraction to benefit certain units and armies, including Undead.

Now, you can justify any rule with background, and its the same here. Either Undead just are scary because they are, or the magic that brings them to unlife is such that penetrates a man's mind and weakens his resolve unlike the less magical hordes that muck about the Warhammer world.

Of course, its all make-believe, so if you're so inclined, every one of the Forces of Destruction now cause fear. Sadistic Elves, slobbering beastmen, vicious Greenskins, towering black knights and, yes, legions of the undead now make those weak-willed Forces of Order wet themselves.

And to balance the scales, the Forces of Order, with their belief in basic city-planning and love of kittens, cause fear in the Forces of Destruction. Seriously, to an Orc or Vampire that must be terrifyingly unnatural.

snottlebocket
28-08-2011, 07:10
While I will agree that daemons are unatural and unsetteling to fight, I would actually stick undead in the mundane camp with orcs and beastmen. Sure it's not right that its a dead thing lurching at you but honestly do you expect me to believe that a soldier would be more scred of a human skeleton in scraps of armour shambling at him, than a huge savage orc roaring at him?

Considering real people have actually gone out of their way to fight enormous bears with a piece of wood just for it's skin, but were still terrified of dead people that never even rose... yes.

falcone
28-08-2011, 07:32
do you expect me to believe that a soldier would be more scred of a human skeleton in scraps of armour shambling at him, than a huge savage orc roaring at him?

Yes, because like was said earlier a soldier can get lucky and kill the Orc. And once its dead, that's the end of it. But that skeleton, you strike it down and it can just get back up and attack you again. You can never truly kill it. ANd I'm not saying there aren't situations where an Orc will be terrifying. There are plenty of Orcs that cause fear, as they should. I don't know why this debate even started. I think it has to do with the effect of fear for the Undead in the game. Which is seriously lacking.

Gazak Blacktoof
28-08-2011, 10:41
Having played a couple of games against VC recently I'll say that I don't really think they're lacking in character. They're still able to weather ranged fire, replace their losses in combat, never flee and raise additional units of shambling zombies.

Some of that has decreased in potency with the new edition, but they're still a characterful army that plays well enough on the table top to make the game entertaining for both players.

SideshowLucifer
28-08-2011, 14:43
How much did fear affect the game though? Where you worried about the effect? Did the VC player even remember to get you to roll each round for it (I know I forget a lot since it doesn't matter much anyways)?

I think it comes down to most people attributed a lot of the undead's identity and tactics into the mechanic we payed out the nose for, which is fear. Also, never fleeing isn't a huge advantage any more when everything is steadfast and never flees either and they don't lose extra models after each round of combat.

It seems undead weather combat worse them most other armies now because of a lack of effect for fear, steadfast on enemies, and crumbling. All three of those pretty much make undead a completely different army then it has been up until this edition.

The bearded one
28-08-2011, 15:06
That's why they're getting cheaper, like TK skellies.

snottlebocket
28-08-2011, 15:38
That's why they're getting cheaper, like TK skellies.

Are they? I don't see a vampire counts book on the horizon.

The bearded one
28-08-2011, 15:54
* bangs head against the wall *



when they do, they will undoubtedly get cheaper.. TK skellies are a fair indication for VC skellies, with them being nearly identical and whatnot, for whenever the VC book comes around.

Maoriboy007
29-08-2011, 01:28
Personally I'm dreading what they are likely to do to the VC book if TK are any indication.

nurgle5
29-08-2011, 01:41
Personally I'm dreading what they are likely to do to the VC book if TK are any indication.

Could you elaborate :confused:?

TheMadMarquis
29-08-2011, 01:50
I'm guessing he doesn't want to lose his magic items... and fair enough, given some of the stuff VC can field.

I think I lose to VC more than I win, but I still think they need a new army book pretty urgently. It's ghouls and grave guard or nothing: zombies and skellies need major points cuts. As long as ghouls went up in price a bit, I'd be perfectly happy to face 2-point zombies. Vampire Counts should be an innumerable, disturbing shambling horde, not just yet another few blocks of somewhat elite infantry.

Aluinn
29-08-2011, 02:33
I don't see why you can't. Use a Vampire Lord with all casting abilities, no combat abilities. Use a Necromancer model and call it a Necromancer.

You can do that, and my problem isn't even that it costs more than a "true" Necromancer Lord would, but that it never feels like a Necromancer. The stats are all wrong, mostly, and you're relying on Vampiric powers even to be a good spellcaster, which you can pretend are coming from some extra magic items or something, but at some point it's just too much pretending. You could say your Ogre Tyrant is actually a Gnoblar hero, but ... come on. I'm all for the power of the imagination, but imagining this decrepit old man to have godlike stats which rival a Chaos Lord's is a little much.

And then there are the common issues in all counts-as cases, like your opponent asking what your Vampire just cast, or how many wounds your Vampire has remaining. It's hard to keep up the illusion in your own mind when it isn't fooling anyone else :). This is the same reason that I don't like taking special characters and pretending they are characters of my own invention with unique background; no one else cares, they still call Duke Sliscus by his GW name, and he stills does exactly what Duke Sliscus would do, so continuing to imagine him as my own custom Archon is laborious-to-impossible over time.

@MadMarquis:

Zombies as they currently are would be a waste of points even if they cost 1 per model. I'd honestly rather have 3 extra Grave Guard than a unit of 40 Zombies, because that unit will just crumble after killing about 10 points worth of enemy models if you're lucky. If you're in a multi-combat, i.e. they flank something already engaged, they're just handing away combat res to your opponent and making you lose. They are utterly, utterly useless unless summoned via magic, and this is coming from a guy who thinks Skeletons are still okay, if not as good as Ghouls.

Zombies need, at a bare minimum, T3, and probably some special rules that also make them a better tarpit. You can't fix everything that is underpowered by just cheapening it up.

Maoriboy007
29-08-2011, 05:07
Could you elaborate :confused:?

If you look at TK in 7th edition , they were one of the weakest armies you could play. Their one real strength was in the magic phase and although it was like playing golf with a handicap it was possible to do well with some decent play and some luck.
Apparantly this was enough to make people worry about the next book being overpowered and led to demands that several things being removed from the book and they basicallly got their wish, but really TK didn't really get anything that substantial in return.
They were thrown the bone of having their already blatantly overpriced skeletons reduced in cost, and a shiny if exactly costed new monster choice, but other than that it was pretty meh IMO.
An expensive situational spell lore that you are forced to take, still being left with several army penalties, price rises and more depowering than power ups.
And that is how the least powerful of the undead armies got treated, now I can't imagine what they wan't to do to the playable VC counts. Get rid of raising all together, make units get destroyed if they fail a Ld test. They certainly don't dare make them any better than TK so they'll probably make them worse.

Pessimism sated :p

falcone
29-08-2011, 06:06
You can do that, and my problem isn't even that it costs more than a "true" Necromancer Lord would, but that it never feels like a Necromancer. The stats are all wrong, mostly, and you're relying on Vampiric powers even to be a good spellcaster, which you can pretend are coming from some extra magic items or something, but at some point it's just too much pretending. You could say your Ogre Tyrant is actually a Gnoblar hero, but ... come on. I'm all for the power of the imagination, but imagining this decrepit old man to have godlike stats which rival a Chaos Lord's is a little much.

And then there are the common issues in all counts-as cases, like your opponent asking what your Vampire just cast, or how many wounds your Vampire has remaining. It's hard to keep up the illusion in your own mind when it isn't fooling anyone else :). This is the same reason that I don't like taking special characters and pretending they are characters of my own invention with unique background; no one else cares, they still call Duke Sliscus by his GW name, and he stills does exactly what Duke Sliscus would do, so continuing to imagine him as my own custom Archon is laborious-to-impossible over time.



I'm all for a Necromancer Army option, though I would never use it. The more options the better for the people who want them. I'm just saying for now proxies will have to do.

Skywave
29-08-2011, 06:08
It's more the core rules that makes the VC and undead in general quite bad. The nerf on fear, the unstable combined with no bonus whatsoever from steadfast (crumbling half the number you lost the combat could have been a nice "bonus") makes for one bad ruleset for an army.

So outside of specialty units that can be loaded with rules and stats to get around those penalties, I don't think we'll see any improvement of any of the core troops. TK Skeletons got cheaper, but aren't better, so that's pretty much all we can hope when the VC get a new book. Zombies are poorer and poorer with every new book, seems like GW can't quite grasp what they want them to be. Ghouls seems to be the only core unit working under 8th edition. Grave guards are fine now because of all the tools to turn them into a deathstar, wich might not translate over a new book, what with all the magic items disapearing and whatnot. Remove the Drakenhoff banner and the Helm of Commandment (wich is quite possible), and I'm not sure people will be so over taking big deathstar of Grave Guards.

The new TK book is quite ok in term of effectivness, but look at what units work; Chariots, Necro Knights and Sphinxes are the best offensive units in the book, all "specialty" units were unstable and no steadfast bonus means little to them. Nearly no TK army revolve around Skeletons infantry unless you want it for the theme or something.

It's something that is bound to happen with the VC. With the strong possibility to remove the "don't count for core", the mandatory core won't be filled by Skeletons or Zombies, because they can't change the core rules with an army book. So we'll have again Ghouls and probably stuff like Wolves and Corpse Cart filling the core 25%, with the odd Skeletons for fluff here and there.

Chainaxe07
29-08-2011, 10:06
Hello,
i do agree the undead core rues need to be revised somewhat.
The one that absolutely needs to be reoved, imho, is the army disappearing when the general is slain.
Usually, if an opponent focuses on killing a geeral early on, he will succeed, no matter what (keeping a single model alive is simply impossible in warhammer), but, more often than not, he will get his sorry behind handed to him for this, as, while he concentrates all of his energy on killing apoor sod, he is leaving you free rein elsewhere. Usually, this is a very poor tactical choiche.
With vampires, however, well...it works!
As a VC opponent, i'd reallylike this rule to go, as, i am rather sure, it would make for more entertaining games.
To make things worse, they even made vamps easier to run over, as they lost a precious wound all of a sudden...too easy, really.
From a fluff pointof view, also, i have to say i think having the VC general lose wounds to combat resolution also sounds...silly? I mean, what would that represent? The general osing touch with the animating force of the army that is...erm...himself?
I can, however, see that happening as a tribute to the (much overrted) mania of streamlining army wide rules. It's silly, but, if they want, the can keep it. Just, please, remove the kill general=autowin thing, please!!!!

Scammel
29-08-2011, 11:53
The one that absolutely needs to be removed, imho, is the army disappearing when the general is slain.

If there's one way to take away the identity of the undead, this is it.


a poor sod

I wouldn't classify S/T 5 WS7 characters with access to a large range of powerful items and vampiric powers on top of that 'a poor sod'. If your opponent wants to go after him, punish them by killing whatever unit he sends to do the job.


To make things worse, they even made vamps easier to run over, as they lost a precious wound all of a sudden...too easy, really.

This requires him to both lose a combat (not very easy if he's in a unit of Grave Guard) but also lose it so badly that the combat res goes straight through his troops and nobble away at him. If anything, it's easier to run down a normal enemy general that it is to make a vampire crumble.


kill general=autowin

Then make contingency plans (for example, keep characters in the units most liable to crumble) or take units which aren't that susceptible to it anyway.

The bearded one
29-08-2011, 12:06
The one that absolutely needs to be reoved, imho, is the army disappearing when the general is slain.
Usually, if an opponent focuses on killing a geeral early on, he will succeed, no matter what (keeping a single model alive is simply impossible in warhammer), but, more often than not, he will get his sorry behind handed to him for this, as, while he concentrates all of his energy on killing apoor sod, he is leaving you free rein elsewhere. Usually, this is a very poor tactical choiche.


Ever killed a skaven general?


I remember a game where my dwarfs had been grinding through skaven units for 4 or 5 turns and were all getting depleted (on average about 10 models per unit left). Then my cannon blows the grey seer apart and immediately every. single. enemy runs off. I mean the entire skaven army just went > poof < and ran off in 1 phase after acting unbreakable for 5 turns.

nurgle5
29-08-2011, 12:52
Apparantly this was enough to make people worry about the next book being overpowered and led to demands that several things being removed from the book and they basicallly got their wish, but really TK didn't really get anything that substantial in return.

Now this isn't true. They lost their casting system (which went out the window at the edition change anyway) and some magic items. What they gained was 5 brand new units, 5 brand new special characters, 1 new hero choice, a new lore and more unit options than before. Most of these units use and expand the unique tomb king rules. I really don't see how this is insubstantial.


