I've been trying the small ghoul units to some success of late, as long as you can account for static effects (General ip range, CR etc) they can work really well. I feel that although a good core unit, at 10 ppm, they are a little too costly for my taste, VC are all about cheap expendable core, and units of 30+ ghouls are too expensive in my opinion. For the price of 18 ghouls, I can get 30 skeletons with FC, the math just doesn't add up.
Tactical Discussion: Since our core suck...
- Thread starter hsnyder
- Start date
-
The masquerade of murder returns! A new game of Vampires Amongst Us has begun. Unmask the killers, trust no one, and try to survive the night. Find out more and sign up now!
Just a little update - yesterday I tried a unit of 40 ghouls with SGK, but arranged 5 by 10, instead of in a horde.
It wasn't the best test, since we were playing T&T and said Ghoul unit only ended up in combat once (I still won though
).
However, the unit just felt a lot more 'solid' then when I ran it as a horde. See, when I run Ghouls in a horde, every casualty makes me flinch. If I lose more than 10 models, I start losing return attacks and, soon after, ranks (which is even more painful in a unit that can't take standards). It's especially troubling when I take ranged damage from elves - since I know I'll be taking a boat-load more casualties when I charge, before I get to hit them back. It's especially painful since I can never swift-refrom with my Ghouls. So, if I've taken a lot of damage, I can't change to being 5-wide without sacrificing my entire unit.
But, 5-wide, casualties feel a lot less severe. I wasn't biting my nails about charging, for fear that I'd lose my general (and the rest of my squad) to CR. Sure, I get fewer attacks than with a Horde - but I'm also receiving fewer attacks back and (with my Ghoul King) I'm far less reliant on the attacks of my ghouls.
It wasn't the best test, since we were playing T&T and said Ghoul unit only ended up in combat once (I still won though
).However, the unit just felt a lot more 'solid' then when I ran it as a horde. See, when I run Ghouls in a horde, every casualty makes me flinch. If I lose more than 10 models, I start losing return attacks and, soon after, ranks (which is even more painful in a unit that can't take standards). It's especially troubling when I take ranged damage from elves - since I know I'll be taking a boat-load more casualties when I charge, before I get to hit them back. It's especially painful since I can never swift-refrom with my Ghouls. So, if I've taken a lot of damage, I can't change to being 5-wide without sacrificing my entire unit.
But, 5-wide, casualties feel a lot less severe. I wasn't biting my nails about charging, for fear that I'd lose my general (and the rest of my squad) to CR. Sure, I get fewer attacks than with a Horde - but I'm also receiving fewer attacks back and (with my Ghoul King) I'm far less reliant on the attacks of my ghouls.
Vipoid, why not try 7x5 or 6?
Small frontage, max attacks against small frontage too. Not lose attacks until after the 21st dead model or so, Rank bonuses can still be acquired even after some 18-ish deads.
I just argue that Ghouls are meant for attacking as much as they can, but since they are Core, they'll only perform well in 1 combat. given the amount of casualties they'll take, a second combat is just encouraged if it is a flank charge or you're just using them as a last resort tarpit / redirector and just sacrifice them.
1 Combat is all I ask my ghouls. They can crumble after winning it for all I care, the Specials / Rares should take out the rest.
Small frontage, max attacks against small frontage too. Not lose attacks until after the 21st dead model or so, Rank bonuses can still be acquired even after some 18-ish deads.
I just argue that Ghouls are meant for attacking as much as they can, but since they are Core, they'll only perform well in 1 combat. given the amount of casualties they'll take, a second combat is just encouraged if it is a flank charge or you're just using them as a last resort tarpit / redirector and just sacrifice them.
1 Combat is all I ask my ghouls. They can crumble after winning it for all I care, the Specials / Rares should take out the rest.
Demian said:
Mainly because the only movement trays I have at the moment are 5-wide or 10-wide, so doing 6 or 7 is a massive pain.
Demian said:
Thing is, my ghouls are where I put my general - so planning for them to die after one combat doesn't really fit well with his long-term survivability. :tongue:
Oh yeah, with that setup, Ghouls need to last a lot longer. Hmmmm... maybe skeletons for that? .o.
