Vampire Counts Rewrite

[Count Vashra]

I am interesting in seeing who would be up for doing a project to rewrite the Vampire Counts rulebook?
It will be done in the following sections:
-Army Special Rules: Nailing Undead, General, Standard bearer and Vampiric
-Bloodlines: Creating optional rules for the bloodlines, including Vampire Powers
-Special Characters: Fixing the special characters and possibly creating new ones
-Lords: Changing the rules for Lords a little, including mounts
-Heroes: Rules changes for Heroes
-Core: Improving our Core
-Special: Seeing what changes can/should be made to our Special units
-Rare: Making a Rare section where the choices are more streamlined (i.e. internal balance is fixed so that Mortis Engine/Terrorgheist are not automatically taken over the other choices
-The Lore of the Vampires: Any changes needed for our spells?
Magic Items: Seeing what changes are needed to our magic items
-Vampire Powers: A set of generic powers for Vampires not aligned to a bloodline
Who would be interested in this? Each section would be finished before the next one is started and if there is sufficient interest I will request a User Project subforum.

So, who's up for it?

 

[RarerMonsters]

I am interesting in seeing who would be up for doing a project to rewrite the Vampire Counts rulebook?
It will be done in the following sections:
-Army Special Rules: Nailing Undead, General, Standard bearer and Vampiric
-Bloodlines: Creating optional rules for the bloodlines, including Vampire Powers
-Special Characters: Fixing the special characters and possibly creating new ones
-Lords: Changing the rules for Lords a little, including mounts
-Heroes: Rules changes for Heroes
-Core: Improving our Core
-Special: Seeing what changes can/should be made to our Special units
-Rare: Making a Rare section where the choices are more streamlined (i.e. internal balance is fixed so that Mortis Engine/Terrorgheist are not automatically taken over the other choices
-The Lore of the Vampires: Any changes needed for our spells?
Magic Items: Seeing what changes are needed to our magic items
-Vampire Powers: A set of generic powers for Vampires not aligned to a bloodline
Who would be interested in this? Each section would be finished before the next one is started and if there is sufficient interest I will request a User Project subforum.

So, who's up for it?

Well, to what end?

Obviously we can't take it to tournaments, and I seriously doubt any but the most tolerant players would be interested in playing "the fan alternative vampire codex that changes our balance"

Even if we could do this (And I'm deeply distrustful of any fan-based 'balancing', since it's essentially what created the ETC), I can't see it do anything but collect digital dust.

 

[Hanblack Nagash]

I would have a good go at doing it

 

[Blutsauger]

Well, to what end?

Obviously we can't take it to tournaments, and I seriously doubt any but the most tolerant players would be interested in playing "the fan alternative vampire codex that changes our balance"

Even if we could do this (And I'm deeply distrustful of any fan-based 'balancing', since it's essentially what created the ETC), I can't see it do anything but collect digital dust.

I'm with you. Seems like an interesting thought project, but ultimately nothing more than organised wish-listing.

 

[Skittelz1981]

Well, there are some serious flaws in VC rules.

1. Crumble. This most peculiar rule is completely broken. where i allow it to exist in combats out of IP and even within IP i find it completely retarded and utterly broken that, ie, my vampire lord crumbles. The general of my army dies due to lost CR? while all the other armies get to pass a simple ld-test with often a minor modifier.
This goes for more situations wherein a unit crumbles to death rather than simply passing a ld-test which often succeeds. it greatly diminishes our ability to combo-charge and is by no means well written.

2. The march bubble. Seriously? 12" is what GW gives an army that places more units on the field than most other armies.
We have an army that is built on deploying many many units, yet we get to march only 5 of them since every unit has to be an inch apart.
what, the rest of my army needs to be all vampirics, or they just trail uselessly behind? (for the record, i like playing bigger battles than the lame 2000-2500.)

3. Slain general. omfg..... really? i mean really? so all the armies in whfb just go happily on with their game after losing their general, as if nothing at all happened, VC needs to take ld-tests or crumble to death? Ld-tests on a race that barely has any leadership at all???? aka recipe for instant-packitup and go home. 2 ld-testrounds consecutively if theres no backupcaster???? exaggerating is an art as well.

