PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on VC as one of the new books



konate
22-02-2012, 08:19
So, now that VC have been out a while, and people are more famliar with them, what are your opinions on how they compare with the rest of the new books?

m1acca1551
22-02-2012, 08:26
Im loving it! Its not as op as previous editions, we dont suffer from only having 1 competitive build any more and we get to use necromancers as generals! All in all im very happy with the direction theyve taken vc, my biggest gripe is that the army book consisted of repeat fluff and a very poorly written new story and they still asked me for $69 Aus for it.

as for how it stacks against the other new army books its very well balanced we are fairly competitive in all aspects of the game and can excel at parts if the right build is taken.

Ratbeast
22-02-2012, 08:28
Pretty well balance, most units of a role, zombies are awesome this time round, good synergy with magic and mortis engine, solid specail choices, all in all pretty happy with the book

Rate it eqaul 1st with ogres in the line up with new books, with orcs in 2nd and TKs in 3rd

chaospantz
22-02-2012, 08:34
I love it. Well balanced with the other new books that have come out. My only hope is that GW keeps doing their books this way and we might just have us a well balanced game.

N.I.B.
22-02-2012, 08:54
Any tournament results coming in?

brother_maynard
22-02-2012, 17:24
i don't think tournament results this early would be a good indicator of anything. the VC players themselves are only getting used to their new book.

quietus1986
22-02-2012, 18:41
the new thing against vampire's is to target the vampire not the unit.

Maoriboy007
22-02-2012, 19:23
Probably the most balanced book of this edition. Not quite as strong as ogres but certainly a lot more usable options this time around. People still way overestimating the power of VC raising and underestimating instability though. Well priced units means the (few) minor gripes are very acceptable. Looks like Phil Kelly didn't listen to all the Anti VC rage (shame about Ghouls and marching though) and was farily reasonable, taken in that light it puts Tomb Kings to shame.
I'd love to see more Reports with them though, so far I've had a loss vs Chaos and a draw vs OnG (that was a tough but fun battle).

Lord Inquisitor
22-02-2012, 19:36
I was a little disappointed with Vamps compared with the other books. In terms of power and diversity there's a good job, like the other 8th ed books. It was perhaps the least well written of the books - units like the coven throne and mortis engine are overcomplicated beyond the necessity of the units and really slow the game down - and there's a lot of rules gaffs, more than the previous books. The units were treated a little blandly - still nothing much "zombieish" about zombies, etc. In competitive terms there are multiple viable builds, which is cool and most units are viable. Most magic items and powers are useful, unlike Ogres and Orcs.

Overall ... not a bad job. Just not amazing either.

Fear Ghoul
22-02-2012, 20:42
I was a little disappointed with Vamps compared with the other books. In terms of power and diversity there's a good job, like the other 8th ed books. It was perhaps the least well written of the books - units like the coven throne and mortis engine are overcomplicated beyond the necessity of the units and really slow the game down - and there's a lot of rules gaffs, more than the previous books. The units were treated a little blandly - still nothing much "zombieish" about zombies, etc. In competitive terms there are multiple viable builds, which is cool and most units are viable. Most magic items and powers are useful, unlike Ogres and Orcs.

Overall ... not a bad job. Just not amazing either.

Are the Coven Throne and Mortis Engine really complicated? Their rules seem pretty simple to me.

I quite like Zombies in the new book. They are slow, poor fighters that die and are raised by the dozen.

Lord Inquisitor
22-02-2012, 21:06
The whole mechanic for the coven throne seems convoluted - I take my Ld and add a D6, you take a D6 and add your Ld, then we deduct one from the other and look it up on a table and THEN we can finally find out what the damn things does - EVERY time anyone tries to attack it. Not even once a turn. The mortis engine is worse, it requires so much bookkeeping, you need to remember to activate it every turn, every unit in range needs be marked, plus the turn number needs be remembered (not a terrible thing to remember anyway I grant you but still), there's the rule affecting doubles not to mention what happens when it dies. It's not quite Abomination complicated but it's hardly "straightforward". I've not played against a VC player using Mortis engines who hasn't said "oh I forgot about that" at some point about something. With corpse carts, bound items and spell effects it's not too bad to keep track of if you are organised and have a suitable set of counters for all the static effects - but if you don't, it turns into a mess pretty quick.

The bearded one
22-02-2012, 21:52
It's not quite Abomination complicated but it's hardly "straightforward".

The abomination isn't terribly complex:
turn, move 3D6", roll a 3-result chart that does lots of str6 hits, and roll on table when dead, spawning ratswarms on a 4-5 and returning on a 6 with D6 wounds.

A trend that has me a bit worried in these books is that the magic items and powers seem to be getting better with each book. The O&G items were terrible except for the savage wardsave booster, and their costs were absurd. Tomb kings weren't that much better, but at least the prices were more within reason and some of them halfdecent like the deathmask. Ogres got big names at a fair price and some nice items like the breatweapon banner and the hellheart, and then VC come along with the old ~25pt powers and items that are off the charts in comparison to previous ones, like red fury, the 3D6 fear banner and ASF. If this trend gets worse we're in trouble.

Cognitave
23-02-2012, 02:28
I like that skeletons are cheaper all around (regular, Grave Guard, Black knights), our new units are quite good, and that the new models are striking and very well done. My biggest concern was that our magic would be changed radically coming into the new book, but I think GW did an excellent job capturing what we are trying to do with our spells and kept it streamlined and powerful. As for the point increase on Vampires and ghouls, I suppose taking more skeletons balances it out a bit in the end. I'm also not sure we needed some huge flashy siege engine machine. I'm sure they'll grow on me with time.

