Vampire Lord/Red Fury Overpowered?

[Vipoid]

(Sorry - last thread of this type)

Basically, my friends all think that Vampire Lords (and Ghoul Kings), and vastly overpowered - especially with Red Fury.

The most common complaints I get are:

- Too hard to kill, and can solo entire units
- Nightshroud is overpowered
- They can heal
- Red Fury is overpowered
- The fact that the VL can be a Lv4 wizard is unfair.
- Getting 100pts of Vampire Powers in addition to their wargear is unfair - especially since Chaos Lords only get 50pts
- Getting rerolls from Quickblood/Infinite-Hatred is unfair
- Red Fury is Overpowered
- Beguile is too cheap

Does anyone else get these complaints against their Vampire Lord/SGK?
If so, how do you respond?
Do you think any/all of them are valid?

 

[Tawg]

Tell them to get their nancy heads out of their pansy asses!

If you can't convince someone that something isn't over powered then swap armies 100% of the time. If you can't prove to them that they are terrible after that, then try punching them in the crotch.


But really? VL's are powerful, more powerful than most Lords (To my understanding), but that's just the way our army is; Our ARMY LIVES AND DIES with our general (Granted we can now have safety nets in other Vamp casters), but I mean, thematically? Yeah, VL are our everything (TG Aside, har har).

Are any of their rules OP? I mean hell, throw a damn Empire Captain into a vacuum with a Vamp Hero and watch him lose every time. Vacuums are great if you want to prove nothing. And to look at our army and not consider it as a whole is not really possible. Complain to them that they can fall back from bad charges if they make a poor positioning choice, or that they don't lose 2x the guys to what they actually lost already, or that THEY AREN'T dieing in droves in the first place with anything in their army that is short of an Elite choice!

Compare any armies Core to VC core, and just scream bloody murder that they have better stats, can march (Because since we're ignoring the rest of our army list, Your general is assumed to not even exist, amirite?), and put out CR besides ranks.

I'm not saying that anything about the Vamps is balanced per se, but it's really not something you can compare so directly. Yes the Hero/Lords look better (Are better) than others, but the army as a whole is something else entirely. Red Fury? It's certainly amazing, and it can certainly dig through units, especially with re-rolls. And yeah, Vampires can heal (I don't know which all armies can't but.. don't a lot have access to something that can heal?), I don't see how being a level 4 wizard makes them better though. What's the point of wanting to put all your eggs in one basket? You're just asking for someone to find their biggest hammer to smash your uber-basket. But comparing Oranges, Peanut Butter and Bricks is just stupid as hell.

And the only reason that a WoC Lord doesn't get 100 pts of "MUTATIONS" is because once he's past the 50, he's become a Dæmon Prince!

 

[Minty]

Well, some swift back-of-a-beermat style arithmatic indicates that, by the time you've built a Vampire Lord who can solo whole units he costs as much as a whole unit - more if you slap a few magic levels on there too.

Which is not to say that there are imperfections that can legitimately be criticised. Red Fury and Quickblood are too cheap - the fact that almost everybody uses them if proof enough of that. I think most people would still find either power worthwhile if they were ten or fifteen points more, but they'd be less of a no-brainer choice.

Nightshroud and Beguile are fine, though, and Tawg is entirely right, comparing Lord choices accross books, or units in a vacuum pointless.

There's no doubt that there are some flat broken things in the game, but none of them are in the Vampire book.

 

[Vipoid]

Red Fury and Quickblood are too cheap - the fact that almost everybody uses them if proof enough of that.

That seems like a fallacy.

It's possible that you're right, and those powers are too cheap, however, I don't think that "almost everyone uses them" is anywhere near proof enough.

It proves that RF and Quickblood are the most popular powers.

But, that could just as easily be because the other powers are overpriced, rather than because RF and Quickblood are underpriced.

 

[Tawg]

There's no doubt that there are some flat broken things in the game, but none of them are in the Vampire book.

I really would rather not have that mentality about the game, I mean I don't obviously, but I just think it's a dangerous one to have. IMO, which is highly subjective perhaps and not at all the voice of the general player base perhaps, is that the game in general lack any sort of fine tuning. To claim that the VC are alright because we don't have an "Unkillable DP ™" or other various oddities that they left open is, the far end of a slippery slope. It's already accepting of the rules in general since they aren't unplayable-ly broken; Sure the VC are fairly well off in the scope of GW rule writing, but the core rules themselves (And the game in general) are kinda borked. But it's not realllyy designed to be a crunch-y finely tuned game, as indicative by their lack of uniformed writing or mechanics to facilitate better randomization than a six-sided die can provide...

