Vampire Counts: Army Book Overview

[Vipoid]

Don't understand why you don't adore Nightshroud. That item is just god-like especially if you play high elves a lot ( I do). Maybe I'm just unrealistically lucky with ZD+ Nightshroud combo that have shattered entire armies a dozen times now?

Personally, I find it a little too specific, especially since taking it rules out either a strong weapon or a decent ward save. It's sometimes useful, but can just as easily be wasted against a low-initiative army. On the other hand, a Ward Save will always be useful - especially if, like me, you run into a Bloodletter Horde on a regular basis...

I have never ever used The Hunger special rule... Either the character dies outright or it leaves the combat without a scratch, at least it has been so in all the games I have played.

I've occasionally used it, but have never had it work. Usually I do all my character-healing in the Magic Phase.

To be honest, it feels like it should either be a little stronger (e.g. roll a dice for *each* model killed in combat, with some sort of cap), works on 5+ for Vampire Lords etc.. Or, there should be something that goes with it - like a cheap Vampire Power that increases the odds of it working, or a weapon like Vlad's Blood Drinker (except available to non-SCs).

Maybe I am not seeing the big picture of it, But Skabsrath just does not seem very good to me. I get that the DS on it is very nice, but i always saw the reason it was so good is because the TG already adds 6 to the total at full, where as you will get 3? with a vamp. And really, getting 2 attacks that go away after you charge/lose combat. 75 points is a heavy cost for that. Would you not just pay 60 for 3 attacks you keep. And yea flaming attacks for all them Flammable/Regenerate is the only appealing thing to me. And really if you want flaming that badly, get a BsB and rock the fire stick . Whole unit flaming vs Vamp, But i really want someone to show me what I am missing, because Its gotta be something ><.

I've never been a fan of Skabsrath. The extra scream is nice, but makes the weapon feel more like a gimmick - something to use in one, very specific list, and never in anything else.

It's cost basically means it'll only ever be used on a Ghoul King (or a Master necromancer if you want a laugh, I guess). Frenzy is often annoying, rather than helpful (and isn't likely to last more than 1 turn), and devastating charge is meh. Flaming attacks are nice, but I'd rather have more strength, since I face far more enemies with good armour than with regeneration. Essentially, I just feel that 75pts is a hell of a lot, considering that you're getting a scream, and not much else.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind, except that [undefined=undefined]this is our only magic weapon.[/undefined] Could we not have had something more robust (like the current Blood Drinker) - something we could include for both use and flavour, rather than this expensive gimmick?

 

[Melle]

I personally think that the flaming rule in scabscrath ruins it,to nearly useless. just to many firefighters out there(dragon armour, dbg, dragon helm etc etc)

 

[Weibz]

I agree with Vipoid on the fact that getting us another Magic Weapon would have been nice. Say getting us blood drinker that regens a wound of a 4+ instead of a 6+ (still only one wound a Phase), and make it 40 pts so our Heros have something to play with.

Scabscrath I think really just has to be tailored to really be used correctly is why I do not like it. Throw Aura, +1 wound on a GK riding a TG, and you will see 2 results. Monsters will be destroyed easily at close range, and if you are caught by troops you will crumble from lack of CR (I think).

Which brings me to my next point. How they could have had more powers that cost 50 pts. Red fury is the obvious staple for our vampires. We should have been given the choice at giving our hero vamps +1 wound, or a lesser version of MotBAs to reroll the higher dice of the 2 dice (in the case of a bad magic phase we roll a 1 and a 2) Just more options to play with. Do I want a choppy Vamp, Magic Insurance Vamp, or Survivable Vamp? So we can tailor our lists to our play style. More options for our very expensive characters.

 

[Vipoid]

I agree with Vipoid on the fact that getting us another Magic Weapon would have been nice. Say getting us blood drinker that regens a wound of a 4+ instead of a 6+ (still only one wound a Phase), and make it 40 pts so our Heros have something to play with.

I think Vlad's weapon (+1 Strength and The Hunger works on 4+) for about 40pts would have been reasonable.

They could have even made Vlad's weapon activate the Hunger on a 2+ or even automatically, if they wanted him to be different (considering his cost, I doubt that would have made him overpowered...)

