VC Weak Under Swedish?: why VC are underrepresented at the US Masters

Pirate Robot Ninja of Death · Feb 16, 2015

The US Masters Tournament is next weekend. 80 players from all over the US are descending on Durham, North Carolina to get their butts kicked by the 5 Canadian Players who qualified in the Pacific Northwest region. Every army (save Beastmen) is represented. And of those armies, every book but one is represented by multiple players. If you haven't guessed yet, the book with just one player is our own.

Julian Lesange is the only player repping the Vampires at the tournament. His list clocks in at a 8.5 Swedish, .5 points above the minimum allowed under the comp band and the lowest comp army in the tournament.

His list can be found HERE, or in the garbled cut-and-paste below.

2500 Pts Breakdown Comp Comp Breakdown Comp Hits Unit Description
Lords 516
Vampire Lord 516 220+105+6+40+5+45+5+50+30+10 73.00 15+24+5+15+5+6+3 Level 4 Wizard Ogre Blade Red Fury Quickblood-The Lore of the Vampires Level 4 Wizard-Heavy Armour-Ogre Blade-Enchanted Shield-Talisman of Preservation-Potion of Foolhardiness-Red Fury-Quickblood-Summon Creatures of the Night-The Lore of the Vampires
Heroes 465
Vampire 221 105+35+4+2+10+25+10+30 22 7+3+2+3+7 Level 2 Dispel Scroll Quickblood The Lore of the Vampires Level 2-Heavy Armour-Shield-Dragonhelm-Dispel Scroll-Seed of Rebirth-Quickblood-The Lore of the Vampires
Vampire 184 105+4+20+5+20+30 18 7+4+3+4 Level 1 Power Stone Quickblood The Lore of Death Level 1-Heavy Armour-Sword of Might-Charmed Shield-Power Stone-Quickblood-The Lore of Death
Cairn Wraith 60 60 7 7
Core 665
45 Zombies 145 (45*3)+5+5 4 4 Musician Standard Bearer
45 Zombies 145 (45*3)+5+5 4 4 Musician Standard Bearer
42 Skeleton Warriors 255 (45*3)+5+5 5 5 Musician Standard Bearer Champion Banner of Swiftness
5 Dire Wolves 40 5*8 2 2
5 Dire Wolves 40 5*8 2 2
5 Dire Wolves 40 5*8 2 2
Special 378
8 Vargheists 378 8*46+10 30 30 Vargoyle
Rare 475
Mortis Engine 240 220+20 16 14+2 Blasphemous Tome Blasphemous Tome
Terrorgheist 235 225+10 30 30 Infested

POINT TOTAL: 2499 COMP TOTAL: 8.5

Quite frankly, I think his list is going to really struggle at this tournament. Too many opponents have the mobility to completely out-maneuver him, and at an 8.5 he's going to be at a ~300 point deficit against most of the field (meaning that he starts the game out losing 12-8). If this list were a 12 or 13 I'd understand, but I've fit a double-blender BK bus into an 8.5 no sweat which would utterly thrash this list.

Having struggled myself to build a competitive VC list under Swedish, I wonder whether the comp isn't to blame for our paltry showing at the event. That and the fact that my abysmal painting speed knocked my overall score out of qualifying :tongue:

I'd love to hear some thoughts, though. As well if anybody thinks I'm totally wrong on the merits of the above list.

Archamedius · Feb 17, 2015

I think VC suffer from a lack of "newness". The subsequent releases of WoC, DoC, and all the elf books have really drawn a lot of time from the developers of the comp, forcing them to really focus on those army lists to get the comp down and appropriate. VC I think fell off the radar very quickly.

bigbadbat · Feb 17, 2015

Swedish puts the smack on VC for sure.
The Swedish comp pack I believe is designed to encourage players to use different units, different char. builds, etc...
Let's be honest.... VC have very few legitimate choices in competitive play. Some of which are completely neutered by a 5 pt weapon anyone can buy. By comping the choices that are the linchpin of our army. I.E. Red Fury, Quickblood, ethereal chars, TG, mounted chars, they really don't leave us with much compared to what other armies can bring to the table at much higher swede scores.
I'll also add that allowing players these choices doesn't mean auto win as I feel the VC requires very good generalship to get max effect out of its choices.

bigbadbat · Feb 17, 2015

All that said Julian is a great player and should do well. In Swedish, matchups are key, and he has tools to deal with most things.