4. VC BSB..... 1 wound less???????? is this a joke? so others get to reroll failed leadership tests which 90% of the time saves them from running away in fear and we get to save one lousy wound and that what i take a bsb for? theres got to be some more benefit into taking a bsb coz 1 wound less in crumble really isnt cutting it. maybe it can save a character once every full moon. but in general its nothing compared to the effectivity of regular whfb bsb.

5. Master of the black arts vampiric skill.
What is this? I pay 75 pts!! for a skill that doesnt even guarantee me a better result in power dice?? so if i roll a 6 and 2 , decide to reroll the 2 and roll a 1 or 2... what good is that ability? even if id roll a 3 i wouldnt be satisfied with this overpriced nonsense.

6. Curse of the revenant.
Haha, 55pts for 1 wound. not even worth saying more.

7. The hunger.
Never, ever have i been able to use this ability. so usually the vampires strike first due to their initiative, only against elves may they be second. Usually vamps, especially lords will have quickblood, again preventing the use of this ability.
How can you write a rule like that if it kind of never happens that a character like this is gonna strike after its opponent. and even if that rare case happens, i need to roll a 6 to gain a wound back, if one was inflicted. its a probability that equals a single archer wounding a t6 target after it had to roll an 8-to-hit.

8. Terror special rule.
So i charge, the unit flees in terror and then i get a failed charge? something is not right about this. how can i be disadvantaged after letting someone flee in terror....

9. Heinrich Kemmler choice in what unittype/Mortis engine regenerationbuff
So if i dont start the game, i dont have the regenerationbuff yet and Kemmler is not ethereal of flying, hes just physical noob Kemmler.
Ive often had to start second due to +1 on roll for my outdeployed opponent, resulting in not having the buffs of the mortis engine and Kemmler not being one of the 2 things he should be. This is a serious drawback in turn 1 and imo is just bad writing.

10. Battle of Wills
so the opponent rolls on its modified ld (often meaning that its gonna be ld9 or 10 due to IP and the Throne has to roll on its own ld7? so were already 2 points behind? If this single rule was altered just a little bit, the throne would be actually really worth its points as a mount. Unless i got the rules wrong i dont think that the throne benefits from IP for the result of Battle of wills. (i stand corrected if i get this wrong.
.

 

[Aren]

No. No. No.

Why don't we have warmachines as well and all rifles and so on. No. End of. What you propose kills the flavour.

I want my army to crumble or take a massive blow when the general dies. It adds to the feel and taste of the army.

I want slow troops, the 12" bubble isn't that much of a setback, plus we have VDM.

I am quite happy with the book, sure bloodlines could be in it, the vampire lord crumbling due to some zombies dying is a bit silly but only small, minor changes!

Why do I have to come across this again and again? Every army isn't going to be the same. No, this is not a game where each army gets 5 troops, 2 cavalry, 2 monsters and 3 warmachines. This is a game where the armies are unique and that is why they are fun. I know another person who constantly does this, compares his army with other armies and wants it to be like them without ever noticing the good bits about his army.

VC can be very competitive and almost all the rules are well balanced, it's a good book.

 

[Uziel]

Count Vashra:

First off, while I agree with you on a lot of your points, and I actually wish for a new book fixing some of the same issues myself, more importantly, I think the biggest flaw of the book is that it can be quite boring for opponents to play against a decent VC list, and while we certainly have some more valid competitive builds than in 7th ed. It is a game supposed to be fun for both parties after all, and while the general dying might seem like a major drawback, how often do you really see a stereotypical Vampire Lord being killed? I don't think I've ever had that happen to me to be honest, apart from from the occasional Miscasts that is (damned hell heart)...

The biggest problem with fixing these issues, is that players are not willing to let go of that awesome potential of a Vampire, in favor of actually having a better, more functioning Core section of the list. Trust me, when it comes to even slightly reducing some of the more "over the top" options such as the Red Fury+Quickblood+Magic Weapon+Lvl4 Wizard, VC players more often than not dive for the trenches.

I know what I'm talking about here. You will easily spend far more time arguing your case than getting things done when it comes to taking away/reducing some things, to allow for other elements of the army to shine. Ref: https://www.vampirecounts.net/Thread-The-Bloodline-Legacies-Army-List

 

[Skittelz1981]

Im stating all these points in what in my opinion are rules that have flaws in them.
Im not saying they should just disappear or make way for some fresh OP rules.

