I used to play chaos before the VC TK split and i got battered by a vampire lord with the hydra sword. I like rock hard characters and when i picked the game back up they seemed like the coolest. quality magic and a scary aarmy to play. cool models cool background. would be more tempted by TK if they still had mummies....
VC vs TK: why did you go for the Vampires?
- Thread starter Master Vampire
- Start date
-
The masquerade of murder returns! A new game of Vampires Amongst Us has begun. Unmask the killers, trust no one, and try to survive the night. Find out more and sign up now!
For me it was the variety. Tomb Kings, for the most part, have skeletons and mummies, with a few statues and birds. Vamp Counts have skeletons, zombies, ghouls, wolves, bats, wraiths, vampires, and so on. Just a wider range of undead goodness.
I remember the old days, when mummies, screaming skull catapults, chariots and vulture riding wraiths were all a part of the VC.
VC are awesome. End of. And I doubt on a Vampire Counts website you'll find many people who think otherwise. 
I was very close to taking TKs but cjamged my
mind at the last minute. i figured i wanted something with a punch and a bit of an armour save... TKs get light armour and thats about it. I think what drew me to VCs was the bloodline system (the new one) where you can completely customise a VC to how you play.
mind at the last minute. i figured i wanted something with a punch and a bit of an armour save... TKs get light armour and thats about it. I think what drew me to VCs was the bloodline system (the new one) where you can completely customise a VC to how you play.
When I started playing Undead I came up with the background story of my General Eegil, a good, charming and beautiful sorceror who suffered from split personality and also had a very evil and sinister persona (based on a roleplaying videogame).
He led my very first Undead (as a Necromancer beliving he did good, while infact all he did was evil) back in 1997 or thereabout, and when TK and VC split the Vampires were the only army containing necromancers, so in order for Eegil to continue to be my general I went down the line of Bloodlines and Creatures of the Dark. Didn't use the Vampires though, and still don't really fancy them.
And this winter my brother gave me the one single most beautiful and cool Undead miniature around: Heinrich Kemmler.
So my Vampires are still lead by a mighty Necromancer (unfortunately he now must be of Vampire status, since a level 1 necromancer really isn't a worthy general). And I miss the times when Undead were united. So much more options to pick: Wights AND chariots, Carrions, mummies, zombies, vampires, necromancers AND liches.... *sighs*
He led my very first Undead (as a Necromancer beliving he did good, while infact all he did was evil) back in 1997 or thereabout, and when TK and VC split the Vampires were the only army containing necromancers, so in order for Eegil to continue to be my general I went down the line of Bloodlines and Creatures of the Dark. Didn't use the Vampires though, and still don't really fancy them.
And this winter my brother gave me the one single most beautiful and cool Undead miniature around: Heinrich Kemmler.
So my Vampires are still lead by a mighty Necromancer (unfortunately he now must be of Vampire status, since a level 1 necromancer really isn't a worthy general). And I miss the times when Undead were united. So much more options to pick: Wights AND chariots, Carrions, mummies, zombies, vampires, necromancers AND liches.... *sighs*
When i first lookied into collecting Warhammer Fantasy I asked my nan to get me the Undead book hoping she will bring me back a book with chariots, archers, screaming skull catapults. Things I had seen in Dark Omen on the playstation. At the time however they had just split the undead in 2 and she brought back the new VC book instead.
So why did I go for VC and not TK? By accident!
I just got well into the fluff and never looked back. At the time though I ended up losing interest because I couldnt afford to buy enough models to play.
I'm back now though with loadsa dosh heh.
So why did I go for VC and not TK? By accident!
I just got well into the fluff and never looked back. At the time though I ended up losing interest because I couldnt afford to buy enough models to play.
I'm back now though with loadsa dosh heh.
I originally went TK becuase i loved the egyptian theme over the "Empire" theme the von carsteins have got going on. I also dont really like all the rotting flesh and guts that the VC have.
My main attraction to the TK was the honour their warriors had, the oath they made to fight for their king even in death.
But i love vampires.
When i read the fluff for Abhorash i just fell in love. I could do that whole honoured dead theme but with vampires too, and the speed and martial prowess they can bring to the table is just fantastic.
Blood knights in particular i adore, i just the love thought of bretonnian grail knights with their high and mighty "we are the best knights in the old word", and then their faces dropping when the see what the blood knights can do.
So theres my reason for Vamps over TK....
Abhorash.
My main attraction to the TK was the honour their warriors had, the oath they made to fight for their king even in death.
But i love vampires.
When i read the fluff for Abhorash i just fell in love. I could do that whole honoured dead theme but with vampires too, and the speed and martial prowess they can bring to the table is just fantastic.
Blood knights in particular i adore, i just the love thought of bretonnian grail knights with their high and mighty "we are the best knights in the old word", and then their faces dropping when the see what the blood knights can do.
So theres my reason for Vamps over TK....
Abhorash.
I love the Old World fluff, and the Empire is at the center of the Old World. VC mesh so much better with the Empire's fluff; hell, Sylvania is part of the Empire. It all feels so perfectly 16th or 17th Century Carpathian. Besides, Mary Shelley, Bram Stoker, and Gene Wilder versus Brendan Fraser and the Rock? Absolutely no contest.
As someone who played an Undead army from the Warhammer Armies: Undead book, it was difficult for me to decide which of these two armies to play when the split occurred. In the end, however, my decision was swayed by the following factors:
Background:
I felt that the narrative aspect of the Vampires and their followers was more interesting and had more depth than the Khemri narrative, and as a player who enjoys the background side of the game, this was very important to me.
I felt, therefore, that by collecting a Vampire Counts army, I would have much more material to work with when it came to formulating the historical and narrative aspects of the characters leading my armies than would be the case with a Khemri force.
Units:
There were simply more units in the Vampire Counts army which were of interest to me than in the Tomb Kings army.
I've always loved Wraiths, Spirit Hosts (née Ghosts) and Wights, and the thought of not being able to take any of these was not a positive one, so this greatly influenced my decision.
The only unit I really felt that I was missing out on by not playing Tomb Kings was Carrion, but since I preferred these when they had riders, this didn't really end up being that big a loss.
Overall, Vampire Counts armies simply have more flavour compared to Tomb Kings in my view, hence why I went in the direction in which I did.
Background:
I felt that the narrative aspect of the Vampires and their followers was more interesting and had more depth than the Khemri narrative, and as a player who enjoys the background side of the game, this was very important to me.
I felt, therefore, that by collecting a Vampire Counts army, I would have much more material to work with when it came to formulating the historical and narrative aspects of the characters leading my armies than would be the case with a Khemri force.
Units:
There were simply more units in the Vampire Counts army which were of interest to me than in the Tomb Kings army.
I've always loved Wraiths, Spirit Hosts (née Ghosts) and Wights, and the thought of not being able to take any of these was not a positive one, so this greatly influenced my decision.
The only unit I really felt that I was missing out on by not playing Tomb Kings was Carrion, but since I preferred these when they had riders, this didn't really end up being that big a loss.
Overall, Vampire Counts armies simply have more flavour compared to Tomb Kings in my view, hence why I went in the direction in which I did.
Well having joined fantasy fairly recently my main issues were the following:
I really dislike SCR, I mean really dislike it, apart from WoC there were few units I knew of that could get high enough kills to replace the SCR, I mean why would a unit of grail knights flee from zombies that would pretty much never hurt them just because they grailies rolled poorly for one turn.
So Blood Knights seemed like the perfect unit for me, one that can slice and dice with the best of them and normally cause so many casualties that they would be running down a couple of survivors (rather than some silly cases where 1 or 2 dudes run down about 20 of them.
Secondly, I know many hate hero hammer, but I love the idea of having a leader who is ridiculously dangerous in battle, and a VC lord tooled up correctly could kill up to 8 guys on his own, and his dragon could kill a few as well (theoretically of course).
Third, the background of VC is superior in my opinion, and the conversion potential is far greater with pretty much anyone being able to be used as a VC if wanted.
Fourth, I wanted the 'me on the battlefield' idea as mentioned by GW (something along the lines of 'your force's leader is the representation of you on the battlefield etc etc) So I plan to make some of the background represent me (obviously my vampire doesn't live in England though, but his personality and attitudes towards certain things), and my conversion is to make it look like me as well (e.g. his face and hair + the heraldry of my family incorporated into it). With VC I can do that, but not with TK.
Although the question is about VC vs TK, I chose VC rather than WoC because WoC would be harder to mix with my background intentions than VC.
My final reason for VC is because DoN doesn't know it yet, but he's gonna teach me what it means to be a proerv:
I really dislike SCR, I mean really dislike it, apart from WoC there were few units I knew of that could get high enough kills to replace the SCR, I mean why would a unit of grail knights flee from zombies that would pretty much never hurt them just because they grailies rolled poorly for one turn.
So Blood Knights seemed like the perfect unit for me, one that can slice and dice with the best of them and normally cause so many casualties that they would be running down a couple of survivors (rather than some silly cases where 1 or 2 dudes run down about 20 of them.
Secondly, I know many hate hero hammer, but I love the idea of having a leader who is ridiculously dangerous in battle, and a VC lord tooled up correctly could kill up to 8 guys on his own, and his dragon could kill a few as well (theoretically of course).
Third, the background of VC is superior in my opinion, and the conversion potential is far greater with pretty much anyone being able to be used as a VC if wanted.
Fourth, I wanted the 'me on the battlefield' idea as mentioned by GW (something along the lines of 'your force's leader is the representation of you on the battlefield etc etc) So I plan to make some of the background represent me (obviously my vampire doesn't live in England though, but his personality and attitudes towards certain things), and my conversion is to make it look like me as well (e.g. his face and hair + the heraldry of my family incorporated into it). With VC I can do that, but not with TK.
Although the question is about VC vs TK, I chose VC rather than WoC because WoC would be harder to mix with my background intentions than VC.
My final reason for VC is because DoN doesn't know it yet, but he's gonna teach me what it means to be a pro
erv:i like both armies a lot. the most important reason for me to pick up the vampires were that the VC models are not so "clean" and more convertible than the tomb king units. and i didn't like chariots so much... but i really like their magic system.
Forgotten Heretic
Grave Guard
when my friend first suggested we start playing warhammer i didn't know anything about the game or hobby and wasn't sure if we'd play enough to justify spending all that money on starting an army, but when he told me there was an army of vampires i was sold. i love the undead in all forms but i've always loved vampires the most.
i love the fluff for both TK and vampires and how they're connected, i love the VC characters and the majority of the models, and though i now have a few armies VC remains my main force, no matter how interested i become in my other armies i'm always drawn back to my vampires
i love the fluff for both TK and vampires and how they're connected, i love the VC characters and the majority of the models, and though i now have a few armies VC remains my main force, no matter how interested i become in my other armies i'm always drawn back to my vampires
TheBlackBey
Skeleton
I credit my interest in Hammer horror films from the '60s - that and the fact that I was tired of relying on low leadership skaven to not run from every fight.
I have played TK's before I ever did with VC's, and I prefer VC's because they are actually core to the story of WH. Everything about TK's happened in the past, and they are rarely involved in any of the recent WH world events (storm of chaos ect). Also VC's get updated with every WH edition, while TK's are still on their original book, which is still quite functional, but like OK's they are on their original books, and you'd think by now GW would have found something worth updating.
Quite simply I wanted a medieval themed army, not an ancients themed army. I could probably use the Codex for either and would not mind.
Well I have always taken a liking to Vampires, but the Warhammer ones are in a whole other league....
The most apt analogy I can think of would probably be the Vampires from Van Helsing. Sure, they look Handsome/Beautiful and are charming, but once they get mad you're looking at the spawn of Satan. Other Vampires seem to lack the bestial side Warhammer has, instead focusing entirely on the aristocratic. The fact that Vampires range from the aristocratic Vlad and his wife Isabella, to the Bloodthirsty Konrad, the cunning Mannfred and the Strigoi and Varghulf really appeals to me.
Tomb Kings lack that.
The most apt analogy I can think of would probably be the Vampires from Van Helsing. Sure, they look Handsome/Beautiful and are charming, but once they get mad you're looking at the spawn of Satan. Other Vampires seem to lack the bestial side Warhammer has, instead focusing entirely on the aristocratic. The fact that Vampires range from the aristocratic Vlad and his wife Isabella, to the Bloodthirsty Konrad, the cunning Mannfred and the Strigoi and Varghulf really appeals to me.
Tomb Kings lack that.
Because they were out first, and I've been playing since they were combined lists?? Now I play both! Well, play may be a bit strong. I've got both, and, in true Tomb King fashion, I'm waiting for the right time to re-awaken my TK army.