When does a Zombie become a Skeleton?

[Mannfreds Minion]

I know the answer to this seems obvious, it's when all the flesh is removed, but skeletons are far better than zombies because they are not newly dead so how long does someone have to be dead before they are not a zombie? Is it once a zombie alwaya a zombie or do they improve with age?

 

[Sanai]

RE: When does a Zombie become a Skelleton?

Depends on how long it takes for all the flesh to rot away.

 

[Ophidicus]

RE: When does a Zombie become a Skelleton?

The brain is the most important part, Zombies are so stupid because they're trying to think with their undead non-brains & their previously living brains - the two conflict.

There's stuff about exactly this in the Liber NEcris, but I don't have time to refer to it right now. I am late.

Ho ho, Late, get it? The late Ophidicus....

 

[Count Lasombra]

IIRC they hold some sort of Bar-Mitzvah.

 

[Santawraith]

my thought feed the zombies to your ghouls after the battle they strip flesh off the bone well. Thus if you can find enough parts to animate afterwards you have new skeletons.

 

[Shyanekh]

I've always felt that zombies should be tougher to kill than skeletons, surely the putrefied flesh adds some sort of padding?
The way GW interprets it I think is that skeletons have some small remnant of their souls remaining and so they know roughly how to fight without direction. Zombie on the other hand only retain the knowledge of how to feed and as such are easier to outmanouvre.
Of course, skeletons being better than zombies begs an important rules question... If you fail to kill a zombie with a fireball, does it become better at fighting without all that pesky flesh holding it back?

 

[Santawraith]

hmm that reminds me of the D&D adventure this week end where the wizard with a broken leg ground zerod a fireball agiasnt a zombie ogre killing himself the zombie ogre, and severly wounding his two of his companion's.

I would say your right in a way with gw's interprtation. But popluar theroy on other games is the same. Using D&D 2nd edition for example

a zombie is a 2 hd monster so total of 16 hp or hit point at most

a skeleton is 1 hd for a 8 hp or hit point but takes only half damage from edged weapons or arrows

I have seen zombies fall alot easier for most combatants use edged weapons ax's swords or even arrows. where the skeletons last far long.Unless a blunt weapon is present then it doesn't matter. (add armor and it lasts even longer)

I Personally feel this is a good intrepation of why gw did what they did. as zombies indeed have padding but it is rotting flesh which hardens and slows them. Making them slow moving and uneffective in combat. Where skeletons are free from that bond though most often skeleons are mentioned as the ancient dead from battles long past.

Personally I feel yes zombies should be weaker then skeletons, but that might be due to my years of playing D&d along with years of zombies being what they currently are with warhammer too.

Hope no one minded the D&D anology in this I just wanted to show gw isnt the only one who has zombies as the weaker of the two.

 

[Shyanekh]

I think DnD is fine as a point of reference for discussing fluff. GW tend to take generic fantasy fluff and put their own spin on it, as an amateur horror writer though, I quite like to do my own thing with GW armies. My ghouls for example are kind of "souped up zombies" rather than living creatures due to the fact that this is how they were portrayed in a fantasy book I read as a kid and the image has stuck with me since.
I would imagine also that both skeletons and zombies are in various states of decomposition, with some zombies being ancient and bitter enough to join skeleton units and some skeletons being decrepit and broken enough to join zombie units. A little mixing in the units could be quite good for giving the impression of a shambolic horde, so long as it was clear which units were which (armoured zombies in skeleton units and mouldy skeletons in zombie units for example).

 

[Stacius]

After a rigourous and intense training regime, some lucky zombie's may progress to the rank of skeleton. They will have to prove exceptional and really excell amongst their bedfellow's. None of this "Brain's" rubbish for them , they know where it is at!
Lol on a serious note, I don't think they ever do. A skeleton is easier to control, and is normally made of bone's, armour and weapon's. The GW zombie fluff imply's that they are made of any old bit's really so a half dog/half chicken could be a zombie but never a skeleton.

 

[Umbreus]

The way GW interprets it I think is that skeletons have some small remnant of their souls remaining and so they know roughly how to fight without direction. Zombie on the other hand only retain the knowledge of how to feed and as such are easier to outmanouvre.

In response to that, the idea that skeletons are better than zombies because of what they were able to retain from their prior lives doesn't tally. If so, does that mean that those able to retain the knowledge of how to fight instantly lose their flesh and become skelebobs? And if Zombies are zombies because they only remember how to feed, what happens when the flesh, well, decays completly? Do they just disappear? I'm not knocking your view, I just can't get my head around it.

