Crumble, pro or con and dealing with it tactically

[najo]

Thinking about the whole crumble issue..... three things seem to dominate all discussions.
first, we basically can't march out of trouble.
second, our characters crumble when they shouldn't.
third , stead fast doesn't help.
So my ideas are that 1) stead fast cancels crumble, but only if there are ranks of equal or more numbers than the opponent
reason- there is sufficient "pool" of magical energy to resist the crumble, and it gives a new tactical option to horde, or not?
2)magician characters and vampiric units never crumble, but can be forced to flee and take their chances (like any other character) on being run down.
reason- they are magicians- they will use as much power as possible to protect themselves.
3) a magician in a unit can elect to use any TWO abilities in a turn- cast spells, OR cancel crumble in his unit, OR march his unit, OR charge his unit.
reason-he/she can concentrate on only so much at a time- which is going to be more valuable in any given turn?

We have tried these a couple of times vs Orcs and HE, they work, but don't seem to obliterate the enemy- you have some difficult choices, especially in later turns.
I'd like some feed back- particularly against other armies.

Without crumble, undead become unbreakable troops with some of the most powerful characters in the game (a properly kitted vamp lord can kill a bloodthirster) that can heal.
You have to have something to counter balance healing and unbreakable. This is why crumble is necessary.

If characters didn't crumble, a vampire could completely lock combat down. Likewise, units without unbreakable and unstable going units with those rules become awkward. You can't have a unit with flee options in a nonfleeing unit.

The options for characters you suggest create unnecessary complication. Not crumbling makes undead and characters allowing undead to march (see 7th ed vampires) are both broken. So that leaves charging and casting spells, both being options that if removed or tracked outside of their turn creates problems with the core rules. So, these options for characters is overkill.

Honestly, IMHO, the rules for undead crumbling are decent. When you master them, they can be very powerful and give a lot of control to the vampire player. You look at the poll and its divided down the middle. So, for everyone against the current crumble, ask yourself this. The half of us that say crumble is strong when managed right, either we are playing poor opponents or we understand the undead armies in a way that you may need to learn how to do.

I know this, undead take a long time to learn and you will lose solid for 6 months before you start winning. Plus, with each new edition you will have to relearn the crumble math. Vampire counts are an advanced army.

I will grant steadfast might need something. Keep in mind, us breaking steadfast does mean enemy units are more likely to flee from us, which is good. If you add anything, I'd say steadfast undead automatically cause fear in smaller units.

 

[Blutsauger]

You have to have something to counter balance healing and unbreakable. This is why crumble is necessary.

Given that every other army has access to stubborn re-rollable LD10 for breaktests, I feel like crumble is unfairly harsh.

If characters didn't crumble, a vampire could completely lock combat down.

Other combat characters can already do this, so why not a Vampire?

 

[najo]

Given that every other army has access to stubborn re-rollable LD10 for breaktests, I feel like crumble is unfairly harsh.



Other combat characters can already do this, so why not a Vampire?

First, we have healing. Other armies don't. Stubborn units still die. They can still break.

Our vampires without crumble become unbreakable, healing killing machines in the same vein as the warriors of chaos daemon prince. If any one character in the game needs fixing, its the WoC DP having unbreakable and healing.

 

[Blutsauger]

First, we have healing. Other armies don't. Stubborn units still die. They can still break.

They can but it's what, a 98% chance of holding? We don't get the benefit of (nearly) automatically ignoring any break tests, and instead can suffer horrendous losses. Yes, we can heal those losses but that doesn't change the fact that crumble, in it's current incarnation, is much harsher than it needs to be.

Our vampires without crumble become unbreakable, healing killing machines in the same vein as the warriors of chaos daemon prince. If any one character in the game needs fixing, its the WoC DP having unbreakable and healing.

So just let them take LD tests like every other character.

 

[najo]

They can but it's what, a 98% chance of holding? We don't get the benefit of (nearly) automatically ignoring any break tests, and instead can suffer horrendous losses. Yes, we can heal those losses but that doesn't change the fact that crumble, in it's current incarnation, is much harsher than it needs to be.

So just let them take LD tests like every other character.