All in all, I'm excited and pleased with the book so far. Apart from a surprise Wood Elves update, I don't think I'll be playing any other army for a very long time. I think GW hit a home run with this one, keeping the core play style while putting us on a new magic system is quite impressive.

Lord Inquisitor
23-02-2012, 02:39
The abomination isn't terribly complex:
turn, move 3D6", roll a 3-result chart that does lots of str6 hits, and roll on table when dead, spawning ratswarms on a 4-5 and returning on a 6 with D6 wounds.
Not terribly complex compared with what? The only other units that come close are giants and steam tanks I'd have said. Over a page of rules all by itself, including three tables of results (don't forget the movement table, although many Skaven players do in my experience), unique attacks with multiple mechanics per attack not to mention half a page of errata and FAQs. There are a number of issues that are consistently played wrong with this unit.


A trend that has me a bit worried in these books is that the magic items and powers seem to be getting better with each book. The O&G items were terrible except for the savage wardsave booster, and their costs were absurd. Tomb kings weren't that much better, but at least the prices were more within reason and some of them halfdecent like the deathmask. Ogres got big names at a fair price and some nice items like the breatweapon banner and the hellheart, and then VC come along with the old ~25pt powers and items that are off the charts in comparison to previous ones, like red fury, the 3D6 fear banner and ASF. If this trend gets worse we're in trouble.
Well, I don't think having items that are actually worthwhile is a bad thing. The Ogres are a bit hit or miss from the maligned Hellheart and Greedy Fist to the magic weapons which are insanely overpriced to the point of absurdity (Siegebreaker!). The Ogre big names are NOT fairly priced, they are basically useless across the board. Some have limited use in specific situations but they are by and large without any real redeeming features. I typically use no big names in competitive lists.

herohammer
23-02-2012, 02:49
Example of the madness that is the coven throne:

A coven throne charges a unit of empire handgunners who stand and shoot. The coven throne with its LD10 vampire component beats the foolish LD7 humans by 6 and they attack themselves. Is this considered a shooting attack? If so, lets say they kill enough dudes to panic themselves and run. Is the coven throne allowed to redirect its charge or is it too late?

Also, it isn't even agreed upon where I play whether or not both sides are allowed to use inspiring presence for the coven throne's ability. Not that it effects the things power level either way. If you can it is great on vampire thralls since it would still be LD10 off of your lord. If no one gets inspiring presence it is really really good on a vampire lord.

The only reason more people are not talking about the coven throne as a serious option is that it is very confusing. Remember how most people ignored the greedy fist when the ogre book was new? When the death magic combo was found, most people assumed that it would be removed by errata and continued to ignore the item until then.

dementian
23-02-2012, 03:22
I always thought the hellpit had pretty easily understood rules, personally I think the plague furnace is a little more confusing than the hellpit.

sulla
23-02-2012, 04:40
It's not quite Abomination complicated but it's hardly "straightforward". I've not played against a VC player using Mortis engines who hasn't said "oh I forgot about that" at some point about something. With corpse carts, bound items and spell effects it's not too bad to keep track of if you are organised and have a suitable set of counters for all the static effects - but if you don't, it turns into a mess pretty quick. I'm in total agreement about the needless complexity of these models. Thet could have made much simpler solutions that didn't require tracking of turn or who was in what range at what time. As foir the A-bomb, that is a mess of unneccessary rules. It's like something you might expect from forgeworld, not something designed for everyday play.


There is something to be said for elegance and simplicity of rules...

Scythe
23-02-2012, 08:33
I'm in total agreement about the needless complexity of these models. Thet could have made much simpler solutions that didn't require tracking of turn or who was in what range at what time. As foir the A-bomb, that is a mess of unneccessary rules. It's like something you might expect from forgeworld, not something designed for everyday play.


There is something to be said for elegance and simplicity of rules...

While I generally agree, I kind of like the turn number used as variable. It is a rather unique mechanism, which changes the use of the model a bit as the game progresses. Rather interesting idea imho.

That said, in general, the Vampire book looks very good. It allows for a diverse number of play styles and army builds, which is something the previous book lacked, especially once 8th edition rolled around. There are some minor issues in the list, and the fluff is just recycled, which is a letdown, but then nothing is perfect. ;)

The bearded one
23-02-2012, 10:25
Well, I don't think having items that are actually worthwhile is a bad thing. The Ogres are a bit hit or miss from the maligned Hellheart and Greedy Fist to the magic weapons which are insanely overpriced to the point of absurdity (Siegebreaker!). The Ogre big names are NOT fairly priced, they are basically useless across the board. Some have limited use in specific situations but they are by and large without any real redeeming features. I typically use no big names in competitive lists.

The ogres certainly have it a lot better than O&G and TK, but VC are in a completely different league in comparison and if they keep that up we'll be back to underpriced/overpowered items like pendants, crowns and preerrata powerscrolls. Compare the usefulness and cost of items in the last 4 books and look if you see this trend of the price going down and the usefulness going up. This has gone on for 4 books now, but until ogres it was still fine. With VC I feel like they lapsed back into 7th for a moment in terms of items and powers.

Generally the magic weapons are absurdly overpriced in all 8th edition books though, but the most expensive magic weapons were never good enough to justify their cost in the 7th edition books either.

