- Cheaper missile weapons.
- You may not have more units of Skeletons armed with missile weapons than you have skeletons without missile weapons.
- Helman's Ghorst's special rule gives +D3 models raised instead of rerolling number of models raised.
- Summon Ghouls allows up to 3 units of Ghouls to deploy as Ambushers, 10 pts.
- Strigoi Vampires can take either Lore of Necromancy or Beasts.
- Liche Lords may be mounted on Mortis Engines.
- Dropped Wight King to Ld8.
- Lahmian heroes may not ride the Coven Throne.
- Lahmian Vampires can take light armour and additional hand weapons.
- Necrarch heroes can ride Abyssal Terrors.
- Varghulf has Regen (5+) (as well as re-roll to Wound), 200 pts.
- Fixed several bugs.
With that, I think I've covered most of the issues brought up by you guys in the comments. If there is anything I've missed, let me know!
Still think the Strigoi need bette claws to make them the brutal bests they are supposed to be Mathias :-) A Re-roll to wound on them would be nice. Armour Piercing (1) and no access to magic weapons and armour is not at all a good trade.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the Brothers Ghorst could allow Helman Ghorst's chariot to march? The army running away from the chariot is a bit of an issue...
I'll take another look at the book tomorow :-)
Well, they also have Hatred as default, so that's 25 pts of offensive abiltities right of the bat, unlike any of the other bloodlines. I think adding another re-roll to wound on top of that would just make them overly expensive. Once you start sticking abilities like +1S, Infinite hatred, +1W, regen and red fury on them they can easily compete with Blood Dragons in combat. And they can still take talismans for ward saves.
DeleteThat might be needed, yeah. A normal corpse cart can move through the use of Vanhel's after all, but Ghorst himself is not Undead, so...
Not sure I agree with the reasoning there Mathias. A Blood Dragon CAN also buff himself in similar fashins. Hatred isn't THAT great and not worth 25 pts by a longshot. If you had 25 pts to use on a melee character, you would NEVER have spendt that on hatred in a million years. It's a one turn thing that also comes with drawbacks.
DeleteNot having access to Magic Weapons or Magic Armour (which I'm fine with to be clear) is in my opinion something that should reduce their cost by a significan't amount if nothing else buffs them significantly, but ideally I'd like them to be competitive fighters to the Blood Dragons, even without access to armour.
Just look at the Blood Dragon Vampires, then the Strigoi and then consider why you'd ever take the Strigoi? Lore of Beast access is the only vaguely possible legitimate reason, besides a point cost reduction, from a competitive standpoint.
Moving a Corse Carth through the use of Vanhel's is not really that likely a thing either. You only have so many spells that you get through, and spending precious PD to move that thing 4" is simply not worth it as you need to do it every turn to make it keep up basically... I'm thinking that the Corse Cart might need to be able to march (zombies never tire anyway) to make it useful in an offensive army tbh.
The 25 pts is for both AP (10 pts) and Hatred (15 pts).
DeleteThe Blood Dragon and Strigoi are similar in terms of damage output (with the advantage to the Blood Dragon with a magic weapon admittedly), but the Strigoi have more options in terms of defense compared to the Blood Dragon with regen and +1 W. The Blood Dragon on the other hand have armour instead. Stacking more rules on top of the Strigoi will just make their basic cost higher compared to a Blood Dragon. That said, if you go out of your way to max the points allowance for a Blood Dragon, I'd agree that they would probably be a bit stronger overall compared to a Strigoi, whereas a Strigoi by default is a bit stronger than a "naked" Blood Dragon. It can sort be compared to an early/late game character in DotA or LoL, where the default Strigoi is an early game character, but a Blood Dragon fully tooled is a late game character.
Vanhel's can be cast to allow all units within 12" to move at the same time, so there's no need to use on the Corpse cart only. That said, if a Necromancer like Ghorst is mounted on a Corpse Cart, he does ignore the no marching part (both due to this line: "Mounted Characters ignore the Undead special rule of the mount" but also because he has the Lore of Necromancy, thus allowing him to march as is).
Isnt' AP 5 pts?
DeleteRegen is not good compared to a Ward Save, but ok, it is there still. The Blood Dragon does come with a 3+ AS though, which I'd argue is better in most cases (as it also stacks with shield, barding etc). So I'm not really buying that the Strigoi has better defense as such, generally speaking I mean.
The Blood dragon also has +2 WS, +1 LD which is also significant.
I think the uniqueness of the Strigoi justify a special rule to make them stand out tbh. A "Beastly" special rule could incorporate claw bonuses and not access to magic weapons and armour all in one, instead of having Armour Piercing (1) listed.
I'm not a big Strigoi fan myself Mathias. I just donæt see the incentive for anyone to really play them from a competitive standpoint when the Blood Dragon is pretty much better in all aspects, which I think is a shame. Maybe a Multiple Wounds (D3) for any rolls to hit could be something. Just a thought.
The issue with Ghorsts isn't relating to Undead or not, but to the model being a Chariot with M 4. :-)
yes, Strigoi need buffs to their unarmed combat, already tested
DeleteWouldn’t be bad to see them get a little points drop, found they can be used in a very different roll to the other vampires, the rolls I’ve used them in flying about with a unit of varghiest wouldn’t make sense having loads of armour.
DeleteCould they have like natural armour?
seriously, no more rerolls. Or the Strigoi should be renamed rerolloi. they still have access to vampiric powers that make up quite enough for the lack of weaponry (red fury, infinite hatred, iron sinews on the offensive side). They still are quite formidable killing machines. Just because they have a weakness they shouldnt be autocompensated to make it an "unweakness" (except in point costs).
ReplyDeleteThey are a brutal beast to the majority of the inhabitants in the old world (townsfolk and the core troops) but dedicated and well equipped troops should have a chance to put them down just like any other "brutal beasts" out there (that mostly lack a ton of rerolls despite whatever is written in their lore description).-lemurus
...ah mathias beat me to it;)
DeleteIt doesn't have to be a re-roll. Just something that buffs him in a menaingfull way offensivly to make him a competitive option, otherwise they are more than likely to collect dust on people shelves I think.
DeleteMathias:
ReplyDeleteCorspe cart's Vigour Mortis special rule should perhaps have a stipulation that sets a max Regen buff to 4+ in the txt, so that it can't stack too high with several corse carts, mortis engine etc.
Oh shit, I completely missed that the Mortis Engine already gives Regen to nearby units. I will need to drop that part from the Corpse Cart then, I don't want to have two that similar units in the army list, it makes them both less interesting and causes things to start snowballing. Will also make it so that you cannot have multiple corpse carts boosting the same unit with multiple attacks.
DeleteHowever, I could boost the Corpse cart to give Vigour Mortis automatically instead of it having to be a spell, or would that possibly make it too good...?
Trust me when I say I needed both of those to move my skeletons and zombies across the table... and the corse car one ony affects Skeletons and Zombies, not anyone else...
DeleteThe +1 A for skeletons and zombies are not to good. They are so piss poor in combat that even with the +1 A it doesn't make that much of a difference. The Regen is more important as it actuallt helps you cross the table without getting mauled too badly by missile fire and spells.