That list of ten are just some of what i see as rules that have flawed mechanics.

- I love crumble but that doesnt change the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with the rule as it is now. Where a steadfast unit will simply pass its ld-test and sun is still shining, your unit of zombies instantly disappears due to the same combat resolution... Its just wrong, ive had units of 40 zombies disappear in 1 turn where a similar group of gobbos would still be standing due to steadfast rule.


The slain general rule? Total fluff and by no means comparable by any other General loss. Never had your vamplord die? i dont believe that, mine has been sniped, rocklobbed, destroyed by Daemonprinces, destroyed by crumbling, destroyed by some DoC lord, even killed by a DE dreadlord.
Claiming that Vamplord is somekind of OP character is nonsense, its a very, very good lord agreed. But pretending its unkillable makes me laugh. The penalty for losing it atm? way overdone, way overdone. That there be a punishment for losing your general i can agree to that. But this is just pure fluffrule. Especially since no other race has any drawback whatsoever, like their general is just some meaningless nobody that is totally replaceable with any other model in the army.


Why am i always seeing people claiming that VHDM is the answer to slow VC troops? as if youre gonna get that spell through every turn on every game. The people I play usually wait for VHDM so they can try and dispel it. VHDM has a 6" or 12" range... how is that going to help the units outside of that same bubble? Like VHDM is somekind of guarantee, last game i played i had a total of 2 spells cast in 5 turns.
None of them was VHDM.


I am not saying its a bad book, coz its not. Yet there is definately room for improvement, which doesnt mean its going to get easier for VC. It simply means that there are some rules that just dont stick.

 

[Uziel]

Skittelz1981:

Lost 60 zombies in as single turn due to charging ogres once. Not a big unit either.. so yes, crumble sucks. It makes our poor troops so much worse in 8th ed..

Well, never was perhaps an overstatement. But never in 8th ed to be more precise, and extremely rarely in 5-7 ed as well.. It's not that I make them overly powerful or anything. I just weigh the odds before committing my general to anything. That said, I've mostly played against Ogre Kingdoms, Lizardmen, Empire and Skaven in 8th, and dwarfs, wood elves, deamons of chaos in 7th and earlier... Mostly.

I like the fluff rule as far as killing the general goes, but I absolutely agree that it has to be a balance to it. The main problem now is that you are almost forced to take larger risks than most other generals to use this o so expensive model that are a huge waste of points unless he steps up and compensates for our less than poor core units (ghouls are bit of an exception here though), while the general of other armies don't really have to do this, or it least in most cases they don't. To make matters worse, what use is our general's LD/Inspiring Presence to begin with?

I'm a huge fan of trying to make rules that go with the fluff, because that to me is what translates the feel of the army to the gaming table, much in the same way as having the correct models does. In this regard, the 8th ed VC book is pretty much a huge failure in my view, and I think it is its greatest flaw overall.
But you are right that it is not a bad book in all aspects Skittelz1981, it was certainly a huge improvement over the last book, and it do have some viable builds in it.

 

[Skittelz1981]

Bit off topic but since you brought it up...

Who writes a book where in the fluff, all the main characters are dead, slain and vanished. And then produces all the models of this Von Carstein family line that doesnt even exist anymore. What kind of idea is that.

"Oh yeah we write a book about how all the Von Carsteins are dead and then we make all the models and let the players play with dead characters that are no longer relevant to our fluff."

 

[Uziel]

True.. Another "oddity" that separated the VC book from the rest of the books. Granted, some have dead characters in them, but that's the exception, rather than the rule.

I think GW have rested on their laurels for far to long as far as good VC fluff is concerned overall. At least as is relevant to the actual army book itself.

But to bring things back to topic a bit. For those who wish to start such an undertaking as this is, (especially as a collaborative effort...), it may be worthwhile if done right, but it is paramount that is is done in such a way that it becomes not just more fun to play the list, but to play against it as well, and for that to happen, one must be ready to make some sacrifices to gain some advantages. I've already put a lot of work into such a project (https://www.vampirecounts.net/Thread-The-Bloodline-Legacies-Army-List), and while so far, my opponents have liked playing against the lists I've tested for the Bloodline Legacies project so far, this is by no means finished and could use a lot more play testing to see if I've taken things in the right direction.