Pirate Robot Ninja of Death · Feb 17, 2015

Yeah. In writing lots of Swedish VC lists I've realized that to crack 11 you either need to a) not take a blender, b) take everything on foot, or c) spam vargheists and varghulfs (as both are undercomped). I think the best list I've got was just shy of a 13, with 3 packs of vargheists, 2 varghulfs, a TG, and a hellsteed blender.

The comp hit on ethereals is fucking ridiculous, though. Goes to show that Swedes don't know how to play Warhammer. I still like playing Swedish, simply for the sake of the variety in listbuilding and opponents, but I'd pull my hair out if I had to play it all the time. That and 20-0, which is just fucking awful.

Best part of the Masters being next weekend is that the entire club will be taking a nice big break from playing Swedish lists. Feels like popping the top button and loosening the tie on a too-tight dress shirt. I can breeeeath!

HERO · Feb 17, 2015

I'll say it once and I'll say it again. The fact that Swedish is representing "Masters" is a god damn joke.

People say that the point of playing Swedish comp is to create a environment where people can take obviously subpar choices while promoting better game balance. The goal for the comp is to punish competitive options (thus limiting them severely) and rewarding uncommon choices. Unfortunately, this is based off the very small meta that is Sweden, and it can be further from the truth in terms of balancing the game to make them all competitive.

Most obvious offenders: Warriors of Chaos, Daemons of Chaos, Dwarfs. Examples, friends of mine that play in West Coast GTs and in events for masters on the East Coast in the USA are able to fit beardy ass lists that score 13.9 and above while completely destroying other armies in the same point range. My mono Slaanesh list with Lv.4 Keeper and 2x Soul Grinders fits in with barely any comp at all, my friend who's taking mono Khorne with 2x Skullcannons is the same. Dwarfs, with 5 WM, 2 Organs, 2x bombers, 1x gyros and 2x forget scroll Runesmiths comps in near 13, which is pretty much his ETC list + 100 points.

Meanwhile, I can barely build a functioning list with my High Elves, forget about playing Skaven at all, and my Dark Elves and Woodies get punished severely for almost every viable choice in the book. My non-competitive joke HE list with High Magic, no BotWD, almost no shooting, running a solo Frostheart comes in below my Vampire Counts list who can take a fully mounted Blenderlord with knights, Hexwraiths, Vargheists, Terrorgheist and Ghouls for core. It's pretty much as competitive as you can get while limiting yourself in Death Shriek through 1 Terrorgheist. However, my Vampire Counts comps in higher.

The verdict? Play Swedes if you want to have "fun" through a systems geared to pair armies up by softness, but remember that it's a complete farce. Nothing can be more from the truth because time and time again, you can see that armies that take the top spots under this comp uses armies that dominate the opposition because they can make powerful armies with seemingly soft comps. There is no way a WM list with 5 WM and 2x forget scrolls should be able to also fit 24x Hammerers and other strong options in and play in the 13s, it completely destroys every list that I've seen.

If anything, Swedish Comp just allows beardy power gamers to build powerful armies under the guise of fairplay and then completely stomp other players trying to have fun. I'm not saying that you bros are like that, I'm saying that it's so apparent to more veteran gamers that I actually loathe the comp entirely. At least when I show up with a 5/5 ETC list, both players know they're in for a tough game. What a joke.

Pirate Robot Ninja of Death · Feb 17, 2015

HERO said:

This right here is the ONLY reason that I think Swedish has any place in the Masters at all. The competitive uncomped lists for various armies are essentially a known commodity, while the shifting nature of the Swedish Comp pack (in addition to it's byzantine complexity) creates a lot of opportunities for finding hidden filth that I think really incentivizes intelligent list-writing and play.

Note though that I do NOT think that Swedish "fixes" warhammer or levels the playing field. It just shifts the goal posts, creating a NEW host of power builds that are completely bent and broken bullshit. The fact that the East Coast players try to push their comp onto the rest of us under the guise that it's "better" is fucking horseshit: it's really just a power play to force the rest of us into a system they have way more familiarity and practice with.

Run out-of-the-book Warhammer in a W-L-D system with objectives that don't just reward more battle points and see who the real master of warhammer is :tongue:

[/rant]

bigbadbat · Feb 17, 2015

Without getting in to great detail, I will say it's a bit ridiculous to pair opponents or grant handicap based on a system that itself is not balanced in the least.
You can game Swedish comp.
In uncomped, everything is fair game and there is a bit of rock/paper/scissors if you build skew lists.
Swedish just does not comp all armies the same. Period.