DeleteShields will get a boost against missile in the next BRB update though.
DeleteI will remove the Regen from vigour mortis, but I'll make +1 A apply automatically rather being something that can be dispelled. Again, meeting halfway (more or less).
That won't do zombies much good.. hehe
DeleteYou could just keep the regen for Zombies then. Seems most fitting. Keep it all a non-magic thing.
Ther is not really any point to +1 A if the skeletons & zombies outpace it as much as they do either. When 2 Turn are gone and you're only halfway across the table, you have already left the Corspe Cart's effects behind, so it is utterly useless offensivly as it is right now. The only real use I had from it when testing was when being shot at during the first two turns. After that it had no more effect as the cart could not keep up. So it's an utter waste of points of it only grants +1 A as that will never be used unless you somehow manage to make the enemy come to you instead, which is rather an unlikely scenario.
Deleteit could be useful during a siege battle, if you have them hiding behind your walls, buffing the guys on it, also does the +1 attack buff archers ranged attacks?
DeleteFew thoughts, multiple corpse carts is possible, but Mortis engines being rate and expensive are less of a concern. Keeping the Regen 6+ on the corpse cart is fine, but don’t allow a unit to be buffed by more than one, spot the same rule to the Mortis engine although seeing 2 of them is unlikely. Now the worst it can get is one corpse cart and one Mortis engine - 5+. Which takes quite a bit of effort.
ReplyDeleteI suggest we make the corpse cart a shrine, now it can march. As it is currently it has impact hits and swift strife, which seeing as it is a rickety cart pulled by zombies on foot is quite a stretch.
Having the vigor Mortis being automatic rather than a bound spell, not bothered really could go either way on that one
That is actually a great idea! By making it a shrine the Corpse cart can also join a unit, so I will make it so that a Zombie unit joined by a corpse cart get a 6+ regen. Might be some smaller issues with the base size, but it can be deployed on the side if nothing else.
DeleteThe shrine idea sounds good. I quite like that. One ugly-ass shirne, but It still feels like it would behave far more like a Chaos Warshirne than an actual chariot due tobeing pulled by models on foot.
DeleteNice one Phil :-)
Perhaps the +1 A could be 12" range to Zombies and skeletons. It is not very effective, but these units really need it if they are to stand a chance to grind down anything remotely meaningful without a melee character doing all the work.
Mathias:
ReplyDeleteDon't know if you forgot or rejected my idea of removing range from the Wolflord Von Carstein power. It can have a range, but 24" is a bit too short to be effective (as they start on the flanks and Vanguard 18" before starting the game). It's doubtful that anyone will spend points on it as is. Since Dire Wovled are also Undead, something needs to be mentioned regarding how they rally if they choose to Flee.
How do you manage to vanguard so far... 18”?
DeleteIt is a cheap power, could be very handy on a mounted vampire in black knights on a flank with 3 or 4 units of wolves. 24” from the centre of the table is a pretty huge bubble
True. I was thinking of a former version of the Vanguard rule I think. I haven't used Dire Wolves in ages.
DeleteIf you can afford a second vampire to take it on an a flank, then ok, maybe it can have some use. On the general himself I'm more sceptical.
vanguard is 12", so chances yes you'd need to position the vampire slightly off centre if the wolves are on a flank, and yes you wouldn't be able to reach both flanks. Then on turn one you can march them 18, and now they are up to 30" away from the deployment zone and the vampire if on foot is 22" away - so yes would be tricky to keep them in 24" range to able able to flee -but this is only 15 pts, I'd use it even if only to get one or two wolf units to be behind enemy lines after turn 1.
DeleteVanguard is only 12", a 24" is enough to reach the whole enemy line. But yes, if you stick your general in the middle and dire wolves on the far flanks, it will probably not be as useful. Then again, you can just give it to another vampire on the flanks.
DeleteLiche Lord on Mortis Engine: No Mortis engine upgrade possible by design?
ReplyDeleteI can add the upgrade for them, no problem.
DeleteHaving an option to place inside units runs into base sizing issues, it is on a 50x100 base so won’t fit unless they either rebase the cart or create some figures on 10x20 bases to fill the gap. As such people may want to place it separately, so I think the Regen should still have a range, 6” or 4”.
ReplyDeleteBasing issues are not fun and I'm not a fan of putting a model on the side due to different bases etc. I do love the shrine idea though. I think 6" is fair for the regen for zombies. That way it can follow closely behind or on the side. That it manages to keep up with the battle-line it is supposed to work with is the key issue for me. That it is cost-effective and manages to buffs the comparatively nerfed undead core is key to being able to making any sort of "undead horde" type army a viable option, especially if you want a necromancer type army with no vampire to compensate for sub-par troops.
DeleteCorpse Cart has Movement 4 in pag 87 and Movement 3 in pag 260.
ReplyDeleteWhen casting Invocation of Nehek on a chariot, it doesn't specify whether they regain 2-5 wounds based on the level of the caster or just a single wound. The chariots of the Vampire Count are quite powerful so I'd make it a single wound.
ReplyDeleteRoland:
DeleteI think Chariots, War Machines & Shrines should all only get a single wound. You also have the Lore attribute for them in any case since they are Undead. Not that I think the Corpse Cart is very powerful by any means, but since the Black Coach is no longer Vampiric, it makes the most sense regardless. The Corse Cart is tougher than it used to be, so it evens out for that as well I think. :-)
Will fix that, it should be 1 W only.
DeleteWhy Skeletons with bows are 5 points and Sylvanian Levy are 6 points having the same BS with no evident advantage? I still think the Levy is a great opportunity for lore gamers to use some cattle in games(Sylvanian or Moussillon)
ReplyDeletethe peasants can stand and shoot, can also march, not sure that is enough but those are clear differences
DeleteFrom the book I've just downloaded, Unless Mathias hasn't updated it. Sylvanian peasant with bows are 4 points (2 for bow and 2 for the Peasant) they are only 6 points with Crossbows.
DeleteKeep in mind that Skeleton Archers can be raised again and will never panic, so you can win against many just by attricion alone. It's one of my concerns, but it remains to be seen in game testing how effective it will be.
DeleteI did a bit of testing, Relatively useful in longer battles, but the fact that they cant stand and shoot means that they are easily wiped out and they cant be raised from that
DeleteYou're right, my bad.
ReplyDeleteLoving the site and rules generally – really fantastic job. Seems that the piece you are most unhappy with is the way magic works? Have also been struggling to get happy with that over the years. I think the 2d6 roll is the source of the worst randomness in the magic phase.
ReplyDeleteTried the following in a game on the weekend and it worked fairly well (although has an obvious flaw).
Casters know all spells from their lore, loremasters reroll casting attempts and each spell can be attempted only once per phase (exceptions below).
Each caster on the player whose turn it is gets level number of dice in their magic phase (can only be used by them) and gets to channel on 6+. So a level 3 gets 3 dice, 4 if lucky. Cast as normal and add magic level.
