Vampire Lords . . . What Happened?

[Vipoid]

I don't think that Menkeroth's comment was aimed directly at you. At least i hope.

It's hard to read it any other way, to be honest.

My main undead army was Tomb Kings. 'nuff said.

I'm sorry to hear that. Are you able to play at all with the old TK warscrolls they released (back when factions were first converted to AoS, before they started axing characters and factions), or are they too outdated now?

 

[Malisteen]

Tomb kings are /technically/ still playable as part of a 'Grand Alliance: Death' army. Nothing has invalidated the existing warscrolls and points values. Unfortunately, while those rules are indisputably legal, they're also kind of terrible, and unlikely to see any update to fix them.

They were actually rather strong when AoS first released, goo strong actually, and several units (especially necropolis knights) were way underpriced in the initial 2016 generals handbook. But then the 2017 generals handbook was released, and in typical GW fashion the TK were hit with a painful overcorrection, with units getting much worse or much more expensive or both. At the same time, synergy between tk and non-tk skeletons was dramatically reduced.

Then came 2018 and AoS 2.0, where tomb kings lost their summoning like everyone else, but saw no other changes to rules or points to bring them into line with 2e, so yeah, technically playable, but suck now.

Mengel Miniatures put out a homebrew battle tome back in 1e that added faction rules and formations to the then existing official unit profiles and points, and that was pretty cool, but it also hasnt updated to 2e yet, and if it did it would need to be a much more extensive project that actually adjusted points and warscrolls, which wasn't really what he wanted to be doing, so im not sure if that will ever happen, nor am I aware of any other community projects of that nature, but at this point that's where hope for the future of tk rests, with community projects that maintain interest until gw gets around to responding, the way the chaos dwarf community kept their faction alive. The tk community doesnt seem that coherent, though.

 

[Menkeroth]

I don't think that Menkeroth's comment was aimed directly at you. At least i hope.

Well, it only reinforces my guess. Beginning with the fact it's a hobby about models and ending with that GW does not promise anyone anything, so yeah, people are fools to expect something from them. It's life, not a tale of sorts.

 

[Vipoid]

Well, it only reinforces my guess. Beginning with the fact it's a hobby about models

Well, no, the models are just part of it. It's also about the game however much GW will say otherwise.

with that GW does not promise anyone anything

Yes, I'm well aware. It's their company and they can take a massive shit on their own products if they want to etc. etc. Don't worry, I've heard the same apologist drivel plenty of times before.

What puzzles me is why people like you defend them. You clearly know that GW couldn't give the least of a damn about their customers or their products... so why are you desperately rushing to white knight them?

 

[Menkeroth]

Well, no, the models are just part of it. It's also about the game however much GW will say otherwise.

it's not even in the slightest, especially because GW says so.

What puzzles me is why people like you defend them. You clearly know that GW couldn't give the least of a damn about their customers or their products... so why are you desperately rushing to white knight them?

well,it might seem to you because you clearly hate GW or what they do... but I am as calm as Buddha and just do what I want, without too many emotions on their part. It matters not to me what GW does as long as they provide me with new and shiny toys for my collection. As long as they have enough money to produce more, I am happy with the result, I may be displeased with the absence of old dwarves or elves (new ones are great but I want old ones too), or with some directions they are going both fluff and game wise (even model wise to some degree) but all that stuff hardly matters because no one could influence them if you are not their shareholder, and people always had their own Warhammer to begin with, because it's as it must be - adjusted to your tastes as much as you can to have full enjoyment. Your hatred and disappointment won't help it.

 

[Vipoid]

it's not even in the slightest, especially because GW says so.

So, just to be completely clear, you think that if GW stopped making rules for their games, people would keep buying their models?

well,it might seem to you because you clearly hate GW or what they do... but I am as calm as Buddha and just do what I want, without too many emotions on their part.

I can't even work out what you're saying here.

It matters not to me what GW does as long as they provide me with new and shiny toys for my collection. As long as they have enough money to produce more, I am happy with the result

Okay.

I may be displeased with the absence of old dwarves or elves (new ones are great but I want old ones too), or with some directions they are going both fluff and game wise (even model wise to some degree)

You realise that this completely contradicts your previous statement, right?

You either care about what GW does on the non-model front or you don't. If you're dissatisfied with the direction of the game and fluff, then clearly you do care about the non-model side of the hobby. QED.

but all that stuff hardly matters because no one could influence them if you are not their shareholder

I don't disagree. However, the purpose of this thread was not to try and influence GW. If I wanted to do that, I'd just write a letter of complaint (it wouldn't change anything, but at least there's a better chance of a GW employee actually reading it ).

This thread was simply me, as a returning player, expressing my disappointment with the current state of Vampire Lords - which seem to have lost every last thing I loved about them. I did it to vent a little, but also to see whether anyone else shared my feelings on the matter, and also to see if I was missing anything - if I'd missed some customisation options or if they existed in some weird add-on book. I came to see how dealt with our once-feared Vampire Lords now being about as threatening as the vampires from Twilight (and, if their save is anything to go by, wearing about as much armour).

Your hatred and disappointment won't help it.

Nor will shrugging my shoulders and blindly accepting crap rules and terrible policies.

You mentioned earlier that you just want GW to have enough money to keep making nice models (then you contradicted yourself, but we'll ignore that for now). Well, in that case, shouldn't you be opposing practises that will lose them players (and, by extension, profits with which to make those nice models you so like)?

Let's go back for a moment to what you said in your previous post. Basically, that GW can do whatever the hell they want with their game and that there's no promise to players that anything will remain the same or that their army will remain intact (or will even continue to exist).

Okay. In that case, why should I buy even a single model for them? Bear in mind that, whatever your own preferences, I'm buying models so that I can use them in a game. However, if I , have no guarantee that the models or army I buy will retain their rules (to at least a reasonable degree), nor even that the models will continue to have rules at all, why should I risk buying them? The same goes for armies. If I have no guarantee that my army will not be split into separate factions to the degree that I no longer own a single, complete army; or, worse still, abandoned altogether (not merely getting no new models but getting no more updated rules for existing models), then what incentive is there for me to invest? Especially given that these are very expensive models, of which a sizeable number are needed for an army.

You are right, I cannot change GW's policies with regard to AoS. But I can choose to not support them by not buying any of their AoS products.

 

[Unas the slayer]

I'm sorry to hear that. Are you able to play at all with the old TK warscrolls they released (back when factions were first converted to AoS, before they started axing characters and factions), or are they too outdated now?

While it listed, i've had a ton of FUN with the 1st edition ( when battalions were available).
Things worsemed with the General handbook 2017... no more battalions, senseless points increases and nerfed abilities at the same time.
Still, i was able to win a Local tournament with TK, so i cannot be unsatisfied.
I tried my own transiction, playing some TK units as the personal army of Arkhan and, once again, it was sufficiently fun. Especially when it was still possible to combine skulls catapults with terrorgheist and banshees...

Then with Legions of Nagash i left behind TK, winning a campaign with the full potential of the new battletome.

Actually, i don't know. I sometime miss my legion of chariot and the many unique units of TK, and probably i will give them a try again, but the current rules and system are made to discard the discontinued armies.
So, i play LoN and nighthaunts.

 

[Irisado]

Let's not descend into making personal comments. The most obvious of these has been removed.

 

[Malisteen]

Again, vampire lords are a great unit, just great in a different way than vampire lords in oldhammer. Which shouldnt be surprising, because that was a different game. If you dont like AoS, that's fine, but it seems like you're mostly in this thread to try to convince other people who do like the game to... not like it? Not sure what the goal is here.

 

[Vipoid]

Again, vampire lords are a great unit, just great in a different way than vampire lords in oldhammer. Which shouldnt be surprising, because that was a different game. If you dont like AoS, that's fine, but it seems like you're mostly in this thread to try to convince other people who do like the game to... not like it? Not sure what the goal is here.

Yep, any disagreement on my part can't stem from any genuine opinion. I'm just trying to get everyone to hate everything. It's a hobby or something.

Look, what I really wanted was to understand why Vampire Lords are supposedly great now (Something Unas the Slayer has been very patient with me in answering). Yes, it's a different game system, I get that. However, as someone coming over from the old game system, it seems like everything that made vampires great to begin with was removed:
- Their survivability has been reduced from among the best in the game to that of 'old human in basic armour'. And that's before we even get into the ease with which they can now be sniped.
- Equipment is all but gone, with even shields being alien technology now.
- Vampire powers have all but bitten the dust, which was more than a little disappointing given that these were one of the things I really loved about Vampire Lords.
- Their melee ability has gone from being outstanding to passable at best.
- Their casting ability is all but gone (having dropped from Lv4 wizards to the 1-spell-per-turn wizards with no ability to upgrade this).

Again, I get it, it's a different system now. However, can you maybe understand that when I first saw that I was struggling to understand how Vampire Lords could possibly be great? Even now, while I'll freely admit that they're not quite as bad as I first thought, I'm still struggling to see them as "great". It still seems like Vampire Lords just flat-out don't exist anymore and these are just mislabelled Vampires. And, while I can get behind their diminished melee ability and only being able to cast 1 spell per turn now, I'm far less enamoured with their weaksauce defensive stats and lack of any meaningful customisation options. All in all, it still seems like a hefty fall from grace for them.

But, here's the thing, feel free to disagree. You clearly rate them much higher than I do, so please explain why. Given that Vampire Lords are the reason I started this army, I really don't want to view them so negatively. So, if you really think they're great, please explain why. I promise I'm not being facetious here - I really would like to hear some more reasons why I should like Vampire Lords.

 

[Unas the slayer]

Am i the only one that think that Vipoid's position is pretty reasonable and understandable?
You start an army that is designed for a certain playstyle that you love.
Then the game changes; you are used to rules changes but you expect the new set of rules to reflect (in a different way) the army style.
Except that the approach for the leaders of the army has totally changed.
It's pretty natural to ask for opinions from other old players that lived the same changes.

Given that Vampire Lords are the reason I started this army, I really don't want to view them so negatively. So, if you really think they're great, please explain why. I promise I'm not being facetious here - I really would like to hear some more reasons why I should like Vampire Lords.

As said, AoS is no more a game where single heroes rule ( barring few exceptions).
The dirty work is done by troops and heroes main role is to support and buff them.
VL abilities are amongst the best ones in this role.

First, they are harder to be sniped than other similar heroes from other armies, as they have access to many ways to heal themselves.

Second, their support is excellent and superior to what other heroes may offer.
For example, pick Seraphon (lizardmen) as comparison. 10 saurus knights deliver (between riders and mounts) 40 attacks. A ScarVet on Carnosaur (one of their iconic heroes) got a command ability that lets them do an additional attack for each 6+.
Now pick a unit of 10 black knights. Between riders and mounts they do 40 attacks. With a VL nearly they will do 60 attacks, straight and simple.

Third. Their customisation may not be great, but it's still superior to the ones offered by other armies.

 

[MasterSpark]

Agreed with Unas: many armies would need to pay much more points to get a fighter, caster and support character of equal abilities. Of course, they'd get more wounds out of it too but in all, the vampire lord has many tools at an efficient price.

What they're no longer good at is being invested in (thematically and even emotionally) as the terrifying lord and dark heart of your army. The lack of characterful customization is one thing but the low number of wounds will get them killed if your opponent wants it. If you want a vampire that can actually take hits you will need to go up the tiers and invest in a coven throne or dragon. Which I feel is as regrettable as Vipoid does, and I totally get where you're coming from.

A slight plus for AoS on the last bit is that it's at least easier to actually include big things with your lord on them.

 

[Unas the slayer]

Oh yes, i forgot the fourth selling point.

VL is a cheap model, that offers casting / unbinding, strong command ability and nice fighting prowess. And the generic utilities tied to all Death heroes.
In AoS it's a pretty rare combination, as usually heroes offer 1, at most 2 of them (especially casters, that tend to be weak and inept at everything else).

 

[Vipoid]

Thanks for replying, guys. I do appreciate your attempts to win me over to new Vampire Counts.

As said, AoS is no more a game where single heroes rule ( barring few exceptions).
The dirty work is done by troops and heroes main role is to support and buff them.
VL abilities are amongst the best ones in this role.

First, they are harder to be sniped than other similar heroes from other armies, as they have access to many ways to heal themselves.

But isn't that just a reason for your opponent to take them out in one round? Can't heal when you're dead. Or, more dead, I suppose.

Second, their support is excellent and superior to what other heroes may offer.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with their support abilities.

I will say that the number of spells a given hero can cast seems pretty arbitrary. e.g. most casters - even dedicated ones like Necromancers, DE Sorceresses etc. - that were previously Lv4 wizards are now limited to casting 1 spell per turn. Okay, fair enough, but then suddenly Slaan jump to 3 spells per turn.

It's not something that bothers me, rather it just seems a bit weird.

For example, pick Seraphon (lizardmen) as comparison. 10 saurus knights deliver (between riders and mounts) 40 attacks. A ScarVet on Carnosaur (one of their iconic heroes) got a command ability that lets them do an additional attack for each 6+.
Now pick a unit of 10 black knights. Between riders and mounts they do 40 attacks. With a VL nearly they will do 60 attacks, straight and simple.

Indeed, I acknowledge that their support abilities are good.

My issue is more with the fact that my opponent will surely be aware of that fact as well. And I would rather my Vampires had sufficient defence to actually survive to use those support abilities.

Third. Their customisation may not be great, but it's still superior to the ones offered by other armies.

Are you including artefacts in this?

Agreed with Unas: many armies would need to pay much more points to get a fighter, caster and support character of equal abilities. Of course, they'd get more wounds out of it too but in all, the vampire lord has many tools at an efficient price.

I think this is kind of my issue and why I describe them as 'Vampires' rather than 'Vampire Lords'. Because they seem like lesser vampires.

I'm sure they're efficient, but it's rather disheartening that there's no longer any Greater Vampire, even as an option.

What they're no longer good at is being invested in (thematically and even emotionally) as the terrifying lord and dark heart of your army.

Which is a shame, since that was what I loved about them.

It's funny, though. If GW had just called them 'Vampires' and dropped the 'Lord' part entirely, I could probably get into them more - since my expectations would be based on the more middling lesser Vampires from WHFB, rather than the exceptionally powerful Vampire Lords.

The lack of characterful customization is one thing but the low number of wounds will get them killed if your opponent wants it. If you want a vampire that can actually take hits you will need to go up the tiers and invest in a coven throne or dragon. Which I feel is as regrettable as Vipoid does, and I totally get where you're coming from.

That is disappointing. Nice to know I'm not alone in feeling this way, though.

Oh yes, i forgot the fourth selling point.

VL is a cheap model, that offers casting / unbinding, strong command ability and nice fighting prowess. And the generic utilities tied to all Death heroes.
In AoS it's a pretty rare combination, as usually heroes offer 1, at most 2 of them (especially casters, that tend to be weak and inept at everything else).

Would it be fair to say that defence is by far the biggest weakness of Vampire Lords? As you say, it seems they have most other aspects covered (customisation notwithstanding), but their defensive stats seem really weedy in comparison.

 

[Malisteen]

Really depends on what you mean by 'weakness', because, relative to other infantry heroes, vampire lords are actually relatively durable, thanks mostly to their chalice healing.

Again, AoS is not a new edition of warhammer fantasy, it's an entirely separate game. You can use some of the same models in it, but they will not work the same. Just like in you used a D&D model as a hero in warhammer, you couldn't expect it to have the same stats and anilitied as it did in D&D.

It's fair not to like AoS. It's fair to be disappointed that it isn't warhammer fantasy. But it's been *three years* now, and it's only felt like the last year or so that any conversation/thread/discussion board about AoS haa been able to be about *anything* other than people mad at the games not being the same, so i admit to being a bit touchy about it.

And even in the old days, it wasnt like GW design was consistent. Entire armies came and went, or were divided up into separate factions. Units and characters at times were dropped, or dramatically changed.

For vamps, bloodlines were introduced and later dropped. Vampires went from fighty heroes with a bit of magic to all pwerful fighters /or/ wizards but never both at the same time to powerfull wizards who should never touch the front line to front line monsters who were both bowerful wizards and casters at the same time. From edition to edition even within the same game, the role and place of vampires changed dramatically.

And that's just vampires. I'm more a necromancer guy, and lord level necromancers didnt just change ftom edition to edition, they popped in and out of existence entirely.

If you wanted a game with long term rule consistency, warhammer was never it, and that was before the entire game ended altogether.

 

[Vipoid]

Really depends on what you mean by 'weakness', because, relative to other infantry heroes, vampire lords are actually relatively durable, thanks mostly to their chalice healing.

So it's rare for them to be one-rounded?

Again, AoS is not a new edition of warhammer fantasy, it's an entirely separate game.

It's a "separate" game that was made by the same company to replace the old game and using the same models and (more or less) the same armies.

Just like in you used a D&D model as a hero in warhammer, you couldn't expect it to have the same stats and anilitied as it did in D&D.

Except that this is the equivalent of me wanting to use a Cleric model from 4th edition D&D in a 5th edition D&D game.

It's fair not to like AoS. It's fair to be disappointed that it isn't warhammer fantasy. But it's been *three years* now, and it's only felt like the last year or so that any conversation/thread/discussion board about AoS haa been able to be about *anything* other than people mad at the games not being the same, so i admit to being a bit touchy about it.

I apologise. I didn't realise I'd missed the only window of time within which complaints were allowed.

You may note that I literally haven't been on these forums since AoS was released. It's not like I've been complaining here for three years straight.

So, whilst you may have heard all these complaints before, please appreciate that I haven't.

And even in the old days, it wasnt like GW design was consistent. Entire armies came and went, or were divided up into separate factions. Units and characters at times were dropped, or dramatically changed.

For vamps, bloodlines were introduced and later dropped. Vampires went from fighty heroes with a bit of magic to all pwerful fighters /or/ wizards but never both at the same time to powerfull wizards who should never touch the front line to front line monsters who were both bowerful wizards and casters at the same time. From edition to edition even within the same game, the role and place of vampires cganged dramatically.

And that's just vampires. I'm more a necromancer guy, and lird level necromancers didnt just change ftom edition to edition, they popped in and out of existence entirely.

That's interesting. I fear, when I started, I simply wasn't aware WH Fantasy was so inconsistent between editions. My friends started in 7th (IIRC), and I started in early 8th. Hence, whilst I did see the 7th edition VC book, the only change I've experienced is from WHBF to Age of Sigmar.

If you wanted a game with long term rule consistency, warhammer was never it, and that was before the entire game ended altogether.

Indeed. It seems I foolishly omitted to research every book from every preceding editions of the game before investing. How remiss of me.

 

[MasterSpark]

It's a "separate" game that was made by the same company to replace the old game and using the same models and (more or less) the same armies.

I've read good arguments saying that AoS has ultimately been burdened by keeping so much of the previous armies around. Most of the consternation comes from older expectations not being fulfilled, and I agree. A fresh start would be the best way to approach this game, like you would any other new thing you get into.

Of course, those with a beloved Fantasy army want to bring it with them into a new system but that also creates the barrier. I'm in that same boat but I've been lucky to find the opportunity to create an army entirely of blood knights, scratching an itch I never knew I had before. If you look around and think on it you might also be able to find a new angle to expand on your established army with AoS.

 

[Vipoid]

I've read good arguments saying that AoS has ultimately been burdened by keeping so much of the previous armies around. Most of the consternation comes from older expectations not being fulfilled, and I agree. A fresh start would be the best way to approach this game, like you would any other new thing you get into.

That probably would have helped, yeah.

Of course, those with a beloved Fantasy army want to bring it with them into a new system but that also creates the barrier. I'm in that same boat but I've been lucky to find the opportunity to create an army entirely of blood knights, scratching an itch I never knew I had before. If you look around and think on it you might also be able to find a new angle to expand on your established army with AoS.

That's good advice. I'll try and get some games in with the models I have and see if there are any aspects that I'd like to focus on.

Cheers.

 

[Unas the slayer]

But isn't that just a reason for your opponent to take them out in one round? Can't heal when you're dead. Or, more dead, I suppose.

(Snip)

Yeah, I don't have a problem with their support abilities.
I will say that the number of spells a given hero can cast seems pretty arbitrary. e.g. most casters - even dedicated ones like Necromancers, DE Sorceresses etc. - that were previously Lv4 wizards are now limited to casting 1 spell per turn. Okay, fair enough, but then suddenly Slaan jump to 3 spells per turn.
It's not something that bothers me, rather it just seems a bit weird.

(Snip)

Indeed, I acknowledge that their support abilities are good.
My issue is more with the fact that my opponent will surely be aware of that fact as well. And I would rather my Vampires had sufficient defence to actually survive to use those support abilities.

Are you including artefacts in this?


Would it be fair to say that defence is by far the biggest weakness of Vampire Lords? As you say, it seems they have most other aspects covered (customisation notwithstanding), but their defensive stats seem really weedy in comparison.

I will try to address to these with an unique answer.
Yes, the majority of heroes are primary targets in AoS and can be sniped since turn one by a prepared opponent.
However, there are ways to mitigate this: cover, be surrounded by friends so you can't be charged, look out sir...
The issues affects ALL heroes, with the difference that vampire can heal, while other heroes just stand with a couple of wounds.
A Slann is the most powerful unnamed caster in the game ( which stays true to WHFB but that's not the point), but it costs basically as TWO vampires.
When we bring 2 vampires, both with their spell and their command ability (target saturation), Seraphon bring one Slann and when it dies you win.
And, speaking about customisation, the Slann can opt between just 2 fixed selectioin of spells, and only 3 settings of abilities..
We have a much wider range of abilities and relics.

 

[Vipoid]

Yes, the majority of heroes are primary targets in AoS and can be sniped since turn one by a prepared opponent.
However, there are ways to mitigate this: cover, be surrounded by friends so you can't be charged, look out sir...
The issues affects ALL heroes, with the difference that vampire can heal, while other heroes just stand with a couple of wounds.

That's still rather disheartening, but fair enough.

A Slann is the most powerful unnamed caster in the game ( which stays true to WHFB but that's not the point), but it costs basically as TWO vampires.

As I said, the Slann thing wasn't a complaint - just an observation. I was surprised that other previously-Lv4 casters have all gone down to one-spell-per-turn, but then Slann can cast 3. I didn't think they were *that* much stronger than a Lv4 caster in WHFB, but maybe I'm misremembering (it has been 3 years ).

When we bring 2 vampires, both with their spell and their command ability (target saturation), Seraphon bring one Slann and when it dies you win.

Doesn't the General thing negate target-saturation? If I've got two Vampire Lords, but one of them is my General, surely it's not much of a choice for my opponent?

Regardless, if I might take this in a different direction, how would I go about killing the Slann?

And, speaking about customisation, the Slann can opt between just 2 fixed selectioin of spells, and only 3 settings of abilities.
We have a much wider range of abilities and relics.

That's a fair point.

 

[Unas the slayer]

I didn't think they were *that* much stronger than a Lv4 caster in WHFB, but maybe I'm misremembering (it has been 3 years ).

In the end they were Lv4 casters too, but in WHFB they have always been ahead of other high-level casters (barring high elves, IIRC).
in 7th they could turn the miscast effects on an enemy caster.
in 8th they could learn every lore of magic
they were also incapable of doing anything other than cast spells.
in AoS GW kept this concept of "supreme wizard"... they are basically giant frogs that float on flying chairs, with nothing to do in their millenial life except contemplating the universe and mastering magic arts.

Doesn't the General thing negate target-saturation? If I've got two Vampire Lords, but one of them is my General, surely it's not much of a choice for my opponent?

Yes and no.
The thing is: you have 1 general, with its command trait… but you can have another vampire with a relic, and he can use its command ability too.
So, the enemy can choose to target a vampire with command trait and general trait, or a vampire with command trait and relic.
when you can field heroes that fill a similar role, you'll have 2 advantages:
- more battlefield control, and the chance to push in the sector you need the most.
- if you lose one of them, the army won't be crippled, as you'll have your "backup"

Regardless, if I might take this in a different direction, how would I go about killing the Slann?

As undead player or more generally?
because a Slann got save 4+ (as a vampire) and 7 wounds (more than a vampire but without FNP 6+).
Usually, it can be sniped by heavy shooting (Kharadron Overlords, able to kill a Slann turn one)
or by shooting and magic (say hello to Stormcast eternals)

Death, especially LoN, will find hard times if tries to accomplish the task, as we are mostly a CC army, with a substantial lack of shooting, and Slanns can teleport if they find themselves in melee (and don't die immediately).
It can be done more easily by Nighthaunts, that can pop at 9" from the Slann and under certain conditions can charge successfully with a result of 8+ rerollable (especially given that usually, in the first couple of turns, Seraphon are usually outnumbered). If Nighthaunts charge, usually they can drown the Slann under a vast number of attacks.

 

[Malisteen]

A more apt comparison would be being upset that your 4e cleric plays differently, with different powers and abilities, than your 3e cleric. Which is a true thing, and a reasonable thing to be disappointed by, and if you are disappointed by it its a fair reason not to have played 4e, a good reason to play pathfinder instead, a game made by and for people upset that 4e was such a different game than what came before. But it's not really something worth making a big deal of in a 4e forum, especially years after 4e was released, because the people on the 4e forum jyst wanted to play and talk about about 4e as its own game, and it got tired when even years after 4e's release half the discussion topics were made by or taken over by people who mostly just wanted to vent about how mad they were that 4e was so different.

