PDA

View Full Version : Zombies, a viable tarpit now?



valle
21-01-2012, 18:45
Indeed, very much so I would say... The couple of battles I have had i have started with around 30 and at some point reached 90 BEFORE combat. Imagine this, 3 zombie units of 50 with the middle one filling the front rank with characters, either wights or wraiths and command and in 2nd rank a lvl4 necro and 3 lvl 1 necros. Behind you have corpsecart with lodestone and mortis engine with blathameus tome, those units would have a possible potential to grow with 8d6 plus magic lvl's of models each turn... 3 150 sized zombie units by turn 3?

I forsee that this might turn out to be VC's skavenslaves and make the army a bit OP unfortunately, but I hope I am wrong... As it is, I really feel that from a strictly competitive POV skeletons are obsolete once again unfortunately, but feel free to correct me on that.

Andy p
21-01-2012, 18:58
Indeed, very much so I would say... The couple of battles I have had i have started with around 30 and at some point reached 90 BEFORE combat. Imagine this, 3 zombie units of 50 with the middle one filling the front rank with characters, either wights or wraiths and command and in 2nd rank a lvl4 necro and 3 lvl 1 necros. Behind you have corpsecart with lodestone and mortis engine with blathameus tome, those units would have a possible potential to grow with 8d6 plus magic lvl's of models each turn... 3 150 sized zombie units by turn 3?

I forsee that this might turn out to be VC's skavenslaves and make the army a bit OP unfortunately, but I hope I am wrong... As it is, I really feel that from a strictly competitive POV skeletons are obsolete once again unfortunately, but feel free to correct me on that.

Possibly, but then again thats A LOT of painting and zombies.

ihavetoomuchminis
21-01-2012, 19:29
Zombies are 50% more expensive, are worse in Close combat, die at twice the speed the slaves die, and on top of that, don't forget the fact that skaven slaves are good not only because of their cheapness, but because the skaven player can shoot and cast spells at units engaged in combat with slaves.

They can be raised at a obscene speed, but to do so, they rely on magic, wich is quite limited and unreliable.

So good tarpit, yes. OP like slaves, absolutely not.

redfury
21-01-2012, 19:46
Agree and disagree. Invocation is far better now and makes them a viable tar pit, sure they rely on magic but everything in a vc army does and I rarely see anyone miscast on invocation of nehek.. However skeletons are certainty not obsolete. Skeletons with spears,the screaming banner and a vampire with fear incarnate will drastically increase the odds of a failed fear test, skeletons being WS 2 and T3 will inflict heavy casualties not to mention what the vamp will do. Give them ASF and a wraith and you've got a great aggressive unit that can fall back on being a tar pit should something go wrong.

valle
21-01-2012, 19:58
Agree and disagree. Invocation is far better now and makes them a viable tar pit, sure they rely on magic but everything in a vc army does and I rarely see anyone miscast on invocation of nehek.. However skeletons are certainty not obsolete. Skeletons with spears,the screaming banner and a vampire with fear incarnate will drastically increase the odds of a failed fear test, skeletons being WS 2 and T3 will inflict heavy casualties not to mention what the vamp will do. Give them ASF and a wraith and you've got a great aggressive unit that can fall back on being a tar pit should something go wrong.

Had they been WS3 i would agree with you in this example, as it is you might as well change that wraith for a WK BSB with screaming banner and put the vamp in with the zombies as well... Sure, they wont hit on 3+ but both units will be hit on 4+ if the fear test is failed and the skeletons AS isnt really worth it imo... Also, you mention skellies have T3, zombies do to you know ;)

redfury
21-01-2012, 20:38
Probably. But the list I'm referring to is for 1500 pt games. Wraiths are cheaper than wight bbs. For bigger games is have given the vamp aura of dark majesty too. Just to be sure they fail the fear test.

knightime98
22-01-2012, 06:51
I can already see how VC games are going to go. 2 units of 50 zombies to start the game off with @ 300 points. Just put them in the front and spam cast them to kingdom come. They can grow to 70ish - 80ish really easy before any combat starts. Turn 2 or 3 when they hit combat then cast the hellish vigor and other augment spell and you're a-ok for the rest of the game. Sure they need a little more finesse and a little support but they are there to block and hold up tough units. Dwarves will never chop through them. They only ever get one attack a model.

Anyhow, the idea of a huge block and building on them is sound. I really don't see a down side to it. I think any VC player can get a draw without even trying. The above is just one example of a tarpit. You could even try to cast the zombie horde spell that yields no victory points and build on that. Points denial all over again. I see great potential in the book. VC is still a top army without question.

Balerion
22-01-2012, 12:34
Zombies are 50% more expensive, are worse in Close combat, die at twice the speed the slaves die, and on top of that, don't forget the fact that skaven slaves are good not only because of their cheapness, but because the skaven player can shoot and cast spells at units engaged in combat with slaves.

They can be raised at a obscene speed, but to do so, they rely on magic, wich is quite limited and unreliable.

So good tarpit, yes. OP like slaves, absolutely not.
Skavenslaves don't get free reinforcements over the course of the game.

If you added up the cost of all the Zombies you spawned out of thin air, and subtracted it from what you paid for your base Zombies, I imagine that they will generally come out cheaper than Slaves do, on average.

ihavetoomuchminis
22-01-2012, 13:10
Skavenslaves don't get free reinforcements over the course of the game.

If you added up the cost of all the Zombies you spawned out of thin air, and subtracted it from what you paid for your base Zombies, I imagine that they will generally come out cheaper than Slaves do, on average.

I know i know. I'm not saying that slaves are waaay better than zombies. Both have their pros and cons. But i still think that slaves are better, due to the rest of the heavy magic/heavy shooting skaven army being able to shoot at units engaged with them. That's what make skaven broken, not their Tarpit function. It won't be a problem if you, as a skaven's opponent, weren't being decimated by shooting/magic with no way to avoid it.

redfury
22-01-2012, 13:36
Skaven are hard to beat. We get it. Slaves have higher stats and don't crumble. They're also not immune to psychology or unbreakable nor can you just create a unit of them whenever you feel like it. That being said they're about even. Vamps don't even have a real shooting phase anyways.

Balerion
22-01-2012, 13:56
I know i know. I'm not saying that slaves are waaay better than zombies. Both have their pros and cons. But i still think that slaves are better, due to the rest of the heavy magic/heavy shooting skaven army being able to shoot at units engaged with them. That's what make skaven broken, not their Tarpit function. It won't be a problem if you, as a skaven's opponent, weren't being decimated by shooting/magic with no way to avoid it.
True enough.