If the spell is successfully cast the other player has the following options:
1) Dispel on a flat 5+ on 1d6
2) Use a wizard – if dispelling wizard level is less than or equal then the number is now 4+
If dispelling wizard higher level or it is a bound spell 3+
Each wizard can be used to dispel once per magic phase and can only dispel if the caster or target is within 24”.
Magic resistance stacks with natural dispel but cannot be used in combination with a wizard. So a spell targeting an MR(2) unit would be dispelled on a 3+.
Dwarves have natural dispel of 4+ if one of their units is targeted (could also apply to friendly spells that the opponent uses a natural dispel on).
Bound spells automatically cast and dispelled as above.
Remains in play spells that have been cast can be dispelled in your own phase by using up power dice to beat the casting value or with the natural 5+ in the opponents phase. You may not use a Wizard in the opponent’s phase.
If a spell is defined as part of the unit eg Sisters of Thorn then the spell can be cast by other casters in the same phase. We were undecided on signature spells more generally. We went with yes on the weekend.
Obvious flaw - very difficult for Level 1 casters to cast in certain lores. We didn’t run into this as we had a level 4 vs level 4 and 2 level 2s.
Possible fixes – reduce casting values / give all wizards an extra power die but do not add Wizard levels when casting
Maybe this is better posted on the rulebook thread?
With the addition of the Vampiric special rule, The Lore of Light Lore Attribute needs to have Vampiric added to the list of special rules that must be possessed for extra damage to be inflicted. I also noticed that several Animated Constructs such as Ushabti from the Tomb Kings army book have the Undead special rule, and therefore take more damage from the Lore of Light. I'm not sure if this fits and therefore, Animated Constructs might be made to have Immunity (Poisoned Attacks), Unbreakable and Unstable due to being Animated Constructs instead of due to being Undead.
ReplyDeleteI suggest animated construct moving to the BRB, (with unstable too from the list of rules you gave). Then it is easy to apply it to stone golems, fen beasts, maybe even treekin. Would have to amend unstable to say -1 CR to animated constructs too
DeleteWouldn't be a bad idea ro move that rule to the BRB I think.
DeleteThat's a really good point you raise Roland. I like the idea of Animated Constructs becoming its own special rule that grants Immunity (Poisoned Attackes), Unbreakable and Unstable. May need to adjust the Tomb King sig spell to affect friendly Animated Constructs (or not, as it can actually be argued either way, because if they are not Undead then they can March, so no need for Desert Winds. The Flying Monsters marching may be a bit strong though...) as well as add a rule for an undead character riding a now "living" Animated Construct. There might be a few other tweaks needed, but I think it would work well to make the Construct units feel "right". If the rules can be streamlined for having both Undead and Living units in the VC book, I think a similar formula can be used to do this for the Tomb Kings
DeleteSpecial Rule suggestion for the Strigoi:
ReplyDelete"Strigany Talons": When the Strogoi vampire rolls To Wound in close combat, a roll of a '6' grants the Multiple Wounds (2) special rule and ignores armour saves.
This way they remain a viable threat in melee combat even without magical weapons available to them, but they don't become OP. The Multiple Wounds also makes them better at facing monsters and the like, while the Blood Dragons with their killing blow option etc makes them more suited going up against charactes and the like.
Would this be in place of armour piercing?
DeleteI'm thinking so yes.
DeleteConsidering 95% of lords only have 3 wounds and most heroes have 2 wounds. This might be a bit much considering they have hatred (which can be permanent). I suggest rather add a few more bloodline powers so we can keep the points fair (and its kind of fair since they lose out on magic weapons). Otherwise there should be a point adjustment cause that is quite rough on something with 5 attacks.
DeleteYou do know that everyone else has access to the Boneblade for 30 pts right? Which does D3 wounds to every wound rolled, not just the 6's...
DeleteOffcourse it could be a bloodline power for that matter, but since all strigoi models have those huge claws and can't take magic weapons, it makes more sense as a special rule for them I think.
I am fully aware of that. Bringing up magic weapon is exactly why I mentioned it. Models have to buy that item.
DeleteWhat I am saying is you cannot make such a change to a model without looking at the points cost of the model. Which is why i suggested it be a blood line power.
Glen has a point here, if we think the Strigoi need something extra for their current points, then how much is the strigoi worth currently. The bone blade is 30pts and while on every wound does not ignore saves, this capability is possibly better so I'd say worth at least 30 pts. we could move something like this (although I would say -2 to save rather than no save) to a power and then change the points limits on powers vs Magic items, so for lords 150 powers and 50 items, and for heroes 75 powers and 25 Magic items.
DeleteI'd rather not make up new special rules only for the sake of the Strigoi. The Strigoi by themseles are not really bad at all, it's just that they will have some difficulties getting to the same power level as a Blood Dragon lord if one tries to max the amount of powers and magic items available.
DeleteIf needed, one could either drop 1 A from Blood Dragons (in 6th ed, the Strigoi did have one more A than the other bloodlines). Alternatively, I could limit the total amount of powers and magic items to 150 pts (with a max of 100 pts in either category). Or both.
The Strigoi are not "bad", but they are not good enough that many will want to play them either I think... No armour and no magical weapons are a significant drawback, especially as it makes them very predicatble so you can more or less do the math if you want to engage them in a fight or not. They are also on foot if I remember correctly (unless on an expesive Terrorgheist), so they are also relatively easily avoided if you don't bring characters that can effectively fight them.
DeleteDropping A from the Blood dragons just makes the Von Carsteins stand out even more again.
The point limitations will not be popular I think. It will likely only push people into using the more powerful special characters all the time as well.
Btw, I just saw the TW2 Bloodline Vampires today. The Strigoi was BIG and more of a Monster Killer based on his skillset in the game.
I dont entirely follow how removing an Attack from blood draongs will make Von Carsteins stand out more. Blood Dragons have far better combat oriented vampiric powers than Von Carsteins.
DeleteRegarding the merging of the 2, I feel if bretonnian Virtues and Chaos (albeit Ravening hordess) mutations are included in magic item limit. I don't see why vampires should be any different. If anything it might help tone down some absurd combos
Giving them multiple Wounds (D3) might be better off for them, though it's fairly situational.
DeleteI don't think Blood Dragons having the same A value as von Carsteins will have that much of an effect on them through, they are still built very differently, with better armour for the Blood Dragons and more emphasis on killing characters, whereas von Carstein is more of a support character that focuses on making his troops better and the enemy's worse.
As for the point limitation, that's something I did consider for a while. For nearly all other armies, their "power" counts towards their magic items allowance. Is it really better for the game that powerful characters like Chaos Lords and Vampires have access to twice the amount of points? The Special characters are more expensive and more predictable though, as you mentioned earlier.
I think vampires and chaos lords do not need twice the amount of stuff they can purchase, they both have the best stat lines of any lord in the game already. I'm quite against a single character potentially changing the entire game.
DeleteKeep in mind thay if a VC general is kilked, you also vastly increase the chance of loosing the game, far more so than any other army, even the TK. This is why vampires break the mould in this sense. Unlike the TK list, you also have to risk your general in hth to stand a decent chance of winning as your undead core will loose against goblins on their own.