Ld 9 Stubborn is a 13.8% chance failure. Ld 10 Stubborn is a 8.3% chance of failure. BSB rerolls bring them down into the 1-2% chance of failure. Regardles, its a chance that they break and get run down and die. Crumble is a measurable, predictable rate of attrition that I can plan strategy around. That is a big difference.

What do you consider horrendous losses? Because from my experience good generalship with undead makes crumble very powerful and we don't suffer horrendous losses. The horrendous losses occur when you throw zombies in with your crypt horrors and the enemy attacks your zombies instead then the crypt horrors crumble as bad as the zombies do. So an undead general needs to learn to not do that. Undead generalship is about calculating combat results before you become engaged. Its about knowing when to be charge or get charged. Its about removing barriers to mid to late game IoN so you can keep your enemy bogged down in your tarpits.

I would never, ever trade crumble as currently is for demonic instability or having characters that make typical break tests. I DO NOT want a leadership test to cause my characters to die. I like them being unbreakable/unstable.

 

[Blutsauger]

Ld 9 Stubborn is a 13.8% chance failure. Ld 10 Stubborn is a 8.3% chance of failure. BSB rerolls bring them down into the 1-2% chance of failure. Regardles, its a chance that they break and get run down and die. Crumble is a measurable, predictable rate of attrition that I can plan strategy around. That is a big difference

Well, no. It's a 2% difference. That's negligible.

What do you consider horrendous losses? Because from my experience good generalship with undead makes crumble very powerful and we don't suffer horrendous losses. The horrendous losses occur when you throw zombies in with your crypt horrors and the enemy attacks your zombies instead then the crypt horrors crumble as bad as the zombies do. So an undead general needs to learn to not do that. Undead generalship is about calculating combat results before you become engaged. Its about knowing when to be charge or get charged. Its about removing barriers to mid to late game IoN so you can keep your enemy bogged down in your tarpits

If a block of skaven slaves takes ten casualties, then it takes ten casualties. Then it passes it's break test (because it's stubborn LD 10 with a BSB nearby) and suffers no ill effects. If zombies take ten casualties, then they take another ten casualties.

I understand that we can heal, and cause fear and all the rest but that price, that extra ten casualties, is too steep.

I DO NOT want a leadership test to cause my characters to die. I like them being unbreakable/unstable.

Bully for you. I DO want characters that take LD tests. I DON'T like them being unstable. Horses for courses.

 

[najo]

Well, no. It's a 2% difference. That's negligible.



If a block of skaven slaves takes ten casualties, then it takes ten casualties. Then it passes it's break test (because it's stubborn LD 10 with a BSB nearby) and suffers no ill effects. If zombies take ten casualties, then they take another ten casualties.

I understand that we can heal, and cause fear and all the rest but that price, that extra ten casualties, is too steep.



Bully for you. I DO want characters that take LD tests. I DON'T like them being unstable. Horses for courses.

If I have a blender in that unit of zombies/skeletons/ghouls, they are losing troops every round they are engaged. Meanwhile, I'm regaining troops in each of my magic phases. They are losing troops as fast as me and eventually I lose them less and less then rebuild them and they eventually break or die. Usually in a few rounds at most.

I have a unit of 40 skeletons with my lord. That unit rarely gets below 20, and I haven't had it die in over two dozen games. Last time it died was in a tournament vs. High elves. They got fiery convocation off on it and I couldn't waste the dice to dispel it. So I IoN a zombie unit up while keeping skellies barely hanging on, my two vampires hopped from the skellies into the zombies, and I used the skellies as a last ditch redirector before they died. Went on to win the game with zombies and the vamps. Tabled the elf.

Crumble is our army's defining trait, our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Learning to turn it into a strength is the sign of a good vampire counts general. If our army had no crumble and still had healing we be nearly unstoppable. I've had games where I'm back up to nearly full strength by the end, my opponent losing by a wide margin, and that's after crumbling and healing. But I'm big on deployment and maneuvering. I pay close attention to crumble and am careful with combos, redirects and getting charged at the right times.

 

[Blutsauger]

If I have a blender in that unit of zombies/skeletons/ghouls, they are losing troops every round they are engaged. Meanwhile, I'm regaining troops in each of my magic phases. They are losing troops as fast as me and eventually I lose them less and less then rebuild them and they eventually break or die. Usually in a few rounds at most.