The genuine power/hatred level of Zombies will ultimately lie in how good the rest of the stuff in the VC army is at wiping the board clean. After all, nobody hates Slaves because they're getting their butts kicked by them -- they hate them because they're roadblocking a valuable unit while HPAs and WLCs are cleaning up everything else on the board.

Considered in a vacuum, I think we can safely say that Zombie are just as good as Slaves, albeit in different ways. But the VC army overall probably won't be able to generate the same type of puree killing power the Skaven can. Luckily I play both armies. :D

Haravikk
22-01-2012, 13:57
Dwarves will never chop through them. They only ever get one attack a model.
But they can also make it very hard to get those zombie units up to the kind of size you're talking about due to their anti-magic, at which point their generally consistent damage and minimal damage in return should munch through the zombies in short order. Not that the zombies won't still be an effective tarpit, but I think it's worth noting that Dwarfs aren't going to be that put out by it, as you also have to consider that while they only get one Attack each, all regular infantry get one attack each in supporting ranks, so a big Dwarf unit (especially the ever popular Great Weapon horde) is going to have more than enough attacks anyway. Plus, most Dwarf players these days don't leave home without a ruined up Grudge Thrower, so the bigger your zombie unit is, the easier it is to hit; and with no-partials in 8th it's worth remembering that a small blast can happily hit 9-15 20mm models with a good hit.

So eh… zombies are definitely a decent tar-pit, but regardless of the army they aren't over-powered like skavenslaves, and against Dwarfs you may find you have to pay a lot of points to compete with the damage they can end up receiving, and the difficulty of casting that all-important magic.

That aside, it's certainly nice to see zombies competitive again, and skeletons aren't bad either (not great, but not bad). I don't think they're really worth wasting too many points on though, personally I'd keep the units comparatively small and grow them with spare magic. You shouldn't really need them to tar-pit for more than a couple of turns; if you do then it probably means you've spent too many points on your zombies :D

knightime98
22-01-2012, 22:56
I do not want to derail the thread but allow me to retort;

As it is now, my opinion of the Dwarves vs the new VC book is not looking bright. Here is a very concise minimal highlight of the differences between the 2 armies.
1. Dwarf models cost 9 points +. (Not cheap compared to 3 and 5 pt models which can be invo'd back on the table).
2. Dwarves suffer from Fear/Terror (albeit it may be litagated - but none the less occasionally it can be blown).
3. The anti-magic the Dwarves have is not nearly matching the fluff. Simply put, the Dwarves in almost all cases are at a disadvantage of -2 to dispelling all spells. The army wide rule of +2 isn't enough to counter balance the Level 4 caster.
4. Specific to ethereal creatures, monsters, units - Dwarves have no units that have anything that counts as 'magic' or 'flame' attacks. 8th edition did a great job of adding magic and flame attacks to 15 of the 16 armies. However, the Dwarves were mutually excluded from the common magic items in the 8th edition book.

Once again, this is my opinion that the Dwarves need an update badly to change these things along with the Flame Cannon and Organ Gun.

More on topic, Zombies became dirt cheap and can be reraised easily. Tarpit is an understatement. I think that any decent VC player could possibly just put a wall of zombies up on the front line. Then hold that line just by invo'ing them, and placing hellish vigor and other augment spell Danse of macbre.. reroll hits and wounds. I might try a game like that. place like 200 zombies in a unit 20 wide 10 deep with 2 other units of zombies on either flank 100 (10x10). That only accounts for 1200 points. The rest would be casters and boosters (corpse cart). The idea here isn't to win but to demonstrate that an absolute draw can be manufactured without even trying.

Anyhow, thanks for the input and feedback you all have displayed so far. Have some great games !

Lester
22-01-2012, 23:08
I do not want to derail the thread but allow me to retort;

As it is now, my opinion of the Dwarves vs the new VC book is not looking bright. Here is a very concise minimal highlight of the differences between the 2 armies.
1. Dwarf models cost 9 points +. (Not cheap compared to 3 and 5 pt models which can be invo'd back on the table).
2. Dwarves suffer from Fear/Terror (albeit it may be litagated - but none the less occasionally it can be blown).
3. The anti-magic the Dwarves have is not nearly matching the fluff. Simply put, the Dwarves in almost all cases are at a disadvantage of -2 to dispelling all spells. The army wide rule of +2 isn't enough to counter balance the Level 4 caster.
4. Specific to ethereal creatures, monsters, units - Dwarves have no units that have anything that counts as 'magic' or 'flame' attacks. 8th edition did a great job of adding magic and flame attacks to 15 of the 16 armies. However, the Dwarves were mutually excluded from the common magic items in the 8th edition book.

Once again, this is my opinion that the Dwarves need an update badly to change these things along with the Flame Cannon and Organ Gun.

More on topic, Zombies became dirt cheap and can be reraised easily. Tarpit is an understatement. I think that any decent VC player could possibly just put a wall of zombies up on the front line. Then hold that line just by invo'ing them, and placing hellish vigor and other augment spell Danse of macbre.. reroll hits and wounds. I might try a game like that. place like 200 zombies in a unit 20 wide 10 deep with 2 other units of zombies on either flank 100 (10x10). That only accounts for 1200 points. The rest would be casters and boosters (corpse cart). The idea here isn't to win but to demonstrate that an absolute draw can be manufactured without even trying.

Anyhow, thanks for the input and feedback you all have displayed so far. Have some great games !

I think Dwarf dispelling is on par, if not overpowered. You assume every opponent will have a level 4 (not a fact), but Dwarfs get extra Dispell dice, they can steal a power dice every opponent's turn, and multiple dispel scrolls.

redfury
22-01-2012, 23:22
Yeah..dwarves really hate magic.

Balerion
22-01-2012, 23:39
I do not want to derail the thread but allow me to retort;

As it is now, my opinion of the Dwarves vs the new VC book is not looking bright. Here is a very concise minimal highlight of the differences between the 2 armies.
1. Dwarf models cost 9 points +. (Not cheap compared to 3 and 5 pt models which can be invo'd back on the table).
2. Dwarves suffer from Fear/Terror (albeit it may be litagated - but none the less occasionally it can be blown).
3. The anti-magic the Dwarves have is not nearly matching the fluff. Simply put, the Dwarves in almost all cases are at a disadvantage of -2 to dispelling all spells. The army wide rule of +2 isn't enough to counter balance the Level 4 caster.
4. Specific to ethereal creatures, monsters, units - Dwarves have no units that have anything that counts as 'magic' or 'flame' attacks. 8th edition did a great job of adding magic and flame attacks to 15 of the 16 armies. However, the Dwarves were mutually excluded from the common magic items in the 8th edition book.