I would argue that the VC book is broken in the sense that a TG is better than most other rares and one of our best answers to.. uhh anything. Which is a silly thing; For a single choice to be our "Excels at _____" for nearly every blank.

I feel like most people accept the game on the same premise that one could say, if you throw 4 guys into an arena with a grenade, bazooka, mini-gun and shot gun respectively, then just shrug and claim that they call can "Cause devastation to the opponent as long as you know how to use them." Sure, those things all screw over the opponent when you manage to make it work, but it's not exactly what I call even terms. Plus the fact that most armies themselves have mandatory units that are too good to not use, and ones that are too bad to ever use while trying to win. Ehhhehh, maybe I just expect too much of them.

 

[Minty]

That seems like a fallacy.

It's possible that you're right, and those powers are too cheap, however, I don't think that "almost everyone uses them" is anywhere near proof enough.

It proves that RF and Quickblood are the most popular powers.

But, that could just as easily be because the other powers are overpriced, rather than because RF and Quickblood are underpriced.

That's true, and there certainly are powers which are too expensive, Curse of the Revenant springs immediately to mind. Master of the Black Arts too.

I stand by what I said, though - if Red Fury and Quickblood were more expensive, they'd still be worth taking.

But, and this is critical, they are not brokenly cheap. They are underpriced by ten or fifteen points tops.

 

[Vipoid]

I stand by what I said, though - if Red Fury and Quickblood were more expensive, they'd still be worth taking.

But, and this is critical, they are not brokenly cheap. They are underpriced by ten or fifteen points tops.

Well, I'm really not sure Quickblood is undercosted.

It's certainly good, but 30pts seems reasonable.

The ASF sword is 25pts, and I believe Daemons of Chaos and Warriors of Chaos both pay 25pts for their respective ASF items. Having a 30pt Vampire Power that does the same really doesn't come across as overpowered.


Red Fury might be undercosted - I don't think it's the easiest power to measure.

On the other hand, making it just 5pts more would have considerable implications - namely that it's suddenly off limits to hero vampires.

Honestly, I actually think the bigger issue lies with the other powers being overcosted. I mean, in terms of grouping them:

- Fear Powers (AoDM, Supernatural Horror, Fear Incarnate): AoDM is ok (mainly because of screams), but the other two suffer heavily from fear/terror being crap. IP, BSB, Frenzy, ItP, Unbreakable, Fear/Terror on enemy units. The number of units Fear even affects is pretty pathetic, and the odds of it even working are laughable. And, on those rare occasions when it does work, there's maybe 1 unit in our army that gets a decent benefit from fear. At they're current cost, the latter two powers basically exist solely to soak up extra points.

- Combat Powers (Quickblood, Red Fury, Dread Knight, Master Strike): Well, the first two are obviously taken often, and it's not surprising - vampires and vampire lords start with good combat statlines, so combat powers are the obvious choice. Dread Knight is decent for its cost, but can also force your lord into unfavourable confrontations (probably better on heroes). Master Strike is the worst thing ever devised by a human.

- Magic Powers (MotBA, Dark Acolyte, Forbidden Lore, Summon Creatures of the Night): Well, we get off to a bad start - MotBA is of dubious effectiveness, yet uses up 3/4 of your lord's power allowance. That's a hell of an investment for such a flimsy power. Dark Acolyte somehow manages to be even worse - it's strangely expensive, despite having one of the most limited and situational effects I've ever seen. Forbidden Lore has its uses, although it's irritatingly costed and doesn't exactly give a wide selection (and, notably, doesn't give loremaster any more). Summon Creatures of the Night is probably decent in a themed list, but not really much of a strategy to build around (cheap though).

- Survival Powers (Beguile, CotR): Well, beguile is cheap and decent. CotR seems much too expensive though (as it stands, it's only useful with Skabscrath). If it gave more protection, maybe, but it just seems ridiculously overcosted at the moment.


Anyway, maybe this is just how I see it, but it seems like Vampire Powers provide the basis for your vampire's specialisation - is he combat-heavy, intimidating, or a master-wizard?

However, it seems like combat powers are prevalent because the other powers aren't good enough to actually build around. Fearbomb is pretty mediocre, even if you can get it to work. And, our magic powers just seem too weak to really do much with. You might as well just build combat vampires with maximum wizard levels. You're really not losing out much in casting power, but you're making them a lot better in combat.

 

[Minty]

It's certainly good, but 30pts seems reasonable.

The ASF sword is 25pts, and I believe Daemons of Chaos and Warriors of Chaos both pay 25pts for their respective ASF items. Having a 30pt Vampire Power that does the same really doesn't come across as overpowered.