An expensive situational spell lore that you are forced to take, still being left with several army penalties, price rises and more depowering than power ups.

All the lores are situational. There are only certain times when a spell is worth casting. The TK lore is fine, some pretty strong augments and hexes coupled with a free resurrecting of the dead is awesome. The TK lore was designed with the intent of easing the nehekharan undead rule, that's probably why our hierophants have to take it.

A lot TK units went down in points cost. The only real depowering was to the Tomb scorpions, who lost a wound.



And that is how the least powerful of the undead armies got treated, now I can't imagine what they wan't to do to the playable VC counts.

They're two different armies and GW has been trying to drive a wedge between them to make them more individual, so I don't think TK are an indication of what VC will be like at all (apart from the skeletons, maybe).

SideshowLucifer
29-08-2011, 14:37
I'm a huge fan of the TK changes myself. They have an identity and some great rules mixed with a great lore. They gained some neat monsters and units (though some became even more worthless then before). The "My Will be Done" ability is awesome. I love how the TK layer support on their army from multiple sources rather then trying to dominate one area.

Their lore is amazing. They have some great augments and hexes and a lot of free healing that goes with it. I'd love if Dance Macabre healed the unit it was cast on, or if we had a spell that would give a unit extra attacks and heal them at the same time. Their new army book almost made me abandon my vamps for a ruleset that is actually fun to use rather then what we have with the VC right now.

I also agree with the above poster who said price changes will not fix the army. The army just isn't fun. That's the overwhelming problem right now. A cheap skeleton would still be a cheap skeleton. Crumbling and steadfast and useless fear really all add up to hurt us. I know it hurts TK as well, but for some reason it doesn't feel as significant when I'm playing them.

The problem is that undead pay for being fearless by crumbling. Other armies just get steadfast with no drawback. It makes it really hard to see how being undead is any advantage at all. Fear needs to break steadfast or cause additional casualties or something that will have an actual impact.

Skywave
29-08-2011, 17:32
I wouldn't classify S/T 5 WS7 characters with access to a large range of powerful items and vampiric powers on top of that 'a poor sod'. If your opponent wants to go after him, punish them by killing whatever unit he sends to do the job.


Only thing is that I see an increasing number of sniping ability. Orcs have a spell or two that can target characters inside units, TK got access to the Death lore, and Ogres got a cannon, access to Death lore and from what I've read you can get a bunch of sniping Maneater too.

You can protect him, but a tooled up Vampire is about 450pts and still only 3 wound, and a 4+ ward can't save you over and over. So I guess the safest place for a Vampire general is going to be in combat.

I agree with you that the rule/mechanic is characterfull and we don't need to ditch it, after all the TK still have, but they can survive the death of the Hierophant better with an average Leadership of 8 on their units. There's a few rules they can add to lessen the effect, like models with the vampire rule on units led by such models aren't affected, or that a friendly Vampire/Necromancer can take a Ld test to take over the control of the army, etc.

Eternus
29-08-2011, 19:50
Ok, how about this as a suggestion to make Fear work for the Undead - an addition to the 'Undead' rule called Supernatural Horror.

The text would read 'Units with the supernatural horror rule (essentially the entire army) cause Fear, are Unbreakable, are affected by the rules for Instability. In addition, any unit facing a unit with the Supernatural Horror rule in close combat which fails it's Fear test can never be Steadfast, as the unnatural terror that such creatures invoke will quivver even the bravest soul, no mater how many equally terrified pals he has to back him up!'

The bearded one
29-08-2011, 20:02
or... just make 'em cheap so they outrank their enemy naturally..?

eron12
29-08-2011, 20:08
Are they? I don't see a vampire counts book on the horizon.

You're right, VCs will never get another book and unit prices will remain the same forever.

As far as fear goes, in my game yesterday (not against VC) my dwarfs failed at least 3 fear tests, which had a noticable impact on the game. When you are hitting on 5's instead of 3s and your opponent is hitting on 3s instead of 4s, it hurts. I'm not saying fear is worth the price, but it's not useless either.

Eternus
29-08-2011, 21:09
or... just make 'em cheap so they outrank their enemy naturally..?

Another suggestion I am strongly in favour of, especially as this really supports the horde image we get from the fluff.


You're right, VCs will never get another book and unit prices will remain the same forever.

As far as fear goes, in my game yesterday (not against VC) my dwarfs failed at least 3 fear tests, which had a noticable impact on the game. When you are hitting on 5's instead of 3s and your opponent is hitting on 3s instead of 4s, it hurts. I'm not saying fear is worth the price, but it's not useless either.

It would be worth the price if the cost of core units came down by a big chunk. I don't mind my Zombies being awful if I get 2 Zombies to every Skaven slave my opponent has.

nurgle5
29-08-2011, 21:51
It would be worth the price if the cost of core units came down by a big chunk. I don't mind my Zombies being awful if I get 2 Zombies to every Skaven slave my opponent has.

The points cost of the likes of zombies was to accommodate the more devastating version of the fear rule in the previous edition. I imagine that their points or stats will be changed to take the new rules into account. I fully expect to see a significantly cheaper zombie in the next book.

Maoriboy007
29-08-2011, 22:45
If there's one way to take away the identity of the undead, this is it..Armies shouldn't be overly nerfed just for characters sake, thats one reson they removed the old slain general panic rule. Also if it was in the sake of character, why aren't undead immune to poison, the whole holy water thing is rubbish, are you telling me ghouls soak their claws in holy water if they fight Tomb Kings?
At most there should be a single test taken once for a slain general.


I wouldn't classify S/T 5 WS7 characters with access to a large range of powerful items and vampiric powers on top of that 'a poor sod'. If your opponent wants to go after him, punish them by killing whatever unit he sends to do the job..The same sort of thing applies to most characters, for example DE assassins are very capable of killing a VC Lord as are any niumber of specialised combat heros and characters in any army. Vampires however are expected to either support their army and sacrifice combat ability or go combat to the armies detriment. Either way gettting him into combat is a very risky proposition for the army.
He still comes naked with 3 wounds before spending more on items.


This requires him to both lose a combat (not very easy if he's in a unit of Grave Guard) but also lose it so badly that the combat res goes straight through his troops and nobble away at him. If anything, it's easier to run down a normal enemy general that it is to make a vampire crumble..Its the same sort of effort to crumble a unit of GG as it is to break an elite unit, harder if they are any combination of Stubborn Unbreakable or steadfast. Also an enemy General can rally as long as he isn't run down. And its actually possible for an enemy general to hold out in a combat by himself, its almost impossible for a solo vampire character to hold out in any prolonged combat without dying.


Then make contingency plans (for example, keep characters in the units most liable to crumble) or take units which aren't that susceptible to it anyway.The characters have pretty low Ld outside of lords so thats of limited use, and the constant tests make even that small benefit moot. Only the mucho expensive units are immune, they are generally the small proportion of the army, the majority suffers. And considering the lesser percentage of the army that is actually useful these days advocating a smaller selection isn't promising.



Now this isn't true. They lost their casting system (which went out the window at the edition change anyway) and some magic items.Huge changes , on top of the massive 8th edition depowering of undead in general. Take into account that a most of the army functions the same in all the bad ways and had nearly all their advantageous abilities substantially reduced for an army that wa already pretty weak in general?


What they gained was 5 brand new units, 5 brand new special characters.They overpriced Khalida and depowered her , IMO the most perfectly balanced character in any edition previously.
Khatep is the best of a bad lot really, and Prince Amotep has to win some sort of prize for worst character in the game.
The Necroknights and the Warsphinx are ok but far too substatial an amount of the army for what amounts to gimmicks IMO. They are not particularly overpriced, but neither are they underpriced. It would be churlish for me not to admit they are among the few better additions to the army however.
The Heirotitan and Necrosphinx are fairly underwhelming. The heirotitan seems to be an excuse to have to spend an extra 175 points so that the spell lore isn't opscenely overpointed.


1 new hero choice, a new lore and more unit options than before. Most of these units use and expand the unique tomb king rules. I really don't see how this is insubstantial.The new lore is second only to the beastmen lore in being the most underpowered. In fact considering how many weaknesses are built into the army so that it can rely on the lore , its surprising how average the lore really is - and you are forced to take it.
The necrotects are an average hero choice really, pretty much the rag you use to polish a ****.


All the lores are situational. There are only certain times when a spell is worth casting. The TK lore is fine, some pretty strong augments and hexes coupled with a free resurrecting of the dead is awesome. The TK lore was designed with the intent of easing the nehekharan undead rule, that's probably why our hierophants have to take it.Most lores have a lot of spells that are of use in any given situation, and the raising part of the lore has so many limitations on it that its a wonder that they let TK raise models at all. Only one decent hex (T & Str) and really the deth lore has a better version. Weakest Vortex in the game and it cast the same as any of the others. All are at least a couple of points overpriced, expecially the buffs. I can see why an army with almost no armour got a ward save spell, probably the most useful of the lot.


A lot TK units went down in points cost. The only real depowering was to the Tomb scorpions, who lost a wound.Skeletons, Bone Giants and the Casket, all of which were blatantly overpriced (with the possible exception of the casket). Horsemen didn't get cheaper, you just got the option to field them without armour so they can be even more useless. Tomb Swarms got moved to special and had their EBTS rule nerfed, Scorpions had the same rule nerfed and lost a wound. Chariots got more impact hits and 2 extra attacks from the crew, but lost the fast cav rule and magical charging. Really not deserving of a price increase.


They're two different armies and GW has been trying to drive a wedge between them to make them more individual, so I don't think TK are an indication of what VC will be like at all (apart from the skeletons, maybe).The impact of TK is that a lot of the nerfs they have instituted will probably be implimented for undead in general. They don't dare fix any of the major stuff ups they made for TK in a VC book, if anything they will feel a need to make VC even weaker by comparison.


Their lore is amazing. They have some great augments and hexes and a lot of free healing that goes with it. I'd love if Dance Macabre healed the unit it was cast on, or if we had a spell that would give a unit extra attacks and heal them at the same time. .The lore is what I have a big issue with, especially as you pretty much get stuck with it.


As far as fear goes, in my game yesterday (not against VC) my dwarfs failed at least 3 fear tests, which had a noticable impact on the game. When you are hitting on 5's instead of 3s and your opponent is hitting on 3s instead of 4s, it hurts. I'm not saying fear is worth the price, but it's not useless either.When you are having a game like that you need to buy a lotto ticket as that is a rare exception rather than the rule. I've had a fully kitted VC lord killed by a horse. But in general it can be pretty hard to fail a fear test these days.

The bearded one
29-08-2011, 23:02
The vampire lord is important in a VC army
The BSB is important in a living army

Grim Tuesday
29-08-2011, 23:24
The new lore is second only to the beastmen lore in being the most underpowered. In fact considering how many weaknesses are built into the army so that it can rely on the lore , its surprising how average the lore really is - and you are forced to take it.
The necrotects are an average hero choice really, pretty much the rag you use to polish a ****.

Most lores have a lot of spells that are of use in any given situation, and the raising part of the lore has so many limitations on it that its a wonder that they let TK raise models at all. Only one decent hex (T & Str) and really the deth lore has a better version. Weakest Vortex in the game and it cast the same as any of the others. All are at least a couple of points overpriced, expecially the buffs. I can see why an army with almost no armour got a ward save spell, probably the most useful of the lot.
days.

I have to disagree about the lore, I think that the spells are quite powerful. The lore attribute could perhaps have simply allowed a summoning into any unit in range (in a similar way to the lore of life) but other than this, there isn't too much to complain about.

The incantations of Righteous smiting and protection (+1 attack/shot and 5+ ward respectively) are both solid spells which will have an application in pretty much every game turn. The incantation of the desert wind (free move) is also very good, not as nice as being able to march - but a mass bubble of movement/summoning can be pretty useful.

The incantation of Desiccation is great, while death's Soulblight can affect more units, Desiccation can cause more severe penalties on one unit. Losing D3 to both strength and Toughness is devastating. As to the vortex being less powerful than other super spells, there are quite a few armies it is more effective against the core troops of than purple sun. For example all the Elven armies will suffer more to a S4 hit than an I test. While it doesn't seem like much, if you've ever had scorch land in the middle of a T3 infantry block, you'll know how deceptively destructive it can be.

On a final note, I have to agree about Kalida - awesome model and fluff, but sadly sub-par in the new rules. Always strike first at I9 and hatred for Vampires? Thank goodness!

The bearded one
29-08-2011, 23:32
The TK lore is good and fits with the army's playstyle. There is nothing wrong with it.

nurgle5
29-08-2011, 23:33
Huge changes , on top of the massive 8th edition depowering of undead in general. Take into account that a most of the army functions the same in all the bad ways and had nearly all their advantageous abilities substantially reduced for an army that wa already pretty weak in general?

