If you could change just one thing....

[Blutsauger]

Personally, I don't think the Unstable rule suits undead at all. It doesn't match anything we see in any movies, or read about in any books. When the survivors are fighting the Zombie Horde in Walking Dead or Dawn of the Dead, we don't see zombies falling down dead out of sympathy because the one next to them was killed. We don't see Vampires in True Blood or Underworld keeling over (or exploding into flames) when some of their compatriots are destroyed.

And it just doesn't make sense in the game. Why should my Vampire lord perish out of sympathy for some zombies? Why should my Blood Knights fall down dead because some bats were killed?

Further, the Unstable rule prevents Undead units from taking advantage of the Steadfast rule, which benefits every other army. If we get thrashed in combat, we take serious losses even if we're steadfast. If any other unit gets thrashed in combat then, so long as it's steadfast, it takes an unmodified break test. And it can use the generals leadership and get re-rolls from the BSB. Why should we have to take an extra 5-15 casualties while other units are not penalised at all?

I would very much like to see this rule removed altogether for the undead. If it needs balancing out (and I'm not sure it does any more, to be honest) then come up with a replacement rule or just give units a price increase.

 

[Corien Sumatris]

I agree with you in most parts of that statement. I see no reason why vampiric models aren't just straight unbreakable, zombies die and the vampire inside stays unit it's killed.

I also think that the only reason any undead should die to crumble is because of the general dieing (Warhammer lore supports this). But on the opposite side, I think that if a zombie dies then it should be able to just stand back up on maybe a 5+? This supports the idea that the vampire will continually attempt to resurect more soldiers (whether it's through casting magic or just their inert necromatic [Probably not the right word] abilities).

 

[Vipoid]

Personally, I don't think the Unstable rule suits undead at all. It doesn't match anything we see in any movies, or read about in any books. When the survivors are fighting the Zombie Horde in Walking Dead or Dawn of the Dead, we don't see zombies falling down dead out of sympathy because the one next to them was killed. We don't see Vampires in True Blood or Underworld keeling over (or exploding into flames) when some of their compatriots are destroyed.

And it just doesn't make sense in the game. Why should my Vampire lord perish out of sympathy for some zombies? Why should my Blood Knights fall down dead because some bats were killed?

Further, the Unstable rule prevents Undead units from taking advantage of the Steadfast rule, which benefits every other army. If we get thrashed in combat, we take serious losses even if we're steadfast. If any other unit gets thrashed in combat then, so long as it's steadfast, it takes an unmodified break test. And it can use the generals leadership and get re-rolls from the BSB. Why should we have to take an extra 5-15 casualties while other units are not penalised at all?

I would very much like to see this rule removed altogether for the undead. If it needs balancing out (and I'm not sure it does any more, to be honest) then come up with a replacement rule or just give units a price increase.

I know what you mean, unstable does seem to be a rule with the most tenuous of fluff-justifications.

I mean, if the magic holding undead together is unstable, then surely they should crumble when your wizards die, not when they lose combat?

I guess the problem is that there's nothing about losing combat that should trigger unstable. For example, if the magic degrades whenever undead are killed, then why would it matter if they win or lose combat? Surely a heap of skeletons will be popping even if they win - they've still taken casualties, after all. Or, what about when they get killed by spells, archers, cannons etc. - shouldn't more die then as well?

It seems like, if they're going to tie undead to magic, then they should go all the way with it - have undead by completely unbreakable, but suffer whenever one of their wizards dies.

For example (off the top of my head); 'whenever an undead wizard is killed, all non-vampire units within 12" take 1d6 wounds per wizard level of the killed model(no saves of any kind allowed). If the model killed was the general, all your non-vampiric units suffer 4d6 wounds.' (Maybe deduct a unit's Ld from wounds caused?)

You could also have a unit suffer wounds for not being within X" of a wizard at the start of your turn, or something along those lines.

Basically, if undead are fuelled and animated by magic, then magic should be all they care about. As long as their wizards are around, it really shouldn't matter whether or not they win combat.

 

[Blutsauger]

I know what you mean, unstable does seem to be a rule with the most tenuous of fluff-justifications.

I mean, if the magic holding undead together is unstable, then surely they should crumble when your wizards die, not when they lose combat?

I guess the problem is that there's nothing about losing combat that should trigger unstable. For example, if the magic degrades whenever undead are killed, then why would it matter if they win or lose combat? Surely a heap of skeletons will be popping even if they win - they've still taken casualties, after all. Or, what about when they get killed by spells, archers, cannons etc. - shouldn't more die then as well?

It seems like, if they're going to tie undead to magic, then they should go all the way with it - have undead by completely unbreakable, but suffer whenever one of their wizards dies.

For example (off the top of my head); 'whenever an undead wizard is killed, all non-vampire units within 12" take 1d6 wounds per wizard level of the killed model(no saves of any kind allowed). If the model killed was the general, all your non-vampiric units suffer 4d6 wounds.' (Maybe deduct a unit's Ld from wounds caused?)

You could also have a unit suffer wounds for not being within X" of a wizard at the start of your turn, or something along those lines.

Basically, if undead are fuelled and animated by magic, then magic should be all they care about. As long as their wizards are around, it really shouldn't matter whether or not they win combat.

Something like that would make much more sense, IMO. Tie the army to it's necromancers somehow. Like a unit not within 12" of a wizard using necromancy must take a crumble test (except vampiric units) at the start of the turn. Or something like that. I'd be much happier with that.

 

[badfox7]

It would be cool if they changed the unstable rule to be like the daemons of chaos so that we don't necessarily crumble so much. Also I wish they would change the overrun and reform rules after a unit crumbles away back to where you couldn't overrun or reform. I liked setting up combats like that so I could get flank and rear charges.

 

[Adam_Barrow]

Which is nice since we're limited in units we can combo/flank charge with anyway.

 

[Corien Sumatris]

Yeah and we can't flee with our chaff like others can.

 

[Count Vashra]

For example (off the top of my head); 'whenever an undead wizard is killed, all non-vampire units within 12" take 1d6 wounds per wizard level of the killed model(no saves of any kind allowed). If the model killed was the general, all your non-vampiric units suffer 4d6 wounds.' (Maybe deduct a unit's Ld from wounds caused?)

You could also have a unit suffer wounds for not being within X" of a wizard at the start of your turn, or something along those lines.

Basically, if undead are fuelled and animated by magic, then magic should be all they care about. As long as their wizards are around, it really shouldn't matter whether or not they win combat.

I agree with most of that. However, in all stories about vampires I have read (mainly Warhammer), the Undead are never too far from the wizard that sustains them. But the other ideas are good.

Edit: For a rule to change, not sure if it's really applicable in game, but I just finished reading The Red Duke (great book by the way. The best thing is that the vampire is living in the past, literally) and there, the vampire uses Ghouls to hunt out corpses. If this is common practice for Ghouls in fluff, then maybe they could have a rule like:
Corpse Sniffers: Although they have long since degenerated, and their minds now focus only upon eating the dead, Ghouls are useful for their ability to find corpses because of their natural habits, and have helped many a necromancer to bolster his forces quickly.
If Raise Dead is cast within 6 inches of a unit of Ghouls, and Skeletons are raised, add 2 to the total number raised.
What do you think?

 

[Corien Sumatris]

That'd be a cool little touch! And it makes sense!

 

[Count Vashra]

And help those who say Ghouls are too expensive for too little damage (I mean, not trashing them, but just people who say that they can't use GHouls in their list, like Kindred, who opened a thread to say basically 'please help me use my Ghouls more effectiively'. it would also help people who want to use Skeletons, but feel Ghouls are stronger and Zombies are cheaper (and raise better) so the Skeletons are in the middle, making them more useful.

 

[Ben E. Violent]

Cannons:
Roll a d3 and scatter dice along with the artillery dice and have the point of impact get further modified in that direction. That way: if you're putting it into a unit or something with a large base, it probably won't make a difference. But, it'd effect the laser beam effect against, say, a single infantry model and allow for a small chance of more extreme deviation.


Or you could say: d6 minus ballistic skill since most crew members tend to have BS of 3, and gives the opportunity to have "more elite" crews in armies, such as dwarves and empire (give them BS4).

The way it is currently, I agree, is just dumb easy. "Me shoot here. *points* Me great general! *rolls two dice* Model dead!"

 

[Kappu]

Also, I think that those chaos warriors/knights/skullcrushers should have lover initiative than our bloodknights. They are vampires for god sake. Where are vampiric speed? And those are blooddragons, experts of martial arts.