I think 30 points is more than fair because, unlike the Sword of Swift Striking Quickblood doesn't use a weapon slot, so you can have it and an Orgre Blade or Sword of Bloodshed or whatever. Deamons cannot use common magic items (is that still the case in the new book?) and Chaos characters have a smaller budget for their powers, so that also seems fair.

I might be wrong, but I still feel people would consider Red Fury+Quickblood for 100 points all-in.


I agree with almost everything you said about the other powers, though.

Actually, I wonder if part of the appeal of Red Fury and Quickblood is that they are almost the only powers that do not force one to build the whole army around them...

In any event, I'm prepared to peaceably differ on the value of Red Fury and Quickblood. Even if they are too cheap, they are not brokenly so.

 

[Uziel]

The problem with the cost of Red Fury + Quickblood is that the bonus that one gets out of te combination as a whole, is much greater than the sum of its parts, and that's why I agree with Minty here, that paying a 100 points for these abilities combines would not be unreasonable at all. 100 Points to give yourself a near guarantee that you'll slaughter anything in contact with your general, and thus ensure his own survival as well is a small price to pay to protect your already pretty hefty investment. It's almost a no-brainer in fact, especially since you can also throw 100 points of magic gear that further increases the potential of this combination to ridiculous levels.

Honestly, how many here has ever lost a Vampire Lord of this nature due to a loss in close combat? I don't think I've ever lost a Vampire Lord in close combat in 8th ed at all, and I don't even use this combination myself (apart from once when I tested Konrad to show a new Ogre Kingdoms player just how bad-ass a true Vampire Lord can be if one decides to spend the points on one).

My biggest problem with this combination however, is that the Vampire Lord can also be a level 3 or 4 wizard on top of this, which to me is more than a little off... Being a Wizard in warhammer requires great self control, and that anyone can go into the kind of "uber-frenzy" that Red Fury entails and still cast spells in the same round, or at all, is just a piss-poor representation of both the Red Fury power as well as what it entails to be a wizard in warhemmer. What's next, Forsaken Wizards?

All this said, I realize that the VC army is very dependent on the Vampire Lords to work well, but I think the 8th ed book has gone too far in making the core units near unusable on a competitive points vs points level, leaving us with little choice in how we design our Lords.

As a VC player myself, and one who plays against Ogre Kingdoms mostly, I have to admit that something is not right when he never manages to beat my Lords in close combat (even without Red Fury and Quickblood combined). While I think a Vampire Lord should kill an Knights Grand Master in close combat 80-90% of the time, I also think that facing a four-thousand pound Ogre Tyrant should make even the most skilled of Blood Dragons think twice. As the situation is, with the Red-Fury + Quickblood + Magical Weapon + Nightshoud +Beguile +better stats (WS and Initiative especially), he doesn't really stand a chance at all, which I can perfectly well understand that seems rather "odd" from his point of view. He has taken an army of close combat monsters with no equals in the one vs one department after all.

I can only hope we get a better Core synergy option in our 9th ed book, making us able to make more diverse and interesting Vampire generals and yet remain competitive on the battlefield.

 

[Vipoid]

How much should Red Fury and Quickblood cost then?

Or, is Red Fury just too powerful - should it be removed altogether?

 

[Uziel]

In my book (and this is what I have opted for in the Bloodline Legacies project as well) the two powers should not be allowed to combine. Red Fury is originally a Blood Dragon Power (not the greatest of wizards mind you) and Quickblood was a Lahmian one. I hope that in the next book, we get some unique powers for each bloodline, in which case these two will be segregated, solving this issue and at the same time opening up for more interesting and playable vampire builds (assuming the core was fixed as well).

Talking about a point cost change as per the 8th ed book is pointless, as it is indeed the official rules, and unless GW makes some major changes to the book overall, a point cost discussion becomes meaningless.

As to how I would fix things myself had I been working on such a book, check out my suggestion in the Bloodline Legacies army list in the necrarch workshop section.

The fact is that due to our amazing ability to heal though spell casting on top of everything else, an enemy basically HAS to be able to kill our Vampire Lord in one round of close combat, and If he somehow manages to find a combination that can actually do this more often than not, then the VC players would probably be screaming OP louder than anyone; while in fact, our opponent only has that one option open for him at all if he wishes to take us on, which sadly makes for a very stale game after a few sessions...

 

[Melle]

tell your friends to play chess, scrabble...

 

[Minty]

How much should Red Fury and Quickblood cost then?

Or, is Red Fury just too powerful - should it be removed altogether?

I think an extra ten points each would make them still useful, combined or appart, but less of an auto-include. I'd certainly be against any sort of restricted-by-bloodline rules. Those of us who want to fluff out our own bloodlines (or have no distinct bloodline at all) are quite happy with mix'n'match powers. If you want to represent a specific canon bloodline, there's nothing stopping you self-restricting.