And thats sort of what AoS discussion has been like, and why some of us, myself included, have an excessively negative reactions to these sorts of threads. The time for 'mad that it's different' threads passed a while ago, and the place to look for comisseration on that feeling isnt on aos boards anymore.

If its anywhere, it's on '9th age' boards, like pathfinder a game made by and for those upset at the radically different direction taken by a new/replacement incarnation of the game they loved. Or on boards still dedicated to discussing oldhammer as it was

 

[Vipoid]

In the end they were Lv4 casters too, but in WHFB they have always been ahead of other high-level casters (barring high elves, IIRC).
in 7th they could turn the miscast effects on an enemy caster.
in 8th they could learn every lore of magic
they were also incapable of doing anything other than cast spells.
in AoS GW kept this concept of "supreme wizard"... they are basically giant frogs that float on flying chairs, with nothing to do in their millenial life except contemplating the universe and mastering magic arts.

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten how much extra stuff they got.

Yes and no.
The thing is: you have 1 general, with its command trait… but you can have another vampire with a relic, and he can use its command ability too.
So, the enemy can choose to target a vampire with command trait and general trait, or a vampire with command trait and relic.
when you can field heroes that fill a similar role, you'll have 2 advantages:
- more battlefield control, and the chance to push in the sector you need the most.
- if you lose one of them, the army won't be crippled, as you'll have your "backup"

I imagine the bonuses from Grand Host of Nagash would prompt my opponent to target my General, regardless of what artefact I placed on the other vampire.

That aside, you're right about redundancy being useful. In WHFB, killing my Vampire Lord (or Ghoul King) would usually end the game then and there.

As undead player or more generally?
...
Death, especially LoN, will find hard times if tries to accomplish the task, as we are mostly a CC army, with a substantial lack of shooting, and Slanns can teleport if they find themselves in melee (and don't die immediately).
It can be done more easily by Nighthaunts, that can pop at 9" from the Slann and under certain conditions can charge successfully with a result of 8+ rerollable (especially given that usually, in the first couple of turns, Seraphon are usually outnumbered). If Nighthaunts charge, usually they can drown the Slann under a vast number of attacks.

Sorry, I was asking about death (specifically Legion of Nagash). Since you mentioned that killing the Slann would end the game (it seems the boot is on the other foot ), I wondered if GHoN actually had a way to accomplish that.

However, I don't have any Nighthaunt stuff (bar a few of the old models - Wraiths and Tomb Banshees), so it looks like I'll have to settle for trying to survive and win the attrition game.

Thank you for all your help and for remaining patient and friendly with me.

A more apt comparison would be being upset that your 4e cleric plays differently, with different powers and abilities, than your 3e cleric. Which is a true thing, and a reasonable thing to be disappointed by, and if you are disappointed by it its a fair reason not to have played 4e, a good reason to play pathfinder instead, a game made by and for people upset that 4e was such a different game than what came before. But it's not really something worth making a big deal of in a 4e forum, especially years after 4e was released, because the people on the 4e forum jyst wanted to play and talk about about 4e as its own game, and it got tired when even years after 4e's release half the discussion topics were made by or taken over by people who mostly just wanted to vent about how mad they were that 4e was so different.

And thats sort of what AoS discussion has been like, and why some of us, myself included, have an excessively negative reactions to these sorts of threads. The time for 'mad that it's different' threads passed a while ago, and the place to look for comisseration on that feeling isnt on aos boards anymore.

Okay, I get it. You don't want me here.

I'm sorry for coming back to a forum I once liked. Don't worry, I won't post here again.

 

[Unas the slayer]

Malisteen, i can see your point, but if someone wants to try AoS but it's perplexed by the evolution of some aspects of an army, an AoS forum is exactly the place to ask.
Especially of this someone wants to know if the new system could let.you replicate some old concepts.
Imo.

I'm sorry for coming back to a forum I once liked. Don't worry, I won't post here again.

I'm sorry to hear it.

Thank you for all your help and for remaining patient and friendly with me.

you're welcome.
if you want, i'm willing to discuss about it via PM

 

[Malisteen]

@Vipoid vipoid - i apologize. I'm too easily frustrated by this sort of thing, that's on me. I should never posted any additional replies in this thread after the first one.