Which brings me to my next point. How they could have had more powers that cost 50 pts. Red fury is the obvious staple for our vampires. We should have been given the choice at giving our hero vamps +1 wound, or a lesser version of MotBAs to reroll the higher dice of the 2 dice (in the case of a bad magic phase we roll a 1 and a 2) Just more options to play with. Do I want a choppy Vamp, Magic Insurance Vamp, or Survivable Vamp? So we can tailor our lists to our play style. More options for our very expensive characters.

I agree.

I've no idea why Curse of the Revnant had to cost 55pts, rather than 50 (same with Black Periapt actually, but that's a discussion for another time). It doesn't exactly work well with RF, so there's no reason to stop them being taken. Also, if it was to stop it being taken on a lesser vampire, 50pts and using up all your vampire power allowance seems quite a reasonable cost for an extra wound.

Master of the Black Arts has a ludicrously high cost (especially since it also got considerably worse). I agree that it should have been 50pts.

 

[robtion]

@Weibs and Vpoid: I strongly agree with you both on all points.

I still think the worst thing about the new book is the reduction in and weakening of army specific magic items and vampiric powers. oh well.

 

[Yorga]

All of our stuff seems too expensive when compared to the cost of....Dark Elf items?

I like the Nightshroud. On a Coven Throne it is murder! :grave:

 

[Johnny-Crass]

Dont compare anything to the dark elf book. Everything is undercosted in that book

 

[Weibz]

The only reason I think +1 wound is 55 points is to keep a combat lord from having RF and CotR which seems reasonable in a way. Having CotR as the higher of the 2 I think we lucked out really, but still that's the other side of the argument. It just seems like the only real reason to take CotR is for scabscrath is more my point. I would have liked to see another power we could be more creative with in that spot.

 

[Vipoid]

The only reason I think +1 wound is 55 points is to keep a combat lord from having RF and CotR which seems reasonable in a way.

I don't see why - CotR adds nothing to RF, and prevents the Vampire from taking Quickblood. You're really just exchanging a lot of combat potential for a bit extra survivability, which seems more than reasonable.

 

[Bane]

Johnny, thank you for this! Great write up.

Though, and this doesn't make it really any better, but the Coach doesn't siphon off your magic dice anymore. It only powers up on 6s, but you get to keep the dice in your pool.

 

[Melle]

Dont compare anything to the dark elf book. Everything is undercosted in that book

i'd say don't compare with books from other editions at all

 

[bernard b]

Great write up! One thing on IoN though

Invocation of Nehek: Small thing is it does not work on characters but that is not a real problem.

This is a misconseption: (Following is based on reading the rulebooks only, thus might have missed an errata/faq wording, but i dont think so).

1) First of all the the second sentence in RFW p 26 clearly states that you can target lone models such as a character, never exceed starting wounds.

2) third paragraph also mentions characters. Two reasons that This does not contradict point 1)
2a) third paragraph is written in the context of units of more than one model ref "starting size". This, the final sentence, and no reference to lone character implies that this only deals with characters in units or characters not being "lone" as per the first paragraph.
2b) Even if you would not accept 2a), the third paragraph states "unless otherwisw specifically stated". Wording of IoN p 60 states that IoN targets "targets any undead units" and godes on to describe the specifics of healing different tropp types. As a lone character is defined as a a unit ref BRB p 5.

Consequently, lone characters can be healed as per IoN description, characters in units can not be healed by IoN.

What do you guys think?

BB

 

[Count Matthewzilla]

What vamp player doesn't have his vamps in units for protection?

 

[rothgar13]

If there's one character that I'd sign off on charging out of his unit to run something down, it's a Vampire. They move fast on their own, and if there's not much shooting/magic to threaten him, this offers a way to bring down tough and/or elusive targets that a unit would likely take heavy casualties to, but the Vampire's speed allows him to handle. Alternatively, it also lets you down a threat while turning the unit around to face another.