I still think RF and QB aren't broken at the current price, though. It's entirely possible for an option to be priced wrongly without it being so wrong that game balance is affected.

And I agree with Uziel - though in fairness, fighty Ogre characters are one of the few weak points of the current Ogre book.

 

[Aren]

I have had this idea bouncing around my head for quite some time now - Nothing in the game is over/under powered. Unkillable DP I hear you cry?! Well no. My reasoning is that the "overpowerd" things are meant to be "overpowered" (or "underpriced"). For example skaven slaves are by far stats wise better than our zombies. They can't be heal with conventional and honest necromancy but they are cheaper and have better stats. In fact in a vacuum a unit of slaves does well against a similar points cost of other units. I have heard loads of people call the "overpowerd" but in fact Skaven would nearly always march (well, more like scurry) in with boatloads of these. It is lore friendly to have a lot of them. Yes, it isn't fair game wise (vacuum wise) but it was made to be unfair as in the lore this is also unfair. Same goes for vampires. VLs are the best lords in the game (non special characters) if you ignore the point cost. They are (or very nearly are) the best in combat and on top of that they can be very powerful spellcasters. But that is lore friendly, vampires are like that in the lore (plus the point cost is fair).

Apply that logic to all the other "overpowered" units in the game and you get quite an unfair game, no?


Well, I think Warhammer was meant to be unfair. If you were playing High Elves or Dark Elves you automatically had an advantage and that was for a reason. Other armies you needed skill to play but the incentive to play them came a) in the lore, b) in the minis and c) in the general feel and playstyle of the army. WAAC people would instantly pick up the best armies, not caring for lore and go win a bunch of games then get bored and run off.


Now, yes it is a game so the unfair factor is only slight in other armies (there is not that much scale difference as there is in 40k) and think of the alternative: Every army has a general, ohaff, glasscannon, anvil, Monster and cavalry. It turns into chess and you know it does, each army is meant to be unique, some better than others, some are meant to have occasional overpowered flashes as per lore. GW themselves say that they try and work from lore first then make the unit. It goes like this:

They create the lore of the army. Look at what the units are like in the lore and then give them appropriate abilities and stats as I represented by the lore. If in the lore a Space Marine beats an ork in combat, the rules mimic that. If 3 orks beat a marine in combat the points and rules also represent that. If a DP goes and screws up a whole unit, guess what, he does so on the field, for a quarter of the army's points.

The alternative would be to say: We want to make the unit. It will be a heavy hitter to give more muscle to the army. Therefore it has stats so and so and has rules so and so. Then we go and write a few lines of lore for it to make it legitimate. Next!


Now of course too much of this would destroy the game. It is a thin line they walk and it is nigh on impossible making perfect rules that we don't complain about (even if you think you have the best rule set, someone somewhere will complain).

So I think overpowerd units were meant to be overpowered and we can only simply deal with it as the generals of our armies would also have to deal with this in the lore (and many more, much more overpowered things), quite regularly too.


As for Vampire Lords all my friends keep saying they are overpowered (though they agree that their stats are reasonable for the lore) and they think that vampire powers should be decreased to a 50point maximum. I don't agree as Vampire Lords are MEANT to be the best lord in the game, lore wise, so the rest of them just have to man up.

 

[Abhorash.]

I have gotten complaints about this. Especially from my Warriors of Chaos friend. I just tell him three things.

1. My lord costs 520 points ya tar, what do you expect?
2. Not only is he a Vampire, but he is a Vampire Lord geared for close combat.
3. Deal with it, you have Chaos Warriors for core and I have Zambis, Skeles, and Ghouls.

Edit: I completely disagree with the whole Ogre discussion. Sure the Tyrant is 4,000 pounds and is wielding something as heavy as a car; But a Vampire Lord is so much stronger lore wise. They literally created their entire army, and they are one of the most powerful creatures in the Warhammer world. A Blood Dragon Lord would destroy an Ogre Tyrant every single time due to the fact that he is just as strong and tough as him, and is probably 10x faster. An Ogre Tyrant (fluff wise) wouldn't even hit a Blood Dragon lord in close combat. A more even match up would be a Chaos Lord. Chaos Lords are very skilled with their weapons, revel in close combat, and have extraordinarily heavy armor. Not to mention they aren't slow like the Tyrant. But I love the fact that we have the most powerful lords in Warhammer. GW wants us to know not to mess with Vampires.

 

[Aren]

Uziel, referring to your point about synergy - I think it's not meant to have synergy. It is all a rather ramshackle bunch and I think it is meant to be that way, most of it is chaff summoned up by the vampire, ghouls are there just to feed so synergy might not be too high on their agenda and wolves have 0 intelligence, 100% of it comes from the vampire.