Sure, if you add a 350+ character to the unit you can turn the odds in your favour.

Should I have to add a 350+ point character into my zombie unit just so I can beat skaven slaves?

I'm not advocating the complete removal of crumble. I just think the current implementation sucks. Where any other unit takes a break test with a 98%-99% chance of passing, we lose a quarter of our unit, or more.

Worse, it doesn't even match the background or make any intuitive sense.

I have a unit of 40 skeletons with my lord. That unit rarely gets below 20, and I haven't had it die in over two dozen games. Last time it died was in a tournament vs. High elves. They got fiery convocation off on it and I couldn't waste the dice to dispel it. So I IoN a zombie unit up while keeping skellies barely hanging on, my two vampires hopped from the skellies into the zombies, and I used the skellies as a last ditch redirector before they died. Went on to win the game with zombies and the vamps. Tabled the elf.

Well hoo rah for you I guess. I fail to see how one unsupported anecdote on the internet proves anything though. Yes, crumble can be managed and yes, being able to predict combat results can be a bonus, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement with our rules. I don't want better rules, I just want them to work differently somehow so that I can employ different tactics. It's happened on more than one occasion that I've had to pin an enemy unit in place with a zombie bunker. A powerful enemy unit. And I know it's going to chew through all my zombies in a handful of rounds, but despite having a full bus of knights with vampire characters in it I'm powerless to engage because I know the over-flow combat result from the zombies getting pummeled will obliterate my knights and vampires. Other armies don't have that problem.

And it has happened before that I've had a unit that I know can generate kills, but may not be able to overcome the static combat resolution (or break the steadfast) of the enemy. But I can't engage with my available zombie, ghoul or skeleton unit to support my other unit, because the overflow will obliterate me. Instead I'm stuck eyeing off this enemy unit until I can deal with it another way. This isn't a problem other armies have.

I know there's workarounds. I know how to use all the tricks in our arsenal. My complaint isn't that I can't win games because of crumble. I'm very good at winning games, thank you very much. My problem is that I have to employ all these tricks and workarounds when the most intuitive tools are right in front of me, and the only thing preventing me from using them is a gimmicky artificial handicap we've been lumbered with.

I don't know what the best solution is, but I can say with certainty that the current crumble rules aren't it.

 

[hairyjeff]

I've been playing this game since the early versions- the 1980's- so I think I know how to use the rules/armies. I'm not opposed to crumbling as a process , but it is far too strong in it's current form. Najo, if you are back up to near full strength at the end of a game, either you have incredible magic rolls, your opponents never dispel, or you never lose a magician. Whatever it is, good luck to you. As for "unnecessary complications", this is WHFB we're discussing- unnecessary complications are what the game rules are mostly made up of. I'm not suggesting I've found 'THE ANSWER'- just a proposal that has worked in a couple of games, and I'd be interested to see how it plays for others. The issue isn't crumble per se, but that one duff unit can kill its own allies and leaders- no-one else has to get around that, and although I accept the "magic unbinding" idea affecting the losing unit, why would it affect a brother unit which has ,in itself, been successful ? or a powerful, centuries old magician,or a vampire? Sure, they might try to run and get destroyed, but thats what would be sensible.

 

[Skittelz1981]

Agree with Blutsauger 100% Najo. Either youre a nearly superhuman player (which is a applause), or your opponents really suck balls in all ways (which is unlikely).



Anyway, about Crumble, like i stated before, although needed in some form to indeed make up for our, still very uncertain and unreliable, ability to heal. The way it works in our current edition is far too harsh and the complete scala of the Unstable rule makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is punishing too much for an army that already relies on magic more than any other army to get the right synergy. If you claim you can heal your army with a definate certainty then i dont know what game youre playing or who youre playing against but it sure aint warhammer fantasy that i know.



Hooking on to the percentages for ld-tests, even when an enemy flees after stepping into the 1-2% zone of failing, you still need to roll to catch it, lets say that those chances are 50-50, which then allows all other armies to rally on the same ld 9-10 bubble and be safe or at least hold the points. Leaving you, the crumbling fool to eat his dust.

So you get 1-2% chance on ld9-10 after bsb-rerolls to flee (which is a far better deal than Crumble due to Unstable) and then you get pretty much 50% chance to escape unharmed, and then you get another fat 87-93% to rally..... How is that remotely comparable to Unstable/Crumble?