Sometimes I use a 5-wide tray and just add 1 file on each side if I need to reform, move all the tray and then the "side lanes". It's a pain, I know.. but if you're better off reforming and taking up a charge with a wider frontage, it's worth bothering! =)
Sometimes I use a 5-wide tray and just add 1 file on each side if I need to reform, move all the tray and then the "side lanes". It's a pain, I know.. but if you're better off reforming and taking up a charge with a wider frontage, it's worth bothering! =)
Still thinking about monster-hunting Ghouls! Assuming a generic monster of: WS3, S(whatever), T6, and other-I-don't-care-stats relative to at least 2 5-man ranks of Ghouls or Skels (as representative of some generic non-poison S3 suckers):
Ghoul % hit: 22.2%/atk, for 3.333 wnds
Skels % hit: 8.3%/atk, for 0.833 wnds
About 167% better than non-poison! But if we run the example any further and are forced to assume that the beasties' got saves of any sort (likely 4+ as ward or regen), plus return atks and a T-stomp, I'm starting to doubt the ghoul's effectiveness in the monster-hunting role.
I think next I play it'll be a big block o' Skels, with 4 packs MSU dogs, and zombies to fill the rest of the core. Then the other 75% of the army can be all kill-crazy; which runs into hsnyder's q of: what hammers are effective?
Ghoul % hit: 22.2%/atk, for 3.333 wnds
Skels % hit: 8.3%/atk, for 0.833 wnds
About 167% better than non-poison! But if we run the example any further and are forced to assume that the beasties' got saves of any sort (likely 4+ as ward or regen), plus return atks and a T-stomp, I'm starting to doubt the ghoul's effectiveness in the monster-hunting role.
I think next I play it'll be a big block o' Skels, with 4 packs MSU dogs, and zombies to fill the rest of the core. Then the other 75% of the army can be all kill-crazy; which runs into hsnyder's q of: what hammers are effective?
Ghouls have ONE good use. They are good drops for watchtower scenario. If you don't play Watch tower ignore that role and don't field bad units mmkay?
Though to deepen the Skels vs. Ghouls argument, maybe a comparison of varying S vs. T and saves, assuming sword&board skels and Ghouls... throwing in avg wounds scored @ different atk volumes...
Assuming opponent of WS 3 and for 10 and then 15 A, neglecting fear, whatever else.
Skels ............W@10A ...W@15A
S3 => 18.5%/A; ...1.85; ...2.78
S4 => 30.9%/A; ...3.08; ...4.63
S5 => 46.3%/A; ...4.63; ...6.95
S6 => 46.3%/A; ...4.63; ...6.95
S7 => 46.3%/A; ...4.63; ...6.95
Ghouls ...........W@10A ...W@15A
S3 => 16.7%/A; ...1.67; ...2.50
S4 => 25.0%/A; ...2.50; ...3.75
S5 => 33.3%/A; ...3.33; ...5
S6 => 41.7%/A; ...4.17; ...6.25
S7 => 41.7%/A; ...4.17; ...6.25
So the prev example seems kinda flawed then in that those skels are going to start bleeding more CR than Ghouls if they run into anything more killy than swordsmen (who due to WS4 ignore the WS2/3 diff of Skels/Ghouls). The S4-5 shows improvement of Ghoul survivability relative to skels, with skels taking 20-40% more wnds over that range... but at 1/2 the price, you can get 2x the dudes... and at WS4 the Ghoul advantage is diminished... assuming most S4&5 troopers also have WS4, then skels show better survivability/pt spent. Note this doesn't account for crumbling, which is a fct of return atks and reqs more assumptions.
[edit] Damn the lack of a table feature! Anyhoo, column 1 (c1) is S, c2 is % of each atk wnding, c3 is wnds from 10A, c4 is wnds from 15A. It repeats for Ghouls after the 2nd column of S(whatever). It's easy enough to read with a little more space between columns.
Assuming opponent of WS 3 and for 10 and then 15 A, neglecting fear, whatever else.