Now for the Ogre - for a lot of force you need a high mass and a high speed. An Ogre has the mass but has next to none speed, therefore making it actually quite weak in combat. The vampire however has weight (enhanced and changed muscle which I imagine must be like granite) and ridiculous. Hence the Vampire is superior.
As for chaos lords, they are very powerful beings but they lack one thing; they are not dead (yet). So while there are no limits to a vampires power as it is not bound by mortality, a Chaos Lord is still encased in feeble living flesh which has its limitations, unlike the vampire's dead body.

 

[Uziel]

Edit: I completely disagree with the whole Ogre discussion. Sure the Tyrant is 4,000 pounds and is wielding something as heavy as a car; But a Vampire Lord is so much stronger lore wise. They literally created their entire army, and they are one of the most powerful creatures in the Warhammer world. A Blood Dragon Lord would destroy an Ogre Tyrant every single time due to the fact that he is just as strong and tough as him, and is probably 10x faster. An Ogre Tyrant (fluff wise) wouldn't even hit a Blood Dragon lord in close combat. A more even match up would be a Chaos Lord. Chaos Lords are very skilled with their weapons, revel in close combat, and have extraordinarily heavy armor. Not to mention they aren't slow like the Tyrant. But I love the fact that we have the most powerful lords in Warhammer. GW wants us to know not to mess with Vampires.

Sometimes I'm wondering which Lore some of you guys are reading? 10x faster? Just as strong? This is where I most strongly disagree as far as many a players wishful interpretation of the lore goes.
Apart from the description of Abhorash fighting to save Neferata outside Lahmia, there is not even a single description of the kind of Vampire Lord with Red Fury and Quickblood in all of the warhemmer lore that I can recall.
Vampires have never been described as being able to slay a dragon reliably in one turn on the battlefield, heck, it states that Abhorash took what was it, days to slay the dragon he took on before he slakes his thirst for ever.
From my interpretations of all the warhammer fluff regarding Vampires, and I dare say I haven't missed much, I'd place Vampires as slightly slower than Elves in fact (martial elven characters at least), and while strong most certainly, actually as weaker than most S5 Mounstreous Infantry, simply dues to the lack of mass. There is only so much one can do without mass (and thus momentum) behind it after all. What Vampires DO have, that makes so supremely powerful however, is a rather unique combination of very high strength, speed and resilience, something which no other army have.

While yes, an Ogre Tyrant would have somewhat of a problem hitting a Vampire, but I'd argue that his chances would be far better than that of a Human, Dwarf, wishful Bretonnian Knight, on account of his reach and not to mention half-a-cart sized weapon. One has to take into account that WS vs WS represents the attackers skill vs the opponents defenses, but in the vast majority of cases, this would indeed be a parry in the case of the defender. I don't care how strong you imagine a Vampire to be, but parrying a half a tonne club wielded by a two tonnned brute such as an Ogre Tyrant, would be practically impossible for anyone "Infantry/Cavalry" size. Heck, even a successful parry with a shield would crush the shield to splinters and send the poor bag of mean and bones behind it sailing through the air, wit ha lot more than just a few bruises.

Just a few examples from warhammer Lore, to get people a bit "down to earth" as the saying goes:

-In one of the older VC army books, there is actually a very good description of what happens when something like a Rat Ogre gets a hold of a Blood Dragon Vampire. Yes they are both S5 in game terms, but that doesn't really help the Vampire a whole lot when he gets swung about and crushed to a pulp due to the mass difference.

-There are innumerable accounts of humans fighting one on one vs a Vampire, and while yes, from their point of view, they always have the odds against them, yet they are perfectly able to parry, dodge and even hi vampire back and wound them perfectly well. Vlad was killed twice in close combat in fact, by a human in both cases.

-We don't really have that many accounts of Vampires vs Dwarfs, Vampires vs. Elves, Vampires vs Ogres, etc, etc, to really make a very accurate comparison, but to claim that a Vampire is both realistically as strong as an Ogre Tyrant (this applies in game terms to the likes of Blood Knights as well mind you) AND at the same time faster than elves (and I choose to interpret 10x Tyrant speed (I 4 I believe) in full plate as just that for the purpose of this example) would make them undefeatable, and not just virtually, and if there is something the warhammer lore has showed us, is that this is far from the case.

-Humans, whom are are from a pure stat point-of view one of the most pitiful of races on the warhammer world do have a fighting chance against them (even if it's small in nearly all cases), and it is from this source that nearly all Vampire Lore is written. This fact cannot be repeated enough it seems.