As a note, I started this when only the Tomb Kings and Orcs and Goblins book were released and 8the ed was relatively new, so there are a few issues here and there that needs fixing.

 

[Blutsauger]

I'm a huge fan of trying to make rules that go with the fluff, because that to me is what translates the feel of the army to the gaming table, much in the same way as having the correct models does. In this regard, the 8th ed VC book is pretty much a huge failure in my view, and I think it is its greatest flaw overall.
But you are right that it is not a bad book in all aspects Skittelz1981, it was certainly a huge improvement over the last book, and it do have some viable builds in it.

The crumble rule is ridiculous. It doesn't allow our troops to benefit from the mechanisms built into the core rules, like steadfast and BSBs, but much more unforgivably the rule doesn't make sense and is counter intuitive.

Why should my Vampire suffer wounds as a result of defeated zombies? Why should my zombies become harder to control when there are fewer of them? Have we ever seen in zombie media, where one zombie has been killed and another has fallen over somewhere near by? Have we ever seen in Vampire movies where killing one vampire could hurt other vampires nearby?

I understand where the designers were coming from, but I think they really missed the boat. An entirely Unbreakable army would be a bit much, and you certainly couldn't have zombies that fled in fear for their lives, but the current implementation of the Unstable rule just doesn't cut it for me.

 

[Hanblack Nagash]

They were so close to fixing crumble, with the introduction of the vampiric unit rule.

All they needed to do to perfect it would be to make vampiric units never crumble as part of combat results in addition to no need to crumble with the death of general.

And personally, the reintroduction of the 5th ed "alive" rule to ghouls would make them balanced for me.

With regards to increasing vamp units points because of the suggestions i made can be debated but realistically if gw made the game perfect in every way then they lose money. Bottom line really

 

[mn2]

Apart from fixing crumble issues, there are five things off the top of my head I'd like to see reintroduced to VC:

- The "Alive!" rule
- Wight Blades!
- Liches - they're kind of forgotten undead
- Perhaps some spells - would love to see Dark Mist and Hand of Dust
- and lastly, but most importantly, the option for Wight and Wraith champions for units!

And as for crumbling, making Vampiric units immune sounds like a simple and very effective fix.
General's death should cause problems for a VC army in my opinion, and I find the current backup caster rule great, but it only makes sense for magic-bound undead. I can't imagine a Varghulf or Black Coach withering away after the chief summoner's death - makes next to no sense.
The next exception to crumbling rules would be alive units - ghouls and necromancers. Since fluff-wise ghouls are attracted by strigoi vampires, I'd like to see this reflected in the rules - something along the lines of ghouls being unbreakable only if accompanied by a Strigoi, and panicking if a Strigoi general is slain.

 

[RarerMonsters]

I'm a huge fan of trying to make rules that go with the fluff, because that to me is what translates the feel of the army to the gaming table, much in the same way as having the correct models does. In this regard, the 8th ed VC book is pretty much a huge failure in my view, and I think it is its greatest flaw overall.
But you are right that it is not a bad book in all aspects Skittelz1981, it was certainly a huge improvement over the last book, and it do have some viable builds in it.

The crumble rule is ridiculous. It doesn't allow our troops to benefit from the mechanisms built into the core rules, like steadfast and BSBs, but much more unforgivably the rule doesn't make sense and is counter intuitive.

Why should my Vampire suffer wounds as a result of defeated zombies? Why should my zombies become harder to control when there are fewer of them? Have we ever seen in zombie media, where one zombie has been killed and another has fallen over somewhere near by? Have we ever seen in Vampire movies where killing one vampire could hurt other vampires nearby?

I understand where the designers were coming from, but I think they really missed the boat. An entirely Unbreakable army would be a bit much, and you certainly couldn't have zombies that fled in fear for their lives, but the current implementation of the Unstable rule just doesn't cut it for me.

The Imperial troopers friends died around him, cut to shreds by the quickly flashing blades of the vampire. Yet, to his side, he gained morale as another push of pikemen tore through the zombies around him. The battle was turning, despite the monster.