Once again, this is my opinion that the Dwarves need an update badly to change these things along with the Flame Cannon and Organ Gun.

Sorry, but this post is riddled with indefensible opinions as well as factual errors.

Regarding point #2, no, you don't really "suffer" from these things. You have huge Ld on your general, a rock hard BSB, and a tiny army that is easy to keep within range of both.

Regarding point #3, your (amazing) anti-magic abilities do not come from your +2 to dispel; they come from your extra dispel dice. You get two extra dice from a Runelord (which used to be the inverted, defensive equivalent of the old MotBA) with another bonus die available from the Anvil. You also have runic magic defense, the best of which is the Master Rune of Balance, which further skews the PD : DD ratio in your favour. In fact, with that combination of +4 DD, -1 PD you will completely shut down a VC general's magic phase and force him to go for desperation IF castings.

Regarding point #4, uhhh, can't your war machines can be equipped with magical flaming attacks for 5 points? Those are devastating to Ethereals and Regenerators alike.

knightime98
23-01-2012, 02:59
Regarding point #2, no, you don't really "suffer" from these things. You have huge Ld on your general, a rock hard BSB, and a tiny army that is easy to keep within range of both.

This has already be addressed with the disclaimer, "(albeit it may be litagated - but none the less occasionally it can be blown)."... It does not happen often but it does happen. Furthermore, if you are taking a Runelord - you are not taking a Dwarf Lord (who gives you the Ld 10).



Regarding point #3, your (amazing) anti-magic abilities do not come from your +2 to dispel; they come from your extra dispel dice. You get two extra dice from a Runelord (which used to be the inverted, defensive equivalent of the old MotBA) with another bonus die available from the Anvil. You also have runic magic defense, the best of which is the Master Rune of Balance, which further skews the PD : DD ratio in your favor. In fact, with that combination of +4 DD, -1 PD you will completely shut down a VC general's magic phase and force him to go for desperation IF castings.


Retort: Your assumption is that all Dwarf Players are taking an Anvil (For the record, I have never fielded an Anvil). However, I have taken a RuneLord and the MRoB. Remember, that the Dwarves are sacrificing 2 phases of a 4 phase game. So, they should not only be good in the 2 remaining phases but Awesome. I fail to see where they are Awesome at shutting down the magic phase. They are good but not Awesome as they should be (my opinion of course).



Regarding point #4, uhhh, can't your war machines can be equipped with magical flaming attacks for 5 points? Those are devastating to Ethereals and Regenerators alike.

I will not deny your claim here. However, the claim was that no dwarf units could have flaming attacks or magic attacks. Furthermore, how many wounds do you expect a dwarven cannon or bolt thrower to do against a skirmishing unit of wraiths or spirit hosts? Remember, if they are not completely destroyed they are bought back to full health next magic phase. In essence, a block of Spirit Host can hold up a block of 40 warriors for the entire game if they are big enough. All the Dwarves will gain is 3 ranks and a banner... So.. The unit has no ability to gain magical attacks or flaming attacks which was the claim once again. If anything, at least recognize the inadequacies of your claim of the warmachines being a true answer to the dilemma at hand.

Wrap up. I am sure that you are a well rounded VC player. I have no problems with your responses as they seem sincere. Dwarves are not all that good as they stand right this moment. They are a great defending army but how many GT's have they won of late? This is the real litmus test compared to VC, Doc, Skaven, WoC, Dark Elves, Lizardmen and so on. The Dwarves are lower middle tier in my opinion. They need to be brought up just a nudge (not a lot). Their flame cannon is nearly worthless as is their Anvil (only army buff machine that can blow up... Cauldron, War Altar, War Shrine, Engine of the Gods, and so on - all just work). The fluff of Dwarves being the best craftsmen doesn't meet the tabletop rules. Why then does not the Anvil - Just work as the other Army buff items as described. Note that this is my observation of the army in general compared to other armies. Well hopefully, you will look at what I have written and come to a better understanding of how one Dwarf player feels about our shared game of Warhammer. I wish you well my friend.

valle
23-01-2012, 06:57
Well, as a VC and dwarf player, I have to say that the dwarfs magic defense could be a bit better... You have to pay allot of points to make it work, and even then opponents will often get a spell through in a decent magic phase. That said, they do have some of the meanest warchines and can easily thin down VC's hammer units while even their weakest units are elite, so all in all dwarfs just need a bit better magic defense and they are fine imo, no magic attacks to their regiments please.

Regarding the zombies, its true that they are weak if the magic dosnt go through where the slaves are as you want them when the game begins. That gives them the edge ofcourse, well that and shooting into combat and slightly better stats. But if the VC players does have a fairly strong magic phase then we have some of the strongest magic available now with IoN much better than before. I was fighting against lizardmen yesterday and he got off allot of shooting, thinning my lines down, but a magic phase later all his effort had been in vain as I was almost up to full numbers again. That said, its worth mentioning that the elites that you want to hold up with your zombies will remove something between 30-40 each combat phase, so you do need ALLOT of zombies to make it work decently, but yah, my verdict is still, great book with a internal balance and loads of options especially the zombies who have been missing for to long (But I now have to find some cool looking ones and paint 200+ :rolleyes:)

The Low King
23-01-2012, 07:10
30-40? wow.......ony thing i know that will do that are chaos warriors or swordmasters

Wesser
23-01-2012, 07:41
Well Knighttime

This has already be addressed with the disclaimer, "(albeit it may be litagated - but none the less occasionally it can be blown)."... It does not happen often but it does happen. Furthermore, if you are taking a Runelord - you are not taking a Dwarf Lord (who gives you the Ld 10).

-When your basic lads have LD9 I rly can find little sympathy that you "gasp" have to choose between the two.