Sure we learn how to play with it the best we can (an im definately not there yet) but i cant help that it usually feels abit too harsh. That is the complaint most of us have.
Its just too harsh. We can accept Crumble, just tweak it slightly and exempt some units from it.



About that Vamplord tying up a combat alone? wow, well not in my world. VampireLords are easy prey for many other combattooled characters. Sure they are tough and usually outclass many others (the pointcost you pay should mean no less) but theres plenty out there that can just easily get rid of him/her. I dont understand people that act as if its some nearly invulnerable model that easily slays everything it encounters... it just isnt at all. A VL can be slain by anything, however unlikely. Adding Crumble to a unit that is the SuperBossLeaderMagicDonDadaKillingMachineWithIronWill that causes the entire army to crumble when slain is just plain unbalanced and retarded. As a matter of fact; its awful rulewriting and matches one thing: bollox.

 

[najo]

First off, I hope I'm not coming off crass or boastful. I wasn't trying to, I was just relaying my experiences playing the Vampire Counts/ Undead since 3rd edition.

I do understand fluff-wise the idea of elite units riding in to support zombies only to crumble because some zombies get killed not feeling right. I agree that its counter intuitive.

With that said, crumble has been a part of the undead armies the whole time, at least as long as I've been playing. There is something arcane to the way our crumble works right now. Like the dark arts the army is raised with, learning to use crumble requires a mastery of the army and its secrets that is enjoyable. Also know, I've been in the same place as many of the players where it feels that your armies just collapses around you unfairly. That nothing you can do can keep them up, or winning combats. Heck, every time the edition or our army book changes, I have to relearn our army and will have a losing streak until I get my feet under me.

But currently, with our skeletons and zombies at nearly half the cost of the previous Vampire Counts, its easy to have large, deep units that are difficult for enemy to grind through. Even without healing, our units just hold until they are killed to the last man. Without crumble, we'd be unbeatable.

As for Blutsaeger's comment about not wanting to rely on the vampires to win combat with the core. Except, that is the whole point of our army. The core are often used to tie up units by blocking movement or tarpitting them in combat. The vampires are where our killing power is at. A vampire count army exists to shield the characters and provide blocks of troops for the characters to move through. My characters often end the game in a different unit from what they started in. Vampire Counts is an army of powerful characters whose combat or magic synergizes with our below average rank and file.

If we are dead set on revising crumble, how about this:

Wounds from losing combat are divided equally into all friendly undead units. Characters within units do not suffer wounds unit their units are destroyed. If there are an uneven number of wounds to distribute, than wounds are distributed as evenly as possible with remaining wounds placed one per unit as you wish. Mounts suffer all the wounds before any characters riding them. So if you had a unit of zombies, skeletons, black knights and a zombie dragon with a vampire in the same combat and they loose by 10 points. The zombies would take 3, the skeletons 3, the black knights 2 and the zombie dragon 2, the vampire on it 0. With current rules, all four would take 10 wounds likely destroying the knights and definitely destroying the dragon and vampire.

Now there is one issue this raises and would require re-balancing. IoN as it is now would be very, very powerful and tar pitting would lock units down while the vampires and the other powerful units ride around slaughtering at whim. So, the army would be re-costed and its magic overhauled. The end result being a smaller, less horde-ish undead. Personally I like the size of our units right now.

I don't know. It's not simple to solve.

 

[Blutsauger]

First off, I hope I'm not coming off crass or boastful. I wasn't trying to, I was just relaying my experiences playing the Vampire Counts/ Undead since 3rd edition.

I apologise for my snippy tone earlier. You do sometimes come across as boastful, though.

As for Blutsaeger's comment about not wanting to rely on the vampires to win combat with the core. Except, that is the whole point of our army.

What I'm more getting at is that a block of cheap infantry from any other army, be they skaven slaves, goblins, men-at-arms, state troops or what have you, don't suffer the same losses that we do. They can lose combat by any number you care to name, and they've got an overwhelming chance to stay put.

Yes, we can put a vampire in a unit and start to hurt the enemy, but we can't put a vampire in every unit, and I don't think we should have to, just to make our core units break even with other core units.