Most of the army functions better than it did before, partly because of 8th ed rule changes, mostly because of the new book. Nearly everything hits harder, has more options and is cheaper.

Fear got de-powered but everything got cheaper to compensate. The current book has more potential for doing damage in its own right rather than depending on special rules.


They overpriced Khalida and depowered her , IMO the most perfectly balanced character in any edition previously.

Khalida was stupidly overpowered. She could stop your opponent moving, wipe out small units by herself at range. She also got the terror bubble, the ability to give all ranged weapons in the army poison attacks and the free spell that couldn't be dispelled. Not mention anything that killed her was probably going to take quite a bit of damage or die thanks to her special curse, even if it was a whole unit.

Now she's cheaper than before and scaled down to be a balanced character.


Prince Amotep has to win some sort of prize for worst character in the game

This guy is pretty great at taking out warmachines and lone characters. He's got some pretty interesting rules and the potential to some very nasty things with that breath weapon or his terror causing. I wouldn't say he's the worst character, I think that prize belongs to Isabella von Carstein :p.

While we're on special characters, what about arkhan? He's really powerful in magic and decent enough in CC. Not mention he maintains level 5 casting powers as long as he has his book, even if he loses wizard levels in miscasts.


The new lore is second only to the beastmen lore in being the most underpowered. In fact considering how many weaknesses are built into the army so that it can rely on the lore , its surprising how average the lore really is - and you are forced to take it.

Even if it was underpowered, it's still better than the old lore. Fortunately it's pretty good. It's anything but average, I don't recall seeing anything like the Incantation of Smiting elsewhere.


Most lores have a lot of spells that are of use in any given situation, and the raising part of the lore has so many limitations on it that its a wonder that they let TK raise models at all. Only one decent hex (T & Str) and really the deth lore has a better version. Weakest Vortex in the game and it cast the same as any of the others. All are at least a couple of points overpriced, expecially the buffs. I can see why an army with almost no armour got a ward save spell, probably the most useful of the lot.


The spells within any lore are situational. The raising spell works better than before because it can be cast several times in conjunction with other spells without competing for power dice.

The augments are all very good. Give all units with 18" a ward save, a free move within 24" or extra attacks or shots within 24" are all very powerful spells. The casting of any of them also restores wounds to the units. Another hex reduces opponents movement and makes even open ground count as dangerous terrain to them. Another spell gives a unit killing blow, allowing a block of skellies to suddenly whomp heavy armour.

How are these not good spells?


Skeletons, Bone Giants and the Casket, all of which were blatantly overpriced (with the possible exception of the casket).

They were only overpriced after the edition change and the new book sorted that out.


The impact of TK is that a lot of the nerfs they have instituted will probably be implimented for undead in general. They don't dare fix any of the major stuff ups they made for TK in a VC book, if anything they will feel a need to make VC even weaker by comparison.


Tomb Kings haven't been nerfed, they're better than ever. A few bits and pieces were teaked but the army overall is better than before.

Vampire counts have always been stronger than TK in the magic phase and usually had higher quality core choices, why would this change?

Maoriboy007
30-08-2011, 04:39
Most of the army functions better than it did before, partly because of 8th ed rule changes, mostly because of the new book. Nearly everything hits harder, has more options and is cheaper.It functions more or less the same but you dont have the benefit of a reliable magic phase which makes it weaker.


Fear got de-powered but everything got cheaper to compensate. The current book has more potential for doing damage in its own right rather than depending on special rulesNothing really got cheaper that wasn't already overpriced, a lot got a further price rise or staid the same. No real compensation for the loss of fear really. Not particularly outstanding as a combat army either.


Khalida was stupidly overpowered. She could stop your opponent moving, wipe out small units by herself at range. She also got the terror bubble, the ability to give all ranged weapons in the army poison attacks and the free spell that couldn't be dispelled. Not mention anything that killed her was probably going to take quite a bit of damage or die thanks to her special curse, even if it was a whole unit.No way was she overpowered.She was well priced in 6th-7th and would generally be your sole lord choice. For all her abilities she was also made weaker and more fragile than a standard tomb king with only regen as her defence. She also sacrificed the ability to march for her focused smiting ability and it cost extra to give skeletons poison. Inever heard of a broken Khalida list romping the tournaments myself. She was well balanced as she took away one option of playstye and gave another for the cost.
Her curse tended to be weaker (and I only ever saw a failed curse once)


This guy is pretty great at taking out warmachines and lone characters. He's got some pretty interesting rules and the potential to some very nasty things with that breath weapon or his terror causing. I wouldn't say he's the worst character, I think that prize belongs to Isabella von Carstein :p.Both are pretty terrible, but Apophas is a 2 wound toughness 4 crumbling character expected to wander around in the open by himself. For a character whos abilities are supposed to gear him towards combat his fighting ability is actually fairly poor.



While we're on special characters, what about arkhan? He's really powerful in magic and decent enough in CC. Not mention he maintains level 5 casting powers as long as he has his book, even if he loses wizard levels in miscasts IF you can afford to play him then he's ok for the price but not much more than that. Not really great in CC, more that he might survive RnF trying to kill him a little better than a standard LP.



Even if it was underpowered, it's still better than the old lore. Fortunately it's pretty good. It's anything but average, I don't recall seeing anything like the Incantation of Smiting elsewhere.No real ranged damage thats really worth the cost. The problem with being all buff is that they rely on the generally poor combat skills of the army. So for the cost of a magic phase you are at best levelling the field wheras other armies get to treat the magic phase as thier ace in the whole. With this taken into consideration, the whole lore is much more costly than it deserves to be wheras other lores often get the sme results cheaper.


The spells within any lore are situational. The raising spell works better than before because it can be cast several times in conjunction with other spells without competing for power dice.The raising aspect has some fairly foolish limits put on it (the character and construct ones notably). The other problem is that there is no focused healing either. Generally you are lucky to cast two , maybe three spells. When units start crumbling (and skeletons do crumble) then healing is really important and 2 or 3 wounds won't cut it.



The augments are all very good. Give all units with 18" a ward save, a free move within 24" or extra attacks or shots within 24" are all very powerful spells.? With the exception of the ward they are maybe ok at best, like I said they level the field on a good day rather than granting any sort of advantage, which the BRB lores do better.



The casting of any of them also restores wounds to the units.

Several spells dont recover wounds, and the movement spell doesn't heal if you are in combat :wtf:
You dont get to cast that many spells because of how much they cost and random dice, you dont get a huge amount of wounds back anyway and certain units types are limited in the amount of wounds that can be recovered.

[QUOTE=nurgle5;5743776][COLOR="Lime"]
Another hex reduces opponents movement and makes even open ground count as dangerous terrain to them. Another spell gives a unit killing blow, allowing a block of skellies to suddenly whomp heavy armour.
How are these not good spells?Hexing their movement is not that great because of random charges strikes in initiative and the Dangerous terrain test is not really effective as a damage spell. The spell would be ok if it didn't cost so much, but curse of Anreirer is better.
Killing Blow requires you to roll 6s after hitting, which undead aren't great at. Except is lucky specialised situations when you can roll it against characters, it tends not to net you a great deal of extra damage for the cost



They were only overpriced after the edition change and the new book sorted that out.Bone Giants and TK Skeletons were certainly overpriced in 6th 7th and just got even worse with 8th ed. Bone Giants should have kept their armour save with the price drop, a nerf on top of a bonus just kept tham as a meh unit.



Tomb Kings haven't been nerfed, they're better than ever. A few bits and pieces were teaked but the army overall is better than before.They were tweaked to make them playable in 8th so they are about back to where they were in 7th. They got to keep most of thier nerfs and got Sphinxes and knights in return. Most of all when they got a bonus in one place (which would bring them forward from the bottom of the pile) they got put back with either a cost rise or a nerf somewhere else.



Vampire counts have always been stronger than TK in the magic phase and usually had higher quality core choices, why would this change? Becasue of the extended PR campaign waged against undead in general. A lot of opponants would be very happy indeed to see VC made weaker than the already lower level TK. I'm just predicting that the strengths that VC did manage to carry on from 7th (and there weren't many) will dissapear in the next book. Skeletons will maybe get cheaper and we'll get a terrorgheist and that will probably be considered enough to make up for it.

Personally OnG have it tougher of the new books, but only because they are saddled with animosity. Beastmen are a little bit better than TK, but it remains to be seen how WE and the like will go.

eron12
30-08-2011, 04:45
When you are having a game like that you need to buy a lotto ticket as that is a rare exception rather than the rule. I've had a fully kitted VC lord killed by a horse. But in general it can be pretty hard to fail a fear test these days.

I agree it's the exception rather than the rule. And it was due in large part to poor deployment of my BSB, but it does happen. So I would put 8th ed fear in the "not very useful" catagory, not "useless."

Maoriboy007
30-08-2011, 05:13
I agree it's the exception rather than the rule. And it was due in large part to poor deployment of my BSB, but it does happen. So I would put 8th ed fear in the "not very useful" catagory, not "useless."

as Blackadder would say "Its as useful as a not very useful thing thats not quite competely useless, just very nearly completely useless" ?

eron12
30-08-2011, 05:38
as Blackadder would say "Its as useful as a not very useful thing thats not quite competely useless, just very nearly completely useless" ?

Ask me next week, instead of the day after all those fear tests contributed to the worst reaming I've every had in Warhammer. Right now I may have a less than perfectly balanced view of fear.

Mercutius
30-08-2011, 09:49
I'm very afraid of, that if GW realise that TKs are to weak in 8th now, that all upcomming army book releases will get stronger and we sit again on the bottom for the next decade... :-(

nurgle5
30-08-2011, 12:30
It functions more or less the same but you dont have the benefit of a reliable magic phase which makes it weaker.

The old TK magic phase was weaker. You had a whopping 4 spells to choose from, so you'd almost never pick the resurrect dead one. To cast even 4 spells a turn it required an investment of 475pts. Any strength the TK magic phase had was thrown out the window at the edition change not when they changed the book.


a lot got a further price rise or staid the same.

Where are you getting this from? Only chariot units cost more than they used to, by far more units have gone down in points cost.


No real ranged damage thats really worth the cost. The problem with being all buff is that they rely on the generally poor combat skills of the army. So for the cost of a magic phase you are at best levelling the field

The whole point in the lore is to buff your units not zap enemy ones off the board. The spells are very effective as many of them can be cast on several units at once. The casting values are on par with buff spells from the BRB, so I don't know where you're getting this thing about the spells being costly. The TK magic phase works better than ever before and is capable of affecting more than one or two units in the army per turn, thanks to the new lore.


The raising aspect has some fairly foolish limits put on it (the character and construct ones notably).

You don't see any balance problems with restoring 4 wounds to a bone giant in a turn?


The other problem is that there is no focused healing either. Generally you are lucky to cast two , maybe three spells. When units start crumbling (and skeletons do crumble) then healing is really important and 2 or 3 wounds won't cut it.

TK healing spells have never been on par with VC. In old edition you'd have less of a chance to heal a unit because it'd eat into the precious small amount of spells you could cast each turn and still only restored d3 wounds


With the exception of the ward they are maybe ok at best, like I said they level the field on a good day rather than granting any sort of advantage, which the BRB lores do better.

Yet more throwaway statements, there are a couple of a comparable spells in the lore, but the TK lore does it better for the army. Put it this way the restore wounds spell in the BRB is 12+ to cast, TK cast it for free every time another spell is cast. I don't see any spells in the BRB that let the whole army get a free move or ward save or extra attacks.


You dont get to cast that many spells because of how much they cost and random dice, you dont get a huge amount of wounds back anyway and certain units types are limited in the amount of wounds that can be recovered.

Yeah as opposed to before when the guts of 500pts got you 4 spells per turn and the spell that was least worth casting was the raise dead one.


Killing Blow requires you to roll 6s after hitting, which undead aren't great at.

As opposed to other infantry who are better at rolling 6's :wtf:? that doesn't even make sense.


Bone Giants and TK Skeletons were certainly overpriced in 6th 7th and just got even worse with 8th ed. Bone Giants should have kept their armour save with the price drop, a nerf on top of a bonus just kept tham as a meh unit.

Bone giants have combat skills comparable to a Great Daemon for less than half the points, they have t6 with w5, I think they're ok without the 3+ armour save.


Personally OnG have it tougher of the new books, but only because they are saddled with animosity.

You mean like they did in almost all of their previous books?

