IMO, VC aren't the easiest army to win with. It's all about players, playing styles and strategies. Although I do believe the newest armies are stronger than the old ones, for obvious reasons, specially, DoC, which I believe to be the most unbalanced army in the game.
ummm well I really hate to say this but.... yes it is ONE of the easiest armies to win with.... especially when it comes to a heavy raising list with a bunkered lord... doesn't require much tactics at all and it's pretty hard to lose with such a list... extremely forgiving, and very difficult to oppose, even if you do absolutely nothing other than one dice ION, the occasional danse, and tarpit...
but that gets boring fast, and what's nice about this army is that there are so many options to create very different lists....
Now the thing that I've found is, that this army is able to do just about anything you want, and do it well... we have the cheap tarpit options sure, but we have rock solid troops available that are monsters in combat, the black coach and corspe cart that can completely revamp the magic phase, completely awesome black knights, killing blow regenerating grave guard death stars, the always versatile vargulf, etc. etc. etc.
There are just so many options to make a killer list that it's hard NOT to win with VC - even if you're trying to be "balanced" or "friendly" and not use the most devastating combos (ie: regenerating killing blow, hitting on 2's grave guard / dreadlance-redfury etc.) it's a real hard army to face... daemons can be completely over the top and can cheese right out, no question... but VC don't have to do that and still win reliably....
I play VC, WE and dwarves... and VC are by far the easiest army of those three to win with...
im thinking much like assimilation on this one, its not easyer to win with VC then with any other army, its just that its extremly dificult to lose with VC, you are not really vurnable to poor dices on important ld tests, you know exactly what you can expect from your troops etc
Definetly not. Try playing against dwarves and Skaven. There is some skaven builds which are invincible. There is a guy at my club who runs dwarves and skaven and he has never been beaten,
I lol'ed at this comment, no army is invincible or unbeatable, some match-ups can just be very hard if your list is not equiped to deal with them, or if you play a fun soft list against an fully tooled/min maxed UKGT styled list....i can confidently say that i could get a 50/50 win/lose record against the mentioned player if knew his army list and playing style resonably well, and what style of lists he uses (so that I myself dont bring a list that is to harsh or over the top), with any of the 6 armies (DE/VC/HE/O&G/empire/brets) that i feel comfortable playing
Vampires are far from the easiest army to play with, imo they are amongst the hardest. A 'no brainer army' is the definition of what VC aren't. You can't just stand still and blast your enemy with shooting and magic, you need to move forwards and stay a step ahead of your opponent. They are simply DIFFERENT to play with, and since VC are 1 out of 14 armies that function this way, people are less acustomed with how to deal with their advantages. Dwarfs were considered increadibly powerful when they were re-realeased, nobody knew how to deal with their firepower and higher toughness and ld values, it is the same situation here.
Playing with vampires demands the best of your game, you have to protect your general at all costs, and VC are easily outmanouvered if they are beyond a vampire's reach. Our points are also far higher than most, for instance a ghoul is 8 points, while a DE spearmen with shield and light armour is 6 points. And DE have hatred, I5, Ws4 and numeous other advantages over us.
We also only have access to a single lore unless you take the forbidden lore power, which means it is far harder for us to adapt to different situations.
I love the VC. but I would have to say that your friend has a point. We may or may not be the easiest army to win with, but we are a relatively easy army to play. Why?
1) No psychology, no break tests. A huge deal, our troops are very reliable in combat. 2) Less tactically challenging. Some armies are very finessey. They require a certain setup and careful planning, or combats are hard to win. VC tactics are more like a sledgehammer, less like a rapier. We can pretty much move across the field like a steamroller, and don't require as much planning as some other armies do. Since skeletons and zombies don't win combat by inflicting wounds on average, it doesn't matter often times whether we charge or get charged. With other units in our army, it matters a lot more, but many of our units could care less. Few other armies other than High Elves can make such a boast. 3) More forgiving. Ever move a unit into a position and the next turn you kick yourself because you know your opponent is about to demolish it? Well, as long as the unit has one model/1 wound left, you can raise the entire unit back and try again. Even noob generals can make mistakes and recover from them. 4) Game of attrition. Easiest game in town is the attrition game. Elves and daemons are expensive. When they start dying, generals from either camp start crying. Not us. Lose some zombies? Just bring 'em back. Armies with small expensive units hate fighting ours, as they will never defeat those units as long as there is someone healing it.