"Push on lads" he shouted, "we're gaining ground" and so they pushed forward, and in their great numbers, spurred on by the victory, they mobbed upon the unholy beast and brought it down.



The fluff works, as do the rules. If Vampires didn't crumble, there'd be no real downside to using zombies as meatshields since your vampire would turn unbreakable once the meat dies.

No, we don't benefit from unbreakable or similar rules... that's how our army is designed and frankly it works. We have a good book, and we don't need to argue that we should get every wishlist item we've ever wanted. The benefits you don't get are as much written into your army as the ones you do, it determines what you have to play around.

This is why I don't like "fan rebalances". There's a difference between "Crumble is punishing, we have to learn to avoid it" and "Crumble is punishing, it must have been written wrong"

 

[Skittelz1981]

Crumble is punishing, and in alot of cases unavoidable.

 

[RarerMonsters]

Crumble is punishing, and in alot of cases unavoidable.

As is WoC not having BS shooting, Skaven having low LD, Dwarves being slow, and Elves having low Toughness. That doesn't mean those things are mistakes in the codex.

 

[mn2]

However, none of the things you mentioned are irrational, as crumble is in many easily imaginable situations - like a vampire dying because of the fact that his adversary munched some zombies on the side during a fight.

 

[Smogg]

Some interesting thoughts here, and I'm also skeptical around fan based armies. But I certainly think you should give it a go if there is interest in the project.
I will also give my thoughts on the ideas:

-Bloodlines: I don't like the idea of bloodlines rules. Powerful Vampires in the GW fluff are all very unique and both within and across bloodlines. It's important to allow for the widest range of options, and that's only done without locking them into a specific bloodline.

-Special Characters: Consider bringing back some of the old ones.

-Core: On a personal note I wish skeletons had a much wider range of armors and weapons. I like my heavy army skeletons with halberds.

-Special: I think our current selection is awesome.

-Rare: I don't see a problem with the rares

-The Lore of the Vampires: If you bring back Liches, maybe consider two lores. Vampire & Necromancy

- Magic Items: If you want to stay in the spirit of 8th edition, you need to keep the same number of magic items, so it balances with the other 8th ed. books.

-Vampire Powers: Avoid locking powers to bloodlines.


Crumble: (Unstable). Remember that any changes here may severely change the strength of the army. If you change this mechanics to be more favorable, you should likely increases all point costs in the army.

2. The march bubble. Allowing march for all units near vampires should either greatly increase cost of vampiric units or the cost of all units in general as this is a significant change to the synergy of the army overall.

3. Slain general. Getting rid of this rule should significantly increase the cost of all units in the army.

4. VC BSB: Making the BSB more effective should also affect his cost.

5. Master of the black arts vampiric skill. I have used this particular skills many times, and I must say it is quite effective. Keep in mind the lowest dice is the difference between your power pool and the enemy dispel pool. This dice is your actual advantage in the magic phase.


7. The hunger: This ability was created more as a nod to the vampire fluff than to give any real advantage (That would further increase the point cost of vampires). I think it does its job as a fluff reminder. But yes, you can improve it and increase the cost I suppose.

8. Terror special rule: It's nice to deny opponents the option to hold or stand and shoot. I don't think that's useless. The less options your opponent has, the better.


All in all, lots of good ideas, but as I see it, if you want to keep VC a balanced army compared to other 8th edition books, it seems you will need to do some HEAVY point adjustments. It's going to be a very small army with a few strong models that does not give a shit about anything.

I will keep an eye on the project. But getting a sense where this is heading, I more than ever love my LARGE but somewhat flawed undead army

 

[RarerMonsters]

However, none of the things you mentioned are irrational, as crumble is in many easily imaginable situations - like a vampire dying because of the fact that his adversary munched some zombies on the side during a fight.

Imagine an Ogre Tyrant panicking because someone shot up a cat a few feet away.
Imagine an Orc Warboss fleeing because some stupid boys nearby got killed.

I explained how it could happen, the momentum of combat shifted against the vampire and, without the protection of his meat shields, the vampire was overwhelmed by the outnumbering enemy forces.