Seriously man, you don't even know the full rules to some of the things you're complaining about and I don't think you even play TK, so why are so insistent that TK were nerfed in the new book when there is a lot of evidence to the contrary?

The bearded one
30-08-2011, 12:42
Most of the army functions better than it did before, partly because of 8th ed rule changes, mostly because of the new book. Nearly everything hits harder, has more options and is cheaper.
It functions more or less the same but you dont have the benefit of a reliable magic phase which makes it weaker.


Killing Blow requires you to roll 6s after hitting, which undead aren't great at.



Yeah! Who uses 'my will be done' anyway.. :shifty:

or Necrotects... :shifty:

Enigmatik1
30-08-2011, 18:17
Yeah! Who uses 'my will be done' anyway.. :shifty:

or Necrotects... :shifty:

And how many points does all that eat up? Don't forget you need the obligatory Liche Priests...:shifty:

The bearded one
30-08-2011, 18:29
Well, you're going to be needing a tomb king or prince anyway, and focus around characters is part of the way TKs play. They need their characters to make their troops powerful. Or with living armies do you go "no, I don't want a BSB.. that eats up a lot of points... :shifty: ". Characters are the strenght of the TK army, but you need to buy them first obviously.

tw1386
30-08-2011, 20:04
Bone Giants have WS 3 btw.

I'm having some really good games lately with my Tomb Kings, and yes I can beat most armies, it really just depends on a whole bunch of factors. The only army I haven't beat yet is the chosen star.

Just imagine the state of the game when all the books get on par with Tk, OnG, and most likely even the new Ogres. It will be heaven on Warhammer.

I really hope they stay with this trend and start focusing on variety of armies, and not make options mandatory that you see in every army of that type.

All 'm going to say is these new books are very competitive, and are looking at the future. In a few more years most, if not all of the "cheesy" combos of 7th edition should be gone and then this conversation will be moot.

Am I hoping for too much?

The bearded one
30-08-2011, 20:21
We can only hope, manling, we can only hope.

Jind_Singh
30-08-2011, 22:14
Personally OnG have it tougher of the new books, but only because they are saddled with animosity. Beastmen are a little bit better than TK, but it remains to be seen how WE and the like will go.

This alone makes me question what kind of players other people face as for anyone to suggest Orcs & Goblins got it worse makes me question it hard core!

If anything the Orcs & Goblins are having the time of their short but violent lives! Our new 8th ed book is nothing but solid with just one crap unit - Snotlings - who even the most die hard ONG fan can't find any room for - other than a display case!

The new Tomb Kings are a solid middle of the pack army - against some armies they do really well, against others not so much - but there is enough substance in the book, including characters, that allow more than enough options to make them a decent opponent.

Some of my toughest games have been against skilled Tomb King Players - no Tomb King has yet to beat me but it's always been a close thing.

The Tomb Kings though are not a 'beginners' army and does require mad skills to use well!

Maoriboy007
31-08-2011, 22:00
The old TK magic phase was weaker. You had a whopping 4 spells to choose from, so you'd almost never pick the resurrect dead one. To cast even 4 spells a turn it required an investment of 475pts. Any strength the TK magic phase had was thrown out the window at the edition change not when they changed the book.If the old magic phase was weaker then it wouldn't have been complained about. There are plenty of references to the "broken" TK magic phase and how it needed to be got rid of, despite the fact that TK weren't all that powerful in spite of it and that it was pretty much mandatory.



[COLOR="lime"]
Where are you getting this from? Only chariot units cost more than they used to, by far more units have gone down in points cost.Most of the TK units in the old book were overpriced including chariots, with the exception of tomb scorpions. Really the rest of the book just needed price drops and the abilities could have been left alone. Bone Giant for example was way overcosted at 220 points. 175 points is good, but then they took the armour save off it and now its not worth playing again.
Chariots didn't really neeed a price rise either in spite of thier bonus'. They were already overpriced, the only thing that made them any real good in 7th was the ability to charge in the magic phase. This is a general philiosphy I have a problem with in the book, for an army already down on its luck the gave once and took twice. Horsemen are just as useless, you just get to field them without armour now, so not an actual price drop.



[COLOR="lime"]
The whole point in the lore is to buff your units not zap enemy ones off the board. The spells are very effective as many of them can be cast on several units at once. The casting values are on par with buff spells from the BRB, so I don't know where you're getting this thing about the spells being costly. The TK magic phase works better than ever before and is capable of affecting more than one or two units in the army per turn, thanks to the new lore. The problem with being a mostly buff lore (and to a degree hex lore) is that it limits the magic phase to what your army can do. For example in the beginning phases the only effective spell is to cast smiting, requiring archers, an army with lots of armour probably wont be to concerned for example. Also the army doesn't perform too well without the magic so when buffed you are only performing better than poorly.
I mean apparantly the most important spell in the lore is the movement spell. Why? simply becasue you can't march in the first place unlike every other army in the game! Thats just terrible reasoning no matter which way you slice it. If you want to heal several units the costs are so hight (purple sun level) you will probably miscast or fail.



[COLOR="lime"]
You don't see any balance problems with restoring 4 wounds to a bone giant in a turn?If you have to get 4 spells through to do it absolutely not! Its pretty difficult to manage , considering tyou would have to cast all four of the only spells that can do it witout failing or being dispelled. Generaly you are lucky to cast 2 such spells.



[COLOR="lime"]TK healing spells have never been on par with VC. In old edition you'd have less of a chance to heal a unit because it'd eat into the precious small amount of spells you could cast each turn and still only restored d3 woundsD6 on infantry, D3 was reasonable. The problem was that in spite of its reliability was that it cost too many dice to heal too few troops, still the same problem now, and you dont have any focused healing either. The number 1 spell should have been a decent healing spell.



[COLOR="Lime"]Yet more throwaway statements, there are a couple of a comparable spells in the lore, but the TK lore does it better for the army. Put it this way the restore wounds spell in the BRB is 12+ to cast, TK cast it for free every time another spell is cast. I don't see any spells in the BRB that let the whole army get a free move or ward save or extra attacks.Give me the lore of life any day. In order to heal 4.5 wounds I have to cast 2 spells at a total of 14-15 and the lore of life also gets a healing attribute, none of that 1 wound or no wounds on characters nonsense either. The Str and Tougness buff in Death is cheaper, all of the big damage spells are better. In fact for the army I think the lore of light makes up for more of the armies vulnerabilities.



[COLOR="lime"]
Yeah as opposed to before when the guts of 500pts got you 4 spells per turn and the spell that was least worth casting was the raise dead one.Those four spells came out reliably well enough to keep a doomed army in the game in the hands of a capable player.The raise dead was an issue that still hasn't been fixed, especially in light that undeda as a whole became a lot more vulnerable in 8th.



[COLOR="lime"]
As opposed to other infantry who are better at rolling 6's :wtf:? that doesn't even make sense.:rolleyes: Yo are using your magic phase to cast a spell that only has any effect if you can roll six on your wound rolls. And for this spell to ba any use you have to be able to target models that this spell is particularly useful against. Even if you do target such a model then failing to roll 6 means you have wasted your time. I'm not saying that there aren't situations were that won't be useful of course, but IMO thats a pretty narrow and limited focus for one of your all important spells thats supposed to be integral to the army. Ignoring or modifying armour saves an your attacks would have been a much better idea.



[COLOR="Lime"]
Bone giants have combat skills comparable to a Great Daemon for less than half the points, they have t6 with w5, I think they're ok without the 3+ armour save.WS 3, greater demons eat bone giants for breakfast anyway.



[COLOR="lime"]
You mean like they did in almost all of their previous books?:rolleyes:Of course they had animosity before, but ther comes a point were it ceases to become a fun rule an just becomes a pain in the ass. Its more about compensation for these kinds of things. Take quell animisity, a naked Black orc can cause up to 6 wounds on his unit , he cant even do that to the enemy on his best day! A lot of the units aren't as cheap as you might think either considering your best laid plans might randomly come to naught. The OnG book is better than it was but only because of the ways it was so bad before.
I ranked them lower than TK because of their low Ld combined with animosity.


[COLOR="Lime"]
Seriously man, you don't even know the full rules to some of the things you're complaining about and I don't think you even play TK, so why are so insistent that TK were nerfed in the new book when there is a lot of evidence to the contrary? PLayed TKS in 6th and 7th and now in 8th. And I think I've presented as much evidence as you have. So what full rules are you talking about? Animosiy has a couple results , squabble has them sitting on thier can, their another result that has the unit and another within range sit on thier can, if your luck another has you decelare a charge wether you like it or not and the best result move you towards the enemy and you can then declare a charge.

The reason I think EbtS is a worse rule is because a hit result doesnt count as a charge and you still get to risk losing/misfiring a unit for your trouble. The old rule was too poewrful the new rule isn't powerful enough.

The bearded one
31-08-2011, 22:38
D6 on infantry, D3 was reasonable. The problem was that in spite of its reliability was that it cost too many dice to heal too few troops, still the same problem now, and you dont have any focused healing either. The number 1 spell should have been a decent healing spell.

If healing had been a spell, then all your opponent has to do to shut down your raising is dispel that spell.. besides, that is the way TK start losing their identity, by giving them an 'invocation of nehek'-type spell like VC..

What's the problem with how it is now?! Whenever you cast a buff spell, you basically get another spell cast at the same time. TK magic is not an ultra-damage lore. It's a support lore, and their characters are support characters.

Enigmatik1
31-08-2011, 23:54
Well, you're going to be needing a tomb king or prince anyway, and focus around characters is part of the way TKs play. They need their characters to make their troops powerful. Or with living armies do you go "no, I don't want a BSB.. that eats up a lot of points... :shifty: ". Characters are the strenght of the TK army, but you need to buy them first obviously.

You're talking to a guy who's standard 2.5k character set up with TK/TP/LP plus Casket before the new book. I look at the book now and I feel like I need a TP and a LP devoted to them just to make Skeleton Warriors worth fielding as opposed to supporting my entire army like before. Then again, I didn't run Skeleton Warriors before...so that may be a moot point. HAHA!

However, I admit to having been gone for a while being distracted by other games so I very well could be off base. I'm still trying to get up to speed as I process the book and formulate the lists I want to try.

Maoriboy007
01-09-2011, 00:17
If healing had been a spell, then all your opponent has to do to shut down your raising is dispel that spell.. besides, that is the way TK start losing their identity, by giving them an 'invocation of nehek'-type spell like VC..

What's the problem with how it is now?! Whenever you cast a buff spell, you basically get another spell cast at the same time. TK magic is not an ultra-damage lore. It's a support lore, and their characters are support characters.
I think thier identity would have been fine with Skeletons mummies Tomb scorpions and sphinxes for a theme Also the VC version actually adds to the of horde of the dead where as the TK vesion only brings back loyal soldiers under oath to thier rulers beyond death.
The problem is the healing is pretty much secondary to the buff. If there is actually an importance to the healing, as is pretty much the case with undead, then there is no real way to focus on the healing. I'm actually in the school of thought that the original concept of Invocation of Nehek (VC) had it right, only MotBA meant it could be pushed to its limit and the additional numbers brought the conflict of the broken auto break into effect.

Heres how they should have done it:

The aspect heal D6+1 models or make a recastable version the chosable spell. Allow it to instead heal single wound on Characters and Constructs in range per cast.
Allow the army to march within range of TK or TP and make the movement spell the number 1. allow units within range to be healed in combat if the aspect is kept.
The radius spells should be 15-16+ at most or have greater ranges. Even 9 point cost for minimum version is a bit much.
Get rid of the KB spell for armour piercing/ignoring spell.
Toughness nerf ishould cost same as death version.
Allow heirophant to take death or Light instead of Nehekaran lore.
Skullstorm be armour ignoring or piercing.

nurgle5
01-09-2011, 01:57
If the old magic phase was weaker then it wouldn't have been complained about. There are plenty of references to the "broken" TK magic phase and how it needed to be got rid of, despite the fact that TK weren't all that powerful in spite of it and that it was pretty much mandatory.

If TK had of kept their old casting system I'd wager good money there would've been uproar as they would've lost out on most of the advantages of 8th ed magic. They would've lost out on being able sink 6 dice into a spell or getting +4 to their casts.

At any rate the old casting system was thrown out the window at the edition change because of the changes to bound spells and the magic phase in general. It would've required an overhaul, which more than likely would've resulted in less satisfactory results than a conventional magic phase. The old lore had less spells and less effective spells than the current one and lacked a lore attribute, making it weaker. The TK magic phase was fine for 7th ed, but things worked differently back then.