That is our strength. Because VC are so forgiving, in fact, they are one of the easiest armies to play.
Well, someone said something about asrai.org having a lot of complains about VC... eh... Do not judge the whole forum from what mostly one... eh... myself... writes. Most folk at asrai.org agree that VC are a tough nut to crack for many Wood elf builds, and takes some tailoring to deal with. What makes persons like me freak out on occasions is that you need to tailor a lot against VC to have a fair chance, while VC need not tailor half as much to face most enemies.
As for no missile fire, well, that is a rather irrelevant point since VC can negate the enemys missile fire via raising and "healing", making the enemys eventual firepower reduntant and taken out of the equation, unless the VC player got many easy to kill small units.
Firepower can still be used to kill of VC, but the big issue is that you will need a lot of fire power, indeed, a gunline/bowline, to do so. If we take an asrai example, a fast moving asrai list, focusing on shooting and moving, with lots of Glade riders, waywatchers and some fighty stuff, but mostly lots of shooty stuff, can kill one regiment at a time, if they can focus the firepower on one unit each turn. This is also doable against most other enemies, so that list is viable more or less against all enemies.
However, not everyone would say it is a friendly list, or a nice list. Some, or rather, many, would scream "filthy wood elf cheese" at you. So while there are indeed WE lists that can stand against VC, I would say they are within the realm what many players considers "unfriendly". However, as some here have said, a friendly VC army, or at least friendly aside from the time and band bloodline combinations on the characters, are hard to beat, unless you as a WE player pick up a force your VC playing mate would say is "powergamish" since it might include a treeman ancient with Nettles, double treeman, maybe supported by a Battle standard bearer, containing the everhated Hail of Doom arrow and so on...
I think this is one of the things that creates these feelings, namely that GW made the VC very able in many builds, bar a fighty Blood Dragon oriented one, while it takes a specialized army to beat it. An army that really is friendly is still very able, unless you go for some true low-magic or heavy fighting approach visavi your characters. The characters setups can make or break an otherwise rather soft army, I think.
In other words, you could also say, that while VC can relly on the same setup of tactics to fight any army, bar maybe Tomb kings (but I would recon a normal VC army would be able to outmove and out raise a TK army, but that is pure speculation) opponents WILL most often have to use radically different approaches, unless they use some extreme builds (like the mentioned "move and shoot" Wood elf build that really cannot preform any other tactic). So by virtue of itÃ‚Â´s rules and basics, the VC army will always dictate the approach the opponents must take regarding army composition and tactics. The opponents will have to adapt, while the VC can relly on tried and tested ways of waging war.
This is a significant advantage... (especially against an angsty, fluffy, themeloving, stubborn old sod like me). The VC forces the enemy to tailor. It may not seem that big, but already there the VC army have made itÃ‚Â´s first impact, since it have dictated the enemys response.
Asrais works in the same way. Ask me, there are multitudes of ways to waste an asrai army, if you take the right units, especially if you build it around itÃ‚Â´s strength. My son was crying as I had his hired ogres chasing my great eagle and as my fast cav played hide and seek with his knights, while my archers shot his statetroops to pieces and his cannon had little of substance to shoot at. Luckily, he had some luck, and managed to get a grip on some units in the end, but he really was feeling like he could not fight me. Hence why I have tried to play an asrai army that was sort of half-standard, centered around a large unit of Eternal guards, commanded by a highborn.
Now, the fact I felt I had to pick forth those frustrating weapons in the asrai arsenal made me feel dirty, and I wonder if my VC playing friend will not view my army as such. He wants me to fight him with more Eternal guards, so I have more CR he say. Now, I know that is the way to suicide with asrais against VC, but he belives it will truly help. "You need more troops, more core! Engage my units earlier and faster!"
My own feelings against the new VC have made me understand how many feel frustrated about Wood elves. Because both armies have inate abilites that makes them dictate the very composition of the opponents army from the start, by virtue of their lists strength alone. This is what many feel is unfair, because it does not work the other way around. Well, for Wood elves, it works the other way around against Vampire counts and Daemons of Chaos. And against High elves... For VC I do not know... Maybe if you fear you have to play an ultramovable WE or DE list?