-Has there ever been written any warhammer fluff where the likes of an Ogre Tyrant has been defeated in peronal combat by anything "Infantry" sized? I can't recall so, and I'd imagine it would make for a very poor read to begin with (unless mr Gurnisson showed up that is).


In the end however, this is all my interpretations on Vampires based on the lore I've read, and how I interpret what is written and how I measure the weight of the various authors words. I might indeed be wrong, and there is no real and absolute answer since any form of accurate measurements will never be provided, so we will never really know for sure.
I'm just making an argument stating that the kind of Vampire Lords we can make with the combination of Red Fury + Quickblood + Magic Weapon etc, far exceeds any Vampire in any Known Lore, and that is possibly even including Abhorash...

 

[Uziel]

Uziel, referring to your point about synergy - I think it's not meant to have synergy. It is all a rather ramshackle bunch and I think it is meant to be that way, most of it is chaff summoned up by the vampire, ghouls are there just to feed so synergy might not be too high on their agenda and wolves have 0 intelligence, 100% of it comes from the vampire.

Now for the Ogre - for a lot of force you need a high mass and a high speed. An Ogre has the mass but has next to none speed, therefore making it actually quite weak in combat. The vampire however has weight (enhanced and changed muscle which I imagine must be like granite) and ridiculous. Hence the Vampire is superior.
As for chaos lords, they are very powerful beings but they lack one thing; they are not dead (yet). So while there are no limits to a vampires power as it is not bound by mortality, a Chaos Lord is still encased in feeble living flesh which has its limitations, unlike the vampire's dead body.

I'd take issue with the idea that a Warhammer Vampire has any form of increased mass to begin with. Speed and power yes, but increased mass? From which source does this come from? This would certainly be news to me, not to mention I'd be rather surprised to learn where this supposed increase in mass came from in the first place?
A Chaos Lords body is fueled by the greatest power there is in the warhammer world, the source of magic. I imagine this is why they are from a stat point of view pretty much the equal of Vampires in the first place..
An Ogre Tyrant is I 4, and that is in fact just as quick as a skaven. We're talking better speed than most well trained of human warriors here, and that's on the bulk of a two tonned frame... Yes he might be a fat bastard, but I'd argue hes a pretty explosive and quick bastard for his size when there is need to be... Add to that, mass and a great reach (and for those with any inclining of physics, a long reach can also greatly increase the power of a hit as well), and I still think most vampires would be crushed to a pulp if facing one in single combat from a lore/"if the warhammer world was really logical" perspective.

 

[Count michael]

-Has there ever been written any warhammer fluff where the likes of an Ogre Tyrant has been defeated in peronal combat by anything "Infantry" sized? I can't recall so, and I'd imagine it would make for a very poor read to begin with (unless mr Gurnisson showed up that is).

Yep in the Short Story Kineater Gotrek fought/ wrestled an Ogre Tyrant in a Pit Fight it was pretty damn awesome and funny

I believe Red Fury on Vampire Lords in not op as our whole army balances it out, the majority of out units are pretty weak that would never be able to take on certain units like Chaos Warriors on their own and hope to win that's why we have Vampire Lords which are basically our strongest unit those who complain are just sore losers.

 

[Tawg]

Snip~+ PHYSICS! (And other such things) +~Snip

Uh, Physics is nice, but in a world that has magic, where does "A wizard did it" come in again?

I greatly disagree with your argument about mass and physics, purely on the premise that I fail to see how magic would not somehow come into play in altering such things (Potentially). In fact, I would dare say Vampires aren't "Stronger" than mortal counter-parts on the premise that they are more muscular or buff, or what have you, but rather some form of magical endowment, which stands to reason there is no reason "Mass vs Mass" needs to come into play against Ogres.

I'm not saying Vampires are stronger than Ogres, I just don't see what an Ogre being Bulkier has to do with it. Obviously the game can't represent the Lore perfectly (Or else everyone would win, as long as they were telling the story), but I don't really think that the game world needs to ascribe to such mundane qualities.

Besides, look at dragons; Our Zombie Dragons match other dragons "Stat" wise for the most part, but I would never believe you if you wanted to tell me a "Living" dragon was stronger or better because they weren't reduced to bones (Far less mass, right?). Or other such "Monster" class creatures in general. I would assume a Phoenix a match for a dragon, despite (What I assume is a large) size difference.

Also, ascribing the values you have to Ogres, it stands to reason in your lore logic that humans almost literally stand no chance against an ogre, when ogres match or exceed them in almost every way, and have the massive advantage.

I dunno, lore seems a bad basis, because really, what doesn't get the "Heroic winner" treatment when it's in the spotlight of the narrative? Most books don't end with the protagonist losing, even if they struggle for a good read at points.