DeleteKilled.. typing on phone...
DeleteGlen: I agree regarding point cost for chaos lords though, but I wish they have more real options to diversify them a bit more.
DeleteMathias:
DeleteIf vampires are further nerfed, then the Core NEEDS a substantial buff to compensate fir the army to work decently.
You can't have a lord comparable to other lords that wrecks his own army if he is defeated in hth or just miscasts combined with core section that loose to goblins in hth.
Vampires have already lost their ability to be a lvl 4 wizard and be a melee lord combined due to diversification.
Generallt I'm agsinst herohammer type gameplay, but if vampired are further nerfed I think you risk breaking the army from a competitive standpoint.
I completely understand vampires are currently quite reliant on their lords to do the damage.
DeleteI just feel there is some major discrepancies between some armies books and also within the blood lines (I feel some of the blood dragon powers should be increased)
I'm quite against hero hammer but vampires have always relied on strong Lords.
I'm unsure how you cannot have good cc lord and a magic user? Von Carsteins still can be level 4 and their profile has great stats and access to good vampiric powers.
The Stirgoi Ghoul King had the ability to take magic weapons in 8th edition. What was the lore reason to restrict that option? We just going off the 6th edition Vampire Count book or is there something specifically in the novels and fluff that supports striking out the 8th edition rules?
ReplyDeleteNate: The Stigoi in 8th ed also had Poisoned Atacks, which ther were absolutely no grounds for in any of the lore...
DeleteIt is also a model issue, since none of the Strigoi models have weapons, but rather large claws.
So in short, the lore and models fit the pre-8th ed rules better.
Another thing: the empire book needs to be amended. The Witch hunter's Tools of judgement rule no longer affects vampiric units. Wither this rule needs to extend to cover their archetypical foe or a new rule added to represent their skills and training against vampires. To start you could say that their attacks count as magic when fighting vampiric units - that would get through the reroll to W. Would then suggest that all Vampiric models in Base contact count their T as 1 lower than normal and ward saves are taken with a -1 modifier, due to the holy water, garlic and other charms and blessings they have on them - this means they get +1 to W and harder to save, but also, so does everyone else that can strike the vampire....
ReplyDeleteAlso i the Norse book the Ulfjarl and Ulfwerenar should also have some bonuses against vampiric - magical attacks again would be a start, maybe more. Werewolves are known to be effective against vampires
I suggested to Mathias that perhaps it would be better to just count Vampires as Undead for the purposes of Spells, magic items and special rules, with the exception of needing to be within the march bubble, ressurection and the lore attribute. To me that seems a lot simpler than to start going through all existing and future exceptions in all army books etc.
DeleteI don't think the werewolf thing is really a warhammer thing though Phil. I can't recall werewolves having any particular anti-vampire effect in any of the warhamemr lore (not that werewoves are a big part of warhammer lore as such, but there are some old fantasy books where they appear etc).
Hey Rune, Totally disagree with you here :-) The increased fidelity in troop classification enables much more subtle tuning of rules, there are more levers to pull, and fewer consequences of doing so each time. Introducing changes can be so much more targeted and with fewer unintended consequences - we should be looking to do MORE of this, not LESS.
DeleteThe fact that we don't have to instigate a new print run when there is this type of change - we are updating a pdf means that we have the ability to make these changes. We are far more adaptive than GW could ever have been.
The werewolf thing is cool, it is popular culture, it is interesting and one reason it wasn't called out much in warhammer is precisely because they weren't central to the lore, odd references in the Chaos books. Because we have the wonderful Nordic themed Norse book, pulling on all that rich mythology and weaving it into the game we have the opportunity to align with what is pretty much culturally accepted standard fantasy in that werewolves have an enmity and powers against Vampires.
You have to keep in mind that players have to remember all these exceptions too. If you always go down the make excpetions path, it can spiral out of control. It is already a complicated game with a lot to remember. I'm not saying Mathias shouldn't do it, I'm just cautioning against it.
DeleteI do agree with you on the benefits of the books being adaptable pdf files obviously. :-)
It is also used too much without any good justification I think and I don't think it is justified from any warhammer lore. Nothing wrong with letting Warhammer be different in this case, especially since the warhammer lore don't support this.
The rules that are the hardest to remember are those that are generic, you need to know the whole BRB. What I am suggesting is a change to specific units in specific books. You'd be aware of those rules if you fielded a witch hunter - as it is written right under the unit name.
DeleteWhen you say "it is used without good justification" - what is it in this context? If you mean werewolves being anti vampire, then yes you won't find much in the original lore, but if you take that argument - then we should probably remove a third of the books that have been effectively and lovingly created, pulling far more on real world mythology than existing warhammer lore
Vampiric will be added to the Witch Hunter, yes.
DeleteI don't think Werewolves and Vampires need to have any special rules against in each other as such, there's nothing in the lore to support. Warhammer is not Underworld after all :)
But it would be cool, werewolves count as having magical attacks against vampiric units, simple neat and fun. Only requires two unit updates, people will hardly notice :-)
DeleteNa, the werewolves just dont have anything supporting that
DeleteI've posted an alternative to the Sylvanian Peasant Levy here:
ReplyDeletehttps://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/warhammer-armies-project/HZhhCGAMB_k
I think you miss the real reason to have peasants - and I think this comes down to an philosophical difference between us - it is fluffy and enhances the richness of the book. There are no tactical benefits, but that isn't the point, i don't want my vampires getting better as a result of having this unit. Your rules create bunkers for the vampires. I love the existing rules because it adds something to the background of the army, how it looks and feels. I don't care if they win or lose.
ReplyDeleteThe peasants fight for the vampire because he provides protection to them, they have a duty of respect to the land holder - I can't see that lasting if he eats them...
As it is they are von carstein only. The other bloodlines are not known for having human tenants on their lands. The only other opportunity for this are the gypsy style traveling strigani that align to the Strigoi - and I would recommend their inclusion in the "supplements" that Mathias has alluded to
I tend to agree with you Philip, I feel the reason it was added was purely for fluff reasons.
DeleteThe human cattle rule is quite ridiculous for a 3pt model that will buff an army that already has the best lords and heroes in the game.
I also feel them being at ld5 is right. Bretonnian Peasant levy are Ld4, the Men at arms are 6. The Sylvanian peasants sit inbetween them which feels right at ld5 and their current point costs.
I also cannot see Blood Dragon vampires bringing in Peasants to steal all the glory :P
If a unit or character has no inherent benefits, they might as well remain in the fluff as far as I'm concerned. The fluff is important sure, but the game should come first.
DeleteIf you're "bunkering" your vampires in a unit of peasants for the heal, you are doing a big mistake tactically, as they will break and flee with the Vampire (who also flees now), letting you be run down and destroyed.. So the unit don't really serve that purpose tactically.
You don't think the peasants know they serve a Vampire? That he has bee nfeeding on them for generations most likely? The rest of the army kind of gives that away if nothing else... That argument holds no water Phil...