Pirate Robot Ninja of Death · Feb 18, 2015

Agreed. I really enjoy writing Swedish lists because of the additional element of complexity it adds, but I am under no illusions whatsoever that it is a fair or balanced comp pack by any stretch of the imagination.

Quite frankly, I find Swedish to be MORE unbalanced than un-comped. At least the meta in un-comped is a known commodity, and can shift to counter dominant lists. There's too much complexity and variability in Swedish to allow such a settling of the meta, and it changes too rapidly to really allow the lists to sort out. As a result you end up with some skews running rampant in some metas but not in others.

For instance, people whine about dick-kicker warriors and shit wiping the floor in uncomped warhammer, but you really don't see that happening much. Those lists are too well known and too well countered.

HERO · Feb 18, 2015

Pirate Robot Ninja of Death said:

Agreed. I really enjoy writing Swedish lists because of the additional element of complexity it adds, but I am under no illusions whatsoever that it is a fair or balanced comp pack by any stretch of the imagination.

Quite frankly, I find Swedish to be MORE unbalanced than un-comped. At least the meta in un-comped is a known commodity, and can shift to counter dominant lists. There's too much complexity and variability in Swedish to allow such a settling of the meta, and it changes too rapidly to really allow the lists to sort out. As a result you end up with some skews running rampant in some metas but not in others.

For instance, people whine about dick-kicker warriors and shit wiping the floor in uncomped warhammer, but you really don't see that happening much. Those lists are too well known and too well countered.

I'm curious on what you think about ETC Draft 2.5? At least ETC comps magic lol, Swedish allows you to go berserk still.

That in itself is hilarious.

The Sun King · Feb 18, 2015

The ETC Draft 2.5 is boring as hell to be honest. Being a Lizardmen and Vampire Counts player I don't see what the ETC comp does to avoid cookie cutter lists. Maybe that isn't the point - in which case I prefer playing uncomped (without Khaine Magic). Comping magic is a bad idea IMO as it make people take deathstars even more as you lack the tools to deal with them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Saying that Comps even the balance of the game is a fallacy. With so many variables in a game like Warhammer it is impossible (mathmatically) to balance it. What a comp does is nerf something indirectly making all other choices better. I often use the analogy of a beachball: If you push it down under the water it will eventually pop out of the water some place else. I do enjoy playing comps at tournaments as it often makes me think of different army builds.

Grok · Feb 18, 2015

While I agree many VC components seems to get hit unreasonably hard (why do people hit Ethereal with the Comp stick so hard), I think the game is moving away from being able to be played uncomped. Super characters and the Legions list put certain armies much higher above others, and force an arms escalation of needed an End Times character to compete. Personally, I won't be playing in any competitive environments which allow these characters as they are not something I would want to face on a competitive level.

Rather then balancing, I think Comp is interesting because it forces people to change how they build their army. I quite like the South Coast GT comp pack, takes some of the edge off, has anyone looked at it?

Pirate Robot Ninja of Death · Feb 18, 2015

HERO said:

I mind ETC a lot less, as I can run my uncomped VC build practically without change. My only issue is the absolutely asinine comping of Lore of Undeath.

Note though that this doesn't mean I actually think it's a good comp pack. It's even worse than Swedish at just moving the goal posts, and pushing a slightly different host of lists into the spotlight. It's only the team dynamic of the ETC that keeps it from being overwhelmed by cookie-cutter netlists (well...even more than it already is).

ETC is a really lazy comp pack in my opinion, in that it is essentially built to protect the status quo. The drafters have a very specific style of play that they favour and anything that threatens or upsets that gets comped into oblivion. It doesn't make things "balanced", it just makes everything the same.

The comp on magic, undeath, and ethereals also makes me really suspect that the driving forces behind writing the pack are fucking awful at this game. Because none of those things are truly threatening in a highly competitive environment. I play almost exclusively uncomped warhammer and I can count on one hand the number of times in the past 2 years that I've had purple sun or dwellers cast on me anywhere above the bottom 25% of tables. Good players don't rely on 6-dicing bomb spells. I haven't even played against someone running shadow in years either.