I think much also depends on what level you are supposed to play. Once again, on a rather friendly level, things get hot because of the disparity about what people see as a friendly build, and what GW have made 7th ed into, promoting special characters and monsters, and big character ridden monsters are still not seen as friendly by many players, my VC playing mate among them, yet, that is one of the main strength with for example High elves, and one way of swiftly getting at the VC armys heart, the general, as someone pointed out. On a hardcore tournament level, well, that is true, but in a friendly setting, people, me included, will shy away from a monstercharacters, especially if he flies, since it is seen as "unfriendly". I would think GW counted on monster riding characters to be a balancer against VC, and they have done their best to promote this as a nice way of playing, but many gamers feel GW are wrong in that respect, so old gamer culture and values clash against how GW wants "their" game to be.
Sadly, VC gets caught in the jaws of that sissor pretty firmly.
However, I would feel it being pretty moot to play a game that revolved around me killing the enemy general fast and the sit and wait while the army crumbled. Sort of not a good way of balancing things... I mean, if I killed him on turn two... I would feel like I had just wasted the game.
But in the end, yes, VC is a strong, very strong army. Many tournaments results that have been posted speaks for this, VC being up together with Daemons. And many player do rank VC close to Daemons as being broken, even non-whiners. However, Daemons are clearly the bad boys in the hood. VC are a hard bunch with some potentially broken combos, and maybe with an author who went overentusiastic with his project. But still, the consensus seems to be that VC are not as bad as daemons. However, it seems as if GW is lovering the "powerlevel" now. Warriors of Chaos does not look that scary, just a mean bunch. Dark elves where not that bad, even if they have some... grumble... stupid items... Pendant of Kaleth anyone? Combined with a good armour...
Anyway, yes, VC got MANY advantages that makes them easier to wield, but they have pitfalls. However, I think it is easier to see those pitfalls and learn them. However, if a gamer is soloplaying his VC lord general out in the open, he deserves to get nailed and crumbled...
But VC:s greatest advantage is that the list forces the enemy to adapt, while the VC can make a good take-all-comers and feel pretty safe in the knowledge he will be able to handle all but the most extreme builds, an opponent will have to tailor even against a normal VC build. And maybe it is here that the root of the problem lies, the powerlevels that VC can get in magic for example, especially against armies that are not as strong in defending against magic only builds on this.
All in all, it has sort of to do with the feelings many have against for example Wood elves, that it is not a "true" army! In many ways, VC is seen as a more real army than Wood elves, because they form a battleline. Gamers feelings and ideas about what the battle should be collides with GW:s wishes to make the game and the armies varied.
This have stigmatized VC and WE for a long time. And as a WE player, it feels a bit nice not to be the center of hate attention anymore. But I must say it is a bit sad that VC got there. In truth, I like part of the VC story, even if I am more into the Blood Dragon side of it (yeah, I am always looking for that little remains of dogooding... sorry, canÃ‚Â´t help it...) but GW made me reject it, and my friends repeated bashing of my army confounded it. But at the heart of it, it is really the same thing. That the army play differently and demands radically different tactics from the opponents while not suffering form similar problems in return (generally).
But I agree that daemons are the thing that GW made wrong. But maybe it was intentional. Someone said that all other armies can fail by virtue of you making crappy choices, but it is almost impossible to make a bad daemon list. But hey, GW needed to save their revenues... Enter the Daemons...
The multiple times we've discussed this in the chats... Seriously. You know you dont use a competitive force, you know you restrict yourself on your own terms(your fluff for example). If facing a VC army which may or not be a competitive build, you are going to have a hard time, in this case, self-imposed. But yes, VC do have one of the stronger books these days, of that there is no doubt. Warhammer isnt a static game, it changes each time a new book or a new edition comes out. What worked before might not work now and so on. That's it really. Some use comp sheets or tournament restrictions to remove the power builds, perhaps that is something for you(I know I perfer this kind of gaming envoirment). We can just do the best we can with what we have(believe me I know how it is, played DE post WD-revision).
Indeed we have been over this in the chat many a time... However, I still cannot see how the inclusion of one specific unit, and the preference of one specific leader choice, makes an army uncompetitive, when the rest of the force has competitive elements. After all, VC can be fairly competitive, even without many of the powerunits, and it really does not matter if you have a pet unit you always want to have in the army (bar maybe Blood knights) it should not ruin your competitiveness.
I guess what could make VC truly un-competitive would be to make a proper Blood Dragon list, but then, so many classy warrior skills are lost, so it is hard to make a really nice Blood Dragon lord in my view. Red Fury is awesome BUT it is a fury thing, it is more about being enraged than fighting with skill. Strength of Steel, killing blow, and all those nice skills, together with the fact that you got a great weapon skill rivaling the chaos lords, made them awesome.
But it is not really possible to do my old Minaitharn the Wanderer, who fought with skill and presicion, placing his blows with great precision... Not with savage fury or burning hatred. The martial artist vampire is not doable, other than for one character. But Lahmians only got one of their old skills. However, I realise most hardcore VC fans played Carstein anyway...
But I loved the lone rangers.
Be that as it may. I am making my plans for slaying my friends vampire well and truly... Maybe, maybe I can take revenge and massacre him next time in retaliation with my Wood elves. Then I can go on humiliating his dwarfs. And your dwarfs too, if we cross paths in the future, Dancey... My gloves have come off... sort off.
OK.... as a player of both Woodies(my first fantasy army) and Vamps I have to say that WEs have the tools to beat the snot out of vamps. I have done this consistently with both editions. WEs have the tools, they just need a general to stop, breath and analyze the situation without the standard "fear"(for lack of a better term) that people have of the "unbeatable" vamps.
***Vamps have almost negligible shooting to speak of. This allows WEs complete freedom to develop their units by getting them into positions for maximum effect.
***Vamps have to take 3 blocks of troops for core. Often there are more than these if the VC player likes core or Grave Guard. Treesinging gives these units headaches. It doesn't matter how many skellies/ghouls/zombies there are if they are stuck in the woods for 3-4 turns/game.
***WEs are 1000 times faster(barring VDM) than VC and have many units that are ItP and hit like a ton of bricks against VC units(Dryads, Wardancers, Wild Riders, Treekin, Treedude). Hit one part of the enemy line with overwhelming force and demolish it. If you are winning combat by 4-6 pts consistently, he's not going to be able to recover from that.
***Vamps depend upon interlocking abilities(synergy) to function at the top of their game. These abilities come from very killable models(corpse carts, necros, hero-level vamps) that WEs have to tools to thwack.
***Vamp Lords are potent, but are a liability. Either sledghammer the unit he's in to crumble him out(this works on bunkers too, WEs have the speed), or send in an assassin-type unit to kill him.
I guess what could make VC truly un-competitive would be to make a proper Blood Dragon list, but then, so many classy warrior skills are lost, so it is hard to make a really nice Blood Dragon lord in my view.
Red Fury is very Blood Dragon-esque. First of all, it's under the 'Martial' tree, second it's named after our old Blood Dragon power. And I couldn't disagree more about your conclusion, I think you'd find my 'Blood Dragon' list powerful to the point of rudeness. I too, play both Vampires and Wood Elves. I happily take on the finest cheddar a Wood Elf player can muster. Unless he's playing for a draw, most games don't go past the fourth turn.
I always enjoy hearing the lamentation of the Wood Elf players these days, facing the infamous Vampire Counts Wasn't long ago when the tables were turned the other way, remember?
Ramesesis the Slayer said:
However, I realise most hardcore VC fans played Carstein anyway...
Alas, I do not remember. I never got to play WE against the old counts besides a Border patrol game so I never got to share that expirience. I did hope it would be an even game when 7th ed. VC came.
I really do not like the feeling of tables being turned. When I feel it to be in my advantage, I get a sick feeling in my stomach, thinking about how it must be for the other player.
After all, I spent last ed. chasing a victory with High elves against VC. I managed finally.
As for Red fury being blood dragonish, yes indeed. I remember it. However, I did not like it. I wanted my blood dragon to skillful and fight with speed and presicion, not by savage fury. Red fury is not in line with being highly trained, it is more like going berserk. I imagined my Blood Dragon being a cool customer, who did not let emotion befuddle his mind. So I liked focus (strength of steel), presicion (killing blow) and so on... using two hand weapons to bring enough attacks to get those killing blows through. A samurai type of warrior, not a viking berserker.
But if Blood dragon lists are that powerful, I guess I would do Lahmians, with some Blood Dragon tagging along, being somewhat enthralled or honourbound.
Rams : Not to be nit-picking here but it seems you're deliberately putting yourself between a rock and a hard place. Concerning Red fury etc, I can definately picture a blood dragon using skill and speed, slashing through the defences of their opponent in contempt slaughter them like the useless opponents they are. You can easily fit in Infinite hatred in a blood dragons mindset as well. Weaklings fleeing before the vampire deserves to be chased down like the honourless dogs they are, and in combat the re-rolls could just as easily apply to their martial skill. Beguile also works well, similiar to the 'honour or death' or whatever it was called. Sword of Kings is a nice way to adding the killing blow part in(though I am not happy with this one... the ability being on the weapon and all, but we cant get it all without some compromise).
But it isnt just Blood dragons who lost their bloodline powers. However, were we to get all these toys we'd be able to conjure up some pretty rediculous combination indeed. I do miss my Strigois though... one day they will return... maybe
Hmm... Sword of kings is for Wights, as far as I know. Or am I mistaken? Well, that was what I liked with the old system. You chose a career, sort of, and within that career, you could go a long way. Now it is a bit mishymashy all open, which means GW have to remove some things not to make it too overpowered. And WS7 is meh... If I was a Blood Dragon saying "feck magic, I am after skill!" it is a bit measly. I know you can get all that hate and contempt and whatnot inside the Blood Dragon mindset, I am not arguing against it. I just want a samurai style warrior, not a berserker. Contempt, hatred, carelessness have no place in the heart of a true warrior, for slashing contemptiously left and right is not how a true warrior who have attained great skill acts. Contempt for your opponent, no matter how "weak" will lead to your own downfall. Hence, I cannot make the kind of vampire I want within the frames, I want Martial discipline and focus, not released anger and beastiality. This dualism, this struggle AGAINST the beast within that at the same time gives the power to the vampire is what makes the vampires interesting at all in my mind. Otherwise, they are just mindless brutes and bullies like the rest of the evil bunch and not particulary interesting.
Most players who do not play VC seem to get hung up about the fact that we don't suffer from psychology and are able to raise back troops but they forget some of our most important weaknesses. Overall Toughness of core troops is low and Ld is also abysmally low which in combination with "tha resolution crumble" is pretty damaging! If you look at VC honestly, weaknesses vs. strengths, it really isn't an easy army to play with. I've been playing with VC snce their first incarnation and with Dark Elves since their first army book and I find the latter army easier to play with.
The reason why people think that Vamps are broken is because they have easy access to "cheesy" builds. The most common is the " I summon a crap ton of ghouls/skeletons a turn". It's hard to counter because most armies don't have the amount of dispel dice needed to counter this. Of course, most friendly players don't run this list, but in tournaments it is quite common. Vampires are tied with demons if you use the crazy magic list, but other than that, they are quite balanced. Also, High elves and dark elves are not to be considered a overpowering list, because unlike demons and the aforementioned vampire list, they don't have lists that are "surefire wins."
Vampire Counts are definitely the easiest army to learn (being able to pretty much ignore two sections of the rulebook has its advantages - I still don't know all the times one has to take a Panic test despite playing WFB for about eleven or twelve years), and they can be immensely easy to dominate the game with if things go well.
However, they do have some crippling weaknesses. It's very easy to lose the initiative with a VC army and be charged en masse, forced to fight the attrition game while you're still in your half of the table. If you weren't planning for that and haven't yet removed the high-A blocks and powerful ranged attacks from the adversary, it can be a real uphill struggle.
They're also dependent on the most unreliable phase in the game for much of their power. Being dependent on magic means several things - you can't combine magic and shooting to obliterate one target or one-two the skirmish screen and the expensive stuff behind, and it only takes one failed spell or worse, one miscast to throw the phase completely off. A turn of rolling one or two less than you need to really frustrates you as well, particularly if you'd committed to a Vanhel's attempt and are now sitting their with your vitals flapping in the wind (cf. that 'losing the initiative' thing I mentioned earlier).
(Possibly I'm bitter because I had a very bad set of magic phases in my last two games, and since I was using Mannfred in them, the games became something of a struggle. Incidentally, this Invocation-on-one-die nonsense isn't all it's cracked up to be. Still fails a third of the time and absurdly easy to dispel.)
The thing with the Vampire Counts is that they give up fancy moves and shooting to have more magic and melee power. I've only ever played Vampires, Orcs and Goblins and Chaos, so I'm kind of used to that tradeoff in an army, and I speak from experience when I say it's very easy to have a frustrating game with armies of that nature; they match up well against each other but a fast, shooty army will stymie you to some extent and an army that does mobility, speed and shooting without sacrificing melee and magic capacity so much (those damn dirty Dark Elves) will often be a real struggle.
(I'm also bitter because my long-standing Dark Elf opponent is frankly a better tactician than me. Always has been, always will be. It doesn't help that everything I try against him rapidly turns into another mistake. It's worth considering that my view of the Warhammer armies is coloured by the quality of the people I play against. I've never met a competent Ogre player and only lost to them when I've not thought about what I was doing. I hardly ever beat Dark Elves because they attracted a very sound tactician in my group, and I struggle with Dwarfs for the same reason. Skaven and other Vampires I almost always draw against or slightly beat, 'cause my usual adversaries there are on my level.)
This is turning into something of a general rant, so I'll nip it in the bud here and say "yeah, Vampires are easy to use, but not necessarily easy to win with - they're as vulnerable to bad luck and poor tactics as anyone, just in different ways." I've had games where I've conceded every charge opportunity, watched enemy units bounce off my fear-causing high-CR blocks and then been massacred by shooting from the survivors and one combat unit that just refuses to die - games decided entirely by poor positioning and good luck, just like everyone else's.
Most players who do not play VC seem to get hung up about the fact that we don't suffer from psychology and are able to raise back troops but they forget some of our most important weaknesses. Overall Toughness of core troops is low and Ld is also abysmally low which in combination with "tha resolution crumble" is pretty damaging!
I agree with this 100% Reminds me of a game i played against lizardmen recently. Charged a unit of saurus warriors to the front with a unit of skellies, to the flank with GG and Dansed a unit of raised zombies into the other flank. This was only a smallish game, so the units weren't huge. I killed a few saurus, then the survivors decemated my skeletons, meaning that the remaining skeletons, zombies AND grave guard were all completely wiped out due to CR :devil:
Vampire's are NOT the easiest army to win with. They can be powerful, but they do have many weaknesses. They become easy to win with however when opponents play against them as they would any other army. This is the same reason demons are powerful: they're fundamentally different, and players sometimes don't take this into account in thier tactics
Having only massacred vampires untill now Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I haven't fielded a VC army yet Ã¢â‚¬â€œ I must agree. The VC army is strong, and playing against it doesn't allow for much room for error because of invocation and the dance macabre, but VC is very much dependant on rank bonuses and the extra mobility of the dance, so denying them these and you've won the game.
The tough thing can be to get there. Taking down the generals unit seems like an obvious choice, but he is often well protected and bunkered in, so you have to take down the lesser supporting units in order to set in the final stroke via flanks and rear charges.
In the 6th edition VC were quite feeble, and in the local tournaments very few generals were brave enough to field them.
Now the 7th edition VC are definitely powerful, but if you don't take the ultra-magical side, it is still balanced and can be defeated. It is also true that it is relatively easy to score draws: we lack punch except with some units, but we are difficult to destroy completely. And our fighting style requires some unusual tactics. In general, it is funny to play a different type of army.
So now I've played my first game as a VC general. And I must say that they do leave a lot of room for a lot of error.
They are a lot more cumbersome, than my WE and WoC, but those undying blocks of static CR are great and Van Hels do make it quite mobile. And this is very much the vampire Achilles Heel, that one spell is critical to making your infantry work.
Did it require less tactic than my other armies.. I'd say considerably less than my wood elves, but more than my WoC
I think it has more to do with your enemy than yourself really. We have no shooting, so that's pretty straightforward. You don't have to fear that our general, often the toughest vamp around, come chase after your general because obviously if he dies, the army crumbles.