The other Bloodlines are not known for having human tenants? Sure about his? The Strigoi had an empire mostly consisting of humans. The Lahmians has more than likely had small domains where they have ruled in secret wher eif pressed, they would use the peasants in battle. Mousillion is arguably also a Blood Dragon stroghold of sorts. I doubt the Vampires at Blood Keep didn't have peasant to feed on... Gashnag is an excellet fit for having Peasants in his army.. Etc etc...
You do know that the whole "Sylvanian Levy" is not very well founded in Vampire Lore either right? They just had about 1/8th of a page in the 6th ed book, with no lore, in an alternative list that wasn't official as such. Lets not pretend that the Von Carsteins really has that much more to justify peasants in their list from that standpoint. What was ther wasn't even peasants, but really Empire soldiers (Crossbowmen, Free companies, Archers and Huntesmen)...
Glen:
Deletethe LD 6 was to represent that they are being forced into the army by their undying, unforgiving masters. Motivated by fear essentially, as well as more than likely being used to a degree of horrors other peasants would not be used to...
Glen: I also raised them from 2 pts to 3 pts per model, to account for their special rules and LD increase.
DeleteI was not a fan of the army having access to cheaper peasants than zombies either...
With Half of the Vampires being LD10 and Immune to Psychology I cannot see them fleeing. Plus at 3 points per model you could easily get steadfast on the unit.
DeleteMaybe if you changed it so the vampire cannot feed while hes in combat it might prevent it being an effective bunker.
Also you dont think it should cause panic in a unit when a monster starts eating your buddies?
LD 10 matters extremely little in such a poor fighting unit. Ws 2, S 3, hand weapon (or spear at +1 pt) and no armour won't make this unit into anything that can hold off anything decent, even with a vampire lord with LD 10 in front...
DeleteThe unit being Steadfast holds more water for the Sylvanian Levy at 2 pts per model than my Peasant Conscripts at 3 pts per model though, so I'm not really sure what your argument really is there. Steadfast at LD 6 isn't really that useful either tbh.
I wan't really even contemplating the notion that someone would actually bunker their vampire in the unit as I don't see this as a viably option (far too risky).
Normally yes, but I imagine any peasants already in an army led by a vampire wouldn't really be there to begin with without more than likely accepted their fate. That's why I did the "rebellion" thing on the roll of a 1 instead.
The ability of being steadfast and at LD10 is what I talking about (which wont run away contrary to what you say). You can take a block of 100 at 300 points. That is a lot of extra wounds for a vampire.
DeleteWhile that isn't different to what you added, the original Unit didn't have the ability to give the vampire wounds (who is ultimately the reason why you have the vampire in the unit) This is a serious bunker for the vampire to stay in. Combined with red thirst he can heal a ton of wounds per turn.
Doesn't Steadfast use the unit's own Leadership score for determining Steadfast though? It's been a while sine I played a lot, but I thought only Stubborn let you use a characters LD if he was also in the unit.
DeleteAm I wrong? If so, then I see a potential issue as well. I don't see it being an issue at LD 6 though. But, it could easily be added that he could not use this ability in hth regardless, as I imagine Blood Thirst being used then instead (why risk pissing off the peasants).
It would stil lbe riusky to try the bunker even with LD 10 Steadfast Glen. You only need to roll a 1, then you are all alone and potentially wouneded (especially if you gave your peasants torches)...
I love these posts, the conversation largely remains cordial and recognises differences of opinion rather than refuting them:-)
DeleteSo your second sentence represents then differences between us that will likely drive all other positions: The game should be second to the fluff in my opinion.
I think it is possible that the peasants suspect, and may quietly know but choose not to publicly acknowledge the nature of their liege lord - accept that.
Am I sure no other human tenants, no not sure, but I suspect less well known. Your examples are correct but most of them are historical in terms of timeline, and I am assuming that the army list represents more the current state, where the Von Carsteins still have corners of land, but the others less so.
I agree that a fully equipped human army doesn't feel quite right, and the peasants suggested in this 9th ed book are a far cry from the empire regiments of the 6th ed book, with WS4/3 and detatchments....
Glen: adding this at the end: "A Vampire may not feed from the human cattle while in Close combat or if Fleeing."
DeleteYou can use the characters LD if hes in the unit or if he is within 12" of the general. It does only take a 1 to kill the whole unit, but if this were to be added I think it would be better if it wasnt allowed in combat.
DeleteOkay rereading you cannot use his LD due to inspiring presence (which is weird imo) , but you can you use it if hes in the unit.
DeleteAlmost Glen, Steadfast work that you take the Ld test at the unmodified leadership of the unit, OR, you can take it at the modified leadership of the general if you are eligible to us the inspiring presence rule, so if you lost a ton of W, then you could find the general's leadership after modification being less than 6, so it is of no benefit. The issue here is that the vampire is IN the unit, so that raises the units base leadership to the vampire's and that is now unmodified.
DeletePhil:
DeleteI do think what is actually woth putting in the army list should have a worthwhile tactical function yes. Otherwise the unit is likely never to get used for one thing, in which case one might better delegate it to the fluff section only. Abhorash is a good example of this on the opposite end of the scale as well. He could obviously have been in the list, but he would very likely have become too OP to rally justify from a gaming perspective, even though there is certainly more than enough lore to justfiy him. It goes both ways. An army list is something that first and foremost has to work on the actual gaming table. That is the purpose of a good and balanced army list on my view yes, and I'm not ashamed to admit that that is my stance on it Phil. :-) It's why I have no urge to see Nagash on the gaming table, no urge to see Etheral giant dinosaurs, Abhorash etc etc...
Pesants marching alongside skeletons, zombies, ghouls etc would be more than a little susppicious I think.. Granted, Sylvanian peasants are known to be studid, but not that stupid... :-P
The army list obviously represent a current timeline for the most part, but it also features the likes of Vlad, Konrad and the Doomlord of Middenheim etc, so some leeway has already been established in that regard.
That said, you are creating your own army wityhout special characters most of the time, so a reasonable amount of leeway must be taken into consideration here as well. Ther could potentially be a Lahmian Countess effectivly running a small barony somewhere, that has her cover blown and has to masrhal the barony's defenses etc? We are not just re-creating battles in the lore when gaming as such :-)
What was in the 6th ed book was not overly impressive or thought through, but rather a simply way to just try out something else alsongside friends. Little concern had been given to balance, lore and so on when it came to the Sylvaniian Levys IMO.
Phil:
DeleteThanks for clearing that up regarding the Steasdfast.
This isn't really anything different than how the Sylvanian Levy already works though, except that you will get 33% less troops to build up your unit with. I'm adding the not in close combat or when fleeing part I mentioned. It was never written to make a huge, "unkillable" type bunker for the vampire in the first place.
Spending a ton of points on it with the "human Cattle" rule in place though will act as a deterrent to making the unit too large as well, as you lose everything when that 1 is rolled.
Valid points, well made. Find a way to limit missile spam and open the levy up to all bloodlines then we might be able to accept common ground.
DeleteI think people fear the Doomlord is still hiding away somewhere - I do hope so, very cool model :-)
It's what I am suggesting Phil :-)
DeleteCan't imagine that many have that model still, but he had his moment in the sun back when Necromancers were also awesome fighters. hehe
Adding him, in an updated version to my LoN project btw. Maticore is gone though (1400 years is too long a lifespan I'd imagine).
Nah, he has a small breeding pen of manitcores :-)
Deleteyes Necromancers at 5 attacks each or something were a force to behold back then....
The fluff for the current Sylvanian levy comes from the Empire at War, at specifically talks about peasants fighting for the Vampire Counts of Sylvania, so all that fluff is official. There is nothing really similar written for the other bloodlines.
DeleteI don't think feeding upon the peasants would really fit; they follow the von Carsteins out of fear and for protection, but if they were suddenly to start getting eaten in the middle of the battlefield, they'd be a lot less likely to keep fighting for him.
I will be removing 2 hand weapons and add flaming attacks instead.
In Storm of Chaos they had rules too. The were more able to be used as a levy unit.
DeleteI know I say it a lot but they need shields.
I can't imagine the peasants just standing there watching their fellows get eaten by a vampire mid battle. It's one thing for them to hide in their hovels at night and hope they survive until morning, but for the vampire to so blatantly kill the peasants in the open would to more harm to his dominance over them than I think is worth it.
DeleteI do think the peasants should be available to all the blood lines though. At the very least you can justify Strigoi gypsy folk, Mousillon peasants and maybe even Lahmian thralls as all fitting the bill as "peasant levies".
And I completely agree with what many people are echoing, the peasants aren't there because they are useful, they are there because they are fluffy.
They give people running narrative games or campaigns, rules to work with. I would actually argue for more units that add flavour but are not essential to the army in some of the other books. I love forging a narrative, and I think this is a key element to what Mathias has created. 9th ed has no competitive setting, it is purely for those who enjoyed what GW abandoned. So to that end, we don't need rules to create powerful lists to take on all comers at a tournament, but rather books that are immersive in the lore of Warhammer Fantasy and for all of us, who enjoy the game, its stories and its setting, to have as much freedom as possible when creating a narrative for the games we play with friends.
I ave no problem seeing Peasants having problems finding the courage to stand up to their immortal masters that feed of of some of them. One peasant defending himself from being fed on isn't an issue at all, but the whole group would more r less have tofind their currage suddenly to risk dying to protect other villagers etc. think human history is quite full of examples of humans not being very brave in that sense and that doesn't even factor in immortal masters you can barely een hope to wound...
DeleteMathis: What I meant was that the Sylvanian Levy as represented in the 6th ed rules, does not have a very solid foundation lore-wise. Your actual peasant as opposed to professional soldiers) is more accurate in that sense.
DeleteAlso, the time when mortals did actually appear in the army of Sylvania, was during the reighn of Vlad, whom ran Sylvania differently and also had design on a more legitimate claim of the Empire as a whole. :-) Different times in many ways.
There are already rules you wrote for them defending themselves. However they should cause panic when the vamp potentially kills to many. Human history is also filled with bravado so its kinda moot.
DeleteGlen:
Deleteyes, but those were written to represent those instances WHEN someone in their mids would have the backbone to stand up to them and get the rest to follow.
Note that models being removed due to vampires feeding doesn't mean that they are neccessarily killed outright either, just bled enough to no longer be in fighting condition (more likely for Lahmians admttedly, but still).
Maybe it would be better to remove them from the army book altogether then? I can make them available as a separate download instead, along with the other 6th ed VC units that were included with the appendix lists.
Deleteplease keep my peasants:).- lemurus
DeleteMathias: I don't see anyone arguing for removing the peasants. The key issues are:
Delete1. They are Von Carstein exclusive.
2. Cheap missile unit.
3. In close combat they are pointless as they can't do anything that the skeletons can't already do far better.
Phillip:
ReplyDeleteNo tactical benefits for having a missile unit available in a VC list? This is an option that the VC army book has traditionally been buildt armound not having at all. Being ably to place one unit of archers at 4 pts/model to support you, or force your enemy to come to you instead in some cases, is potentially a massive benefit...
So the Sylvanian Levy is not just there for fluff reasons. It only has a single real purpose on the gaming table however, and that is cheap missile spam, which I'm not thrilled about.
If you're defending this from a fluff above all standpoint, you shouldn't be thrilled about it either Phil.
Missile spam is a concern in 9th, I agree with that. I have a 6th ed von carstein army which my opposition has always remarked on how entertaining it is (was). Vampire on foot, 20 skeletons, 15 free company, 10 archers, 10 crossbowmen, 5 huntsmen, 9 black knights, vampire on steed, 10 wolves and an allied cannon :-)
Deleteso yes this had a lot of missile fire - probably too much on reflection, still wasn't very good though.
I would be fine to say that the missile armed troops require the same number of non missile armed troops to accompany them 9as as the rule recently added to skeletons) - to ensure their inclusion is to show the local village fighting alongside rather than an opportunity to twist the rules.
In other words, I'd like to keep them on the table, but reduce the opportunities for abuse.
I can aslo see the charm of such an army Phil, but friendly games & competitive (which I think any fairly balanced army book should aim for) are two different things. :-)
DeleteThe thing with the units, is that you can take 10 skeletons with hand weapons, then a unit of 40 skeleton Crossbowmen. Then you take a Master Necromancer with Master of the Dead, which you use to grow the regiment of 10 while the enemy has to footslog towards you, or you add even more crossbowmen as needed... This are the kinds of things that make me sceptical. Evenm the fact that an oppponent now has to consider the possibility of an undead missile spam when making an army list has to be taken into account.
I'm not really for Skeleton Archers, as that is a TK thing in my view, one unit of Sylvanian Archers (now BS 3, but 6 pts/model) is not really what worries me. At 4 pts/model though, I have some concerns...
then the control on missile spam is ineffective, and we should focus our efforts there. Maybe equal points rather than equal number of units.
DeleteWe also need to bear in mind that it is highly unlikely that these WAP rules are going to appear in a competitive format, so if you did start a game with that, I'd have a little word with you, and a few skeletons would be moved to the rear ranks of the HW unit ;-)
Phil:
DeleteI did suggest to Mathias that removing Skeleton Archers alltogether and replacing them with Crossbow Carrying Grave Guards (with some new lore) coud be an option. This way they'd be Special instead of Core and their numbers would be far more limited. Grave Guards also have BS 2 now so. Same models could be used I imagine. It would remove the missile spam, but still leave it in in a very limited fashion.
Appearing in competitions or not should not be a reason to not try to make every army book reasonably equal in terms of balance Phil :-)
We have to aim for something resembling balance, otherwise Nagash might cost 5 pts.
BS 3? All the archers in VC are BS 2.
DeleteGrave Guards are BS 3.
Skeleton Archers are 5pts/model.
Peasant Archers are 4pts but they're not Undead (can't summon).
The limit for "amount of units" could be replaced with "amount of models".
BS 3 yes. Sylvanian Bowmen are humans, not undead. The list now has several non-undead elements in it, so I don't see why not.