Most of the TK units in the old book were overpriced including chariots, with the exception of tomb scorpions. Really the rest of the book just needed price drops and the abilities could have been left alone.

Most of the units got their price drops though. Chariots were almost certainly raised in points to take the chariot legions rule and the fact they're no longer "light chariots" into account to stop it being too easy for impact hits to ruin an enemy unit.


Bone Giant for example was way overcosted at 220 points.

A monster that has s6 t5 w6 a5 3+ armour save, unstoppable assault, terror (in the new rules, thunderstomp) for 220pts was overcosted? Yeah it had ws3 but a Great Unclean One only has ws4 and costs over double the points. I'd really like to understand why you think this.


The problem with being a mostly buff lore (and to a degree hex lore) is that it limits the magic phase to what your army can do. For example in the beginning phases the only effective spell is to cast smiting, requiring archers, an army with lots of armour probably wont be to concerned for example.

Maybe the "move the army" spell is intended here if you don't want to use archers. With it being an almost obligatory lore (Arkhan's army being the exception) do you not think there might be some intention from the designers in regards to how the lore and the army work together? The buff lore helps out pretty well at range and works considerably well in the CC phases, which is usually the rest of the game if CC is your focus.


Also the army doesn't perform too well without the magic so when buffed you are only performing better than poorly.

I'm not so sure about this. I've had my hierophant lose wizard levels in miscasts. It didn't do me any favours but it didn't hamstring the army either


I mean apparantly the most important spell in the lore is the movement spell. Why? simply becasue you can't march in the first place unlike every other army in the game!

It's one of the prices you pay for getting an unbreakable, fear causing army.


If you want to heal several units the costs are so hight (purple sun level) you will probably miscast or fail.

Depends on what version of the spells are being cast. The boosted versions are about the same casting level as the unboosted purple sun. Although the casting value is likely to factor in that the boosted buffs can affect the entire army in one casting.


D6 on infantry, D3 was reasonable. The problem was that in spite of its reliability was that it cost too many dice to heal too few troops, still the same problem now, and you dont have any focused healing either. The number 1 spell should have been a decent healing spell.

They got a better healing spell than most armies have access to almost for free as it's a lore attribute. TK aren't supposed to have strong necromancy, it's been one of the main factors that seperated VC and TK and helped make them distinct armies, rather two different themes. TK have access to more conventional methods of warfare (chariots, warmachines, ranged units) while VC have more powerful resurrection magic. Do you not think giving TK a strong healing spells takes away from VC and the character of both armies? Not to mention it is a sort best of the both world approach that shouldn't be taken to two separate armies. That kind of thing leads to power balance problems, the cult of slaanesh springs to mind here.


Give me the lore of life any day. In order to heal 4.5 wounds I have to cast 2 spells at a total of 14-15 and the lore of life also gets a healing attribute, none of that 1 wound or no wounds on characters nonsense either.

The only advantage there is healing your character, you still heal less wounds and don't get any of the buff effects.


WS 3, greater demons eat bone giants for breakfast anyway.
Difference being that you can get 3 bone giants for a comparable cost to a GD.


The old rule was too poewrful the new rule isn't powerful enough.

The old rule was overpowered as it allowed a deep striking charge. The new rule has a more forgiving mishap table, so it's fairer for both players if anything.


The aspect heal D6+1 models or make a recastable version the chosable spell. Allow it to instead heal single wound on Characters and Constructs in range per cast.
That'd be too powerful to be a lore attribute or would be adding necromancy to an army that is not supposed to strong at it at all. TK aren't meant to be a focused healing army, their power to summon the undead is meant to be weaker than VC. They're meant to have a conventional approach to warfare while also being undead, rather than VC that happen to have mummies and sphinxes instead of vampires and varghulfs.


Allow the army to march within range of TK or TP and make the movement spell the number 1.

How would this work? If it's remains in play it negates one of the weak points of the army, which gives the bonuses of being undead while ignoring one of the weaknesses, which is overpowered. That's like giving Orcs and Goblins a spell that makes them immune to Animosity. If it's not RinP then it's just the boosted version of the current move spell.


The radius spells should be 15-16+ at most or have greater ranges. Even 9 point cost for minimum version is a bit much.
The radius spells are very powerful, making them cheaper isn't necessary, it'd just make them unfair. Most augments have a similar casting value for the minimum versions.


Get rid of the KB spell for armour piercing/ignoring spell.

KB has better uses than armour piercing as it can also floor characters as well as make more of a difference against those 1+ armour save knights. Ignoring armour is too powerful, not even the lore of metal allows units to do this in CC.


Toughness nerf ishould cost same as death version.

I agree with this to an extent, the lower version should be similar, but the boosted TK spell is more powerful than the lore of death version, that needs to taken into account.

Your main complaint seems be about TK healing magic. However, this is something they have never excelled at and were never intended to. The main reason they have any at all is to offset the instability rule, rather than summoning hordes from beyond the grave like VC. Thanks to their lore attribute and spells affecting multiple units they restore wounds to units whilst buffing them, giving them a unique play style while easing one of the disadvantages of being undead without being too similar to VC. If you want powerful healing magic, why don't you go play VC instead of wanting to turn TK into them?

Lilike
01-09-2011, 02:43
@Maoriboy0007: There are the people who think that TK is an weak army now and then there are the other group of people who will eventually think that TK is an weak army, history will prove you right brother!

nurgle5
01-09-2011, 03:04
There are the people who think that TK is an weak army now and then there are the other group of people who will eventually think that TK is an weak army, history will prove you right brother!

Would you care to support that standpoint at all or should we just take your word for it? :eyebrows:

The bearded one
01-09-2011, 03:09
Just because overkill and awesomeness aren't oozing from the pages and there are no I-win-button's screaming you in the face, does not mean TK is a weak army.

Lilike
01-09-2011, 03:50
Would you care to support that standpoint at all or should we just take your word for it? :eyebrows:

I have nothing to add, Maoriboy007 has already covered the main points. Everyone who spends enough time on these forum knows which posters have an good sense of how certain armies work and which posters don't. Also, being ignorant about the dynamics about one army doesn't mean that an poster is ignorant about the game in general as is evident from most posts discussing TK.

Lets wait for an year and so and see how well TK are doing in uncomped tournaments. In the unlikely scenario that TK are actually outperforming half of the armies in the game then I will have been proven wrong.

sulla
01-09-2011, 09:15
Lets wait for an year and so and see how well TK are doing in uncomped tournaments. In the unlikely scenario that TK are actually outperforming half of the armies in the game then I will have been proven wrong.If GW are doing their job right, the only results that really matter are the results vs other 8th edition armies and probably beastmen. Anything older than that and you are comparing to comboes which are blatantly overpowered in 8th. If GW had made the new TK as powerful as that, they would have failed in my opinion.

That does mean playing an army which is vulnerable to certain comboes currently available in the game right now, but the alternative is an army as unbalanced as those same armies, or, if everything was somehow balanced and powerful, an army akin to 7th edition daemons.

zak
01-09-2011, 09:28
TK are not under powered. As stated before the army compared to other 8th edition releases performs very well. If GW stick to the balanced book rlease, which they have done to date then TK will still be a good book in one, two or four years. I am still yet to see an argument to change my mind.

Rosstifer
01-09-2011, 09:31
I think thier identity would have been fine with Skeletons mummies Tomb scorpions and sphinxes for a theme Also the VC version actually adds to the of horde of the dead where as the TK vesion only brings back loyal soldiers under oath to thier rulers beyond death.
The problem is the healing is pretty much secondary to the buff. If there is actually an importance to the healing, as is pretty much the case with undead, then there is no real way to focus on the healing. I'm actually in the school of thought that the original concept of Invocation of Nehek (VC) had it right, only MotBA meant it could be pushed to its limit and the additional numbers brought the conflict of the broken auto break into effect.

Heres how they should have done it:

The aspect heal D6+1 models or make a recastable version the chosable spell. Allow it to instead heal single wound on Characters and Constructs in range per cast.
Allow the army to march within range of TK or TP and make the movement spell the number 1. allow units within range to be healed in combat if the aspect is kept.
The radius spells should be 15-16+ at most or have greater ranges. Even 9 point cost for minimum version is a bit much.
Get rid of the KB spell for armour piercing/ignoring spell.
Toughness nerf ishould cost same as death version.
Allow heirophant to take death or Light instead of Nehekaran lore.
Skullstorm be armour ignoring or piercing.

Out of interest, what is your TK list at say 2400pts?

rocdocta
01-09-2011, 09:35
OMG! The insanity of it all!
Imagine having to take skeletons and zombies in a Vampire Counts army!...

:rolleyes:

yep and how much does that p@ss me off being dictated to what the only troop choice can be?! No ghouls for you! No zombies for you as they will explode if a snotling attacks the unit.

so...i have to take skellies...

yeah good scenario. clap...clap.

Maybe this is too hard for the kids but what about allocating points to each army? 10 points with 1 per unit before they can be allocated another? We do it in the WA masters and it works well.

rocdocta
01-09-2011, 09:46
If there's one way to take away the identity of the undead, this is it.

I wouldn't classify S/T 5 WS7 characters with access to a large range of powerful items and vampiric powers on top of that 'a poor sod'. If your opponent wants to go after him, punish them by killing whatever unit he sends to do the job.


This requires him to both lose a combat (not very easy if he's in a unit of Grave Guard) but also lose it so badly that the combat res goes straight through his troops and nobble away at him. If anything, it's easier to run down a normal enemy general that it is to make a vampire crumble.


Then make contingency plans (for example, keep characters in the units most liable to crumble) or take units which aren't that susceptible to it anyway.

wow spoken like a non VC player for sure. How do we negate losing our number 1 caster and fighter turn 1 or 2 and come back for a win?!

our core will pop even out of combat. our vampire rule units will be over whelmed and even if the enemy just pull back and castle, crumble will do all the work.

How can the Lord die in 8th ed in 1 shot on turn 1 let me Count the ways...

Lore of death sniping

No guess cannon sniping. sure its a 1/6 to fail a LOS! but you get 2-3 cannon a turn doing that and by turn 2 you are dead by percentages.

suicide attacks from step up CC troops/monsters. Even old ogres would mince a VC lord as impact hits, step up and stomp means squish

sniper shooting.

IF and pop. no way to negate/reduce it.

Alot more but am at work.

The bearded one
01-09-2011, 12:44
If only people spent that much effort killing squishier-than-vampirelords BSB's in living armies..

nurgle5
01-09-2011, 12:52
I have nothing to add, Maoriboy007 has already covered the main points.

So you'd agree that TK should have healing magic on par with VC?

Giving TK access to that would be:

1) mixing and matching bits from two different armies.
2) stripping away one of the main distinctions between them.
3) Giving TK rules they never had access to in the first place.
4) Ignoring one of the intended designs of the army, fluff and game wise.
5) ironically making it harder to restore wounds as the opponent only has one spell to counter.

So in a thread concerned with the loss of identity for the undead armies, you'd propose stripping a huge portion of the identity of TK in favour of power play?

Please justify this.



Also, being ignorant about the dynamics about one army doesn't mean that an poster is ignorant about the game in general as is evident from most posts discussing TK.

Well being ignorant about the dynamics about one army doesn't help with when we're discussing that one army in depth, such as right now. Especially in a topic like this, as we're discussing army specific rules almost exclusively.




Lets wait for an year and so and see how well TK are doing in uncomped tournaments. In the unlikely scenario that TK are actually outperforming half of the armies in the game then I will have been proven wrong.

As sulla said, TK should be judged by their 8th ed counterparts, not the hideous power creep armies of 7th ed.

Lord Zarkov
01-09-2011, 12:54
My Vampire Lord is generally quite survivable, she only really dies to dedicated combat characters, or from CR when things have really gone down the pan (and once to Gateway :( ). The hero level vampire on the other hand are squishie as anything.

Scammel
01-09-2011, 15:41
How do we negate losing our number 1 caster and fighter turn 1 or 2 and come back for a win?!


Then make contingency plans (for example, keep characters in the units most liable to crumble) or take units which aren't that susceptible to it anyway.


our vampire rule units will be over whelmed

U-huh, because the game's best cavalry, a regenerating, unflankable combat monster and some of the game's best characters will just be 'overwhelmed'.


Lore of death sniping

Laniph and Leech are unlikely to do anything to a Lord. Bjuna can potentially do it, but that's got a higher casting value to reflect it's increased power. All of them are short-ranged, and all can be dispelled.


No guess cannon sniping. sure its a 1/6 to fail a LOS! but you get 2-3 cannon a turn doing that and by turn 2 you are dead by percentages.

