Aesthetic or Performance?

[SoulSeeker]

Aesthetic for me too, though it has to be said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

There are enough alternates for virtually every component of the VC army, as long as you do not restrict yourself to GW models. So really you should be able to choose aesthetic AND performance.

 

[Corien Sumatris]

@Duluoz: You don;t like the Winged Vampire model?!? That bro is super cool! He sucks to play with (Atleast the pewter one that I have). But he is awesome. Krell is a nice looking toy too.

 

[Vipoid]

I have to say, I hate the winged vampire model for a few reasons:

1) I don't like that he only has one wing. maybe I'm just OC or something, but asymmetry like that really irritates me. I like my vampires to have either 2 wings (and have converted a SGK for that), or to have none.

2) His pose looks really strange to me. I really can't work out what he's supposed to be doing - he seems to be wielding a sword, but then changing one of his arms to a wing serves no useful purpose. Is he planning to paint a flag on it, or is it the vampire equivalent of tying one arm behind your back?

3) If he's supposed to be in the middle of a transformation, then it's the least interesting transformation I've ever seen. How about have his other hands as claws, or make his face more bat-like, or give him talons instead of feet? Basically, anything other than 'we took an armoured-vampire model and replaced one arm with a wing. Job done.'

I like his 'pet' though (or whatever the hell that thing is that comes with him).

 

[Corien Sumatris]

The wierd bat like thinggy off of his shoulder? That is a nice touch!

I don't know what he's doing either I just like the pose! I got a second and replaced the entire bat arm. I just really like the stepping up on the skellies and his more chill kinda pose with the sword arm. I cant stand the weird spine coming off of the back of his head so that's gone on him too.

 

[Vipoid]

The wierd bat like thinggy off of his shoulder? That is a nice touch!

Indeed. I enjoy little additions like that.

I don't know what he's doing either I just like the pose! I got a second and replaced the entire bat arm.

If he was just holding a shield or something, the pose would be fine. I think the wing ruins the model, rather than adding anything to it.

Do you have a picture of yours (with the replaced arm) - I'd be interested to see what he looks like.

I just really like the stepping up on the skellies and his more chill kinda pose with the sword arm.

I cut the skeleton-rock thing he's standing on off my model and used it for my ghoul king instead.


Out of interest, what do people think of the female vampire GW sell?

 

[Corien Sumatris]

I got one of them too (The female one) and ripped off her head and the arm holding the skull. I added hair to cover up the ugly as sin spine that bulding out of her back. Added a sheild and a different weapon. She is on my plog here but the other dude hasn't been painted yet. Ill get him up once he gets done.

 

[Duluoz]

@Duluoz: You don;t like the Winged Vampire model?!? That bro is super cool! He sucks to play with (Atleast the pewter one that I have). But he is awesome. Krell is a nice looking toy too.

Ahh I was to general, no, you're right, the winged one is an awesome figure and Konrad is one of my favourite models (I'm buying him just to paint and have as a fig without using him) but the other's are just so... meh. Compared to Avatar's of War figures and others, they're very lackluster. GW's VC Vamps don't inspire much in me for the most part, though I've seen some great paint jobs and conversions of them, I just think the standard vamp model for them isn't as cool as it can - and should - be.

On the other hand, the Wight heroes are awesome looking.

 

[Blutsauger]

But everyone likes to win and that is why these models don't often get played. Especially by the more expirienced players.

I would say there are still a lot of players who just don't like using special characters. I prefer to create my own little narratives for my characters rather than using the ones GW did. Plus I think a lot of the SC models are a bit naff. Mannfred and Vlad spring to mind as squandered opportunities. Konrad is ok, but none of them are really awesome. I use the Krell model (which IS awesome) as a regular Wight King.

Also, I don't think it's the case that more 'experienced' players use the more effective models. I think it's the case that more competitive players use the more effective models. But competitiveness doesn't always equate to experience. It's not like the more competitive players are wiser or know better than the rest of us, it's just that some of us have different priorities.

 

[Corien Sumatris]

Ya got me there! I do mean competative, poor choice of words on my part. Okay, so special characters don't get used often for a few reasons, but that doesn't help the other models that don't tend to get used often.

 

[Aren]

Thanks to our book we can make great looking armies that are decent to play. Firstly a power army is only fun if the opponent's is just as powerful, otherwise it is a wipe-the-board-turn-3 game, while your army looks just as great even if your opponent's doesn't. Also, it is actually HARD to make a really bad vampire list now, most of our units are very much usable. Now if we were Tomb Kings that would be much more of a problem but it is fine for now. If you haven't guessed Im for aesthetics, however, look at our powerful units - most of them look great too. The TG looks good, Vargheists look good (especially if you change the poses a bit). Crypt Horrors look good. Vampires look very good. Mortis Engines look great. All of those units are competitive and look great to boot.

 

[SoulSeeker]

This is where personal taste comes in. All those models you mention as looking great, are the very ones I think look awful. I much prefer the infantry and cavalry approach. But, as I say, personal taste.