I will not deny your claim here. However, the claim was that no dwarf units could have flaming attacks or magic attacks. Furthermore, how many wounds do you expect a dwarven cannon or bolt thrower to do against a skirmishing unit of wraiths or spirit hosts? Remember, if they are not completely destroyed they are bought back to full health next magic phase. In essence, a block of Spirit Host can hold up a block of 40 warriors for the entire game if they are big enough. All the Dwarves will gain is 3 ranks and a banner... So.. The unit has no ability to gain magical attacks or flaming attacks which was the claim once again. If anything, at least recognize the inadequacies of your claim of the warmachines being a true answer to the dilemma at hand.

- Dilemma? Dwarfs arent worse off than anyone else when it comes to magic attacks. Wizards may (may) roll magic missiles and you can put magic hits on warmachines. Also with their high LD, tougness and WS Dwarfs are one of teh armies that have the least to fear. Maybe you're just afraid of playing the game?

Wrap up. I am sure that you are a well rounded VC player. I have no problems with your responses as they seem sincere. Dwarves are not all that good as they stand right this moment. They are a great defending army but how many GT's have they won of late? This is the real litmus test compared to VC, Doc, Skaven, WoC, Dark Elves, Lizardmen and so on. The Dwarves are lower middle tier in my opinion. They need to be brought up just a nudge (not a lot). Their flame cannon is nearly worthless as is their Anvil (only army buff machine that can blow up... Cauldron, War Altar, War Shrine, Engine of the Gods, and so on - all just work). The fluff of Dwarves being the best craftsmen doesn't meet the tabletop rules. Why then does not the Anvil - Just work as the other Army buff items as described. Note that this is my observation of the army in general compared to other armies. Well hopefully, you will look at what I have written and come to a better understanding of how one Dwarf player feels about our shared game of Warhammer. I wish you well my friend

-Well according to fluff Bretonnians should be the best cavalry in the game and thats not rly true either.... Your book is old, thats all.


Most important is that dwarfs have no reason to fear zombies, because dwarfs rarely march much forward and zombies arent the speediest of chaps. Also with the tight deployment dwarfs have zombies may become a liability since crumbling potential would make it suicide for a VC combat unit to join the combat. Tarpits have the limit that their tactical use is fairly limited in this regard

valle
23-01-2012, 08:43
30-40? wow.......ony thing i know that will do that are chaos warriors or swordmasters

Ehh no... thats including unstable i might add but everything will hit them on 3+ and allot will wound on 2+ (We are talking elite here, no point tarpitting other tarpits). My last fight against ogres they lost 35 in a round to ironguts after unstable and I can see most armies out there having an option to do the same amount of attacks if not more. You mention warriors and swordmasters yourself, well dwarf hordes with GW, savage orcs big and bestigors would all be able to do 15+ wound in a round hitting on 3's and wounding on 2's. But you miss the entire point, its not a bid deal that they die in drowes because you can easily raise 20+ per magic phase as well, so yah they are very good now, but if you think they will lose much less than 15 a round to the elites of warhammer you are making tham sound way better than they actually are.

lisaundead
23-01-2012, 09:25
I dont yet have the new VC army book (I know, I know) so my opinion will count for little, but I am completely chuffed to bits at the prospect of being able to field the humble Z once more (especially after painting 160 of the buggers previously).
Whether or not they will prove to be an effective tarpit (possible IMHO) they will make for fun games so its deffo worth a try.
Would love to try a list of all Zombies and Necromancers and just swamp the enemy-never be able to win, but worth it for the look on the opponent's face if nothing else.
So many viable options available to the VC player in the new book (I have 4 different lists planned already) - fun times ahead! :D

The Low King
23-01-2012, 11:54
Ehh no... thats including unstable i might add but everything will hit them on 3+ and allot will wound on 2+ (We are talking elite here, no point tarpitting other tarpits). My last fight against ogres they lost 35 in a round to ironguts after unstable and I can see most armies out there having an option to do the same amount of attacks if not more. You mention warriors and swordmasters yourself, well dwarf hordes with GW, savage orcs big and bestigors would all be able to do 15+ wound in a round hitting on 3's and wounding on 2's. But you miss the entire point, its not a bid deal that they die in drowes because you can easily raise 20+ per magic phase as well, so yah they are very good now, but if you think they will lose much less than 15 a round to the elites of warhammer you are making tham sound way better than they actually are.

Oh, sorry, i thought you meant they killed 30-40 per turn.

Zombies are just as survivable vs elites as many other units. In fact, vs a horde of hammerers zombies will lose the same amount as chaos warriors will. In fact, vs almost every elite unit out there they will be on the exact same level as skeletons with regard to number of dead.

I think the power of them doesnt come from raising them as they die, it comes from raising them as you march towards the enemy (say 3 turns) and arriving with a unit of 100 rather than the 20 you started with. That may only survive 2 rounds but it is 60 points potentially holding up 400+

Balerion
23-01-2012, 14:10
Ehh no... thats including unstable i might add but everything will hit them on 3+ and allot will wound on 2+ (We are talking elite here, no point tarpitting other tarpits).
This is a caveat to your discussion, but that's not strictly true. Reasons I can think of to tarpit a tarpit:

- to block them from tarpitting something less preferential
- to influence their position on the board (eg. keeping them away from an objective)
- because they're a more dangerous tarpit than you are (100x NG horde comes to mind here, although that unit is rather strange due to its expense, and it may actually be some weird amalgam of deathstar and tarpit... a tar-star :D)

Drongol
23-01-2012, 15:09
I think the power of them doesnt come from raising them as they die, it comes from raising them as you march towards the enemy (say 3 turns) and arriving with a unit of 100 rather than the 20 you started with. That may only survive 2 rounds but it is 60 points potentially holding up 400+

Absolutely and totally agreed. 2-3 small units of Zombies with 3 Necromancers spamming Invocation gets big in a hurry, and it uses so little points that there's no real reason not to use them. Combine that with a big unit of Grave Guard/Ghouls and some hard-hitting flankers and you have one heck of a decent start to the army.

Also of note: in a list like this, the Mortis Engine is just plain golden.

valle
23-01-2012, 17:06
Oh, sorry, i thought you meant they killed 30-40 per turn.

Zombies are just as survivable vs elites as many other units. In fact, vs a horde of hammerers zombies will lose the same amount as chaos warriors will. In fact, vs almost every elite unit out there they will be on the exact same level as skeletons with regard to number of dead.