 

[Uziel]

Tawg:

Even though there are wizards and other oddities in the warhmmer world, the world physics are basically always described as the same as in the real world. This can be based simply on the distances people are able to leap, how much they can carry, etc etc.. The act that one has magic that can influence these things does not change the fact that they are indeed there to begin with... The fluff is written for us to relate to as easily as possible after all, even if ther are exceptions such as magic and so on.

Yes, Vampires are strenghtened trough their transformation, and greatly so in fact, but as I've said, I've never read in any source anything about an increase in mass, or anything that even hints that this is so... Vampires are not bulkier than they were when alive by any means, but through magic they have gotten stronger yes, but again, this has not increased their mass, and you can only have so much effective strength without the mas behind it to back it up.

Regarding your zombie dragon argument, -I agree. This is a creature driven by pure magical forces. The typical Zombie Dragon is just that though, a Zombie and not a skeleton dragon, so there wouldn't be that much difference to a normal dragon as far as mass goes. There is also a lot of various dragon types and sizes to take into account, and we don't really know what the origins of a "standard" zombie dragon is, so a true comparison here is hard to do.

Do you think a lone human has a fair chance against an ogre? Maybe a proper hero vs a non-hero ogre, yes, but ther is a reason why almost every army in the game has torely on numbers to beat them after all... Even in the game, ig you match a human swordsman agains an ogre irongut, the odds are more than a little slim that the human will win... Not impossible mind you, just very, very improbable.

I agree that the lore is hard to use as a basis for determining the so called power level of the various species etc, but when people here attempts to justify the "fairness" of the Red Fury and Quickblood Vampire Lord on the basis of the Lore, I think anyone has the right to turn this around and ask on what basis this can be said.
Just to illustrate a point. I think we can all agree that in the Lore Vlad was one of the most powerful of warrior type Vampires there was, and he was described as suffering terrible rages etc, and when this happened, only Isabella could calm him down. Has he in any edition had Red fury, or even just frenzy without the death of Isabella? No. Yet, people choose to interpret the lore vampires as the Red Fury plus quickblood type vampires again and again, yet conveniently forgetting that the only vampire which is described in the lore as being deranged enough to indeed have the Red Fury ability is Konrad as far as we know with any certainty, and I don't think anyone really views him as your average vampire after all...

All this said, I realize that in this book, the uber-vampire can be justified in game terms for balance reasons. I have no problem with that in fact. I truly don't, as I also see the need or this because the way the rest of the book was done. Just don't come and claim that the lore backs up the kind of devastation that our most common Vampire Lord builds we see on the battlefield, because this is really not the case at all, (with the possible exception of Abhorash that is...)

 

[Vipoid]

Tawg:

Even though there are wizards and other oddities in the warhmmer world, the world physics are basically always described as the same as in the real world. This can be based simply on the distances people are able to leap, how much they can carry, etc etc.. The act that one has magic that can influence these things does not change the fact that they are indeed there to begin with... The fluff is written for us to relate to as easily as possible after all, even if ther are exceptions such as magic and so on.

Yes, Vampires are strenghtened trough their transformation, and greatly so in fact, but as I've said, I've never read in any source anything about an increase in mass, or anything that even hints that this is so... Vampires are not bulkier than they were when alive by any means, but through magic they have gotten stronger yes, but again, this has not increased their mass, and you can only have so much effective strength without the mas behind it to back it up.

That doesn't really make sense.

A Vampire could have been a weedy nerd, or a body-builder in life - neither is likely to make a difference to his strength in death.

 

[Mad 'At]

I don't get you point about mass Uziel, I mean, if a vampire could get unnatural strength why not mass? Surely magic could be used to simulate mass if needed. In the end is all comes down to the forces acting on the body.

I think RF and QB is balanced game wise, for reasons stated by others, like the overall balance of our army.

I also think it is pretty balanced lore wise, since I think vampires should be able to acquire power enough to slaughter entire regiments of troops. What is bad though is the fact that nowdays almost every VC army seen on the field has a lord like that, because other builds, like magic lord, just aren't worth it. MotBA and Forbidden Lore would need to be cheaper and more powerful respectively, as is it now there is little reason to use them at all.

 

[Tawg]

Tawg:

Even though there are wizards and other oddities in the warhmmer world, the world physics are basically always described as the same as in the real world. This can be based simply on the distances people are able to leap, how much they can carry, etc etc.. The act that one has magic that can influence these things does not change the fact that they are indeed there to begin with... The fluff is written for us to relate to as easily as possible after all, even if ther are exceptions such as magic and so on.