Comp is fun, but only because it changes the game up and brings in some new lists. If I had to stick with one style of play for ALL my games though I'd pick uncomped every time, and worry about working out the nastiest and most unpleasant lists (avoidance WE, dwarfs, etc) with scenarios

EDIT: Okay that was a bit harsh. Feeling kind of punchy at work tomorrow.

The long and short of it is that I don't think any individual list is a net positive for the game. I think comp in general adds some interesting variety to tournaments, which breaks up a bit of the monotony and encourages you to grow your collection and try out new lists.

However many comp packs, specifically Swedish and ETC, purport to "fix" the game, which is kind of bullshit. Kind of REALLY bullshit, to be honest. Swedish is better in that it's flexible, and rather open about the fact that it can be broken. ETC just comps whatever was the flavour of the month power build LAST year, and has these magic changes that it thinks "fix" what is an "overpowered" system, but which really just holds down the poor players who crutch on lores like Death, Shadow, and Life and prevents a lucky Dwellers from turning a game that they should have in their pocket.

That's why our area believes that scenarios are a far better way to encourage the sort of play that you want. Throw in a watchtower and fly+chariot spam WoC are suddenly garbage. Throw a bunch of capture objectives that can only be scored by units that generate fortitude and skink swarms, brolocks, dwarfs, and that same WoC list all take a back seat. Swap 20-0 to W-L-D and those broken dick-kicker builds take a back seat since everyone just practices how to minimum win against them (and any army can minimum win against any other army if you try for it).

The downside of this system is that you end up with lots of people with the same battle score...but that's why you don't limit scoring to battle score. Secondary and tertiary objectives that are worth TOURNAMENT points and not victory points are key. I've gotten as many points for a loss as for a win before by denying my opponent all of the objectives. And quite frankly, that's the sign of a better system.

Archamedius · Feb 19, 2015

Pirate Robot Ninja of Death said:

I personally believe ETC isn't warhammer, it's ETCHammer, which is in line with what Pirate is saying. ETC changes some fundamental parts of the game, so it goes beyond a comp and becomes a different version of the game, not all that unlike a fan created mod to a popular video game. Swedish at least doesn't change the rules of the game, it just encourages not doing certain things. But that system is seriously flawed too, as armies like Chaos Dwarves can get things like double K'Dai plus 36 blunderbuss dwarves and a bunch of other war machines into the comp range that masters is using, which is stupid broken. Neither system is great, but I certainly will not look down my nose at people who enjoy playing/using them. I don't prefer them much myself, but to each his own.

However what I agree with most here, is that controlling stupid lists is better served by scenario special rules, along with tournament points awarded (often referred to over here in the mid west as battle points) for objectives of the scenario. Adepticon does it W/L/D and bonus points, Buckeye, Battlecon, and many others around here do a 20-0 with bonus points. They both achieve about the same thing and help to control the stupid lists out there. Buckeye does use swedish, but really only for banding and possibly table sides, things like that, but it doesn't give you a handicap in victory points.

Grok · Feb 19, 2015

Archamedius said:

I don't quite see how these things can block some of the really ridiculous stuff currently in the game though. How will a scenario make Karl Franz, Malekith, Imrik, or Nagash less frustrating to play? Maybe it will, but Waapaca a tournament using all those things still ran into a bunch of issues with legion armies and End Times characters.

Also, I don't really think Adepticon controls stupid list very well, wasn't it an Orc and Goblin gunline that won last year?

At the end of the day though, it doesn't really matter, don't like the comp don't go to that event, pretty simple.

Archamedius · Feb 19, 2015

Grok said:

No one says that any of those guys will not be frustrating to play. But If I as a player am not frustrating my opponent, am I really doing anything to win the game? Cannons can be frustrating to play against. So can Nurgle demon princes, or a huge block of white lions with banner of the world dragon, with or without allarielle (or however you spell it). Heck, an all fast cav list can be very frustrating to play against. None of these things are any of the above mentioned.

Look at the 4 dudes mentioned. None of them can claim a watch tower. None of them have a banner, and each is extremely costly. Scenarios which require controlling buildings put players using those characters in a world of hurt because they cannot control the building with their big nasty. And since they spent so many points on the big nasty, there shouldn't be much left for you to clean up to prevent him from controlling the building. The same goes for fortitude based control of objectives. Spending all those points on that big nasty reduces your ability to spread your fortitude around, or even have that much to begin with. Which makes good old fashioned blood and glory a great counter to high cost characters.

Yes, O&G gun line won adepticon last year. But it wasn't : WOC Flying Circus, DE Fast Cav Spam (brolock bus) or any of the other armies considered top tier at the time. Each list has filth it can bring to the table, but if we took away all the cool options and combos, then every army becomes a bland version of the sameness that makes the game stale and boring.

Grok · Feb 19, 2015

O&G gun line is a pretty "netlist" build though which I would still consider a pretty "stupid" list. The particular guy who won with the list is a player in my area, and unless you bring a similar "stupid" list I don't really see how you beat it. Was it warriors chariot spam or demon wall of nurgle, no, but is a O&G gun line really that different? The scenarios certainly didn't change the way the armies were built, since the standard O&G list is what won.

I guess I should have rephrased, End Times characters aren't just frustrating, but pretty much impossible for many armies to deal with, cannons are not that. I'm not just referring to unbalanced builds having difficulties, but entire armies. Listen to many peoples' reactions to facing these characters at Blood and GLory, Waapaca, ect. Though both of these big tournaments, run by very knowledgeable warhammer players, utilized scenarios and other similar "balancing" factors I haven't heard many people leaving these events saying that uncomped End Times is the way to go.

As far as watchtower and claiming buildings, Nagash can easily do those things, he just summons free units to do it. If anything, he would be even better at claiming buildings, because he summons new units right next to them. The other characters are so fast they will end up blocking some advances.

If you want to play against the competitive End Times characters be my guest, I am sure some events will allow them; however, I for one am happy to see some events deciding these guys don't belong in their events. It allows me to keep looking at armies without taking an End Times character and feel competitive.

Archamedius · Feb 19, 2015

Well personally I don't care much for special characters at all, end times or otherwise. I much prefer tournaments that do not allow them at all. The end times armies themselves (aside from Elf BS) IMO are not broken, and line up well with other competitive armies.

My statement was in support of Pirate in that comp systems do not balance the game, they simply change the landscape to a new kind of filth. I still feel that scenarios do a better job of curbing filth than comp systems do.

Pirate Robot Ninja of Death · Feb 19, 2015

Grok said:

As an example, a tournament here in the PNW had a rule where you must place an objective on your *opponent*'s side of the board. Thus against a gunline you could place one just inside the mid line, as would they, and they'd be forced to meet you in the middle at the very least. It created incentives to engage people, and that made for better games.

The objectives also had to be captured by something that generated fortitude. So chaos chariot lists got pushed down the roster, as did skink swarms and certain other avoidance-type lists.

Malekith et al are a totally different ball game, though. I think they just need to be outright banned at tournaments where they're not comped into oblivion. I've been saying for a long time that they're not as hard as people think to kill - which they're not. However they all require DIFFERENT tools to kill them, and building a list that can take them all down and doesn't contain one of the big gribblies itself is...difficult. And not all armies can do it. I'm starting to think that just banning them outright makes those ET games a better environment.

Speaking of bad environments, I fucking hate the 20-0 system. It's just awful. The sort of play that it incentivizes is unpleasant, in addition to the sorts of lists that excel under it. W-L-D with good scenarios and capture objectives creates incentives to build MMU lists, and encourages going balls-out when you're behind (rather than retreating and hiding in a corner to preserve points). 20-0 just encourages death star lists and points denial. I really dislike it.

Archamedius · Feb 19, 2015

Pirate Robot Ninja of Death said:

As an example, a tournament here in the PNW had a rule where you must place an objective on your *opponent*'s side of the board. Thus against a gunline you could place one just inside the mid line, as would they, and they'd be forced to meet you in the middle at the very least. It created incentives to engage people, and that made for better games.

The objectives also had to be captured by something that generated fortitude. So chaos chariot lists got pushed down the roster, as did skink swarms and certain other avoidance-type lists.

Malekith et al are a totally different ball game, though. I think they just need to be outright banned at tournaments where they're not comped into oblivion. I've been saying for a long time that they're not as hard as people think to kill - which they're not. However they all require DIFFERENT tools to kill them, and building a list that can take them all down and doesn't contain one of the big gribblies itself is...difficult. And not all armies can do it. I'm starting to think that just banning them outright makes those ET games a better environment.

Speaking of bad environments, I fucking hate the 20-0 system. It's just awful. The sort of play that it incentivizes is unpleasant, in addition to the sorts of lists that excel under it. W-L-D with good scenarios and capture objectives creates incentives to build MMU lists, and encourages going balls-out when you're behind (rather than retreating and hiding in a corner to preserve points). 20-0 just encourages death star lists and points denial. I really dislike it.