Delete20 Archers at 6pts/model with BS 3 is a nerf compared to 30 Archers at BS 2 at 4 pts/model in most respects.
Indeed they are. I hadn't noticed MAthias changing them. I could have sworn the were BS 2 previously as I commented on the Black Knights being BS 2. Had not noticed the change or seen that mentioned anywhere. Still, BS 3 grave guards with perhaps some kind of unique Crossbows would more justify the use of such expensive models with crossbows in any case. :-)
I'd like too see some playtesting results of using missile troops for VC before deciding if they need a nerf.
Delete36 Peasant Archers costs 144 pts, which is very cheap. However, in order to be able to field them on the battlefield you will need to put them in multiple ranks (18 models wide would be pretty ridiculous). Using volley fire and/or multiple shots means 6 hits on average, which is hardly gamebreaking by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, a unit of 36 models by themselves takes up a pretty big footprint, making it more difficult to field other units in their place.
Nobody is saying they will be MORE OP than the more dedicated missile armies, but the whole army is loosing its main traditional tactical disadvantage., which to me is the more significant side of things. Archers at 4-5 pts per model are also so cheap that you can always throw in some to help deal with issues that would earlier be a problem for the VC list to handle effectively.
DeleteI genuinely can't see the missile aspect of an VC army counting as losing its traditional tactical disadvantage for a number of reasons.
Delete1) It's just not effective enough to be a major threat to the opposition, therefore its inclusion would be there as a distraction rather than spamming.
2) Vanhels would be pointless if missiles were spammed.
3a) If an opposition player changed their game plan against VC because they thought the missiles they were facing were anything more than a distraction, they would soon learn not to make that mistake again.
3b) If a VC player based its army around missiles hoping that they provide enough of a tactical advantage to win the game over the VC's other strengths, they would soon learn not to make that mistake again.
4) In a true competitive setting, you are not designing your army list to counter one faction, such as VC. You are generally expecting to face a variety of armies and therefore if you have considered what you would do if you faced Wood Elves or Dwarfs, you probably have VC missiles covered.
In the 36 archer example, 6 hits equates to 3 wounds against standard T3 infantry. Take into account AS and you are left with 2. 144 points for 12 kills in a 6 turn game? Should I concentrate on this or the Vampire flying around with an insta-kill sword? It's a conundrum, I'll give you that ;)
And what issues could they 'effectively' deal with that the VC army would otherwise struggle with?
DeleteThe Undead archers or crossbowmen are not very powerful. If you do a crossbow unit you can only shoot in 2 ranks occupying a lot of space if you use more than 10.
ReplyDeleteIf you use an archer unit using the volley fire you only will hit at 6s.
I can't hardly understand the need to nerf them.
Occupying a lot of space isn't really a problem if you have tha space Vincent.
DeleteUndead Archers can also be ressurected and even raised to far beyond their starting size, so they can potentially win missile fights by attrition alone, which takes the game in a direction I don't think anyone really enjoys or benefits from.
But that said, from my own point of view, it is more of a question if it is a good idea to really remove the major tactical wekness that the VC army has traditionally has had to overcome to be successful on the tabletop. I'm against wizards in dwarf armies for the very same reason to illustrate a comparative issue.
Rune
DeleteI cannot see skeleton archers winning missile fights against dedicated missile armies with decent BS(though ItP is huge on archers). Just being bs2 makes them already at a huge disadvantage compared to BS3 and 4.
I mean if they move,volley fire or multifire or there is any sort of hard cover it will quickly go to 7,8s to hit.
While you can res them, I still cannot see them contributing much to a game besides the occasional wound and distracting the enemies.
Also space is quite a big problem in larger games especially since Vampires field quite the horde army. I agree with you on the traditional weaknesses to an extend. I feel every army needs pros and cons to be make each one unique and fun.
I noticed another thing. Vanhel's Danse Macabre and Hellish Vigour no longer affect Vampiric units. I'd make those spells able to affect units that are either Undead or Vampiric. I can understand Vampires not being resurrected by Dark Magic but being energized by dark magic should be perfectly acceptable.
ReplyDeleteRoland:
DeleteI tend to agree. If vampires can be buffed by other spell lores, then it is a bit odd that if Lore of Necromancy cannot buff them as well.
I'm not a fan of the way Vampires utterly dominated the game in 8th ed, with various Red Fury bilds that were also Wizard Lords etc; but with the Bloodlines now implemented you already have a nerf in the sense that a single vampire can't do it all and Red Fury has also been nerfed (which I think especially OK players will be extremely thankfull for). You can still make a vampire a very capable melee Lord (still best in game most likely), but then he is limited to being a Wizard Level 2 at least.
I was one arguing for nerfing the potential of vampires a bit, but I wanted non-missile core to get a slight buff to compensate (which I think will make a Necromancer based army more workable as well). I don't think vampires will be as OP with being buffed by these spells any longer due to the overall offensive nerf, but also due to not being able to cast said spells as easily due to more limitations on melee prowess + wizard level combos.
Yeah, I can add Vampiric to the spell description.
DeleteI don't think this is a good idea, as having removed Undead from Vampires and allowing them to March should be INSTEAD of them using the move from Danse Macabre. Otherwise you have movement 24" Blood Knights who are in your opponent's deployment zone Turn 1, giving them guaranteed charge distances turn two and are pretty destructive against anything they hit. All this without the downside of being Undead anymore.
ReplyDeleteI've said this from the first iteration of this book, the VC have become one of the fastest armies you have done Mathias, when, historically, Undead armies have always been a little slower compared to living armies. But the ability to drop cheap wizards across the board allowing basically every Undead unit to March, plus then casting the 12" bubble Danse Macabre mean that even skeletons and zombies are moving 16" a turn, the distance most living cavalry can march. In comparison to the only other Undead army (and therefore, in my opinion, a good comparison to use) even with Desert Winds, Tomb King cavalry and chariots can only move 16". The wording on Desert Winds also states that the unit can make a normal move, whereas for Danse Macabre the unit can move up to 8", so infantry are getting a bonus 4". I know that the bubble for Desert Winds can be pushed larger than that of Danse Macabre, but you can also cram a lot of blocks of skeletons into 24" to benefit from Danse Macabre.
For Undead infantry from VC to be able to keep pace with regular cavalry makes little sense IMO. While the VC Undead cavalry are going 24" if you place all your aura giving units correctly. Compare this to a cavalry heavy army like Bretonnia and I wonder why, as cavalry are meant to be "their thing", they are being outpaced by an Undead army?
I play Tomb Kings, I know Undead suffer from slow movement, I build armies around this to compensate for this inherent weakness that ALL Undead suffer from. I don't understand why VC should move so quickly.
I think the main issue there would be units made up only Vampiric units. I can change it so that it can effect units of either undead or undead AND vampiric units. The intention would be to not penalise a unit of skeletons being joined by a vampire from moving with the spell, not to give pure-Vampiric units an unneeded boost.
DeleteThere seems to have been some issues with the wording there as well, the intention (from me at least) has been that they may make a NORMAL move up TO 8" (for cavalry). March moves are not intended to apply, so Infantry would only get to move 4" by the spell. If needed, it could even be changed to not have an effect on units that have already marched this turn, but that might be too much.