Yes, Vampires are strenghtened trough their transformation, and greatly so in fact, but as I've said, I've never read in any source anything about an increase in mass, or anything that even hints that this is so... Vampires are not bulkier than they were when alive by any means, but through magic they have gotten stronger yes, but again, this has not increased their mass, and you can only have so much effective strength without the mas behind it to back it up.

Regarding your zombie dragon argument, -I agree. This is a creature driven by pure magical forces. The typical Zombie Dragon is just that though, a Zombie and not a skeleton dragon, so there wouldn't be that much difference to a normal dragon as far as mass goes. There is also a lot of various dragon types and sizes to take into account, and we don't really know what the origins of a "standard" zombie dragon is, so a true comparison here is hard to do.

Do you think a lone human has a fair chance against an ogre? Maybe a proper hero vs a non-hero ogre, yes, but ther is a reason why almost every army in the game has torely on numbers to beat them after all... Even in the game, ig you match a human swordsman agains an ogre irongut, the odds are more than a little slim that the human will win... Not impossible mind you, just very, very improbable.

I agree that the lore is hard to use as a basis for determining the so called power level of the various species etc, but when people here attempts to justify the "fairness" of the Red Fury and Quickblood Vampire Lord on the basis of the Lore, I think anyone has the right to turn this around and ask on what basis this can be said.
Just to illustrate a point. I think we can all agree that in the Lore Vlad was one of the most powerful of warrior type Vampires there was, and he was described as suffering terrible rages etc, and when this happened, only Isabella could calm him down. Has he in any edition had Red fury, or even just frenzy without the death of Isabella? No. Yet, people choose to interpret the lore vampires as the Red Fury plus quickblood type vampires again and again, yet conveniently forgetting that the only vampire which is described in the lore as being deranged enough to indeed have the Red Fury ability is Konrad as far as we know with any certainty, and I don't think anyone really views him as your average vampire after all...

All this said, I realize that in this book, the uber-vampire can be justified in game terms for balance reasons. I have no problem with that in fact. I truly don't, as I also see the need or this because the way the rest of the book was done. Just don't come and claim that the lore backs up the kind of devastation that our most common Vampire Lord builds we see on the battlefield, because this is really not the case at all, (with the possible exception of Abhorash that is...)

Bu-wha-.. What I'm saying is that a Vampire is fulled by pure magic (Like a Z-Dragon, as you've said), and that their strength is completely independent of conventional .. reality. I would argue that a Vampire is DAMN WELL already hitting harder than their "Mass" would indicate that they are physically capable of; To imply that their mass is limiting them is just, I don't understand at all.

And by your lore assessment, no, I see no way a human could ever match an Ogre. Like literally never. Although I do think a "Heroic" type human would have a good chance against an Ogre hero. I also think a Skaven hero would have a chance against an Ogre, and they are inferior to a human (I would think), at least in mass. That last part was a joke, but really I would assume a Skaven might even be a hard fight for an Ogre depending, I mean way smaller, easier to hide, and probably using poison without needing to truly get scathing blows in, seems like it could get away with poking an Ogre.

But also you can't use Vlad as an argument in favor of being "The most powerful" vampire, because they most certainly do not properly represent characters from books in the game. Ever. Just period. If they did, they would be far beyond any other logically balanced character, IMO. What they do do is make thematic hero/lord choices, with a selection of unique special rules that allows them to do things not normally allowed, under the guise of being epic heroes(/villains).

I don't think Red Fury/Quick Blood needs to be justified by the fluff though, and I most certainly do not think that fluff typically limits the possibilities in a game world. Sure they may traditionally be "Bloodline specific," but that's only until a writer finds it convenient to break that unwritten coven. People always end up making grossly off the wall hybrid characters combining elements of thing that "Don't belong together" as long as it suits their need to make a story.

Besides, Vlad quite literally couldn't have had Red Fury when it never existed before, so it's a bit silly to argue against previous Army books not including it. Perhaps they never thought of it before, but would have gladly given it to "Young" Vlad when he was still the primer Lord. I think he still might be, but again, characters are certainly not what they use to be..

 

[Vipoid]

I think we can all agree that in the Lore Vlad was one of the most powerful of warrior type Vampires there was, and he was described as suffering terrible rages etc, and when this happened, only Isabella could calm him down.

Sorry if this is a silly question (I'm not an expert on Vampire Lore), but where does this come from?

I ask because, reading the fluff in the current book, I really don't get the impression that Vlad is one of the most powerful 'warrior' vampires. In fact, I'd argue that he's one of the worst.

I don't consider a good warrior one that dies in virtually every fight. It seems like the only reason he was able to rule for any length of time was his magic resurrection-ring. But, that certainly doesn't make him a good warrior - all it does is demonstrate how often he lost. :tongue: