Light Armour and Shield vs aditional raising

[bigbadbat]

Most of the arguments for zombies being of better value are contingent on the assumption of raising to replace lost wounds. This is a very variable application as there are many variables to consider. Static CR, WS and strength of attacker is one that will change many times throughout any given game.
While zombies do raise at a faster rate, 3.5 per SUCCESSFUL casting. Now, lets say combat was already joined. Beginning in your turn, you have to endure 2 rounds of CC before you have an opportunity to replenish those wounds. I think between armor, parry, amd possible wound potential, and crumble the skellys have a better chance of making up those 3.5 wounds. I have seen many games where not a single Invo has been successfully cast. There is a scale effect here also.
But at smaller points unitswise, it gets closer.

 

[Vectra]

to be honest, the fact that you can have 70 zombies with full command for the same price as 40 skeletons with command pretty much speaks for itself. both units will be murdered by pretty much everything but with an extra 30 warm(well, cold) bodies the zombies will outlast the skeletons in most cases. the fact that you raise them quicker and that you could raise them above starting size is just a bonus tbh.

 

[bigbadbat]

This is of course true, the tactical application though is that people often choose zombjes also for their cheap drop ability at 20 strong.
Fielded in large units to start I think zombies have the edge points for points, but then they lose their cheap drop effect and their staying power without proper raising, which, is fickle to say the least.

 

[Yorga]

This is of course true, the tactical application though is that people often choose zombjes also for their cheap drop ability at 20 strong.
Fielded in large units to start I think zombies have the edge points for points, but then they lose their cheap drop effect and their staying power without proper raising, which, is fickle to say the least.

Yes, but if you drop 20 x 7 units of zombies, your opponent is going to be hard pressed to wrap them all up by turn 6. Especially with some 2D6 replacements/adds.

 

[Darbagal]

It also depends on your gaming group. I fight skaven a lot and against slaves skeletons can atually win, sometimes even without support. Zombies on the other hand......

 

[RobTheWise]

It also depends on your gaming group. I fight skaven a lot and against slaves skeletons can atually win, sometimes even without support. Zombies on the other hand......

Lol true. My group is WoC and Ogres, so for me, Zombies are definitely better.

 

[Burnanation]

Someone said it above, zombies become a liability if you put them into a multiple combat.

I never charge zombies in to a combat already in motion or charge anything into a combat already containing zombies, because of crumble.

Having said that,I go with skellies. As said above both units are less than awesome at winning combat, so I would imagine you plan on sending in back up.

That's not to say, discount tossing a sacrificial 60 pt unit of zombies at something and hope for the best.

 

[Vectra]

skeletons are a liablility too . not as bad a one as zombies, but they still lose badly against everything except gnoblars, slaves and goblins

 

[Yorga]

Zombies should be used as bunkers and slower but somewhat still effective redirectors.

 

[bigbadbat]

Yes, but if you drop 20 x 7 units of zombies, your opponent is going to be hard pressed to wrap them all up by turn 6. Especially with some 2D6 replacements/adds.

With 7 units of zombies on the battlefield I think your own damage units would have trouble accessing juicy targets. This would leave you starved for trying to nab points from opponent.
Smaller footprint may be an issue?

 

[Yorga]

Yes, but if you drop 20 x 7 units of zombies, your opponent is going to be hard pressed to wrap them all up by turn 6. Especially with some 2D6 replacements/adds.

With 7 units of zombies on the battlefield I think your own damage units would have trouble accessing juicy targets. This would leave you starved for trying to nab points from opponent.
Smaller footprint may be an issue?

I have found that 5 x 4 20mm units are pretty compact.

 

[hairyjeff]

Stepping slightly sideways, I never start with zombies. Big units of skeletons, then raise dead and increase the zombies to scatter the enemy dispels- they really don't like new units appearing, so will almost always dispel it. If not, just keep IoN as a bubble to help both units. Voila, you get both units on the table- maybe not exactly where you would choose, but you have split his decision making, and his shooting, or used up some valuable dispel power, and as was said, 8th favours casters.

 

[jonnoc]

zombies are in my experience far superior tarpits but thats just it you should never expect them to do anything else. But of course you also need magic support for them. I am not a fan of hw/s on skellies I put spears on mine. In one battle I held a unit of chaos warriors with 80 zombies and I don't think I could have done that with the same amount of points of skeletons. One lucky roll with IoN in the magic phase actually negated the wounds the chaos warriors did in the previous combat they held that unit of chaos warriors for the entire game.

 

[Sume]

I think I got the correct thread. I was talking with a player around my area. He currently plays VC and has Tomb Kings. This guy has played undead when they where just one army. He said something that had got me to thinking.

Zombies are for a strong magic vampire of master necromancer. Due to the fact you get the gross amount back due to + caster level. Then skeletons are for the low magic vampire or hero necromancer. The reason is a level 4 will get more zombies for the spell, and the level 2 will get less. So might as well stick with skeletons as they are a little more sturdy. Of course then comes down if you use skeletons the hw/s or spear discussion.

I was curious if anyone else came to this conclusion and had the same thoughts, or if not why? I think that might help ponder which to use based on your list.

 

[Friendly Dead]

Skeletons have the flexibility which is why I favor them over ghouls and zombies.

Most of the units in our book aren't very flexible and only skeletons, black knights and terrorghiests are very adaptable.

The problem with zombies is that they can only tarpit. Nothing else

Unsupported skeletons at least have the edge over slaves, goblins and chaff units and unlike zombies it is actually worth it charging skeletons into the flank of an engaged enemy.

Lets assume you got a unit of 10 Black Knights engaged front-to-front with a rather big unit of orcs with 2 handweapons and you got a unit of say 40 Zombies/25 skeletons (roughly same pts) standing in a position to flank charge. The zombies are likely to bleed more CR than they net, whereas the skeletons will be vice versa. Ergo you can't rly use zombies even for flank charges.

PS. Zombies do have better chances of breaking steadfast so in situations where their CR bleed can be compensated they can potentially have an edge.



So skellies all the way for me

 

[jonnoc]

Skeletons have the flexibility which is why I favor them over ghouls and zombies.

Most of the units in our book aren't very flexible and only skeletons, black knights and terrorghiests are very adaptable.

The problem with zombies is that they can only tarpit. Nothing else

Unsupported skeletons at least have the edge over slaves, goblins and chaff units and unlike zombies it is actually worth it charging skeletons into the flank of an engaged enemy.

Lets assume you got a unit of 10 Black Knights engaged front-to-front with a rather big unit of orcs with 2 handweapons and you got a unit of say 40 Zombies/25 skeletons (roughly same pts) standing in a position to flank charge. The zombies are likely to bleed more CR than they net, whereas the skeletons will be vice versa. Ergo you can't rly use zombies even for flank charges.

PS. Zombies do have better chances of breaking steadfast so in situations where their CR bleed can be compensated they can potentially have an edge.



So skellies all the way for me

I agree with this. If i have zombies my opponents actually taunts me to charge them in even if its a flank charge cause its free CR. They are far far superior to skeletons for tar pitting though IMO so if you are deciding on what to get for a tarpit unit then grab zombies but if you dont want them just to be a tarpit unit then grab some skeletons.

 

[Scalenex]

My Vampire Count army is in its infancy and I haven't actually played a game as VC yet. From reading all the Core versus Core descriptions I have gathered the following rules of thumb.

-The verdict is if you want your cheap Core to make combined attacks with your ethereals and elites go with skeletons. All other cases go with zombies if you want cheap Core.
-If you use skeletons, go with hand weapons over spears unless you plan to have your Skeletons near a Mortis Engine.
-Ghouls are the only Core option with mass hitting power. If you take ghouls, you should probably horde them.
-Dire wolves are useful, but not worth filling all the Core with. I haven't seen anyone suggest fielding more than ten in one group.
-Dire Wolves should be fielded three wide if going after vulnerable characters or making sneaky moves that require a small footprint.
-In general, Vampire Counts army should have close to the bare minimum of Core required.

 

[Narenzade]

The real arguement ends at this...

1) Characters go into Ghoul units.

2) Tarpits are always Zombies.

3) Skeletons are only worthwhile in gimmicky Fear-Bomb lists.

 

[The Sun King]

I somewhat agree Narenzade but my list would look like this:

1. Ghouls do the fighting
2. Zombs do the tarpitting
3. Skellies shouldn't do anything if not used in one of these two ways:
a. As a gimmicky fearbomb character delivery system(Screaming banner, 5 wide, spears and filled with characters)
b. In spear horde with Shadow Vampire casting Mindrazor on them.