Maoriboy007
23-02-2012, 20:06
The ogres certainly have it a lot better than O&G and TK, but VC are in a completely different league in comparison and if they keep that up we'll be back to underpriced/overpowered items like pendants, crowns and preerrata powerscrolls. Compare the usefulness and cost of items in the last 4 books and look if you see this trend of the price going down and the usefulness going up. This has gone on for 4 books now, but until ogres it was still fine. With VC I feel like they lapsed back into 7th for a moment in terms of items and powers.Lets face it, OnG and TK had the sad fate of being the first books of the new edition, always a perilous position, and they did a particularly bad job with TK. Even the most useful items in those books are sadly priced and tend to be the best of a bad lot, it doesn't mean they should compouns the mistakes , in fact by OK it seemed that they had caught on a little.
As far as VC goes I haven't seen any items or powers that seem underpriced or overpowered with the possible exception of quickblood, and if we were to consider quickblood as an issue , I would say that it would have to do more with the ASF rule itself than just the Bloodline. Masterstrike MotBA and Periapt in particlar are overpriced, and with the screaming Banner and Horror making fear actually matter is not as gamebreaking without it autobreaking.
Its worth noting a lot of the best of the last book has gone to the sorrow of some and joy of others (another victory for the we hate undead league) and the remainder tends to be either the equivalent of the "ok but not great" items that were left.
Red Fury is as good as it was I suppose, not that it was ever particularly underpriced , but my opinion is that anytime you are putting your "kill most of my points in one hit and start my army crumbling" Vampire Lord in harms way you are actually doing your opponant a favour. Thats actually what I like about the book. at first glance it seems like they might be bargain prices , but after a while they actually tend to come out pretty even when taking the army as a whole into account.


Generally the magic weapons are absurdly overpriced in all 8th edition books though, but the most expensive magic weapons were never good enough to justify their cost in the 7th edition books either. I suppose Scabscrath is at least an interesting weapon, doesn't particularly say must have. Generally all the weapons are overpriced for what they do requiring a sacrifice in defence. With Ogres I can kind of understand why they toned down as they start out very killy and hard to kill before you even start to add items. While Vampires can hit hard they need a lot of protecting as well.


While I generally agree, I kind of like the turn number used as variable. It is a rather unique mechanism, which changes the use of the model a bit as the game progresses. Rather interesting idea imho.

That said, in general, the Vampire book looks very good. It allows for a diverse number of play styles and army builds, which is something the previous book lacked, especially once 8th edition rolled around. There are some minor issues in the list, and the fluff is just recycled, which is a letdown, but then nothing is perfect. ;) As complicated as it is having that one model that has a whole lot of interesting "gadjet" abilities can be kind of fun, if you can remember it all.

Lord Inquisitor
23-02-2012, 20:23
The ogres certainly have it a lot better than O&G and TK, but VC are in a completely different league in comparison and if they keep that up we'll be back to underpriced/overpowered items like pendants, crowns and preerrata powerscrolls. Compare the usefulness and cost of items in the last 4 books and look if you see this trend of the price going down and the usefulness going up. This has gone on for 4 books now, but until ogres it was still fine. With VC I feel like they lapsed back into 7th for a moment in terms of items and powers.

Ogres merely got "more" but not "more useful/cheaper." Indeed, the TK have arguably more useful items out of their 8 than the ogres got in 19.

Big Names:
Mawseeker - overpriced beyond reason (particularly since it comes out of magic item allowance). Classic GW taking something too good and over-reacting.
Wallcrusher - overpriced significantly
Kineater - might be good if it weren't "tyrant's only" :rolleyes: If you take a tyrant he is likely to be within BSB range!
Mountaineater - all the "wound on 3+ at best" abilities seem overly expensive (who takes daemonic robes or similar?)
Giantbreaker - actually potentially decent if you don't want to shell out for a Greedy Fist or want a second +1S. Overpriced though considering a sword of might is 5 points cheaper and doesn't prevent you from refusing challenges.
Deathcheater - largely useless with a small niche use for protecting BSBs with magic banners.
Longstrider - entirely useless. If it gave Swiftstride that'd be another matter.
Beastkiller - might be good if it weren't hunters only. Heroic Killing Blow would have been a lot more useful and might have made Hunters viable.
Brawlerguts - heavily overpriced.

All of the big names are substantially overpriced and even those that are occasionally used have specific niche uses.

Magic Items
Thundermace: Nerfed beyond usability. It was merely "alright" in the old book and they reduced the strength and wounds dealt, limited who you could use it on and for some reason upped the price by 30 points.
Siegebreaker: A joke. It makes the TK, Vamp and Orc magic weapons seem amazing.
Gnoblar Thiefstone: Kind of cool but too unpredictable for the points tag. Never taken.
Greedy Fist: Pretty awesome even without the potential for deathfisting.
Gut Maw: Alright. A little expensive to see competitive use but alright.
Grut's Sickle: Useful in specific builds
Hellheart: Obviously amazing.
Rock Eye: I love this, a neat little extra if you play closed lists.
Rune Maw: With the errata, useful and fairly costed.
Dragonhide: Also fairly costed.

So the items are better than the Big Names with several "auto includes" and a few others that are solid choices with only a third of them howlers. The TK items by comparison have 8 items but they're all at least situationally useful. Certainly I've seen all in competitive lists.

Maoriboy007
23-02-2012, 20:29
Ha! a pretty fair assesment I suppose, although I cant say that Ogres seem all that much weaker for it. Generally I get stomped enough without Ogre weapons ever entering the picture.

Lord Inquisitor
23-02-2012, 20:47
Oh, ogres have plenty of fun toys elsewhere and I appreciate that the design team seem to be taking a "better safe than sorry" approach with special characters and magic items/upgrades. But it seems by VC that they're responding to a general dislike that so many are useless. As far as I'm concerned, they might as well have left the Big Names off entirely and the pricing on magic weapons and special characters seems impossible that it wasn't to make them deliberately overcosted. I was really wondering if Siegebreaker points was a typo. Bragg is so overcosted I just can't imagine anyone thought that was an appropriate points value for him. Obviously better than entities like the Masque who are crazy undercosted (I'm still sure her points value was a cut-and-paste error).

The VC seem to have a better range of useful abilities than ogres and most of their magic items are viable. This is a good thing. At the same time they don't seem to have any "hellheart" type items that really affect the game. Their special characters seem reasonable although I've not really crunched the numbers. Overall it seems a pretty good job and despite the "creep" up in quantity (particularly since Ogre had to take big names out of their allowance and vampires don't), they look pretty reasonable.

Ratbeast
23-02-2012, 21:13
Greedy Fist: Pretty awesome even without the potential for deathfisting

Explain deathfisting please

Maoriboy007
23-02-2012, 21:16
The VC seem to have a better range of useful abilities than ogres and most of their magic items are viable. This is a good thing. At the same time they don't seem to have any "hellheart" type items that really affect the game. Their special characters seem reasonable although I've not really crunched the numbers. Overall it seems a pretty good job and despite the "creep" up in quantity (particularly since Ogre had to take big names out of their allowance and vampires don't), they look pretty reasonable.I agree, the VC seem to have a lot more useful items than most although none seem OTT in themselves as far as I've seen. One or two shockers in the list but not to shabby really.

Maoriboy007
23-02-2012, 21:16
Greedy Fist: Pretty awesome even without the potential for deathfisting

Explain deathfisting pleasePlease don't.............

Lord Inquisitor
23-02-2012, 21:26
Greedy Fist: Pretty awesome even without the potential for deathfisting

Explain deathfisting please
I'm refraining from making any innuendo here. ;)

Greedy Fist is a magic item in the Ogre book with a number of abilities, among them is that for every "hit" inflicted by the bearer against a wizard, a magic level is stripped off. It's a bit vague as to whether only close combat attacks count, or ranged attacks. The FAQ confirmed it worked with ranged attacks. So if my tyrant has a pistol, he can shoot a greater daemon and if he hits, the GD loses a magic level. The next logical step was therefore to put the Greedy Fist on an Ogre wizard with Death Magic. Therefore if you hit an enemy wizard with one of the snipe spells - like Caress of Laniph - you have a good chance of stripping all their levels.

It's regarded as a pretty cheesy trick although it really isn't all that. Death is a sub-par lore for ogres, only two spells cause hits on enemy models and the Greedy Fist trick gives up a lot of other options. It's also debatable whether it is the wizard or the spell inflicting the hits but precedent suggest it does count as the wizard. (Although it's a stupid precedent. :shifty:)

Petey
23-02-2012, 22:50
Ogres merely got "more" but not "more useful/cheaper." Indeed, the TK have arguably more useful items out of their 8 than the ogres got in 19.

Big Names:
Mawseeker - overpriced beyond reason (particularly since it comes out of magic item allowance). Classic GW taking something too good and over-reacting.
Wallcrusher - overpriced significantly
Kineater - might be good if it weren't "tyrant's only" :rolleyes: If you take a tyrant he is likely to be within BSB range!
Mountaineater - all the "wound on 3+ at best" abilities seem overly expensive (who takes daemonic robes or similar?)
Giantbreaker - actually potentially decent if you don't want to shell out for a Greedy Fist or want a second +1S. Overpriced though considering a sword of might is 5 points cheaper and doesn't prevent you from refusing challenges.
Deathcheater - largely useless with a small niche use for protecting BSBs with magic banners.
Longstrider - entirely useless. If it gave Swiftstride that'd be another matter.
Beastkiller - might be good if it weren't hunters only. Heroic Killing Blow would have been a lot more useful and might have made Hunters viable.
Brawlerguts - heavily overpriced.

All of the big names are substantially overpriced and even those that are occasionally used have specific niche uses.

Magic Items
Thundermace: Nerfed beyond usability. It was merely "alright" in the old book and they reduced the strength and wounds dealt, limited who you could use it on and for some reason upped the price by 30 points.
Siegebreaker: A joke. It makes the TK, Vamp and Orc magic weapons seem amazing.
Gnoblar Thiefstone: Kind of cool but too unpredictable for the points tag. Never taken.
Greedy Fist: Pretty awesome even without the potential for deathfisting.
Gut Maw: Alright. A little expensive to see competitive use but alright.
Grut's Sickle: Useful in specific builds
Hellheart: Obviously amazing.
Rock Eye: I love this, a neat little extra if you play closed lists.
Rune Maw: With the errata, useful and fairly costed.
Dragonhide: Also fairly costed.

So the items are better than the Big Names with several "auto includes" and a few others that are solid choices with only a third of them howlers. The TK items by comparison have 8 items but they're all at least situationally useful. Certainly I've seen all in competitive lists.

I agree that the bignames are all overpriced and quite useless. I really think that they should let tyrants and heroes pick one name (paying these high costs) without coming out of magic item allotment, or made them cheaper and come out of Magic Items points.
As far as the magic items in the book go, I think they are fairly equitably costed for the edition. Remember that they seem to want all the magic weapons to cost more. If this is the case (maybe they want less magic weapons in the environment), then the prices seem correct (regardless of whether this is something the player base wants).
Though you re right about siege breaker, it s garbage.


On the original topic,
I ve gotten to play half a dozen games with the new VC, and I ve found that I don't think there are any useless units in the book. And while I would have liked more ability to customize heroes and vampires, what we have been given is excellent and well costed for the edition.
I m probably alone in the minor complaint of LoV Lore attribute; I wish it were something other than the lore of life attribute. I don't like that it's a font for healing VC heroes, I think they should have to rely on The Hunger for that. The spell list itself is good, but not over the top, and while the magic items are costly (like in every 8th ed book) they are interesting enough to want to take, and none of them seems game breaking or not worth taking.
The power level is well balanced to other books of the edition, and I really like the army again.

My pick for mvp.
BATSWARMS

My last pick for the team.
Zombies (fine ruleswise, models still suck)

Maoriboy007
24-02-2012, 00:41
I m probably alone in the minor complaint of LoV Lore attribute; I wish it were something other than the lore of life attribute. I don't like that it's a font for healing VC heroes, I think they should have to rely on The Hunger for that.The problem is relying on the hunger is like OnG relying on animosity to gain a charge, it might happen but don't bet on it. I quite like the lore attribute, as with the rest of the book it is useful without being OTT, I wish my TK has something like it.

Petey
24-02-2012, 05:19
The problem is relying on the hunger is like OnG relying on animosity to gain a charge, it might happen but don't bet on it. I quite like the lore attribute, as with the rest of the book it is useful without being OTT, I wish my TK has something like it.

Only in its current state. If it was Hunger on a 5+, or you could buy a vampire power to upgrade it it would work. I know many people like the lore attribute, but it doesn't tell the story of the "curse of undeath" it tells the story of the "fecundity of life." And personally I think an attribute like curse of undeath should involve great power at great cost. The necromancer gets weaker and more decrepit from use of necromagy, not healthier and wholer. The curse as described in the fluff, is if you fail at controlling the magic you're playing with, you become a walking mindless corpse, or worse yet a wraith trapped between worlds by dark magic. The attribute would have been better if it emulated that somehow.

vinush
24-02-2012, 06:09
What you need to consider though is not just the magic items and special powers within a vacuum, but as a whole and synergistic part of the army. VC rely on these powers suite often as their troops are mostly sub par at best compared to ogres.

Ive been stomped into the ground by an ogre army consisting of nothing but general and core troops. Their powers are expensive because of their stats.

A unit of skeletons without the support of a character will do next to nothing in combat and then crumble due to the hideous amount of wounds they receive and combat resolution. A unit of ogres needs to lose 3 wounds before they're even dishing out less hurt, and don't need the backup of a character to do it.

THE \/ince

Petey
24-02-2012, 07:21
What you need to consider though is not just the magic items and special powers within a vacuum, but as a whole and synergistic part of the army. VC rely on these powers suite often as their troops are mostly sub par at best compared to ogres.

Ive been stomped into the ground by an ogre army consisting of nothing but general and core troops. Their powers are expensive because of their stats.

A unit of skeletons without the support of a character will do next to nothing in combat and then crumble due to the hideous amount of wounds they receive and combat resolution. A unit of ogres needs to lose 3 wounds before they're even dishing out less hurt, and don't need the backup of a character to do it.

THE \/ince

Yeah, so, I don't know what kind of game you're playing, but one of my closest friends plays OK, and I can beat him with VC regularly. And I run my VC with 2 level 1 wizards. Sorry, but I don't agree with your assessment.

Units of skeletons led by banshees and vampires with Dark Majest, hexenwraiths running through their units, Black Knights pinning in place and batswarms debuffing every combat unit. Sorry but while his army is good, I can kill them jsut fine.

BTW. My favorite magic item is the cursed book.

Scythe
24-02-2012, 07:58
The necromancer gets weaker and more decrepit from use of necromagy, not healthier and wholer.

Not really. Necromantic magic lets them sustain their life to a certain degree. Most of them would be dead or weak due to old age if they hadn't resorted to necromancy.


The curse as described in the fluff, is if you fail at controlling the magic you're playing with, you become a walking mindless corpse, or worse yet a wraith trapped between worlds by dark magic. The attribute would have been better if it emulated that somehow.

What does the lore attribute has to do with the chance of messing up (eg, irresistible force / miscast mechanics)?

m1acca1551
24-02-2012, 08:39
Vc have very good counters to ok armies, its rather a guilty pleasure pushing your spirit host in front of mournfang cav that or a unit of wraiths. but in saying that the ok have great counters to vs, those cannons make my vampire nervous so does that stupid op magic item that shall not be named.

Balerion
24-02-2012, 09:43
I love the new book. I'm the type of player who wants to own every unit in the book and make a different army for every game I play, so the amount of variety in useable VC choices is a complete pleasure to me.

I have some minor gripes (Hunger not appearing on Vargheists/gulfs, SGK having higher Ld than a Master Necro, the vampiric powers list being very top and bottom heavy, Corpse Cart being useless as a mount option, and the Von Carstein-loaded rogues gallery) but overall the book feels really smart and fair.



The VC seem to have a better range of useful abilities than ogres and most of their magic items are viable. This is a good thing. At the same time they don't seem to have any "hellheart" type items that really affect the game. Their special characters seem reasonable although I've not really crunched the numbers. Overall it seems a pretty good job and despite the "creep" up in quantity (particularly since Ogre had to take big names out of their allowance and vampires don't), they look pretty reasonable.
I was going to say something to this effect, since you seemed to be looking at the items from a max-competitivity standpoint, and from that position a single (arguably) overpowered item like the Hellheart is "better" than a multitude of merely useful items. But then I remembered the Banner of the Barrows, which certainly strikes me as a "must have" item (and things you can apply that label to tend to be skewed in balance). I don't think they could have made it any more expensive while keeping it useful, however, since restricting it to BSBs would just make those BSBs priority targets that die quickly and surrender the buff of the item.

MOMUS
24-02-2012, 10:04
The whole mechanic for the coven throne seems convoluted - I take my Ld and add a D6, you take a D6 and add your Ld, then we deduct one from the other and look it up on a table and THEN we can finally find out what the damn things does - EVERY time anyone tries to attack it. Not even once a turn. The mortis engine is worse, it requires so much bookkeeping, you need to remember to activate it every turn, every unit in range needs be marked, plus the turn number needs be remembered (not a terrible thing to remember anyway I grant you but still), there's the rule affecting doubles not to mention what happens when it dies. It's not quite Abomination complicated but it's hardly "straightforward". I've not played against a VC player using Mortis engines who hasn't said "oh I forgot about that" at some point about something. With corpse carts, bound items and spell effects it's not too bad to keep track of if you are organised and have a suitable set of counters for all the static effects - but if you don't, it turns into a mess pretty quick.

I agree with this, i recently played against a VC player in a tournament im in. Half or sometimes more of his turn was working out what his mortis engine could do, his army was three big blocks and some knights. His other phases were incredibly quick, move=forward, magic was raise and move, no shooting -oh wait what does my mortis engine do again....?



Not terribly complex compared with what? The only other units that come close are giants and steam tanks I'd have said. Over a page of rules all by itself, including three tables of results (don't forget the movement table, although many Skaven players do in my experience), unique attacks with multiple mechanics per attack not to mention half a page of errata and FAQs. There are a number of issues that are consistently played wrong with this unit.

I play a skaven player next and this concerns me. Any common mistakes i should look out for?

Petey
24-02-2012, 15:30
Not really. Necromantic magic lets them sustain their life to a certain degree. Most of them would be dead or weak due to old age if they hadn't resorted to necromancy.

Yeah really. It sustains their existence, not their life. See Warhammer RPG first edition. That's the kicker, they are effectively dead because they used necromancy. Just like the wight kings are spirits bound to a husk, this is what the necromancer does to himself during life by using necromantic dark magic. A lot of their experimentation with this wind of magic goes into animating corpses just so they don't have to handle it by hand all the time, yet it's killing them slowly (like cancer). Just like if you make more and more of your body machinery, you become less and less human (in popular fantasy/scifi), until the point that you are an evil consciousness in a robot; effectively that s what you're doing with Necromancy in fantasy (see last 3 vampire army books for more details, also see the undead army book before the split)




What does the lore attribute has to do with the chance of messing up (eg, irresistible force / miscast mechanics)?

I didn't offer that as a solution, nor did I tie it to Miscast/IF. I said that if you fail to control the magic bad things happen. You could handle that like warpstone tokens, or magic mushrooms or some other way. I didn't provide my own homebrew idea, just stating that it could have been done another way, and a better way.
If I had to write it, I might have the attribute do something like bestow/increase The Hunger for the casting character (or bestow/increase it to a hero within 12"). For each successful casting gain +1 to the hunger rolls or maybe, for each successful cast you may roll an additional die for the Hunger etc. This makes it a curse (ie you have to feed on the living) but at the same time provides a nice effect. You might not even see the curse's long term effects in one game even, but we all know what happens if you eat human flesh for too long in the Warhammer world.

Lord Inquisitor
24-02-2012, 18:37
The problem is relying on the hunger is like OnG relying on animosity to gain a charge, it might happen but don't bet on it. I quite like the lore attribute, as with the rest of the book it is useful without being OTT, I wish my TK has something like it.
Well, the hunger could always have been changed to gel better with the Lore Attribute. For example, using the lore attribute allows the vampire to roll a D6 per wound inflicted for the Hunger rather than just one or automatically pass his hunger rolls or something like that. I don't know, I'd have to give it a bit more thought but you get the idea. Essentially allow the caster to revive wounds but only at the cost of the life force of others. Or a lore attribute that's a direct damage with a range of 24" that inflicts a S5 hit on one enemy unit (even one in combat) and if wounded the caster can regain a wound or one model within 12". That sort of thing - yes, it's gaining wounds but it's obviously tied to draining the life from others.

Much of the new VC book leaves me feeling like that... it's cool but it could be cooler. Wouldn't it be cool if zombies could add to their ranks with every casualty they inflict (infection)? Or if ghouls were alive again, making them unpredictable and clearly distinguishing the VC from TK? Or if all vampiric units (blood knights, etc.) had the Hunger?


What you need to consider though is not just the magic items and special powers within a vacuum, but as a whole and synergistic part of the army. VC rely on these powers suite often as their troops are mostly sub par at best compared to ogres.

Ive been stomped into the ground by an ogre army consisting of nothing but general and core troops. Their powers are expensive because of their stats.
LOL their stats have not changed since the old book. Funny how a 5-point drop per model can turn a unit from dreck to high power.

I don't really subscribe to this logic. If no one buys the big names, they're not fulfilling their role. You can't say they should be overcosted because the troops are good - if they're overcosted relative to good troops, everyone will spend their points on troops and not on big names and that's exactly what happens. Everything in an army book should be balanced. Some abilities are more worthwhile to certain units than others, sure, but the big names are pretty useless at the points values given.


I was going to say something to this effect, since you seemed to be looking at the items from a max-competitivity standpoint, and from that position a single (arguably) overpowered item like the Hellheart is "better" than a multitude of merely useful items. But then I remembered the Banner of the Barrows, which certainly strikes me as a "must have" item (and things you can apply that label to tend to be skewed in balance). I don't think they could have made it any more expensive while keeping it useful, however, since restricting it to BSBs would just make those BSBs priority targets that die quickly and surrender the buff of the item.
I'm not sure the Banner of the Barrows is an "auto include" at all and there are other banners that would be good for them (e.g. the fear banner will be better than a +1 to hit if the enemy can be made to fail reliably). It's easy to focus on the stuff that's sub-par though, since the more stuff that's at least workable the more variation you'll see. Most Ogre players don't rate a Thundertusk highly in competitive play because it's a VP-liability but it has some unique capabilities and if used right can potentially have a huge impact on the game. I like units and powers that are hard to use right but have a big payoff. But sometimes things are just useless, I can't find a use for Bragg any way I look at it.


I play a skaven player next and this concerns me. Any common mistakes i should look out for?
Watch for triples on the Abomb movement. It's pretty rare so it's easy for a Skaven player to overlook but a triple can really screw up the abomb. Remember if the Abomb touches a friendly unit it will do impacts to the friendly unit. Several of the Abomb's attacks can affect friendly models so keep an eye on what he has touching the abomb. Lastly perhaps the most commonly played wrong thing is that if the Abomb suffers any flaming wounds at any point in the game, it doesn't get to roll on the Too Horrible To Die chart.

Balerion
24-02-2012, 21:39
Well, the hunger could always have been changed to gel better with the Lore Attribute. For example, using the lore attribute allows the vampire to roll a D6 per wound inflicted for the Hunger rather than just one or automatically pass his hunger rolls or something like that. I don't know, I'd have to give it a bit more thought but you get the idea. Essentially allow the caster to revive wounds but only at the cost of the life force of others. Or a lore attribute that's a direct damage with a range of 24" that inflicts a S5 hit on one enemy unit (even one in combat) and if wounded the caster can regain a wound or one model within 12". That sort of thing - yes, it's gaining wounds but it's obviously tied to draining the life from others.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if they'd done that people would just be accusing the designers of cribbing from the lore of death instead of the lore of life.

I also agree with the fluffy interpretations that have been provided. The lore attribute isn't restoring life force to the casters, or draining life force from living creatures... instead, it represents the caster controlling dark magic to mend their physical form in a very literal and materialistic way. They're all centuries-old bags of bones, right? What's the use of stealing life when you died several lifetimes ago? It's much more sensible to do a quick patch-up on yourself with Darck Magick™ brand superglue.


Wouldn't it be cool if zombies could add to their ranks with every casualty they inflict (infection)?
Cool on the surface, but probably hard to make work. Zombies suck at killing stuff, yet are generally assumed to be the most plentiful type of undead minion. It would be tough on them to have to "earn" their reinforcements with combat success.


Or if ghouls were alive again, making them unpredictable and clearly distinguishing the VC from TK? Or if all vampiric units (blood knights, etc.) had the Hunger?
I would have supported both of these things 100% -- definitely a pair of missed opportunities.

Edit: aaaahhhhhhh, I've been infected with The Pink. Not even gonna bother messing with all the colour tags to fix that.

The bearded one
24-02-2012, 22:07
Lastly perhaps the most commonly played wrong thing is that if the Abomb suffers any flaming wounds at any point in the game, it doesn't get to roll on the Too Horrible To Die chart.

Oh, I thought that one was quite commonly known. I guess that one just stuck with me :p

Cognitave
25-02-2012, 03:32
Cool on the surface, but probably hard to make work. Zombies suck at killing stuff, yet are generally assumed to be the most plentiful type of undead minion. It would be tough on them to have to "earn" their reinforcements with combat success.



But that's how you'd justify getting them so cheaply with that kind of ability :P

The bearded one
25-02-2012, 03:41
I also agree with the fluffy interpretations that have been provided. The lore attribute isn't restoring life force to the casters, or draining life force from living creatures... instead, it represents the caster controlling dark magic to mend their physical form in a very literal and materialistic way. They're all centuries-old bags of bones, right? What's the use of stealing life when you died several lifetimes ago? It's much more sensible to do a quick patch-up on yourself with Darck Magick™ brand superglue.

Being undead vampires no longer have the innate connection to the aether that regular mortals have, as their soul is bound to their flesh. It is the reason vampires drink blood. Not because it tastes nice, but because it retains magic that sustains the magic they require to survive. So in a way they can be said to drain something from victims.. just not life, but the victim will probably be dead though.

Scythe
27-02-2012, 07:04
Yeah really. It sustains their existence, not their life. See Warhammer RPG first edition. That's the kicker, they are effectively dead because they used necromancy. Just like the wight kings are spirits bound to a husk, this is what the necromancer does to himself during life by using necromantic dark magic. A lot of their experimentation with this wind of magic goes into animating corpses just so they don't have to handle it by hand all the time, yet it's killing them slowly (like cancer).