The main problem IMO is that our core units were balanced with 7th edition rules in mind, and other core units are able to take full advantage of the 8th edition rules. If we could subtract our crumble roll from our LD (or something) or make steadfast ignore crumble (or something) or allow a BSB to reduce crumble by 5 (or something) then it would be more even.

I agree that you'd then have to play around with IoN, but that's a price I'd be happy to pay.

 

[najo]

What makes you say our book was written with 7th in mind? Our book, it's crumble and our IoN all are 8th edition.

 

[Skittelz1981]

I dont think theres alot of players that want to get rid of Crumble altogether. Theres just an overwhelming amount of people that would like to see a Crumble that is abit more balanced.

i.e.:
- No Crumble on Vampiric models (Vargheists are weak enough without Crumble happening to them as an extra punishment for being naked T4 with an insane low Initiative... some on, I4? its just ridiculous, theyve taken a beating before any of them can attack decently, and theyre supposed to be completely bloodthirsty degenerate vampires......).
Especially Vampires should never be crumbling... that doesnt match fluff, it doesnt match gameplay either. A Vampire is an insane bloodhungry almost unkillable creature that has absolutely no regard for anything but himself. If a combat is lost by minions he especially shouldnt be caring nor get hurt by it. The unkillable part is already highly overrated since its only T5 with at most a 4++, anything that has a decent amount of attacks and a strength equal or higher to his toughness can make minced meat out him/her. And that is really not hard to accomplish for any enemy army.
- Unstable vs Steadfast is the other big problem. Najo you say that our big tarpits can hold stuff really well for long time. I agree to a certain extent. Yes we have relatively cheap core (not the cheapest though, but they are the crappiest in combat) yes, they never flee so any opponent has to chew threw the whole unit, no matter where it is on the board.
BUT: If for example a Hydra charges into a pack of 40 zombies, it will likely kill so many of them, crumble included, that the unit will last 3 combatphases, which is only 2 turns. To make it last longer, you need the IoN, which is just definately not a guarantee, and if you cast it, its still not a guarantee to be any good.
Now charge that same Hydra into 40 Nightgoblins (same price) with ld9+bsb..... That unit has a potential stayingpower that is going to last 5-6 combatphases, just by having steadfast and not losing a ton of extra models. Sure there is a chance they might flee on every lost phase, but that chance is really quite small. So for a relatively safe chance you get almost double staying power, where the crumbling noobs are suddenly relying on magic, which is an even bigger liability in loads of ways to get anywhere near that result in staying power.
That, is imo, the true problem many of us have with Unstable/Crumble

Its the Unstable rule opposed to what every other army gets due to Steadfast and the dependancy on succesful magic that it creates for VC. Something VC also isnt really the best at.
Tbh, we have quite bad magic-control abilities to make it go our way easier. Many other armies have stuff that can really bolster castingresult or you get extra pdice (however backfiring it may be) that improve alot of the chances to get spells through. I cant count the numbers of suck-magicphases or phases that i only get 1 spell through that is often not the spell you really needed. Since any decent opponent will easily make the choice to dispel IoN at the right time or anything else.
Let alone crumbling 1W Bloodknights (however unlikely they lose a combat, anything is possible) superexpensive mega-elite vampire-knights that crumble? Then at least give them an innate ability to regain wounds and resurrect fallen brothers for the insane price we pay for it.

 

[Archamedius]

*snip*
BUT: If for example a Hydra charges into a pack of 40 zombies, it will likely kill so many of them, crumble included, that the unit will last 3 combat phases, which is only 2 turns. To make it last longer, you need the IoN, which is just definitely not a guarantee, and if you cast it, its still not a guarantee to be any good.
Now charge that same Hydra into 40 Night goblins (same price) with ld9+bsb..... That unit has a potential staying power that is going to last 5-6 combat phases, just by having steadfast and not losing a ton of extra models. Sure there is a chance they might flee on every lost phase, but that chance is really quite small. So for a relatively safe chance you get almost double staying power, where the crumbling noobs are suddenly relying on magic, which is an even bigger liability in loads of ways to get anywhere near that result in staying power.
That, is imo, the true problem many of us have with Unstable/Crumble