In fact, our whole army is full of certain rules, that you can't miss. It seems as if though people get so overwhelmed by this, that the army is so 'certain'. Look at this:
It's certain that: - VC units will never flee and such can be trapped. They will also never stand and shoot. - If you lose against an outnumbering VC unit, you auto break. - VC will suffer double from combat loss. VC will do anything to prevent that. - You will face at least 2 rank and file units. An experienced general will know that they will be Ghouls and/or Skeletons. - VC will be magic heavy. Disrupting this will disrupt the VC. - The VC's general will have some protection, either in a bunker or magic items. This limits his choice of powers and magic items if he does take a AS/WS item. - VC have very low Initiative and WS. The only reasonable ones are Vampire characters, Varghulfs and Blood Knight (IIRC - no book atm) - VC can't march, except within the range of certain units. True, the whole army has enough 'Vampire' rule units so probably the whole army can march. But even so, if you kill those off early... - You will never face any shooting, except Banshee shooting.
You can know all this about the VC without even playing a single game... Yet they are the 'hardest' to win against... Hardly 'unpredictable' at most.
Vampire Counts takes skills. You're doomed if your characters is killed, especially the general of course. A friend of mine play Ogres and Tomb Kings. I haven't yet lost to the Tomb Kings and I belive that they really, really suck. The Ogres have killed me a dozens of times, before I gained experience and learned how to counter these. People whine a lot when they say that VC is to strong as everything cause fear. I have yet to play against something that does not cause fear, and I have won most of my games until now. It's easy for us to take out Ogres, go for Konrad (if you play special characters) and take a lord with Frostblade/Dreadlance give him Red Fury and a Zombie Dragon and see him take out the Ogres all alone. That's quite easy, but it's also to boring as you know that you will win. So I've tried to come up with the worst match-ups I could possibly field against the Ogres and still win, with superior tactics. We once swapped armies so that I played Ogres against VC and I won a massacre, as he wasn't able to field them in the right way. It was the first time I tried Ogres, and his first time to try out VC.. The message in this is: Don't whine about VC being to strong! Study your opponents VC, come up with a way that you CHRUSH his way of playing them! Pull yourself together to kill the dead again! There is many mistakes that we can make in our beloved VC army, and when you do it does indeed cost you dearly.
I didn't really want to post here, because I'm kinda sick of discussing this with everyone around, but I just took a shower and I have to stay here and dry up before going out (it's kinda cold you know ). So since I have nothing better to do, I'll just say my thoughts on that topic.
A direct answer would be - Yes, VC is easier to win with, compared to all other armies (exception being Daemons of Chaos, but whenever speaking about balance, they are completely out of the question no matter what are we talking about).
Lately I've been playing a lot with Empire (and some games with the new Lizzies ) and I must tell you it's hell of a lot harder to move around the map. You have to give attention to everything, you need to have your general where his LD is needed, even the traps you set are harder to execute. I feel that I'm like on easy mode when I jump back to VC
Since I've been playing VC for so long, I know them inside out. Empire has a bad match against VC mostly because of the wraiths, but I so far have great results against vampires simply because of my knowledge.
With this little example, I want to show you that the thing which make VC easier to win with compared to other armies, can also be used as an advantage against them. Because of the whole ItP and Crumble thing, combats can be calculated to great accuracy. This allows our opponents to pick up the combats they want to fight and flee from the rest. With that in mind, fast cavalry and flying things are really a pain in the ass for VC - we have no shooting or offensive magic to speak of! So they can march block us all the way to the enemy lines.
Centered - VC army cannot spread around effectively. In the old edition the problem was not being able to march beside the 12" bubble around your general. With the new book we can actually march, but if we split our magic cannot be concentrated, so it'll be extremely east to tear one of the flanks apart and secure at least a solid victory. So the vampire counts army is centered, giving even further advantage to fast cavalry (Dark Elven dark riders come in mind as probably the most scary thing. Supported by cauldron, they can even win flanks / rears on their own!).
Weakness to large hard hitting fliers - they are able to pick whatever they want to charge and we have pretty much nothing to say against it. Playing against those is close to impossible, be it Dark Elven lord on dragon, High Elven Star Dragon, or the almighty Bloodtirster, this guy alone can easily secure great advantage against VC.
A whole lot more can be said, but I think that everyone got the point - while being extremely powerful against some armies, the VC suffer greatly against others. Besides those "Static" advantages, the worst mistake (as it has already been said) is that other ppl try to play against VC as if it was a "normal" army..
Conclusion - Vampire Counts are easier to play, but on top competitive level they are NOT more powerful than other armies. It's just that the tactics used against them are different.