Three armies in the entire game have access to cannon and I've not seen many lists that feature more than 2. You've obviously not taken other factors into account, such as the possibility of a misfire, coming up short on the die, failing to wound, failing to inflict the requisite number of wounds, ward saves, and the fast units you've sent to deal with them because obviously such a huge problem would warrant some investment to overcome it.


suicide attacks from step up CC troops/monsters. Even old ogres would mince a VC lord as impact hits, step up and stomp means squish

Spoken like a true non-Ogre. Bulls need 5s and then 5s to hurt a vamp (requiring 27 attacks), whereas 'Guts need 5s then 3s (needing around 15). Impact hits can't actually touch a vamp and stomp needs 5s to wound. All the while the Vamp and his retinue have fun hacking through Ogres because they've been focusing too much on him.


sniper shooting.

Because it's so common.


IF and pop. no way to negate/reduce it.

Really? How about not using so many dice to cast spells? How about the Earthing Rod? How about a ward save? How about not caring too much about it because only one of the misacst results actually kills the caster?

Your complaints seem to be little more than 'my Vampire can die in unlucky circumstances'. My Tyrant can die to 5 Spearmen. My Tyrant can fail an Ld test and get run down, yours can't do that now can it?

Drongol
01-09-2011, 16:01
Lore of death sniping

Might I suggest investing in some magical protection?


No guess cannon sniping. sure its a 1/6 to fail a LOS! but you get 2-3 cannon a turn doing that and by turn 2 you are dead by percentages.

Let's do the math here.

A cannon has a 5 in 6 chance of not misfiring. Then, assuming you are positioning the cannonball roughly 5.5 inches away from the Vampire, there is a 20/36 chance of not hitting the vampire at all (I may have my optimum placement off--it's been ages since I've used an army that could take cannons). Then, there is a 1 in 6 chance of actually hitting the Vampire Lord. A 5 in 6 chance of wounding him. A 1 in 2 chance of getting around a 4+ wardsave and/or Regeneration. Oh, and then you have to do 4 wounds, too.

In other words, you have a roughly 500/31,104 chance of having your general taken out with a single cannon shot. Or a 1.6% chance.

So, with three cannons firing, it would take 20 turns to get a 96% chance of a single cannon ball killing the Vampire Lord. Methinks your estimate is just a bit off. ;)


suicide attacks from step up CC troops/monsters. Even old ogres would mince a VC lord as impact hits, step up and stomp means squish

I'm assuming you have at least a decent ward save and armor on your Vampire Lord, but if you don't, then I suggest keeping him in a bunker unit behind another unit of easily-repleted Skeletons or Ghouls or something. No point in risking him to an Ogre or the like.


sniper shooting.

Your math is a little off if you're worried about snipers taking out your general.

sulla
01-09-2011, 22:19
If only people spent that much effort killing squishier-than-vampirelords BSB's in living armies..To be fair, the payoff for killing that vampire general is far greater than killing a BSB. In my experience, it's not worth the effort, but then I don't have access to cheap, effective artillery or gateway in my armies, although I have once sent a purple sun through the flank of one of Maoriboy's ghoul bunkers and seen him fail 3 look out sirs and lose all 3 characters by failing I tests (one necro, one wight king and one vamp hero from memory). Plus we have a very lucky WoC player in our area who has first turn gateway'd his general and unit more than a few times. So he's a little bitter about that.

Enigmatik1
01-09-2011, 23:44
I have nothing to add, Maoriboy007 has already covered the main points. Everyone who spends enough time on these forum knows which posters have an good sense of how certain armies work and which posters don't. Also, being ignorant about the dynamics about one army doesn't mean that an poster is ignorant about the game in general as is evident from most posts discussing TK.

Lets wait for an year and so and see how well TK are doing in uncomped tournaments. In the unlikely scenario that TK are actually outperforming half of the armies in the game then I will have been proven wrong.

All I'm going to add to this is that in my time here, which has been sporadic lately, Maori has shown a keen understanding of the state of both Undead armies since he is one of the few posters I know who play both (I only play TK and I don't think Lilike plays VC, but I could be wrong). As such, I often find it hard to disagree with him even when I want to out of spite. ;)

Having said that, I'm not going to go so far as to say the new Tomb Kings are a terrible army and I can't speak to VC since I have no interest in them. I do know that the in the general places I go to for insight, when I bother to read tourney results or BatReps (which isn't that often, admittedly), TK isn't doing so hot and many a TK general have lost the game due to the crumbles (ironically enough, by a Hiero blowing himself up usually as opposed to the old list's abundance of free CR). I think what really got under my skin was I was researching on another site and a poster on there who I have a great deal of respect for said 7 words that made me want to burn my AB: "Tomb Kings [the model] are not worth their points." I digress, however...nevermind that my glorious Chariot King was seething in his sarcophagus.

However, after pouring over the AB, all I'm basically seeing are some new fandangled units that we didn't necessarily need and some suspect and unreliable band aids that are supposed to offset the many drawbacks of the Undead rule.

I think that last bit is the part that I find the most egregious in these discussions. There are next to no tangible benefits ingrained in that rule and haven't been since the edition switch from 7th to 8th. Granted, we all knew the old Fear/Autobreak rules were OTT (which Tomb Kings couldn't even abuse). But for people to still cling to Unbreakable, Unstable and Fear as positives is, at times, mind numbing...if we were talking about 7E, I wouldn't be commenting on it. But 8E almost universally crapped on all that used to be positive about being Undead. There's really no other way around it. It really just should've been Fear/Autobreak but no...everything else got the bat too.

Simply put, to address the title of this thread: The Undead armies have not lost their identity. The 8E ruleset has effectively neutered it. Not completely, mind you...but enough that the rule is much more of a bane than it used to be. I can't help but think that armies that are overly reliant on characters and a suddenly and unjustifiably fickle magic phase to function are at a marked disadvantage under the current rules. If I recall correctly, there were many of us saying the same thing when we first got wind of the rules way back when. Apparently, not much has changed.

That's what I see as someone re-learning the game and his army after a lengthy hiatus. I hope my initial impression is wrong honestly, but the initial reports do not give me much hope. The scary part is, I think VC is going to get it much, much worse after how ridiculous they were in 7E.

SideshowLucifer
02-09-2011, 02:24
I don't care how much they tone down the VC army as long as it feels like it should. TK's are amazing at what they do and the whole army just feels right (outside of Ushabti...I won't even rub salt in that wound). I would love to have undead buff spells that healed my army, or even damaging spells that raised undead, which might be more appropriate.

I just want to feel like I'm a scary army of walking dead again rather then an army of bowling pins that no one is scared of (referring to the fear rule here).

rocdocta
02-09-2011, 05:49
U-

Spoken like a true non-Ogre. Bulls need 5s and then 5s to hurt a vamp (requiring 27 attacks), whereas 'Guts need 5s then 3s (needing around 15). Impact hits can't actually touch a vamp and stomp needs 5s to wound. All the while the Vamp and his retinue have fun hacking through Ogres because they've been focusing too much on him.



sorry mate i play ogres alot more than i run my vamps and cant wait for the new book tommorow. but to reply using the old post:

old codex
the bulls do need 5s to hit the vamp, and 5s when unbuffed. but dont forget:
1. usually its the bulls that charge so:
2. 2 bull charge hits at str5 usually.
3. +1 str is cast on the unit and +1 T if possible.
4. 2 str 6 impact hits on vamp may do 1 wound.
5. vamp stikes first does what 2 wounds? maybe 3. lets say 3.
6. 4 bulls = 12 attacks = 4 hit = 2 wound = 1 failed ward save?
7. 2 bulls stomp vamp for not likely a wound.
8. vamp may or may not die.
if you swap in iron guts, the vamp will die.

But when i attack VC lord bunkers with my bulls i rip their support block out. normally use blocks of 10 bulls with clubs. vs GG with GWs, the 8 bulls do 5 str5 or 6 impact, 30 str4 or 5 attacks, with up to 5 str4 or 5 stomp.

unit has the flaming bsb so
4 dead from impact, 10 dead from bulls after vamp + 3 dead from bsb from attacks so that leaves 13 GG + BSB. vamp does 3 wounds if lucky. 9 wounds so 3 dead. 4 stomp = another 3 wounds. 19 dead.

10 -1 GG/2 for regen = 5 crumble. leaving 6 GG + VC + BSB remaining. one bad magic phase = poof.

what i am getting at is that the lord may look strong and have great magic, but you cant have both. They are very vulnerable to luck outliers.

8th needs +2 pow dice so theres half your magic powers allowance gone. get a 4+ ward save, there goes half of the magic items. combaty needs reroll misses and a good sword.

getting back to the OP, i dont feel that TK and VC have lost their identity (altho WTF are those snake cav?!:mad:) but anyway in 8th they have lost their feel. They need a rule that removes steadfast, or no generals leadership, etc. Fear now is a joke and with bsb rerolls and steadfast theres not often a failed roll.

Scammel
02-09-2011, 07:19
2 str 6 impact hits on vamp may do 1 wound.

Double-check the rules for impact hits. If the vamp has 5 or more models with him, he can't be touched.


+1 str is cast on the unit and +1 T if possible.

If the undead player is allowing the other guy to get Bullgorger off on the unit that's threatening his general, with a magic heavy army, he probably deserves to lose.

rocdocta
02-09-2011, 08:44
Double-check the rules for impact hits. If the vamp has 5 or more models with him, he can't be touched.



If the undead player is allowing the other guy to get Bullgorger off on the unit that's threatening his general, with a magic heavy army, he probably deserves to lose.

my mistake, was at work.

sometimes peeps get spells through. using the old book, i had 3 casters and never expected a spell to last longer than my offensive phase. at least one would get through.

Mullitron
02-09-2011, 11:05
Though Fear has always been a strong part of the Undead/vampire play style I don't believe they have lost their identity. Fear is still a factor even though it is much weaker in the recent edition. A bsb Isn't always in every list and their not always in the range of its bubble. In 7th edition the vampire units were actually quite big compared to other races core choices, units of 30 + infantry were normally reserved for the more 'horde' lists and vampire counts met this. Yes now their outnumbered and are too expensive to match the numbers of the other horde lists but this is a book that was written for the 7th edition.

That being said their still an army that represents the fluff and stories of an evil individual, in this case a vampire, using their powers for their own selfish gains willing an army of creatures forward against their opponents. Because of this the focus is on the vampire, the character that is the heart and soul of the list and make perfect sense that their demise is the end for the army. It may be annoying for vampire players and sometimes their opponents that the death of an enemy general can have that much of an impact on a game but that's the army. Its been a core element for the warhammer undead lists for a long time and I'am sure we have all seen or played games where the vc player wanted to quit when it happened but was encouraged to carry on paying only to find out that they still win.

Yes fear is weaker, yes enemies dont run away as much any more and yes ghouls are better than skeletons point for point (well imop). That being said most people who play warhammer are not tournament only players who play with a list where they have to use the best point for point core choice in their book, the best character set up and the usual tactics. Most people choose their army based on what grabs their imagination and which models they like the best and are willing to spend many hours painting and large amounts of money purchasing.

Vampire counts and tomb kings both look like armies of the undead, two different styles of look and play style but if you look at either you know their an undead list whether their opponents are running off as much or not. If you want to take a horde list take one, you just wont be as competitive as others, the army books cant please everyone all the time especially when it was written for a previous edition. Its not perfect but theirs still lots of character in the rules/looks and play-style of the undead armies even if it doesn't appeal to everything you personally would like.

Tho thats all in my opinion ofc :P

malisteen
02-09-2011, 15:48
I don't think the identity is gone, but the advantages that offset instability are, at the same time as instability itself has gotten much, much worse for weaker infantry. Just reducing the points cost of skeletons and zombies isn't enough - they're practically a detriment to your side in combat, there's almost no positive points value that would make them worth fielding. They need to be cheaper and tougher. Ws3, 4+ save for skeletons. T3 or 4 for zombies. Either that, or instability needs to go, but then you really would be cutting into the iconic identity of the undead in warhammer.