*snip*

While I might agree crumble could use some interaction with steadfast, I think your example here needs some alterations. You are comparing the performance of a 130 point unit of 40 zombies to the performance of a 150 point unit of Goblins + at minimum a 95 point Orc Big Boss BSB with the Standard of Discipline. Night Goblins are LD 5, Orc Big Bosses are LD 8, so in order to get that unit to LD 9 the BSB has to take the Standard of Discipline on the BSB. That or the orc player has to have the General within 12 of that unit. So I think you are comparing two units with different power levels (based on points). If instead compare equal points values it is 78 zombies with musician and standard. There is a lot more staying power in that 78 zombies, and they are our worst troops, period. A naked Hydra against 78 zombies will average 5 wounds in CC + 3.5 thunder stomp for 8.5 wounds a turn. That's 13 dead a turn (8.5 from combat and 8.5-4 (static Combat res from ranks and banner)=4.5 for a total of 8.5+4.5=13) Assuming the zombies never score a wound and no IoN the zombies will still last 6 combat phases against the Hydra.

Compare that to the Goblin player vs. the Hydra. If the Hydra player is smart, on turn one he directs his attacks in CC against the Orc Bigboss who has no magic supporting him (Thanks to the Standard of Discipline), so with his shield and light armor he is sitting on 5+/6++ parry. It should be no trouble for the hydra to slaughter the BSB and then thunder stomp the unit, still winning combat and reducing the goblins to stubborn LD 5 with no reroll. I think the zombies actually win out in that war of attrition.

Again, I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just trying to point out that sometimes we do not give ourselves enough credit when poo pooing on the drawbacks of our army.

 

[Skittelz1981]

the general+bsb needs to be within 12" not in that particular unit. so its the same pointvalue with alot better defense with goblins.

 

[najo]

So, when you start talking about the low T and I of varghiests that was my first impression of them. As I got better and better at using them, especially picking the right fights, I realize that without the T4 and I4, varghiests would be virtually unstoppable.

From my experience, newer players look at warhammer as a game of slamming units together headlong and lucky dice rolls. This couldn't be further from the truth. Warhammer is a game of deployment, movement, tactics and controlling dice pools and odds. You can play warhammer as a game of math odds and positioning. In those circumstances, attacks get minimized by flanking, predicting combat results determines how you move and charge or get charged. Crumbling is part of that game. It provides controlled attrition instead of a random check.

The magic phase is part of this. It is not as random as it first looks. The most random part is the difference in dice between you and your opponent. After that, using black periapt, hunting and killing his wizards, bringing more spell casters, properly baiting out dispel dice with spells. There is a whole psychological poker game played during your magic phase. Our army and it's lore excel here. We have, hands down, the best arcane items with the most synergy to our army in the game. When you control the magic phase, casting multiple IoNs is easy.

All these things add up to vampires being an advanced army with a lot of powerful synergies in the hands of an experienced general. My concern is changing these delicate balances leads to an army that could become over powered quickly.

Half the poll sees crumbling as a powerful tool when managed well. Why is that? Are those players losing or having disastrous games with a brutal crumbling rule, but they love undead so much they ignore it? Or are those players saying exactly what they voted, that crumble is a valuable control tool giving us army wide unbreakable and timed lockdowns? Why would half the poll takers say that if there wasn't some truth in it?

 

[Archamedius]

the general+bsb needs to be within 12" not in that particular unit. so its the same point value with a lot better defense with goblins.

But it's not the same point value as you are giving the Goblins the benefit of a General and BSB but not the zombies. Imagine how much better off those zombies would be if they had a Vampire with Red fury in them to provide excellent combat resolution. And even so, consider the fact that the zombies in the above described scenario the zombies require no attention from the general or BSB in order to last as long as they do, while the goblins require that the general and BSB stay within 12" in order to maintain even close to the same resiliency. Our troops require little babysitting if you are just going to tar pit, unlike any other army.

 

[najo]

I agree with Archamedius. The key factor here, those zombies don't require anything. They will hold until they crumble. The goblins on the other hand need a BSB reroll and the general's leadership and they still might fail you. If they do fail, they are ran down and destroyed. Potentionally giving the enemy ground, whereas the zombies just likely force a reform. This timer aspect to crumble means we can count on our units holding for X turns. No test. That's unique to undead and a huge advantage when exploited properly.