Any discussion on aesthetics will be, to a certain degree, a whole collection of personal opinions and, to some extent, moot.

 

[Menkeroth]

Any discussion on aesthetics will be, to a certain degree, a whole collection of personal opinions and, to some extent, moot.

Certainly.

But it's a hobby about cool models and making and painting them, so I think the look must come first and the performance second. Both my 40k armies are made that way.

 

[goat64804]

its all about being beautiful

 

[Menkeroth]

Without a doubt. Especially when you've got so many bits and variants to apply to.

 

[White Knight]

Let's face it, most of us who've remained in the hobby for a prolonged period of time are in it not to win the game, but for it's aesthetics. You spend a lot more time building, painting and admiring the models in your cabinet then you'll end up playing them and when you do get a game, I feel it's more important to have it look good so you can immerse in the story or you might as well push a bunch of featureless tokens on a board or play videogames.

 

[Menkeroth]

Absolutely! You speak true, sir. Sure as the sunrise. Beautiful army looks impressive on the battlefield and is your victory in its own right. Hardly need more.

 

[Pirate Robot Ninja of Death]

Performance, 100%. I want an army that does what I want it to and is fun to play. I don't have the patience for shitty units.

More importantly, if I don't like the look of a model I can just change it. I hate the way terrorgheists look so I just started hacking away at mine until it suited my fancy. Aesthetics I can change, but the armybook I cannot.

 

[TMS]

Aesthetics I can change, but the armybook I cannot.

GW will, on the other hand. Things that are good now might not be so hot with the next book, kind of damning your army if you've built it around them.

I advocate finding things that are fun to play, more than anything else. Usually it will be something that performs well in a certain way or two for you and enables strategies that suits you.

 

[Pirate Robot Ninja of Death]

GW will, on the other hand. Things that are good now might not be so hot with the next book, kind of damning your army if you've built it around them.

I advocate finding things that are fun to play, more than anything else. Usually it will be something that performs well in a certain way or two for you and enables strategies that suits you.

There's a difference between favouring well-performing units and spamming overpowered/undercosted choices. I'm a strong advocate for building balanced armies, as I think they're better in an all-comers environment than skew lists.

It also means that when the new books comes out I'll lose at most 3 or so units, which isn't a big deal since I'll want the new shinies anyways. My (single!) terrorgheist will probably be garbage. My VL will take a beating (but will still be usable). I use skeletons instead of zombies so that helps. Everything else is just fine.

My point is that, given a choice between a good unit that looks crappy and a bad unit that looks amazing, I will pick the former and just convert it until it suits my taste.

 

[Menkeroth]

It makes sense, of course, but… but. It's not that easy. You may regard them as "units" and different numbers but in that case it makes no difference comparing to Warmachine, Malifaux or whatever. Or even chess. It's just a number of figures and no Warhammer anymore. In other words, you've come to the wrong place ©

 

[Von Calyptra]

I voted aesthetic, though in cases where I would be handicapping myself by not taking a given model, and I hate it, I will drastically convert it until I don't hate it. A lot of my conversion work is motivated by not liking the original. I also enjoy challenging myself and pushing my skills: I bought one of the 6th ed, muscle-bound Strigoi, which are models that I absolutely hated, just to see if I could convert and paint it into something that I liked. (I haven't gotten around to it yet, but I should be tackling that project soon.)

For army building, I try to strike a balance. I try to always have two themes, one for flavor ("this beleaguered Necrarch just wants to be left alone in his isolated tower with his experiments, but armies of mortals keep showing up and harassing him" - so it should include ethereals, flesh golems as crypt horrors, a *lot* of zombies, but shouldn't include higher, more martial undead like wights) and one for rules interactions (the list will use Master of the Black Arts, the Black Periapt, and a secondary wizard with a channeling staff to try to dominate the magic phase and simultaneously power up a black coach; Dark Acolyte, a Mortis Engine, and a Corpse Cart with an unholy lodestone should ensure that the army tarpits well).

I always try to use the Varghulf with my winged vampire lord, because I love the model and because they both have wings and can't fly, but I don't think I'd ever make a list that didn't include at least two wolf darts.

Coming up with themes and background and converting models to match that background is fun. Scooping my models off the table because my theme can't fight its way out of a damp paper bag is not fun. I want to ensure that, win or lose, my elaborate stories and conversions can have a fighting chance on the tabletop.

 

[Banat]

Aesthetics and theme is important to me. I'm taking converted Men at Arms as my First Company skellies, and converted Greatswords as my Grave Guard. My army has an Estalian theme so those big frilly sleeves and feathered hats are important for the look. My Black Knight conversions will also be sporting the feathered hat, and there's a brilliant Empire General on horseback to go perfectly with them.