Chainaxe07
03-09-2011, 01:21
Hello Scammel (and the others).
Well,of course i dont pretend my opinion to be universally shared by all, and, like is inevitable, it's heavily based on my personal experience, and that of my gaming group.
We are, mosty, old timers, though fresh blood has oined during the decades, and still is.
I could say that, the last time i found a battle against the undead challenging, it was against a 4th edition army led by Nagash.
Those were the times :)
I remember 5th edition vamps were hardy too, but from 6th onwards they were, generally, considered utter crap, and beautyful armies have been catching dust ever since.
And, i think, for a reason too.
When some of my mates meets a player from another area, and they decide to have a game, it's usually a home win. Very, very rarely dothe vamps prevail.
Back in 7th, one of us, convinced by the fuss the internet community was making about how supposedly hard the VC were, went for a ga...i played against him 6 times, ranging in points from 2.500 to well above 5k, using my Dwarves and WoC. Still he lost each and every time. And, to be honest, i aint bad,but i am far from being te best in my group. He had well over 50 games in 6 months or so, losing almost every one, against every army at various game sizes. When e won (very, very seldom), it usually was by a very low margin. On the other hand, he lost quite badly.
Now he uses the models with WoC rules, and his games are the regular, expected mix of wins and loses. He made a huge (larger than ogre sized) blood dragon, and is planning to convert some ogres to "undeath", of course running them as ogre kingdoms. He is an undead fanatic, but cant play undead...huh, how odd.
Anyway, it an already long post, so i'll try and be quick:
Undead generals really have no option for bing used as semi independent pieces. All chaacters are not very effectie in that roles, but vampires simply ridicolous, dying like flies to 20 strong goblin units. All other races have better perfrming lord level characters.
Once a vc player learns he has to play his superhuman, immortal killing machine as a cowardly wizard (sorry, my dwarven side!) or street gang leader, he still has to face lots of problems oher armies dont face. In my book, the first is the lack of killpower. Old 4th edition udead coped with it in 2 ways: killy characters that added wounds to passive combat res, and really good magic. Now, their characters play Merlin, and their magic is no better than most others. I keep trying to look at it in another way but hey, really, if you can win with such an army against one without all those handicaps, you're a brlliant player. Add to that virtually no shooting, overcosted core and not so shiny chariot surrogate, and you get the picture.
Am i missng something? Please, i'm trying to expose my point of view, and i appreciate others exposng theirs, but please, please, no smart **** comments (id est: no humour, offense or unnecessary sarcasm ),thanks in advance!

kafrique
03-09-2011, 04:49
It sounds like you haven't played any particularly good VC opponents then. They're were a very solid army in 6th and in 7th we easily in the top 3, no one but DE and Daemons was even in the same league as the vampires. In 8th they're still potentially good, but only if you stick to the one cookie-cutter build. (Grave Guard deathstar, bunkered casting vampire, ghoul core, ethereal rares)

ashc
03-09-2011, 09:44
This thread can't decide if its complaining about undead losing their identity in the background or on the battlefield :eyebrows:

Eternus
03-09-2011, 10:59
This thread can't decide if its complaining about undead losing their identity in the background or on the battlefield :eyebrows:

The two are connected. Identity has to be loked at as a whole. You can't have fluff that says 'innumerable hordes', yet on the battlefield the core bulk of their army is outnumbered by standard builds for at least 3 other armies, and all of their core units are outclassed by most other core units in the game, bearing in mind the points cost comparisons as well.

It's like being told by the dodgy looking guy beind the counter in the 'heirlooms and curios of the Old World' shop that the sword you just bought is both magical and powerful, and it turns out to be made of wood. Yes you could probably bludgeon some idiot to death with it, but everyone else is armed with cold hard steel...

Chainaxe07
03-09-2011, 12:24
It sounds like you haven't played any particularly good VC opponents then. They're were a very solid army in 6th and in 7th we easily in the top 3, no one but DE and Daemons was even in the same league as the vampires. In 8th they're still potentially good, but only if you stick to the one cookie-cutter build. (Grave Guard deathstar, bunkered casting vampire, ghoul core, ethereal rares)


Hello!
Well, i played too many VCs to allow eve a remote chanche to say they were all mediocre players, it's really against the odds.
And, as a senior club member, i am often requested to act as a referie, so i had the chanche to witness a fair amount of games against/with VC that did not involve me directly.
Same issues, same conclusions.
I'll give you one thing, though: i noticed the "perceived power level" of armies is somewhat dependant on the environment and the particular group of people. I'd even go as far as saying there are "geographical" patterns in it.
Deamons were (and still are) considered to be a pretty good army, but some players put DE (that we rate as just above average) and even the humble, lowly VC right next to them, at least according to the (now rather old) rants back in 2008.
In our group, the "ranking" goes on like this:
Dwarves (undisputed best overall army since 3rd edition)
A tad below, i'd say WoC, DoC, Lizardmen and Skaven
even a bit further down the line, in no particular order, HE, DE, Empire and, possibly, the new ogres (but it's still too early, only ever seen one game with them).
Below them, we get new tomb kings, O&G, bretonnia and beastmen.
At the far, far bottom: VCs and wood elves.
I guess that, based on some (not all though!) of the comments i sometimes read here, some of you may disagree.
I suppose it depends, largely, on your own group and its preferences.
Any theory?
Cheers!

Gazak Blacktoof
03-09-2011, 13:15
You can't have fluff that says 'innumerable hordes', yet on the battlefield the core bulk of their army is outnumbered by standard builds for at least 3 other armies

That's been the case all through 6th and 7th though, vampire armies haven't suddenly shrink in size.

Hopefully when they re-do the army it will enable/ force people to field larger armies to fit the background, but a lot of the elements remain true to the background and the size of the armies hasn't changed.

malisteen
03-09-2011, 13:45
Hello!
Well, i played too many VCs to allow eve a remote chanche to say they were all mediocre players, it's really against the odds.

All experiences are anecdotal. How many vamp count players did you play against in 7th edition? 5? 7? 15? 30? The impression of vamps as the one time top army by a wide margin, only later eclipsed by daemons and equaled by dark elves, is based on the anecdotal reports of hundreds of players, and was borne out in tournament results worldwide. What's more likely, that the couple dozen players who rolled through your club were the outliers, or that all of the top tournament players in the world were? I suggest you reconsider what 'against the odds' means.

You never lost a game to vamp counts in 7e. I can certainly believe that. Before daemons and dark elves, I never lost a game with them. Even against dark elves I never lost, though it was much closer and I certainly could have. Our experiences completely offset, but the tournament results remain the same.

I don't want a return to the days when I felt bad fielding my undead because of how unfair they were, but I would like a variety of viable build options, and a reason to field core infantry besides ghouls other then 'that one mission that requires banners'.

ashc
03-09-2011, 13:52
I think the argument is null and void anyway, tomb kings are basically your 'mummy' army whilst vamps bring the gothic horror, both different undead themes. The armies revolve around resurrecting troops and withering your opponent, very thematic that no other armies can do. Bretonnians do not play like vampire counts who do not play like orcs and goblins.

About the only thing i don't like is the OTT 'bats and ghosts' motif across the vc range, because its too cheesy!

If there are any armies that are having an identity crisis i would worry far more about the orcs and goblins-beastmen-ogre kingdoms comparisons than vc and tk's.

malisteen
03-09-2011, 14:04
I like the cheesiness of the vamp counts army myself. It's one of the reasons I play them.

Then again, I'm one of the players who, back in the day, looked at Nagash and said "giant skeleton clown? his skull head topped with a dunce cap covered in skulls, with a big skull on top, and adorned with not one but two pairs of upside-down bat wings? I have GOT to get me one of those!", so my taste may not be valid.

Lord Zarkov
03-09-2011, 14:14
I like the cheesiness of the vamp counts army myself. It's one of the reasons I play them.

Then again, I'm one of the players who, back in the day, looked at Nagash and said "giant skeleton clown? his skull head topped with a dunce cap covered in skulls, with a big skull on top, and adorned with not one but two pairs of upside-down bat wings? I have GOT to get me one of those!", so my taste may not be valid.

I keep having the temptation to do an Arkhan based TK army just to use Nagash as a Heirotitan

nurgle5
03-09-2011, 14:17
I keep having the temptation to do an Arkhan based TK army just to use Nagash as a Heirotitan

Consider this idea stolen! :p

Eternus
03-09-2011, 16:37
That's been the case all through 6th and 7th though, vampire armies haven't suddenly shrink in size.

Hopefully when they re-do the army it will enable/ force people to field larger armies to fit the background, but a lot of the elements remain true to the background and the size of the armies hasn't changed.

The size of the army hasn't shrunk, that's true, but it disintegrates a whole lot quicker if you go for any kind of list that isn't centered around Ghouls and Grave Guard, and as a result raising spells don't go anywhere near as far as they used to. Where your army used to start around the same size as the enemy army and either stay strong throughout with some good casting, or even get bigger, now it's a constant battle against bucket loads of extra attacks at a higher Initiative than your troops and the same again from crumbling.

Enigmatik1
04-09-2011, 03:55
It's like being told by the dodgy looking guy beind the counter in the 'heirlooms and curios of the Old World' shop that the sword you just bought is both magical and powerful, and it turns out to be made of wood. Yes you could probably bludgeon some idiot to death with it, but everyone else is armed with cold hard steel...

Quality post right here, folks. It's both a good analogy and a very funny one. :)

vcassano
04-09-2011, 12:53
The two are connected. Identity has to be loked at as a whole. You can't have fluff that says 'innumerable hordes', yet on the battlefield the core bulk of their army is outnumbered by standard builds for at least 3 other armies, and all of their core units are outclassed by most other core units in the game, bearing in mind the points cost comparisons as well.

It's like being told by the dodgy looking guy beind the counter in the 'heirlooms and curios of the Old World' shop that the sword you just bought is both magical and powerful, and it turns out to be made of wood. Yes you could probably bludgeon some idiot to death with it, but everyone else is armed with cold hard steel...

While I don't disagree with your overall point, I think that the Vampire Counts are less innumerable hordes and more relentless hordes. Although not brilliantly done - the army book is an internal disaster - I still think this is achieved sufficiently with its almost unparalleled ability to grind and pressure opponents down.

Eternus
04-09-2011, 15:02
While I don't disagree with your overall point, I think that the Vampire Counts are less innumerable hordes and more relentless hordes. Although not brilliantly done - the army book is an internal disaster - I still think this is achieved sufficiently with its almost unparalleled ability to grind and pressure opponents down.

Although the ability to win a battle of attrition comes at the cost of everything else. You have to go all out for a casty Lord, and every power die goes towards raising. If you have to ignore half an army list and three quarters of your spell list, there's something wrong.

I generally prefer to play balanced armies, and that is really hard to do with VC's these days with any degree of success.

SideshowLucifer
04-09-2011, 16:35
Well said.

Maoriboy007
04-09-2011, 21:58
Most generally identify VC as shambling hordes of zombies and skeletons with swarms of bats in the backround and a mighty vamprie laying waste to mere mortals with unnatural power.
Now all you'll see is Ghouls and Graveguard with a vampire cowering in the backround. If you're really lucky your opponant might mix it up with bloodknights. Two or three units choices does not make much for an armies identity.
VC players can't really be blamed for this state of affairs , basically they have to play to the environment that has been created.
TK aren't all that much better. Generally you are supposed to fight against the relentless disciplined skeleton legions, in reality you are going to really be fighting against warsphinxes and maybe necropolis knights, the core is usually distraction at best.
If merely being undead was such a massive advantage (as was considered to be the case) , TKs would have been a top 7th edition army. Since it obviously wasn't a top army then it stands to reason that the perceived power of VC was due to another reason.
One was they could basically take advantage of auto-break in a way TK couldn't. The other was MotBA (which I hated in 7th, but is almost mandatory in 8th). Really any "fixes" should have stopped with those.

kafrique
05-09-2011, 01:17
Honestly, I wish they'd made TK troops more competent in general by upping their WS. It fits the fluff, IMHO, and would've been a pretty big distinction. TK would use troops to do their fighting and augment them with magic and constructs, whereas VC would be a very magic and special unit based army where the core troops are nothing more than tarpits. (Albeit great tarpits. Zombies should ideally be THE horde infantry, making even skavenslaves jealous.) As it is neither army can tarpit effectively, as rather than four turns of rerollable 9 leadership break tests they just get obliterated upon losing a combat against a proper elite unit.

Maoriboy007
05-09-2011, 01:56
Honestly, I wish they'd made TK troops more competent in general by upping their WS. It fits the fluff, IMHO, and would've been a pretty big distinction. TK would use troops to do their fighting and augment them with magic and constructs, whereas VC would be a very magic and special unit based army where the core troops are nothing more than tarpits. (Albeit great tarpits. Zombies should ideally be THE horde infantry, making even skavenslaves jealous.) As it is neither army can tarpit effectively, as rather than four turns of rerollable 9 leadership break tests they just get obliterated upon losing a combat against a proper elite unit.
Actually I don't have too much problem with the MWBD aspect for their weaponskill.
Personally I think they should have come with the light armour option included in thier cost and maybe have some amendment to thier undead rule that steadfast and BSBs significantly reduced crumbling (by D6 - D3).
Also I just can't get over their inability to march, they should have just dropped the movement value of everything by one and made them relentless, that makes much more sense than nerfing them for the sake of it.
Also the supporting lore just doesn't really do justice to the army in too many ways, I can't express that enough. It can do well enough in favourable conditions, but as in any battle situation those conditions are far and few between. That would be fair enough except the army has been purposefully downgraded to include the effect of those magic phases whether you get them or not, that is unlike any other army on the board sans VC.

nurgle5
05-09-2011, 11:01
Also I just can't get over their inability to march, they should have just dropped the movement value of everything by one and made them relentless, that makes much more sense than nerfing them for the sake of it.

Tomb Kings never could march.

Brother of the Hydra
05-09-2011, 11:36
I love the idea of the Undead also and feel that some of their identy has gone.

The old days of evil Necromancers summoning the Legions of the dead really made me smile and appeals to my ideal of 'me' in the Warhammer world. I tend to think of the Vampire Counts as Immortals (a la Nagash BL Books).

To be honest 62 odd for 5 Knights is extracting the urine!!

Lathrael
05-09-2011, 12:14
And thing that really annoys me they could fix such coming problems while they were releasing the 8th ed - and that was their promise! (remember them saying items -units ect will be altered to be usable in new edition?).

They reduced fear, great, it was an unfair advantage, i agree.

But then, they added steadfast. BSB re-rolls on anything. (Making ItP much less worthy) And gave the undead unstable. (Regen-Ward remove on crumble.) It was OK. If they adjusted steadfast rule for undead. Or making unstable rule work like deamons - that would fix many things, too. OR on overhaul on units. For example, few fixes like that;

Zombie, 3 points with regen.
Skellie 5pts.
Cavalary point reduce.
Core units counts towards point limits, ect...

But they didn't bother... As they didn't with wood elves.

Enigmatik1
05-09-2011, 15:57
Tomb Kings never could march.

That wasn't really his point.

Tomb Kings could not march, but with the old (relentless and reliable) magic phase and ICFB it didn't matter. Both were nerfed in the new AB.

The bearded one
05-09-2011, 16:10
Khar's Incantation of the Desert Wind?

It lets you move not 1 unit, but all within 12", as well as restoring wounds to those units at the same time. And it's a signature spell, so you can give it to multiple wizards if you want to.

warplock
05-09-2011, 16:30
I hate the idea of the 'little and often' (or rather 'little and not very often') approach to healing they took with TK, by making healing a lore attribute. It means you're unable to focus-heal, so the enemy just needs to concentrate on one or two units, and you're forced to cast buffs which you're paying through the nose for when all you actually want to do is heal them. They could at least have had one healing-only spell.

Sexiest_hero
05-09-2011, 17:16
Sad how TK players complained about how crappy their magic was. and then complain about losing the same things they used to complain about. Just look at the old TK threads.

The bearded one
05-09-2011, 17:19
it's not like the buffs you cast disappear into thin air...

focussed healing and raising is the territory of the vampire counts. With tomb kings their magic healing is more of a nifty thingy on the side. The character of the army is in buffing their troops.

Maoriboy007
05-09-2011, 21:41
Khar's Incantation of the Desert Wind?
It lets you move not 1 unit, but all within 12", as well as restoring wounds to those units at the same time. And it's a signature spell, so you can give it to multiple wizards if you want to.At the cost of using your magic phase , risking a mistcast and having to use a wizard you get the same benefit every other army gets for absolutely free. Before you were at least compenstaed by what was still terrible penalty because nearly every character gave the ability to move, the spell allowed chargeing in the magic phase and the3 magic phase was reliable and relentless.
The marching is a nerf for nerf sake, if thats art of the TK identity they were due an identity change in that particular area.


Sad how TK players complained about how crappy their magic was. and then complain about losing the same things they used to complain about. Just look at the old TK threads.I saw more complaining aout how OP the TK magic phase was. The only pronlem I had was how limited the healing was, and its still not fixed.
There were only four things that were any good in the old TK book and they all got moaned about a lot considering TK were a bottom tier army.
Tomb Scorpions - nerfed
Shooting catapaults in the magic phase - Gone
Charging in the magic phase - gone
Reliable magic phase - gone


focused healing and raising is the territory of the vampire counts. With tomb kings their magic healing is more of a nifty thingy on the side. The character of the army is in buffing their troops.Actually I'd consider healing and raising as the territory of undead in general, TK get all of the same penalties so they are entitled to the same benefits. The buffs are not that impressive, especially considering how bad TK are without them. For every other army a buff will make a unit more powerful than its opponant - TKs gt to be fairly equal. They are also a lot more costly than they have any right to be taking into account thier nessesity as well, you are almost expected to constantly miscast with your wizards just to keep your army functional.

nurgle5
05-09-2011, 22:28
The inability to march is an undead racial trait, such as Daemonic Instability or Animosity/Bicker. Vampire Counts mitigate this with the vampire rule, TK through the Desert Wind spell. There are upsides and downsides to playing a certain race, whether you're consigned to be toughness 3 like elves or get to be cold blooded like the lizardmen. Undead need characters to march, but also cause fear and are unbreakable.

A heavy focus on raising and healing magic, however, is not trait shared by VC and TK as evident by the differences in their competency at necromancy since 6th ed.



Shooting catapaults in the magic phase - Gone
Charging in the magic phase - gone
Reliable magic phase - gone

All these things would be game breaking in 8th ed.
Stone throwers are far more reliable than when the 6th ed rules were written. Charging and the Magic phase work completely differently now, letting TK keep their old system would've essentially let them ignore half the rules to those phases.


They are also a lot more costly than they have any right to be
TK skeletons cost a massive one point more than a goblin. For that extra point they get fear, unbreakable, immune to psychology and the HW/Shield as standard. This is more costly than it has any right to be why?

Rosstifer
05-09-2011, 22:41
I think Tomb Kings are fine. There are some top players achieving good results with them around the world, and there was a surprising amount of them at the ETC. It seems like a cool book and is DEFINITELY more competitive than the last book.

Vampires I have an issue with, they CAN be top tier competitive with two builds, (basically depends Wether you prefer the Grave Guard horde or the Black Knight Bus), I can empathize with Vampire players about the lack of viable units. Poor Skellies, look so damn cool too.

The bearded one
05-09-2011, 22:44
Black Knight Bus

that sounds like some kind of rock band :p

SideshowLucifer
06-09-2011, 03:52
People complaining about the TK magic crack me p. I'd trade the VC magic list for their's in a heart-beat. I hate having to spend my magic phase trying to keep my undead up rather then having any way to make them actually effective. I'd love my skeles to be WS 6 with a character in it and I'd love to have their buff spells.

I have no doubts that Dance Macabre won't allow charges in the magic phase when redone, and honestly, outside that spell and the signature spell, the VC magic list is pretty much crap, which is why VC tend to take buff magic from the main lores. Like I said, I'd gladly trade the VC spell list for the TK one.

NitrosOkay
06-09-2011, 05:25
I play Vampire Counts because I want to field a shambling horde of Skeletons and Zombies. The Army book talks a lot about that style of play in the fluff and doesn't really let you do it effectively in practice.

Drongol
06-09-2011, 17:36
Okay, I'm horribly confused here now.

We're saying that when Dwarfs lost the ability to take Monsters and allied Wizards, it helped them build an identity. It made them (quite a bit at the time) weaker, but it was a good thing for them in terms of uniqueness.

Now, we're complaining because Tomb Kings don't get to march because it's robbing them of their identity?

We're saying that because Tomb Kings don't get the same amount of raising magic as Vampire Counts, it robs them of their identity?

I'm just not seeing it.

Now, I will admit that VC got a bad rap with the 8th Edition changes, but that will (hopefully) be addressed soon. As an OK player, I'm not terribly sympathetic about outdated books. ;)

Chain
06-09-2011, 18:34
personally I like the change to fear as long as the points fit(which it doesn't in any but the 8'th ed books)

well I suppose if there were to be a change to fear I think would be fitting then perhaps give fear causing creatures +1 to CR.


There's creatures that look just as scary as undead that don't have cause fear rule.

tw1386
06-09-2011, 21:09
Ya, fear is a bit lackluster in the game. Yet there are ways around it. Lore of Death, and Doom and Darkness help quite a bit.

On a side note, I have a gut feeling Vampire Counts are going to be a horde force similar to Skaven when they get their 8th edition book with some really cool hard hitters thrown in the mix.

One of the biggest problems I have with the 8th edition undead is the fact of Combat crumbling throughout all of the units involved in that combat. No other army has this problem (Deamons sort of do). Tarpitting is no longer a Viable option for undead, for our Tarpits are so easily killed and generate so much Combat Resolution for the other side. Yes other armies can break and and flee with everything, but depending on how many enemy units are involved., only 1-2 units even have a CHANCE of getting run down. Whereas our army just goes Poof! (This problem is exacerbated by the fact we can't afford to stick cheap steadfast breaking things into combats (with killy units) without the risk of losing the other things.

It's almost like Skeletons / Zombies are a fire and forget thing. Just throw them in a path and watch that 180 point unit disappear in a round or two of combat.

Jind_Singh
06-09-2011, 21:24
For me, and I don't play Vampires but do play against them, the thing I miss the most is how easy Vampires could raise dead - to them it's as easy as an Orc shouting Waaagh!

But with 8th and limits on power die (random winds of magic), and broken concentration, means you don't see Zombies/skeletons being raised a plenty like they should.

They should either:

1) Allow Vampires to ignore 'broken concentration' for the basic raise dead they have - after all it's a bread and butter spell for them, why suffer broken concentration?

OR

2) Allow Vampires to cast that basic spell to raise dead like the TK did -automatically casts, casting value is D6, or D6 +2 for the Vampire General.

Just because I think a Vampire's undead horde would constantly be able to raise dead.

Another cool concept is allow a bonus to raising dead for a unit in close combat - all them to add a number to the casting value equal to the number of models they slayed the previous close combat round - represents the Vampire raising the recently slain to bolster the ranks of his own units - now the enemy unit looks on in horror as former comrades turn on their sworn Sword brothers!

Otherwise the Tomb Kings are still very much so Tomb Kings - I like the way they play/are represented on the board - the Vampires kind of lost it a bit, and could do with a new army book.

The bearded one
06-09-2011, 21:30
or a lore attribute similar to the lore of fire's kindleflame, except that it applies when a necromancy spell is cast on a unit.

I like necromancers, their imagery is cool, so a while back I was musing on an army using lots of necro's, and that might be a way to allow VC player to 1-dice their invocation spells again like they used to in 7th; I wrote a little list with 6 necromancers and 1 vampirelord with MotBA. Most necro's had invocation of nehek as their spell so allowed a player to repeatedly cast invocation on 1 dice. The necro will need to roll a 3+ to cast the spell, as well as to avoid breaking concentration by rolling a natural result of 1 or 2. If he fails, you got half a dozen other necromancers, if he doesn't you're happy.

Deff Mekz
06-09-2011, 21:55
Khar's Incantation of the Desert Wind?

It lets you move not 1 unit, but all within 12", as well as restoring wounds to those units at the same time. And it's a signature spell, so you can give it to multiple wizards if you want to.

Listen to the wise bearded man in the corner, he knows what he's talking about.

Deff

Enigmatik1
06-09-2011, 22:08
Otherwise the Tomb Kings are still very much so Tomb Kings - I like the way they play/are represented on the board - the Vampires kind of lost it a bit, and could do with a new army book.

Undead in general lost a bit...that's all I'm saying. My issues with the Tomb King army are not with the army book itself. It's how the AB interacts with the 8E BRB. I rather like the AB sans a few very minor quips I have (like the disappearance of the Icon of Rakaph and the addition of two sphinxes when a better Bone Giant would've been sufficient for me personally).

From where I sit, it isn't the lack of marching or raising. I'm used to lacking both and I've always run low-to-moderate magic (1-2 LPs max), close combat lists. I just don't like the random and unreliable magic phase. I work around it...just like I did with the old skeletons...but that doesn't mean I have to like it. :-P

However, to Jind's post...I find it slightly ironic. I rarely see Tomb Kings in lists these days. Am I the only one that finds that odd? I'm seeing tons of Priests and Princes but actual Kings must be a dying breed. LOL! Maybe Settra killed them all?

Lilike
07-09-2011, 00:53
I like that, Settra killed the tomb kings, he then banished all skeleton warriors from the land.

The bearded one
07-09-2011, 02:19
no, the vampire counts did that, so the skellies came looking for employment in Nehekhara for lower wages ;)