I think the power of them doesnt come from raising them as they die, it comes from raising them as you march towards the enemy (say 3 turns) and arriving with a unit of 100 rather than the 20 you started with. That may only survive 2 rounds but it is 60 points potentially holding up 400+

True, that was one of my points as well, the fun starts in turn 1 long before they will see any combat ;)


This is a caveat to your discussion, but that's not strictly true. Reasons I can think of to tarpit a tarpit:

- to block them from tarpitting something less preferential
- to influence their position on the board (eg. keeping them away from an objective)
- because they're a more dangerous tarpit than you are (100x NG horde comes to mind here, although that unit is rather strange due to its expense, and it may actually be some weird amalgam of deathstar and tarpit... a tar-star :D)

Indeed, but then again our new hammers of choice will all have decent/great movement whereas allot of opponents really nasty elites that we cannot match such as chosen deathstars and white lions dont have that advange so my point still holds water ;)

Skarsnik, the Lord
23-01-2012, 17:52
Indeed, very much so I would say... The couple of battles I have had i have started with around 30 and at some point reached 90 BEFORE combat. Imagine this, 3 zombie units of 50 with the middle one filling the front rank with characters, either wights or wraiths and command and in 2nd rank a lvl4 necro and 3 lvl 1 necros. Behind you have corpsecart with lodestone and mortis engine with blathameus tome, those units would have a possible potential to grow with 8d6 plus magic lvl's of models each turn... 3 150 sized zombie units by turn 3?

I forsee that this might turn out to be VC's skavenslaves and make the army a bit OP unfortunately, but I hope I am wrong... As it is, I really feel that from a strictly competitive POV skeletons are obsolete once again unfortunately, but feel free to correct me on that.

I have exactly felt like this in my first two games with the new book. I have three units of 40 Zombies (hey, something has to fill the core :p), and after a magic phase or two I have 60-80 Zombies in the all units, even though the main target of the IoN were Black Knights, Crypt Horrors or such. Also I have found amusing to use the Zombies in two or three models wide formations to great long Zombie trains. These trains block totally my army's flank from the enemy, and if the Zombies are charged in the front, only a few guys get to hit them. Of course I lost my three rank bonuses but this tactic will save me a lot more Zombies. One of the best things of this spamming is the fact that the opponent doesn't even try to kill the Zombies. The core is bad, but if it never gets destroyed, it isn't all that bad isn't it?

Now I need to go and buy some more Zombies... :D

- Cheers, Skarsnik.

The Low King
23-01-2012, 18:59
Oh dear......zombie conga lines.....

that would actually be hillarious: start off with just a single file of zombies in your deployment zone, each turn bring more on, slowly extend your line towards the enemy

TheOneHawk
23-01-2012, 19:22
I may be wrong, as I don't have the book in front of me, but doesn't the resurrecting fallen warriors rule dictate that you must add to the first rank until they are at least five wide? If so, you can't Nehek yourself a super congo line, or even a 3 wide.

ihavetoomuchminis
23-01-2012, 19:37
I know rule-lawyers will start a Rules-lawyering war, but you're absolutely correct. 5 models wide is the minimum. So it's impossible, as per RAW, to make 1 wide and 3 wide units grow in size.

Dooks Dizzo
23-01-2012, 20:02
Not to go too far off the reservation but I have has some huge success with skeletons as a tarpit. In the end I guess they work almost the same as Zombies but I am massively pleased with them.

I stood toe to bony toe with a horde of 30 Sword Masters (started at 40 but I cut some down with magic and dragon breath) for several turns and ended up coming out on top. In a 3K game I had a skelly unit of 110,HW + Shield. In the first round he took 40ish attacks, hit with 34-36, wounded with 28-32 and I made 5 or 6 parry saves. Call it 25 casualties caused. I struck back with a mighty 30 attacks and killed like 5 swordmasters. Ranks and banners about even, I lost another 20ish skelletons. Leaving me with 60ish left.

The next turn he failed his fear check causing him to kill far less while I killed another 5 or so. The mortis engine sat neaqrby killing 3 or 4 more a turn. When he was down to 18 swordmasters I charged the mortis into the side of the unit doing 5 impact hits and killing 3 more of them. (He had cast glittering robes on the survivors for a 3+armor save).

All said and done I finished off the last sword master with 2 wounds left on the engine and 19 skeletons left in the unit.

There were lots of other things going on in the battle but holding that unit for so many turns was a resounding success, whether or not I had actually won the combat. I had gotten the unit small enough to destroy with my zombie dragon lord if the skeletons had failed to do the job. Parry saves were HUGE in the the fight as the first 5 I made saved me 10 guys.

Balerion
23-01-2012, 20:07
You can't add to the front rank if the unit already has multiple ranks (even if they are ranks of one model). So a unit that is deployed as a conga line would have all raised models added incorporated into the same conga line formation. In order to extend the line towards your enemy you would need to have the rear of the unit facing the foe, however.

Does bring up a weird RAW issue. The language of the res rule only lets you add to ranks (either the front or rear), not create new ones. Obvious RAI here, though.

ihavetoomuchminis
23-01-2012, 20:13
You can't add to the front rank if the unit already has multiple ranks (even if they are ranks of one model). So a unit that is deployed as a conga line would have all raised models added incorporated into the same conga line formation. In order to extend the line towards your enemy you would need to have the rear of the unit facing the foe, however.

Does bring up a weird RAW issue. The language of the res rule only lets you add to ranks (either the front or rear), not create new ones. Obvious RAI here, though.

I won't allow my opponents to grow 1 wide units, nor i will do it myself. I'll take the "at least 5 models" as a rule written for balance purpose, just to avoid powergamers doing their things.

dimetri1
23-01-2012, 20:13
I think the power of them doesn't come from raising them as they die, it comes from raising them as you march towards the enemy (say 3 turns) and arriving with a unit of 100 rather than the 20 you started with. That may only survive 2 rounds but it is 60 points potentially holding up 400+

Why march towards the enemy. Sit back and wait for your opponent to come across to you while you build up your forces.

Balerion
23-01-2012, 20:20
I won't allow my opponents to grow 1 wide units, nor i will do it myself. I'll take the "at least 5 models" as a rule written for balance purpose, just to avoid powergamers doing their things.
That doesn't make much sense. It seems to me the point-of-attack should be whether or not your club allows units to take a 1-wide formation in the first place. It's the kind of formation that has no basis in fair play, or fluff, and is all about gaming the system. Fine in hardcore competitive circles, but frowned upon in friendly games. But if you're going to let opponents assume 1-wide formations without complaints why wouldn't you also let them resurrect models into that formation?

Under your version, what would happen if a player tried to res models in a 1-wide unit? Would the spell just fail, or would the unit instantly spring back into 5-wide formation? Because that might be far more abusable than simply using the correct rule as written.

The Low King
23-01-2012, 20:21
Why march towards the enemy. Sit back and wait for your opponent to come across to you while you build up your forces.

Because you are playing dwarfs?

dimetri1
23-01-2012, 20:39
So it does not not work in every situation. Also not every Dwarf army is a gun line. I do play Dwarfs also and have thought about that situation.

The Low King
23-01-2012, 21:13
Very few dwarf armies are gunlines.

The point is that anything that has decent magic defence (or magic of their own) and can outshoot VC wont come to you. If you try to sit back they will just pick off a unit or two. VCs dont have a way to force enemies to come to them, even WOC can outshoot them.

ihavetoomuchminis
23-01-2012, 21:57
Under your version, what would happen if a player tried to res models in a 1-wide unit? Would the spell just fail, or would the unit instantly spring back into 5-wide formation? Because that might be far more abusable than simply using the correct rule as written.

I don't get the situation you are describing, sorry, a picture would help me more :(. If the unit is one rank, and there's only one model left, the models are added till the only rank left is 5 models wide. If the unit is 2 ranks deep, and 1 model wide (or simply less than 5 models), the models are added till the first rank is 5 models wide, as according to BSB, the last rank can have less models. If the unit is 3 ranks or more deep, and less than 5 models wide, the spell then fails. That is if we are talking about infantry, for MI the rule states that it is 3 models wide.

I want to highlight the fact that the raise dead spell forces you to deploy the unit in at least 5 models wide formation.

I'm not sure i'm right or you are. But i like to play by the rules as written, specially when the way they are written avoids powergaming. I must say that in 7th, when i played against a VC player (or playing VC myself) i followed the rule that stated "if you haven't enough models, they are lost". It was, to me, a measure of balance against deploying 3 units of 10 ghouls, and finishing the game with 3 units of 60 ghouls. Who has 180 ghouls? And who can carry them to the LGS along with the rest of his army? :P

Balerion
23-01-2012, 22:20
I don't get the situation you are describing, sorry, a picture would help me more :(. If the unit is one rank, and there's only one model left, the models are added till the only rank left is 5 models wide. If the unit is 2 ranks deep, and 1 model wide (or simply less than 5 models), the models are added till the first rank is 5 models wide, as according to BSB, the last rank can have less models. If the unit is 3 ranks or more deep, and less than 5 models wide, the spell then fails. That is if we are talking about infantry, for MI the rule states that it is 3 models wide.

I want to highlight the fact that the raise dead spell forces you to deploy the unit in at least 5 models wide formation.

I'm not sure i'm right or you are. But i like to play by the rules as written, specially when the way they are written avoids powergaming. I must say that in 7th, when i played against a VC player (or playing VC myself) i followed the rule that stated "if you haven't enough models, they are lost". It was, to me, a measure of balance against deploying 3 units of 10 ghouls, and finishing the game with 3 units of 60 ghouls. Who has 180 ghouls? And who can carry them to the LGS along with the rest of his army? :P
Ah, there seems to be some confusion about what we're talking about.

You're correct that Raise Dead forces you to complete a rank of at least 5 models, and also that a unit which was whittled down to one model would have to begin its resurrection process by completing a new rank of 5.

However, I believe the original conga line suggestion made by the Low King was to field units of Zombies in your list (not raised ones, but ones you actually paid for), deploy them in conga line formation at the start of the game, and then use IoN + the Zombies' natural ability to be raised above starting value to extend the conga line towards your opponent. I don't believe there is any RAW reason to prevent this, since you'd be adding models to a unit that has previously occupied a formation which prevents it from legally going 5-wide after the spell is cast (since you can't have a unit with 5 guys in the front rank, and then 1 guy in the next several ranks).

You could houserule that the spell automatically fails, but I don't think it would be RAW (and I don't even really see how it prevents powergaming, since you can pull stupid conga line attrition tactics with a massive paid-for unit just as easily as you can with a unit that is getting resurrected reinforcements)

Balerion
23-01-2012, 22:21
I don't get the situation you are describing, sorry, a picture would help me more :(. If the unit is one rank, and there's only one model left, the models are added till the only rank left is 5 models wide. If the unit is 2 ranks deep, and 1 model wide (or simply less than 5 models), the models are added till the first rank is 5 models wide, as according to BSB, the last rank can have less models. If the unit is 3 ranks or more deep, and less than 5 models wide, the spell then fails. That is if we are talking about infantry, for MI the rule states that it is 3 models wide.

I want to highlight the fact that the raise dead spell forces you to deploy the unit in at least 5 models wide formation.

I'm not sure i'm right or you are. But i like to play by the rules as written, specially when the way they are written avoids powergaming. I must say that in 7th, when i played against a VC player (or playing VC myself) i followed the rule that stated "if you haven't enough models, they are lost". It was, to me, a measure of balance against deploying 3 units of 10 ghouls, and finishing the game with 3 units of 60 ghouls. Who has 180 ghouls? And who can carry them to the LGS along with the rest of his army? :P
Ah, there seems to be some confusion about what we're talking about.

You're correct that Raise Dead forces you to complete a rank of at least 5 models, and also that a unit which was whittled down to one model would have to begin its resurrection process by completing a new rank of 5.

However, I believe the original conga line suggestion made by the Low King was to field units of Zombies in your list (not raised ones, but ones you actually paid for), deploy them in conga line formation at the start of the game, and then use IoN + the Zombies' natural ability to be raised above starting value to extend the conga line towards your opponent. I don't believe there is any RAW reason to prevent this, since you'd be adding models to a unit that has previously occupied a formation which prevents it from legally going 5-wide after the spell is cast (since you can't have a unit with 5 guys in the front rank, and then 1 guy in the next several ranks).

You could houserule that the spell automatically fails, but I don't think it would be RAW (and I don't even really see how it prevents powergaming, since you can pull stupid conga line attrition tactics with a massive paid-for unit just as easily as you can with a raised unit or a unit that is getting free resurrected reinforcements).

The Marshel
24-01-2012, 11:08
possible potential to grow with 8d6 plus magic lvl's of models each turn... 3 150 sized zombie units by turn 3?

while the prospect of facing that many zombies is daunting, the prospect of buying, assembling, painting, storing and transporting 450 zombies is absolutely terrifying

valle
24-01-2012, 11:55
I must say that in 7th, when i played against a VC player (or playing VC myself) i followed the rule that stated "if you haven't enough models, they are lost". It was, to me, a measure of balance against deploying 3 units of 10 ghouls, and finishing the game with 3 units of 60 ghouls. Who has 180 ghouls? And who can carry them to the LGS along with the rest of his army? :P

Are you GW's director of sales marketing in disguise? ;) What you describe there is just as bad as powergaming, in fact I would call it power gaming as well since the whole idea with powergaming is to abuse the rules and since you force your opponent who legally cast the spell to abandon his spell just because he didnt have the money to go and buy 180 GW models. And in any case, if your opponent succeeded in making 3 10 man units into 3 60 man units you might wanna look into using some magic defense ;). I realize that the army was broken in 7th, but if someone forced me to go and buy 150+ zombies as the rules are now we would be done playing, there must be a balance to things, just as to much isnt good, to little aint neither.

ihavetoomuchminis
24-01-2012, 13:16
Are you GW's director of sales marketing in disguise? ;) What you describe there is just as bad as powergaming, in fact I would call it power gaming as well since the whole idea with powergaming is to abuse the rules and since you force your opponent who legally cast the spell to abandon his spell just because he didnt have the money to go and buy 180 GW models. And in any case, if your opponent succeeded in making 3 10 man units into 3 60 man units you might wanna look into using some magic defense ;). I realize that the army was broken in 7th, but if someone forced me to go and buy 150+ zombies as the rules are now we would be done playing, there must be a balance to things, just as to much isnt good, to little aint neither.

So you are saying that you want to play with twice the points, without having the models? Right, but not against me. That's all. We have different points of view about that.

There was little you could do against the IoN spam in 7th, and you know it. "oh look, i have 16 power dices, i would throw 12 dice in 12 IoN to reinforce this unit. Let's see.....8 successes. Now you can dispell with your.......8 dispell dices. Good luck dispelling those 5's and 6's i rolled with just 1 dice. Oh, and i have 4 dices left".

Wesser
24-01-2012, 13:21
Lets not forget though that multiple zombie units will swiftly choke the marching bubble around the general. After all you also need horrors, grave guard, skeletons, ghouls etc. etc marching.

Zombies on the flank with M4, no marching anyone? Not likely

Also your general will often be your main or secondary caster and with Invocation/Vanhel having a range that matches the march bubble those zombies may get hard to find space for if you want them healed/moving forward.

Think we're going to have to be very careful with our selections. It also adds to the usefulness of a Vamp on a monster, which will allow him to move the march bubble more freely

valle
24-01-2012, 13:49
So you are saying that you want to play with twice the points, without having the models? Right, but not against me. That's all. We have different points of view about that.

There was little you could do against the IoN spam in 7th, and you know it. "oh look, i have 16 power dices, i would throw 12 dice in 12 IoN to reinforce this unit. Let's see.....8 successes. Now you can dispell with your.......8 dispell dices. Good luck dispelling those 5's and 6's i rolled with just 1 dice. Oh, and i have 4 dices left".

I didnt play in 7th at all, actually i havnt played much since 4th and only recently taken WHFB up again, so no I never really tried that and i wouldnt want to neither, but my point still stands, you will face huge units of zombies with the new rules, will you force your opponent to go out and buy all those models? Imo that's power gaming as well just in another form, but I guess we all play the way that works for our playing group.

The Marshel
24-01-2012, 14:10
you will face huge units of zombies with the new rules, will you force your opponent to go out and buy all those models? Imo that's power gaming as well just in another form, but I guess we all play the way that works for our playing group.

how dare we expect models to represent the units people choose to field, it's almost like we're playing a wargame or something.

If you want to use mass regnerating zombies you better have the minis to back it up. i'd assume the 450 zombie example is something no one of sound mind would ever attempt, but with alt suppliers like mantic providing high quality zombie minitures are reasonable price, having 180 or so of the buggers isnt hard. i have around 90, and they aren't even for fantasy, cost me around 40 quid.

I wouldn't let someone use a unit of 20 saurus warriors to represent 40, maybe if they were new to the army and had only just started collecting, but not if they expect to 20 to be enough to represent 40 and never intend on getting that extra 20, and this is no differant

you wanna reanmiate that many zombies, then put them on the table or fight my imaginary deamon army

valle
24-01-2012, 14:23
how dare we expect models to represent the units people choose to field, it's almost like we're playing a wargame or something.

If you want to use mass regnerating zombies you better have the minis to back it up. i'd assume the 450 zombie example is something no one of sound mind would ever attempt, but with alt suppliers like mantic providing high quality zombie minitures are reasonable price, having 180 or so of the buggers isnt hard. i have around 90, and they aren't even for fantasy, cost me around 40 quid.

I wouldn't let someone use a unit of 20 saurus warriors to represent 40, maybe if they were new to the army and had only just started collecting, but not if they expect to 20 to be enough to represent 40 and never intend on getting that extra 20, and this is no differant

you wanna reanmiate that many zombies, then put them on the table or fight my imaginary deamon army


Yah really, how dare you? Many warhammer players are kids, and the fact that they have to use ALL GW models to play in a GW store is bad enough, but to then have model fetish'st like you hanging around saying they cant add to their 30 model zombie unit if the dont have the zombies for the IoN spell is just what is wrong with this game, its no longer about the game but about grown up people living in a fluffy warhammer wonderland telling gamers off if their own dried up imagination has to get to work. As i said, GW must be happy having players like you in the gaming community forcing people to spend all their money on models... I guess I am lucky enough to play with people who dosnt have a model fetish, and dices are allowed where I play my games, you see we are all grown ups with families and money needs to be spendt with care, I guess you dont have to worry about such things.

EDMM
24-01-2012, 14:31
@valle,

No models?

No play.

valle
24-01-2012, 14:32
@valle,

No models?

No play.

Im not going to fall for second hand trolling like that, move along...