Part of my consideration, however, is that my meta-game is ALL in-store. So all of my army needs to be GW/Citadel and affiliated models. I can't role up with a core of 100 or so Mantic zombies, ghouls and skeletons, even though I think the zoms and ghouls look way better. I had to restrain myself from buying the Gamezone Mournful Knights yesterday on precisely that basis. As insanely awesome as they look, its more likely than not that they would be banned on a GW store table. Plus the fluff of my army has its Blood Knights as being more Swane Knights in the vein (pun intended) of the old Lahmian bloodline, so I will likely be going with Bretonnian Knights/Chaos Steed conversions. The Gamezone Grail Knights are also insanely awesome, and since GW doesn't actually have any Grail Knight models atm, I might be able to get away with them... harummmmmm...

From a fluff point of view, your Vamp or Necromancer isn't going to be sitting there going "Mmmm... I'm most likely to encounter Skaven on my way to my goal, so I need to raise more X units to beat their Y units..." They'd just raise everything and take it along.

 

[The Sun King]

@Corien Sumatris Good to see you back online!!!!

For me it's both things, I convert everything so that it fits with my aesthetics, but play with well performing models I play to win, but I want to do it with style.

 

[Swissdictator]

The Good
While I'll always have a special place for the old skeletons, the new ones are solid. They are the heart of our core.

Black Knights, and to a smaller extent Grave Guard. I'm actually contemplating running Black Knights in some lists because they look so good. Grave Guard also look great and give us a chance to have some more fun painting outside of flesh and bone. GG are a better choice in my opinion unit wise, but BK can win out due to aesthetics.

Vhargulf. This is what a beasty in our army should look like. Strong, tough, and the 'undead decay' factor is not overplayed, albeit noticeable. This is "less being more" for that element. I will field this over a terrorgheist any day of the week, partly because of aesthetics.

Black Coach
I have always loved this model. All you really need to do is update the skeletal steeds, and *maybe* the wight coach man and you'd be set. It's a model I'm always tempted to squeeze in.

The Bad
All the ghoul stuff looks terrible. We're undead, not a horde of gollums on bath salts.
They're playable quality wise, but just not interesting. Here performance will get them on the battlefield.

Mortis Engine. It's not terrible, it just doesn't seem quite right. It's certainly part of the "let's get a massive model in as many armies as we can"... and it just seems kind of... forced. If it's being fielded, it's because the player finds it useful IMHO.

Personally, I really don't like any of our character models off hand aside from the Necromancer. All garbage. I am using old Blood Dragon vampires for my vampires (and Ulrika too) which are much better. We need them, so current character models will be fielded.

The Ugly

The terrorgheist looks terrible. Interesting concept, but terrible execution. Undead (insert creature here) does not mean you have to over do the rotten/decayed look... sometimes a little can go a long way and for a large model like this, that would have been a better choice. It's part of the reason why I will never field mind (I got mine cheap in a bulk purchase).

Dire Wolves. TERRIBLE models. Too ravaged looking. If I had to run the actual models I would find an excuse NOT to field them. As it is, I am getting the space wolves dogs to replace the ones I sold off long ago. The ones I used to use were the wolves Gobbo wolf rider rode, and they're better than the current dire wolves.

The Meh
I kind of like the zombies, I know not everyone does and they could certainly do better now, but they do have character. They're also fun with conversions. The GW ones offer more variety than the Mantic, but I also field a fair amount of Mantic zombies as well. Zombies can look good if given a decent paint job, and have a function in our army. So I'd say aesthetic and performance are equal factors in having some.

The Corpse Cart
Decent looking model, paint to assemble/paint from what I've heard. It's quality holds up today. However, I'm finding no real need to field it for its cost.

 

[Blutsauger]

Aesthetics and theme is important to me. I'm taking converted Men at Arms as my First Company skellies, and converted Greatswords as my Grave Guard. My army has an Estalian theme so those big frilly sleeves and feathered hats are important for the look. My Black Knight conversions will also be sporting the feathered hat, and there's a brilliant Empire General on horseback to go perfectly with them.

Part of my consideration, however, is that my meta-game is ALL in-store. So all of my army needs to be GW/Citadel and affiliated models. I can't role up with a core of 100 or so Mantic zombies, ghouls and skeletons, even though I think the zoms and ghouls look way better. I had to restrain myself from buying the Gamezone Mournful Knights yesterday on precisely that basis. As insanely awesome as they look, its more likely than not that they would be banned on a GW store table. Plus the fluff of my army has its Blood Knights as being more Swane Knights in the vein (pun intended) of the old Lahmian bloodline, so I will likely be going with Bretonnian Knights/Chaos Steed conversions. The Gamezone Grail Knights are also insanely awesome, and since GW doesn't actually have any Grail Knight models atm, I might be able to get away with them... harummmmmm...

From a fluff point of view, your Vamp or Necromancer isn't going to be sitting there going "Mmmm... I'm most likely to encounter Skaven on my way to my goal, so I need to raise more X units to beat their Y units..." They'd just raise everything and take it along.

One thing to consider is that you probably won't ALWAYS be playing in your local area. In ten years that store might shut down and you'll be playing in people's homes instead of at the store. Or you might more to a different area.