It works, but people go out of their way to claim it doesn't to justify why they should get a new bonus. Well, we don't have it. That's what our army is.

 

[Blutsauger]

The Imperial troopers friends died around him, cut to shreds by the quickly flashing blades of the vampire. Yet, to his side, he gained morale as another push of pikemen tore through the zombies around him. The battle was turning, despite the monster.

"Push on lads" he shouted, "we're gaining ground" and so they pushed forward, and in their great numbers, spurred on by the victory, they mobbed upon the unholy beast and brought it down.



The fluff works, as do the rules. If Vampires didn't crumble, there'd be no real downside to using zombies as meatshields since your vampire would turn unbreakable once the meat dies.

That little fluff excerpt you just wrote does absolutely nothing to promote the idea of crumbling in general, or support the case for Vampires suffering crumble results.

No, we don't benefit from unbreakable or similar rules... that's how our army is designed and frankly it works. We have a good book, and we don't need to argue that we should get every wishlist item we've ever wanted. The benefits you don't get are as much written into your army as the ones you do, it determines what you have to play around.

Agreed, but the crumble rule doesn't make sense. Give us penalties, by all means, but give us ones that are intuitive and thematic, that match the background. Not crumbling...

For instance, just make Vampiric units and models take regular break tests. Make all Undead units unbreakable when within 12" of a wizard using the lore of the Vampires, but have to take crumble tests (as per a dead general) when they aren't. I don't care that crumble hurts us, I care that it is counter intuitive and not thematic. The fact that it doubly affects Undead troops because they can't ever benefit from Steadfast or BSBs is just a detail.

 

[Blutsauger]

I explained how it could happen, the momentum of combat shifted against the vampire and, without the protection of his meat shields, the vampire was overwhelmed by the outnumbering enemy forces.

If the momentum of combat shifts, then make him take a break test. Vampires are known to flee to safety. If he is overwhelmed by the enemy, then this is represented by actually overwhelming him with enemy attacks. It's why we roll for hits and wounds and all that jazz.

Nothing makes sense about the Vampire crumbling into dust because of combat resolution. Nothing.

 

[Count Vashra]

I will continue to check the poll for another fortnight. if there is not more positive votes than negative votes by then, I will abandon the project as failed.

 

[Hanblack Nagash]

What was wrong with the old crumble rule, from 5th ed i think it was where you allocated the crumble wounds as you saw fit between the units in combat?

That way zombies were viable as you just said i'll allocate all crumble wounds to zombies.

I lost the combat by ten? Lose ten zombies. Thanks

 

[Uziel]

I'm a huge fan of trying to make rules that go with the fluff, because that to me is what translates the feel of the army to the gaming table, much in the same way as having the correct models does. In this regard, the 8th ed VC book is pretty much a huge failure in my view, and I think it is its greatest flaw overall.
But you are right that it is not a bad book in all aspects Skittelz1981, it was certainly a huge improvement over the last book, and it do have some viable builds in it.

The crumble rule is ridiculous. It doesn't allow our troops to benefit from the mechanisms built into the core rules, like steadfast and BSBs, but much more unforgivably the rule doesn't make sense and is counter intuitive.

Why should my Vampire suffer wounds as a result of defeated zombies? Why should my zombies become harder to control when there are fewer of them? Have we ever seen in zombie media, where one zombie has been killed and another has fallen over somewhere near by? Have we ever seen in Vampire movies where killing one vampire could hurt other vampires nearby?

I understand where the designers were coming from, but I think they really missed the boat. An entirely Unbreakable army would be a bit much, and you certainly couldn't have zombies that fled in fear for their lives, but the current implementation of the Unstable rule just doesn't cut it for me.

I agree with you 100%. The fact that they never did anything with this, or even attempted to, is the major reason that I don't like the current 8 ed book, and decided to start my own project in the first place.
As the army is now, when playing it even on a somewhat competitive level, the army you are actually fielding on the gaming table hardly, if ever, resemble any undead army I've ever read about in any of the warhammer based vampire fluff. That to me is a huge failure, and that has mostly to do with our poor core, the tactical implications of the unstable rule, etc.. Something is very wrong when a horde of skaven slaves og goblins, can hold up anything, better than an equal horde of mindless skeletons, but that goes without saying...