I understand what you were going for. At present though, the current, "up to 8 inches" would mean any unit can move, up to 8". Perhaps adding something indicating affected units only move the distance indicated by their own personal movement characteristic (something along the lines of "units can move up to their base movement value"), or just specifying that the units make a NORMAL move, no mention of distance, might be enough.
DeleteEither way though, VC Undead cavalry are still moving 24" and infantry 12" a turn if you place your wizards right and are able to march plus move with Danse Macabre. I know it's a once a turn spell, but it can be boosted to a 24" bubble and you could build a very fast heavy cavalry list around it. But a clarification of your intended use of the rule would go a long way to fix the issue, so thank you for pointing out that you didn't intend for it to be used this way.
Would still advise not letting Lore of Necromancy affect Vampires now that they have had all the negative aspects of Undead removed from them though.
Also, out of interest, why not have the rule for marching like that of the Tomb Kings? Where Undead units can only march if JOINED by a unit with a special rule (in the case of VC, that rule would be Wizard with the Lore of Necromancy). I mean the magic that animates both faction's undead is relatively similar, having evolved from the same origin, so why is one specific to characters in a unit, while the other is bubble auras that can be spread across the battlefield? (PS: I am not arguing for TK to get the bubble auras, I think they work perfectly fine as is, I just don't understand why such a huge difference, and why if one works fine that way, the other can't mirror it. Undead are Undead after all).
Limiting Undead cavalry from potentially moving 24" would be pretty impossible though, unless an addition is made that the unit cannot be affected by Vanhels if they have already marched this turn. That way Vanhels would be strictly relegated to offset the VC's inability to march normally.
DeleteDo you think that vampires should not be affected by Hellish Vigour either? I don't think it would really be too good, but vampires being affected by it does not really fit with the lore as written in the spell.
I am considering making it so that TK can also get a boost to marching 12" from the general. TK does have a better movement spell that affects more units and can be taken by multiple wizards though, so VC needs some leg up in that regard.
Also, I posted the following further up, but I think that part of the conversation has been burried so deep I just wanted to bring it up in regards to VC vs TK (haven't come to see how this discussion has developed in a while, hence posting on old sections of the conversation):
ReplyDelete"That's a really good point you raise Roland. I like the idea of Animated Constructs becoming its own special rule that grants Immunity (Poisoned Attackes), Unbreakable and Unstable. May need to adjust the Tomb King sig spell to affect friendly Animated Constructs (or not, as it can actually be argued either way, because if they are not Undead then they can March, so no need for Desert Winds. The Flying Monsters marching may be a bit strong though...) as well as add a rule for an undead character riding a now "living" Animated Construct. There might be a few other tweaks needed, but I think it would work well to make the Construct units feel "right". If the rules can be streamlined for having both Undead and Living units in the VC book, I think a similar formula can be used to do this for the Tomb Kings."
It's a great idea that Roland put forward. If VC can have both living and unliving units in the same list in order to better represent them, the same can be applied to TK if you update the older books. But again, if the Animated Constructs become "living", then I would say they don't need access to the Desert Winds ability (though technically, Desert Winds would work on living creatures too from a fluff perspective, but as with VC, I personally feel it would make the units too good).
It does mean adding more fiddly rules though, which aren't entirely necessary. I Find my Tomb Kings play rather fluidly, so am honestly fine if they don't change at all. It was just a nice idea fluff wise.
Anyway, just throwing ideas around, hopefully some of it helps to inspire you to create more great books for us. As always, thank you for all your hard work you have put into this project over the years.
The main reason the VC army has been able to boost movement by spells is that it was a non-missile based army that had to cross the gaming table in the first place. It also cost you PD to do so, which means you are less effective at doing damage and other similar things with you magic.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I do think the "normal move" could be clarified a bit. I play it as a normal movement with a hard cap of 8" for all intents and purposes myself and that takes care of the whole cavaly issue pretty much.
an idea could be to let Vanhels only affect units which are moslty Undead, so that it will work for units led by Vampires or Necromancers, but not for purely mortal or Vampire units. Blood Knights don't really need that particular buff I think.
Regarding Vampire characters not crumbling any longer etc, please keep in mind they can't heal with magic any more either, particularly the lore attributte, which more oten than not had you at full health 99% of the game (which made the Hunger special rule rather redundant). Vampires are a bit tougher now (conditionally at least), but also far more pricy and they have had their maximum potential reduced by a significant amount compared to 8th ed, but more importantly perhaps, he also work with Undead AND living troops, something which might also be relevant in future "undead" type army books etc.. :-)
ReplyDeletethey are still more expensive then mortal heroes, but they lost way to many of their traits that made them that way
DeletePlease unnerf them or make them Cheaper!
Had a thought
ReplyDeleteHow does resurrecting fallen warriors interact with the BRB restriction against having more ranks than files? What if a unit raises enough models to find itself in violation of this rule?
That needs to be ammended under the ressurecting models I think.
Deleteor just get more files
DeleteMAthias:
ReplyDeleteWight King.
He lost -1 Ld and -1 Wound, and went from 85 pts (8th ed) to 80 pts. That can't be right can it? He seems quite pricy now IMO. Not that the LD matters that much, but -1 Wound is quite substantial for a hero that is slower than most with a mediocr WS.
Mathias:
ReplyDeleteI have an idea for the BSB for undead that I posted in the army rules for the LoN project, based on your new 9th ed rules.
Out of curiosity is there any reason why vampires are not classed as undead or have the undead rule? As far I was aware they are dead?
ReplyDeleteJust wanted to double check red thirst, does it give you a 5+ dice role for every model that you kill / wound, or is a maximum of one dice regardless of how many slain? For a unit of varghiest if there were 6 with one on one wound and you killed 6 models would you roll 6 dice, one per model, or if you killed 15 would you roll 15?
Also do vampire powers that decrease your hit such as lightning reflexes work while mounted? Including a chariot
Most Vampires have never really died, and there are several mentions of them fleeing battles rather than being unbreakable, so Undead does not really fit.
DeleteI think I will remove Red Thirst from the Vargheists, as it will otherwise be a real pain to figure out which models has killed what enemy. For characters and monsters, this is not an issue though.
Lightning reflexes work while mounted, yes.
So does the model simply get one dice roll of a 5+ if they kill some thing? Just to make sure I’m not mistaken.
DeleteIt been on the varghiest is a nice touch and just requires you to think before you just roll, don’t see much of an issue to be fair.
I assumed the blood kiss killed a mortal and turned them into a vampire? They are just conscious undead who don’t wish to die. I do how ever feel the undead special rule does not fit very well. I was more interested if the lore of necromancy should restore to both undead / vampiric.
I think that could be a good idea to add the possibility (paying points or with a special charachter) for the blood dragons to choose Crypt Guard and Black Knight like Base Unit.
ReplyDeleteIn the 6th there was this possibility and it's more coherent with background to see an army of blood dragons full of cavalry than one full of zombies