I think W-L-D systems also encourage point denial. It becomes a game of staying just far enough ahead of your opponent and preventing losses. Fast Cav avoidance lists excel in these types of games, and they can be very frustrating to play against.

HERO · Feb 19, 2015

I took my friend's ETC list and threw it in here plus a few things to reach 2500. The fact that he can translate an ETC list into Swedish, and still hit a 10.7 is pretty funny I thought. When I try that with my Skaven, I'm at like -3.

My Demons list, really quick..
Lv.4 Keeper, Exalted, Lesser, Lore of Slaanesh
Lv.1 BSB, Lore of Slaanesh, LoGrace
2x 24x Daemonettes, FC, one with MR
4x Fiends
5x Seekers
2x 5x Furies
2x Soul Grinders, one ST, one flamer
= -161, which is 13.9

Pirate Robot Ninja of Death · Feb 19, 2015

Archamedius said:

I'd rather play against avoidance denial than deathstar denial. Against the former you can play tight, protect your points, and pick out a few units here or there for the win. More importantly, they're trivially easy to push off objectives if you have a couple big blocks of infantry (i.e. bricks of skeletons).

Compare that to deathstar builds in a 20-0 system. In WLD you can chaff it up, pick off everything else, and get max points off of it. It can control one capture point at most, and though it may deny you secondary objectives like "kill the general," etc, there are lots of ways to suicide something into that unit to knock them out.

In a 20-0 system, though, they just pile all their points into that and you're lucky if you win 12-8. You're essentially punished for building a MMU list that gives up easy points, whereas in WLD so long as those units are taking more than they give up you're in the clear.

I love my vargheists, for instance, because they generally take down 300-400 points before they die themselves. In WLD that's amazing, as it widens that margin I need to get a victory. In 20-0 it ticks me up what....one tournament point? Bleh.

As I said, in a WLD environment you can just give out tournament points for objectives custom-designed to punish lists you don't like. It works wonders. Yeah those fast cav avoidance lists will wrack up lots of wins, but if they can't capture secondary or tertiary objectives they're looking at 5th place at best. In a 50-man event you'll generally have a couple guys hovering at max battle points, but objective points (i.e. points earned explicitly through strategic play) are what makes up the difference.

Grok · Feb 19, 2015

I agree I am a much bigger fan of W-L-d with scenario bonus points, rewards tight games and helps give armies ,like Tomb Kings and Brets, which struggle for big wins the ability to compete.

I would argue that Chaos Legion is pretty annoying too, though not as bad as the elf one. The Herdstone surrounded by blue horrors is pretty broken.

ALso, banning special characters is a form of comp, one I support, but its still comp

.

As far as grabbing objectives its not hard for a chaos player to work in marauder units with banners or lizzie players skink cohorts with banners. Neither choice drastically changes how those armies play, or the core elements you are pointing out as annoying

. I think a mixture of comp to take out the silly stuff, and scenarios is the way to go. But, I do like that both ETC and Swedish comp can force different style armies and games to be played. WOuld I want to play under them all the time, no, but I would be more likely to go to them, then have to face the spam of Host of the Eternity King armies which are popping out of the woodwork.

Pirate Robot Ninja of Death · Feb 19, 2015

The nice thing about different scenarios and comp packs is that they make you really think about your list and how you play the game. We had one where champions were needed to capture objectives so suddenly my dogs all had champs. I'll shave points for a BSB so that my WK can run around and capture. Stuff like that...it all adds to the game. Makes you paint up new and interesting units or pull something off the shelf that you haven't used in a while.

My real issue is with people who think that comp "fixes" the game. It doesn't...just changes it.

Grok · Feb 19, 2015

I can agree on that

VC Weak Under Swedish?: why VC are underrepresented at the US Masters

Vampire Thrall

Grave Guard

Harbinger of Dandelions

Harbinger of Dandelions

Vampire Thrall

Wight King

Vampire Thrall

Harbinger of Dandelions

Vampire Thrall

Wight King

Imperator

Ghoul

Vampire Thrall

Grave Guard

Ghoul

Grave Guard

Ghoul

Grave Guard

Vampire Thrall

Grave Guard

Wight King

Vampire Thrall

Ghoul

Vampire Thrall

Ghoul