Skels ............W@10A ...W@15A
S3 => 18.5%/A; ...1.85; ...2.78
S4 => 30.9%/A; ...3.08; ...4.63
S5 => 46.3%/A; ...4.63; ...6.95
S6 => 46.3%/A; ...4.63; ...6.95
S7 => 46.3%/A; ...4.63; ...6.95
Ghouls ...........W@10A ...W@15A
S3 => 16.7%/A; ...1.67; ...2.50
S4 => 25.0%/A; ...2.50; ...3.75
S5 => 33.3%/A; ...3.33; ...5
S6 => 41.7%/A; ...4.17; ...6.25
S7 => 41.7%/A; ...4.17; ...6.25
So the prev example seems kinda flawed then in that those skels are going to start bleeding more CR than Ghouls if they run into anything more killy than swordsmen (who due to WS4 ignore the WS2/3 diff of Skels/Ghouls). The S4-5 shows improvement of Ghoul survivability relative to skels, with skels taking 20-40% more wnds over that range... but at 1/2 the price, you can get 2x the dudes... and at WS4 the Ghoul advantage is diminished... assuming most S4&5 troopers also have WS4, then skels show better survivability/pt spent. Note this doesn't account for crumbling, which is a fct of return atks and reqs more assumptions.
[edit] Damn the lack of a table feature! Anyhoo, column 1 (c1) is S, c2 is % of each atk wnding, c3 is wnds from 10A, c4 is wnds from 15A. It repeats for Ghouls after the 2nd column of S(whatever). It's easy enough to read with a little more space between columns.
Vipoid: Agreed. Even on straight mathammer, a small grp of ghouls hanging out on a flank aren't going to beat a high T, no save brute. Throw movement, saves, special rules, etc whatever in, and I will not be fielding ghouls as monster-hunters.
I'd've defined the optimal role of 2A-poison-light-infantry as killing high T no save things, but I don't think they'd do that. Also, reviewing some army books, I don't see much that relies exclusively on high T for defence.
I'd've defined the optimal role of 2A-poison-light-infantry as killing high T no save things, but I don't think they'd do that. Also, reviewing some army books, I don't see much that relies exclusively on high T for defence.
Bottom line. NEITHER unit generates enough kills to off set wounds received in any situation.
Both are undead, both crumble due to the poor wounds dealt and poor survival of each unit.
Zombies bleed CR much too fast, and return no damage.
Ghouls cost way too much, despite having decent stats.
Skeletons frankly suck, but are cheap enough to offset sucking, and die slightly less epically bad against done things. Also Standard and musician
Make a ridiculous amount of difference
Skeletons are the least bad option.
Both are undead, both crumble due to the poor wounds dealt and poor survival of each unit.
Zombies bleed CR much too fast, and return no damage.
Ghouls cost way too much, despite having decent stats.
Skeletons frankly suck, but are cheap enough to offset sucking, and die slightly less epically bad against done things. Also Standard and musician
Make a ridiculous amount of difference
Skeletons are the least bad option.
hsnyder said:
My best zombie-kill was a Thundertusk (or possibly a Stonehorn - whichever one has the ASL aura).
I can't recall exactly why, but for some reason I charged a block of zombies at it. They did a wound to it, but it rolled badly and only did a couple back. Charging and Ranks let me win combat... whereupon it failed its Ld test and fled. Then it got chased and cut down my zombies. Ah, good times.
I think my record Zombie kill was dropping a slaan and temple guard unit when I was flirting with a Forbidden Light list.
But honestly we all know that's a fluke and flukes are not common, and not a viable strategy.
At least with skittles I can die less badly and bus characters better.
But honestly we all know that's a fluke and flukes are not common, and not a viable strategy.
At least with skittles I can die less badly and bus characters better.
My Zombies have never done anything extraordinary. However, I once had a Skeleton Champion generate OVERKILL against a Herald of Tzeentch in a challenge!
To get this topic back to actual tactics....
Yes core blow.
You have 2 options.
1) bus up skeletons
2) go max dogs+zombies
If you go route 1.
You MUST bring characters to offset CR loss.
If I had to choose?
Wight king on foot with Great Weapon.
Cheapest, most durable way to generate a CR per round
Baby Blender with Red Fury +gear
Gets phenomenally expensive per guy for 3-7 average CR and only 2 wounds.
Have not experimented with CW/TB to generate CR.
Yes core blow.
You have 2 options.
1) bus up skeletons
2) go max dogs+zombies
If you go route 1.
You MUST bring characters to offset CR loss.
If I had to choose?
Wight king on foot with Great Weapon.
Cheapest, most durable way to generate a CR per round
Baby Blender with Red Fury +gear
Gets phenomenally expensive per guy for 3-7 average CR and only 2 wounds.
Have not experimented with CW/TB to generate CR.
Does anyone think a Skel bus is appropriate for a VL?