I'd suggest that possibly having the flesh makes zombies more cumbersome for a necro to command possibly? The lack of flesh enabling the necro to be much more agile, well, as agile as you can be being a corpse. Just another possible take along the lines with Santawraith (although, having never played D&D, it is all a bit alien to me =P)

OR *drum roll* the brain, as Ophidicus mentioned, might be the key? As Ophidicus mentioned, they could be still thinking? Now I understand the idea of conflicting life and undeath minds, but I also wonder, do they have more semblance of will than a skeleton (in the form of their newly dead cranial matter) with which they resist the necro?

I've seen skeletons being more powerful than zombies in a few places:
Warlord's Battlecry III, where zombies were low healthed, slow, builders, whilst skeletons were the only real infantry (but you upgraded them through wight, to death knight or liche etc). It kind of made sense.

Oblivion where it kind of had zombies being able to take much more damage, but being slowler and clumbsy (and gave out less damage as unarmed) whilst skeletons, although weaker (discounting shields etc) caused more damage due to being armed, albeit poorly.

I think that had it more in line with how I'd perceive it-Zombies harder to kill, striking last but in greater number. Skeletons hurt more and hit back more individually but are potentially a lot weaker.

Umbreus

 

[Stacius]

Oh, how good would it be if GW took that onboard and gave us Toughness 4 zombie's. But I agree with Umbreus

 

[Umbreus]

I always assosciated zombies with Nurgle (being 40k) and having played a pure Death Guard (forever in our thoughts :grave: ) army prior to the most recent codex, I always envisioned them with their 'we are f**k annoying to kill with our +1 T to everything you have'. Seeing zombies being truely the weakest units in VC did make me cry a little inside...

Umbreus

 

[Graf Orlok]

The Liber Necris describes the difference between Zombies and Skeletons.

It is not a matter of "age", it depends on the kind of magic that animates them.

Skeletons are automatons, puppets. The Necromancer/Vampier that animates them infuses the whole Skeleton with necromantic magic and actively controls it: the Skeleton has no control on what it does, and each and every of its actions is dependent on the necromancer's whim.

Zombies, on the other hand, are less closely controlled: the Necromancer infuses just the brain of the corpse with magic, and gives the newly awakened Zombie a couple of simple commands, like "kill", "march". After that, the Zombie is not sustained by other magic, and is more or less left to its own: that's why a Skeleton is slightly better (game-wise for example) than a Zombie; the Skeleton is constantly sustained by dark magic and acts on orders, the Zombie is just a rotting brain with simple instructions that has to move a dead body...

 

[Umbreus]

That's all good and well, but it still doesn't explain why zombies are weaker (as in, easier to kill). I understand skeleton's higher Initiative, WS and BS, as it does go with my earlier conclusion. But surely it's easier to destroy crumbling bones than it is solid muscle and flesh? (take note of diagram) Which goes against skeleton's higher T.

*ta da* Diagram!:
+ =:zombie:
:skull: + =:grave:

(and just for good measure)
:Vampire1: + = :mad2: + :| = = :konrad: + :zombie:

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here, and it is not the actual body that makes any difference towards the stats, simply the magic that controls them?

Umbreus

p.s-what is this Liber Necris? I know what the titles means, but I'm curious as I know of the the five chaos Libers, this similar?

 

[Shyanekh]

In response to that, the idea that skeletons are better than zombies because of what they were able to retain from their prior lives doesn't tally. If so, does that mean that those able to retain the knowledge of how to fight instantly lose their flesh and become skelebobs? And if Zombies are zombies because they only remember how to feed, what happens when the flesh, well, decays completly? Do they just disappear? I'm not knocking your view, I just can't get my head around it.

No worrys, I'm just looking to explain my interpretation of GW fluff . I agree with you that zombies should be tougher than they are.

Also Liber Necris is the vampire equivalent of Liber Chaotica. I've not read it myself so I can't say much more on it.

 

[Graf Orlok]

That's all good and well, but it still doesn't explain why zombies are weaker (as in, easier to kill). I understand skeleton's higher Initiative, WS and BS, as it does go with my earlier conclusion. But surely it's easier to destroy crumbling bones than it is solid muscle and flesh?
p.s-what is this Liber Necris? I know what the titles means, but I'm curious as I know of the the five chaos Libers, this similar?

Why Zombies should be easier to dispatch isn't clearly stated. When the Liber Necris was written Zombies still had S3 and T3, like Skellies, so it wasn't a point.

I can try imagining this: Skeletons are wholly animated by necromancy and don't rely on any of their "body parts". That is: if you behead them, or crush their skull or whatever, they still fight. A Zombie, on the other hand, relies on the little necromantic magic that is infused in its brain. Destroy the brain and the Zombie collapses, cut his tendons and he can't move, wound the muscle and it can't lift its arms, etc.

The Liber Necris is indeed a Liber Chaotica-style book about the Undead in the Warhammer World (both VCs and TKs).