Yet it isn't killing you as fast as old age is in the case of humans. And in its own weird way, it prevents you from 'dying' from old age. Sure, at one point the necromancer will be more undeath than alive, but the necromantic magic keeps him moving long beyond their normal life span, hence it sustains their existence (which is represented in the lore attribute).


Just like if you make more and more of your body machinery, you become less and less human (in popular fantasy/scifi), until the point that you are an evil consciousness in a robot; effectively that s what you're doing with Necromancy in fantasy (see last 3 vampire army books for more details, also see the undead army book before the split)

Yes, this is clearly stated. Necromancy corrupts. I remember some nice passages a few editions ago that not all humans who start experimenting with necromancy are evil, often they start their experimentation with sad understandable goals in mind, but eventually they all turn out that way.


I didn't offer that as a solution, nor did I tie it to Miscast/IF. I said that if you fail to control the magic bad things happen. You could handle that like warpstone tokens, or magic mushrooms or some other way. I didn't provide my own homebrew idea, just stating that it could have been done another way, and a better way.

Point taken. I misunderstood that part of your previous post.


If I had to write it, I might have the attribute do something like bestow/increase The Hunger for the casting character (or bestow/increase it to a hero within 12"). For each successful casting gain +1 to the hunger rolls or maybe, for each successful cast you may roll an additional die for the Hunger etc. This makes it a curse (ie you have to feed on the living) but at the same time provides a nice effect. You might not even see the curse's long term effects in one game even, but we all know what happens if you eat human flesh for too long in the Warhammer world.

The 'feed on the living' is a very vampiric thing for me. I don't think it would be very fitting for a necromancer.

Snake1311
27-02-2012, 11:41
I think the new Vamps are slightly better than Ogres to be honest, even if they are nerfed from the previous book. The Black knight deathstar is still very potent with Invocation shamelessly raising up to 5 back in one cast, combat vampires are amazingly strong, and they now have chaff and decent core to support it so its not playing completely alone. Didn't have a chance to play against the caster-type mass zombies + crypt horrors, TG and ME lists, but they seem to have a lot of potential. Being able to spam ethereals is extremely annoying in a meta favouring GWs on heroes and lore of shadow on everyone who can take it (no MMs) (I'm very grateful for those 2 side effects btw, even though ethereals are a pain)

So really, I think the VC book is alright as it is, but I think we are seeing a powercreep trend, and that worries me.

Maoriboy007
27-02-2012, 20:28
I think the new Vamps are slightly better than Ogres to be honest, even if they are nerfed from the previous book.They're pretty close, although personally I'd give the edge to ogres as far as power goes. No Mournfangs ,Hellheart type items or cannons in VC, and instability is still a big leveller. As an army book, the VC is better with more internal balacnce. The one thing I have found with VC is that sometimes its nice to face armies (including OnG) with equally crap initiative.

The Black knight deathstar is still very potent with Invocation shamelessly raising up to 5 back in one cast.Increasing the numbers raised was the only way to get the undead/instability/raising mechanism to work after removing recasting, and high investment models like cavalry were in danger of becoming extinct due to the cost to loss ratio of such units. As it is I think people tend towards overestimating Invocation a little, its easier to shut down, short ranged and still a spell for balancing out the instability penalty. Sure I can raise a cr@p!o@d of zombies, but I'm going to lose an equal amount fairly easily. Generally I find it has more of an intimidation factor as long as your opponant doesnt twig on to how fast they collapse when hit.

combat vampires are amazingly strong,..Indeed, but they are a big investment in both points and risk. Its the curse of nearly all combat characters these days that they are easier to kill than they have ever been, for undead armies this is a bigger problem than for most as it generaly has a snowball effect on the army,losing greater proportion of combat ability, crumbling , vital magic support etc. Since 7th anytime you have played against a combat Vampire your opponant has been doing you a favour by risking him that way. Still for all that it can be impressive to watch a Vampire lord mow dow 10 odd rank and file models befoe going down.

and they now have chaff and decent core to support it so its not playing completely alone.).Meh , decent dore is a bit of an overstatement. Zombies are acceptable for the price as are skeletons. I'd still say ghouls are overpriced now, especially since you cant buff thier numbers or WS, I don't have any real issue with the last two nerfs but a price rise on top of a double nerf was unessesary IMO, it really was a case of them suffering for being better than the other bad choices available, but oh well. Dire wolves in core is nice, they still suck as fighters (even with slavering charge) , but can be useful in some situations so its nice that they count as core instead of having to pay extra.

So really, I think the VC book is alright as it is, but I think we are seeing a powercreep trend, and that worries me.Don't get me wrong, I think VC are great, but there are just too many answers and downsides to even the great things in the book for them to really be the next big thing. The problem is that they are compared to the TKs , and most TK players are of the opinion that that book got shortchanged a fair bit. The TKs can do well enough in a soft or comped environment, but on its own its a pretty solid downgrade. The new VC seems to have taken into account the VC strengths and weaknessess of the old edition in a way the TK didn't. It still has its issues , but as a whole the book is a much better effort, and you can use just about everything in the book one way or the other.

oldWitheredCorpse
28-02-2012, 09:21
I think TKs can do alright in a no comp environment too. I think they suffer in the still common comp that is "everything is allowed but special characters".