I'm thinking VL because he can be lvl4 (for about 1/2 the cost of a MNecro) in the middle of the infantry to take advantage of IoN and marching.
That's the pros, but cons he's 4+/4++ on my current build and that seems a little squishy for ~500pts of "I die you lose" general who's now front and center of my only fighting inf block. Mathammer-wise, vs Empire Swords, w/ S7 he's supposed to do... hm, only 4.993 wnds. Still enough to swing most fights.
?
I'm thinking VL because he can be lvl4 (for about 1/2 the cost of a MNecro) in the middle of the infantry to take advantage of IoN and marching.
That's the pros, but cons he's 4+/4++ on my current build and that seems a little squishy for ~500pts of "I die you lose" general who's now front and center of my only fighting inf block. Mathammer-wise, vs Empire Swords, w/ S7 he's supposed to do... hm, only 4.993 wnds. Still enough to swing most fights.
?
fishdog said:
I imagine that could work. Also, if you're worried about his survivability, there are a couple of possibilities:
1) Have 2 other characters in the unit. This way, your Vampire Lord has to go in the second rank. Then, when it gets to combat, you can displace one of the command models to put him on the frontline (so, you can make sure that you're not stuck in BTB with an unpleasent enemy character or somesuch).
2) Include a Wight King with Nightshroud. Put your Vampire Lord in one corner of the unit, with the Wight King next to him. Now, most models that can attack the vampire are also affected by the Nightshroud - so they strike last and get no bonuses from weapons.
There's also a "Skeleton Bus" thread in Tactics that you might find interesting. I can't link it because the mouse-over test for 'bus' stops the hyperlink from working.
Well if you feel the WK isn't worth it (he really is) what would you use.
A 200+ point 2 wound character? 3-7 CR cannot justify the cost of baby blenders for each block.
VL /SGK certainly works but you can break the bank in cost pretty quickly
Basically we are approaching circular argument range here.
Skeletons must have characters
Beefy characters cost too much to use in every block
But skeletons must have characters
Round and round we go.
Honestly there is A LOT of merit in
10 x 5 dogs
2 x 30 Zombies, STD,Musician
For 2400 point games
None of which requires characters.
But who owns 50 wolves?
A 200+ point 2 wound character? 3-7 CR cannot justify the cost of baby blenders for each block.
VL /SGK certainly works but you can break the bank in cost pretty quickly
Basically we are approaching circular argument range here.
Skeletons must have characters
Beefy characters cost too much to use in every block
But skeletons must have characters
Round and round we go.
Honestly there is A LOT of merit in
10 x 5 dogs
2 x 30 Zombies, STD,Musician
For 2400 point games
None of which requires characters.
But who owns 50 wolves?
HeroZero said:
How many blocks are we talking about here?
See, if you've got so many that putting a vampire in each is impractical, then putting Wight Kings in them seems equally impractical - since you're paying half the amount, but reducing the CR generated by a far larger magnitude.
HeroZero said:
It depends on how you plan to use them. If you want them to eventually win combat, then yes they require characters. And, by characters, I mean vampires. Wight Kings are no use for winning combat unless you're playing games that can last for about 40 turns.
On the other hand, if you just want them so survive and maybe do well against equally-crappy troops, then you have other options - namely Mortis Engines and/or magic support (which are far from mutually-exclusive). The former can make your skeletons a lot harder to take down, whilst the latter can raise them and make them either hardier (by buffing their defences, or debuffing the enemy), or make them hit harder. If you're using several skeleton blocks, this seems like a better idea than Wight Kings.
Usually 2 blocks.of 50 skeletons.
Even two baby blenders is hitting that tipping point of prohibitive costs
I despise the ME, and its ilk for throwing more good points at bad problem. I refuse to invest more points to make them more durable ( you could just buy more bodies which is far.more effective) I also live in a cannon heavy environment too.
If engines work for you great, but they are not for me.
50 dogs and 60 zombies is sounding more appealing with every post
Even two baby blenders is hitting that tipping point of prohibitive costs
I despise the ME, and its ilk for throwing more good points at bad problem. I refuse to invest more points to make them more durable ( you could just buy more bodies which is far.more effective) I also live in a cannon heavy environment too.
If engines work for you great, but they are not for me.
50 dogs and 60 zombies is sounding more appealing with every post