It was published by the Black Library some years ago.

 

[Umbreus]

No worrys, I'm just looking to explain my interpretation of GW fluff wink. I agree with you that zombies should be tougher than they are.

I normally love GW fluff, probably too much so, but sometimes it just niggles me and I have to battle myself not to become big and green! :O

I can try imagining this: Skeletons are wholly animated by necromancy and don't rely on any of their "body parts". That is: if you behead them, or crush their skull or whatever, they still fight. A Zombie, on the other hand, relies on the little necromantic magic that is infused in its brain. Destroy the brain and the Zombie collapses, cut his tendons and he can't move, wound the muscle and it can't lift its arms, etc.

I guess that has a point, but I still like to believe that zombies, even if you hack off it's legs and right thumb, it'll still continue to come at you. Whereas I imagined skeletons getting cleaved apart and the rest of their bones disintegrating into dust. I think there can only be one simple answer to this....

++GW rules++
+enter command:....................Umbreus' ideals of the nature of Zombies and Skeletons <Enter>
=System Error

Umbreus

 

[Graf Orlok]

Ehehe, that could be too.

GW zombies =//= movie zombies

Not only physical harm damages the Undead in the Warhammer world. If that would be the case, Zombies and Skeletons should probably be given T4 or multiple wounds. Sever an arm of a human, he either dies or is so incapacitated that he could be counted as a casualty. Sever an arm of a Zombie... he still has one left! The T2 of Zombies probably is there because of gaming balance, and maybe you can pretend that it reflects it completely lack of parry/dodge/block capability against attacks (together with WS1 and I1). Every blow sent against a Zombie is almost a sure hit to the intended target, and enemies trained in fighting Undead will know the trick and always go for the Zombie's head.

On the other hand, a Skeleton is completely a different creature: even beheaded or severed in half, it COULD keep fighting on. And that could mean T4 and/or 2W in gaming terms. BUT, the Skeleton needs the constant control of the Necromancer and can't act on its own, so its movements are clumsy (WS2 and I2). Besides, the magic link that ties it to its summoner gets weakened during the fight, and the damage inflicted on Undead creatures weakens it even more: that's why it has T3 and 1W. And Unstable. :swear:

 

[Umbreus]

I never said GW zombies=Movie zombies (although my influence is more from literature than movies), but I know what you mean.

I think we can safely say that there is some way, as you seem incredibly good at pointing out Graf, to justify the way GW have done it. I think what, in essence, I'm trying to say is that I don't like it! =P I will play with the rules as they are, and accept that, in the face of the monster that is GW, I am nothing; but I shall still pretend in my head that zombies are nigh on impossible to kill! They may take away my invicibility on the tabletop, but they shall never take my FREEEDOM!!!
Mwahahahaha!
*runs off into the dark woods of Sylvania*

Umbreus

 

[Graf Orlok]

Ach, didn't say I liked it either... :konrad:

You could just use Zombie models with Ghouls rules: T4, poisoned attacks... surely more similar to the Zombies we're used to.

Then use Ghouls with Skeleton rules: they're supposed to be sickly human corpse-eaters after all.

And finally Skeletons with Zombie rules: fragile bone puppets.

Your opponents could get a bit confused though...

 

[Umbreus]

As AWESOME that that would be (will make mental note and try it often) I just can't quite see many opponents accepting GW models for an entirely different one. Would be funny to see people's faces when suggested though, especially GW staff! I will have to have this discussion with staff and report back their responses! =P Thankyou for pointing out such a wonderfully simple yet cunning idea!

Umbreus

 

[Graf Orlok]

You're welcome

I had thought of that myself a while ago, since nowadays Ghouls are the unit to go for.:zombie:

Being an ooooold Undead player, I only had a handful of Ghouls, while the supplies of Zombies and Skeletons were huge...

Using my Zombies as Ghouls would have meant a lot of money saved in new models.

 

[Sweeney Todd]

On the original topic, I believe GW's attempt to explain Zombies being only T2 is that they are often hastily cobbled back together with parts that may or may not have been theirs originally. By which I mean they have limbs literally nailed or tied back into place, so those fighting the Zombies can easily target these weak points to disable/destroy the Zombies.

Why the same doesn't apply for Skeletons however is beyond me. Maybe Skellies have to pass a stringent background check and get issued their rusting arms and armor only if they have a pristine skeleton structure with strong, calcium-enriched bones. And maybe Skellies must have brushed their teeth often too. So kids, the moral of the story is, drink your milk like your mama tells you to and next time when you die and get raised you'll come back as a Skeleton instead of a Zombie

 

[Count Lasombra]

"Mommy..where do skellies come from??"
"Well my son,first,someone has to get boned."