 

[SothaMortis]

A great change to vampiric units crumbling fluff wise could be that the vampire disconnects the link of dark magic towards his minions so he could avoid the backlash. That would go for the general and other vampiric casters but units like vargheists doesn't really have minions and should therefore not crumble. Statwise they're looking good. Havn't had much fortune with mine yet. Been using them as flankers but my more experienced opponents are quite good at closing them but so far they've been munching on woodelves, chaos and goblins with reasonable success.

 

[Blutsauger]

I agree with Archamedius. The key factor here, those zombies don't require anything. They will hold until they crumble. The goblins on the other hand need a BSB reroll and the general's leadership and they still might fail you.

Yes, this is true. But just as a VC army will (almost) always include a Vampire Lord, most other armies will (almost) always include a BSB and General. And unlike our Vampire Lord, who has to be in the unit he wishes to benefit (because the only real benefit he grants the unit is the combat res he generates from killing things) other armies get a 24" diameter bubble, effecting every unit in range simultaneously.

The reason I say Vampires were written with 7th edition in mind is because every other army got a significant boost from steadfast, and the way steadfast interacts with their general and battle standard bearer.

We don't get any benefit from steadfast, and it doesn't interact with our general or our BSB at all. It seems like the developers, faced with this new rule and the way it interacts with other rules thought about how it could be utilised by the Vampire Counts and the answer was "not at all".

Yes, IoN would be broken if our units were unbreakable rather than unstable but it wouldn't be THAT broken. To be completely honest, I've always found the idea of raising new units and replenishing models in the middle of the battle to be a bit counter intuitive. Like, how does a unit of skeletons take casualties in place A, then march over to place B and replenish them? Maybe the Vampire is cunning enough to fight on an ancient graveyard or battlefield. But every battle? Bit of a stretch. But then things like Vargheists or Blood Knights? How does that work? Instead, I'd be happy if IoN simply made it harder to kill our units. +1 toughness or a regen save would be nice instead of generating new models, but I'm just spitballing here.

This timer aspect to crumble means we can count on our units holding for X turns. No test. That's unique to undead and a huge advantage when exploited properly.

This is true, but don't forget that our opponents are just as capable of exploiting it as we are.

 

[Emicrania]

IMHO crumble can be optimized for sure but put pro is that we'll never risk to see half army run away for unlucky LD rolls. For me this certeanty is a big pro, cause in my group I'm Mr. IF and the less I gotta roll dice the better it is. When I played the DE for years I would fail stupidity test on important turns at least once a game with a master LD 9 or a general LD 10 -.-

 

[najo]

Ironically, we have this half benefit from BSB, general's IP and steadfast. When we have to march, reform or make LD tests from general's death we benefit from these rules as applicable. With steadfast, we break enemy steadfast and thus make it more likely our enemy run from us.

As for IoN, it is raising back the models lost from our units. Only zombies are actually being added from corpses, hence why non-zombie units can't be raised being starting number. Also why raise dead is a zombie spell by default.

 

[SothaMortis]

How about having the bsb use leadership for crumble instead of combat resolution if you're in range? Balanced or not?

 

[Aedin]

I think crumble as it is now denies the flavor of the game.

Which is to use multiple units to out maneuver flank rear ect.. You just don't do that under the current crumble system. I remember when the VC player assigned the extra wounds where he wanted however this would make a VC buss invulnerable because you would just keep subtracting wounds from zombies even if your buss got its face pounded in.

I think an more equatable and fair system would be to allow for wounds taken only to equal what was lost by each individual unit.

Here is an example.......

You charge the front of a unit with 50 zombies with banner and the rear of said same unit with 4 ranks and banner with a single varghalf.. The combat pursues with you doing 0 wounds from the zombies and 4 wounds from the varghalf the enemy does 22 wounds to your zombies 1 to your varghalf.

So the totals for you are +1 charge +2 Rear +3 zombie rank +1 Banner +4 wounds = 11

The totals for your enemy are +1 Banner +3 rank +23 wounds = 27

27-11 = you loose by 16... your opponent stands his ground and now you crumble.. Now here is the change

The zombie loose 16 wounds however the Varghalf only looses 1 wound because he only gave up one..

Nothing earth shattering but a more fair a flavorful change IMO.