The Marshel
24-01-2012, 14:35
I play my game amongst friends, we field armies we are able to field accurately as best as possible. we haven't played at a gw for years, we have no issue with non gw minis and we expect reasonable representation of units on the board. we don't wonder around gw stores bullying kids who can't afford those 30 zombies as they play their casual games, but then again you didnt note the exception i made for people new to their armies who have only just started collecting in my first post.

we all have expenses and limited incomes mate and we all play this game our own way, but don't go calling people power gamers because they expect people to follow the rules. If you're fine with "pretending" that unit of zombies is 30-60 zombies larger, power to you, but don't act like other's are horrible immoral people because they disagree with you on perhaps the most important part of wysiwyg, actually putting a model on the table

Darnok
24-01-2012, 14:42
I fail to see the trolling. If you want to play a game where models represent your troops, you better have the models for the troops you want to use.

I must admit though: Zombies are some kind of special case. I'll discuss this with my gaming buddy, as I think ten ranks of models are enough "representation" on a table - anything more can be done by dice or other markers. In a normal ranked unit that is still a block of 50 models, if I want to go horde it would be 100. I consider that to be enough eyecandy.

Even though I still understand people who would not allow this. In that case I would respect their opinion and either play with less zombie units, or not at all.

Balerion
24-01-2012, 14:44
we all have expenses and limited incomes mate and we all play this game our own way, but don't go calling people power gamers because they expect people to follow the rules. If you're fine with "pretending" that unit of zombies is 30-60 zombies larger, power to you, but don't act like other's are horrible immoral people because they disagree with you on perhaps the most important part of wysiwyg, actually putting a model on the table
That is actually the least important part of wysiwyg, as long as you're talking about resurrected/raised models that are added to the back ranks of a unit. They have literally no in-game effects, and are purely markers with only one relevant dimension (the area their base occupies).

valle
24-01-2012, 14:53
I fail to see the trolling. If you want to play a game where models represent your troops, you better have the models for the troops you want to use.

I must admit though: Zombies are some kind of special case. I'll discuss this with my gaming buddy, as I think ten ranks of models are enough "representation" on a table - anything more can be done by dice or other markers. In a normal ranked unit that is still a block of 50 models, if I want to go horde it would be 100. I consider that to be enough eyecandy.

Even though I still understand people who would not allow this. In that case I would respect their opinion and either play with less zombie units, or not at all.

A respond with no other intention than to provocate is trolling in my book. Its not like it added anything to the discussion so I fail to see how you fail to see it as trolling, but I guess views just differ on that subject but lets not go there shall we?
But regarding the zombies/models issue I guess that's the common view I should find on a site such as this, and it just makes me count my blessings that my gaming community is more about the gaming and less about the eye goodies, and that's my last statement regarding that subject... I know I contributed to derailing the thread but lets get back to discussing zombies viability as tarpits.

Whaagnomore
24-01-2012, 15:11
The way we play it in our group, you need models to represent numbers, down to the very last. This however, does not mean they all have to be the specifically right model , as long as a filler makes sense its all good. And +1 for the tip on mantic zombies, they look nice enough and are fairly cheap.

Harwammer
24-01-2012, 15:22
The coolest players let you use models on 20mm bases from their 'dead piles' as your raised zombies ;)

Dooks Dizzo
24-01-2012, 16:11
I've got bazillions of extra gnoblars that I've painted up in nice earthy/slimy colors as well as 40 clan rats from island of blood that will be getting a new nasty paint job as a good start to my zombie horde.

We're planning on doing some campaign stuff based off blood in the badlands and will need LOTS of zombies for it. We're talking about a rule where vamp players can actually have their back ranks off the table, representing an almost limitless pile of undead. 15 ranks on the table and as many again off the table!

boli
24-01-2012, 16:24
Zombies work great in pieces... I mean unit filler consisting of grave stones; walking legs (without a torso) and a torso pulling itself out of the ground.

With greenstuff, imagination and spare bases you should easily be able to stretch the zombie horde further than the "20" models it says on the front of the box. Just use plenty of unit filler with 40x40mm bases... or even sets of 60x100 (5x3) bases Done right no-one will complain as it'll look spectacular (as long as you have enough single models to adjust casualties correctly.)

The bearded one
24-01-2012, 16:39
Mmmm... I this thread inspired me to start a goblinarmy.. * buys 2 boxes of night goblins, spreads them over several movement trays with dice to represent the rest *



In all seriousness I'd like a player, provided he isn't new or just a kid (limited funds), to actually represent his army on the table by using models for it. However I would never make a fuss if there was, say, a unit of 50 zombies raised to 100 and the last 20 or so are represented with dice. Just don't stretch it to absurdity.


Zombies work great in pieces... I mean unit filler consisting of grave stones; walking legs (without a torso) and a torso pulling itself out of the ground.

With greenstuff, imagination and spare bases you should easily be able to stretch the zombie horde further than the "20" models it says on the front of the box. Just use plenty of unit filler with 40x40mm bases... or even sets of 60x100 (5x3) bases Done right no-one will complain as it'll look spectacular (as long as you have enough single models to adjust casualties correctly.)

I bought 1 box of zombies and built 32 out of it, and used leftover bitz for other conversions and modelling.

The Low King
24-01-2012, 21:07
I play my game amongst friends, we field armies we are able to field accurately as best as possible. we haven't played at a gw for years, we have no issue with non gw minis and we expect reasonable representation of units on the board. we don't wonder around gw stores bullying kids who can't afford those 30 zombies as they play their casual games, but then again you didnt note the exception i made for people new to their armies who have only just started collecting in my first post.

we all have expenses and limited incomes mate and we all play this game our own way, but don't go calling people power gamers because they expect people to follow the rules. If you're fine with "pretending" that unit of zombies is 30-60 zombies larger, power to you, but don't act like other's are horrible immoral people because they disagree with you on perhaps the most important part of wysiwyg, actually putting a model on the table

Actually the most important part of WYSIWYG is ensureing it is clear what units are wich......(or maybe not putting the wrong model on the table)


Ive been playing for 7 years having started whilst at school. Ive only recently reached the stage where im controling my own finances. I have 200+ dwarf models (not actually sure how many...). Yet i cant field every option availible to me...what happens if i want to try out a flame cannon? What happens if someone wants to be fun and rather than take the Ghouls and grave guard they have from the last book they want to try out a mass of zombies? why should i expect them to spend that much on models they might only want to use once?

Torga_DW
24-01-2012, 21:55
Personally, i'd want some form of model on the table. But it doesn't have to be the right model (although it would be nice), as long as the base size is correct. Bonus points if you can make the first rank consist of the actual models. I have no problem with proxies and counts as, but if someone plonked down 10 zombies and dice to make up the numbers to 60 zombies, i probably wouldn't be happy. Thats just me, though.