 

[Velmates]

As I read your point of view I have to admit, this could be true. But I know that it is played otherwise all the time. Then again, why should the first paragraph of the RFW mention lone characters? Just because of the Lore Attribute? The description of the Attribute clearly explains that you can heal one wound EARLIER LOST in battle, so no need to explain that you cannot get above the starting amout of wounds. And secondly even the Lore Attribute doesn't state that it can be used for healing characters as far as I see(just models).

So , yeah, could be. I wait and see what people who are more experienced in rule interpreting will say.

 

[Vipoid]

And secondly even the Lore Attribute doesn't state that it can be used for healing characters as far as I see(just models).

The Lore Attribute does specify the Wizard or a Friendly model though, whereas IoN restores wounds to units.

Just saying.


However, it's not helped by the wording off 'Resurrecting Fallen Warriors', which first says that Lone Characters targeted by the spell can never regain more than one wound, but then says at the end that spells of this kind can't heal characters at all, unless specifically stated.

 

[Yorga]

Dont compare anything to the dark elf book. Everything is undercosted in that book

i'd say don't compare with books from other editions at all

I guess you guys missed my sarcasm. :slapface: Yes, everything in the Dark Elf book is ridicules cheap for what it does.

 

[Velmates]

Curse of the Undead says "models" because it refers to a single model even when it is part of a unit. But the word "character" is not mentioned in the text.

A character not in a unit is, according to the BRB, a unit for himself, so IoN would target him. But like in the Lore Attribute, there is nowhere in the text the word "character".

Also the last sentence on page 26: "If a character has joined a unit, only the unit will recover lost wounds." This sentence can't be about the Lore Attribute because it can just target single models, not units as whole...

 

[Elbisrever]

I'm sorta confused because of this discussion. Why would RFW specifically (re)raise units "If the target is more than one model" and state the "spells and magic items that restore lost Wounds ( such as ION) cannot heal characters or their mounts ( such as Vamps and Zombie Dragons), where as The Curse of Undead states "the Wizard or another friendly model ( ergo a multiwound-model of any kind) recovers a single wound lost earlier in the battle?

Does this not set these two things apart? RFW is for mutiple-modelled units, TCoU for single models? I mean, to me it's kinda obvious, otherwise, why make two seperate things/rules when one of these can acomplish both of them?

 

[Johnny-Crass]

It is two separate things. To think otherwise is wishful reading and incorrect

 

[Velmates]

I play it like everyone else in this forum seems to play it but...

RFW says that no character can be targeted except stated explicitly otherwise. In other words there has to be the phrase "can be used to target characters" in the description. Neither tCoU nor IoN mentions this. So both should not heal characters...

Why is a model "any multi-wound model" and a unit not a single character model on its own?

I think tCoU is meant to heal characters in and outside of units and multi-wound models. Characters can't be healed by IoN if they are in a unit, this is clearly written. But when it comes to lone characters, which count as units themselves, why can't they be affected by IoN?

 

[Luvadin]

Johnny, you said that if you're running a GG below 40 models it's better to run them as a block. Does it have a definite width or it may vary if you're using 28, 35 or any other number? How wide do you reccommend a 30 GW guy unit to be?

 

[eggsPR]

Very nice write-up!

Though you may have missed the boat on Wind of Death

Against Brets it IS better than purple sun. With lance formations, you can inflict 4d6 or 5d6 (3 wide ranks FTW) S3 hits with no armour saves on each unit of knights the template 'touches' (not having to pass through). I've taken out 90% of 2 giant units of grail knights and knights errant on 1 casting.

As Konrad is to Ogres, Wind of Death is to Brets (even with pre-game prayers).

Plus a flank casting against Skaven basically halves their entire army, which has happened b4.

 

[Nagashizzar]

Plus a flank casting against Skaven basically halves their entire army, which has happened b4.

Can you post an list with that concept please?

 

[eggsPR]

Plus a flank casting against Skaven basically halves their entire army, which has happened b4.

Can you post an list with that concept please?

3x40 slaves 5 wide 24d6
40 storm vermin horde 4d6
40 plague monks 7 wide 6d6

That's like, I dunno, 34d6 hits, maybe 16d6 dead rats? Key word basically . Yeah they're just rats, but it cuts down steadfast fast and let's u run through his units easier.