• Roll-up! Roll-up! Come one and all the fantastic Turning the World to Darkness painting competition. Welcome to any skill level, you can find out more here.
  • It's time once again to ferret out those murderous vampires in a new VAU - Vampires Amongst Us. A cross between Cluedo and a roleplay, sometimes gory and often hilarious! Find out more here.

Who Will be the Sacrificial Lamb?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
187
#26
Of course it would have to be the "classic matchup" vs Empire - valiant human defenders fight against the dark evil that is the Vampire Counts, featuring as many nice, shiny, new (and expensive) models as possible...and of course VC will win...
 

puggimer

Grave Guard
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
257
#27
It just surprises me that VC didn't win the battle report for their new book - it is like they are trying to present them as balanced or something - what is up with that? :) :) :)
 

N.I.B

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
2,370
#28
it is like they are trying to present them as balanced or something
After having played a lot of games with the new VC rules, I'd say that you're right, they are trying to cover up the power brimming within those 96 pages... :cool:
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
114
#29
The Dark Lord Mr Fluffy said:
And obviously, the new dire wolves will somehow win the game for us, making them look "slightly" better... At least thats what I think...
I don't think anything could make the dire wolves look better. Let me do the math on this one- combat effectiveness decreased (- slavering charge), points didn't change significantly, can only heal/summon one at a time vs. d6 for the infantry........nope, didn't get much/any better.

Still won't find a single one of these in my lists. In fact they are going to be the first thing I try to trade off out of my spearhead when it comes in; hopefully I can swap someone for a box of skeletons.

WC
 

Lord Fear

Master Vampire
True Blood
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
4,834
#30
puggimer said:
It just surprises me that VC didn't win the battle report for their new book - it is like they are trying to present them as balanced or something - what is up with that? :) :) :)
I doubt you have the March White Dwarf yet, but please don't post spoilers like that un-marked!
 

puggimer

Grave Guard
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
257
#31
Sorry - I did put the spoiler alert on my first post about it. And yes, my US subscription copy was waiting for me Monday when I got back from a weekend away (so it came in sometime between Thursday and Monday).
 

Lord Fear

Master Vampire
True Blood
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
4,834
#32
Ah yes, see I just scrolled up from the bottom of the page, saw one post, and ignored the rest of the thread! Impressive that people have it already, given that this month's White Dwarf is only out on the 29th (damn that leap year)!

3000 points and Empire, well done to those who guessed it right! Did the whole von damn family make an appearance? :)
 

Voltaire

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
2,763
#33
Its a well known fact that WD come weeks in advance for those of us with a subscription. Mine is due to arrive tomorrow if my maths is right.
 

Lord Fear

Master Vampire
True Blood
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
4,834
#34
The "well-known fact" is that it comes out on the last Friday of month, and is sent to subscribers to arrive the week before, so you should be looking to receive it in a week's time. If they've changed things... not a real surprise.
 

N.I.B

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
2,370
#35
thewrathchilde said:
I don't think anything could make the dire wolves look better. Let me do the math on this one- combat effectiveness decreased (- slavering charge), points didn't change significantly, can only heal/summon one at a time vs. d6 for the infantry........nope, didn't get much/any better.
Are you strange? Dire Wolves never was meant to win combat against anything tougher than war machine crew, or a lone wizard, or negating ranks in a multi-combat, or taking out Dragons for a full turn with the champion trick. First and foremost they were on the battlefield to divert and die. They new Dire Wolves perform all these parts just as well, and on top of that we got a decent point reduction AND the ability to heal them! Conclusion: the new Dire Wolves are much better than the old.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
114
#36
N.I.B. said:
Are you strange? Dire Wolves never was meant to win combat against anything tougher than war machine crew, or a lone wizard, or negating ranks in a multi-combat, or taking out Dragons for a full turn with the champion trick. First and foremost they were on the battlefield to divert and die. They new Dire Wolves perform all these parts just as well, and on top of that we got a decent point reduction AND the ability to heal them! Conclusion: the new Dire Wolves are much better than the old.

No, I just have a different view; almost all of the things you listed above that you use dire wolves for are things that can be accomplished with other troops equally well. The only advantage of the dire wolves over some of the other choices is their movement rate. However, the disadvantages are their survivability and the difficulty in healing them.

I generally build an army to capitalize on the victory point denial ability of the VC army. When I look at healing (now that you can) dire wolves vs. healing skeletons/ghouls/summoning zombies, it is a lot more efficient to do these things instead. When one heal spell will get you d6 skeletons rather than 1 dire wolf I think you can preserve units, replenish better, deny victory points, maintain flank negation, tarpit, etc better with other choices than with wolves.

In the old book this was especially true given that you couldn't heal wolves. In the old book I generally played an army where the only models in it that I couldn't heal were ghouls. At the time with their toughness, skirmish ability, and low cost I viewed it as a small trade-off for having skirmishers and living troops in the army. In then new book I am not as wild about ghouls due to their conversion to "undead troops" and their loss of skirmish. Obviously they perform a completely different role and function now regardless of their similar/identical stats.

Anyway, back on the subject of wolves; I didn't like them then as they were too fragile, gave up too many points, and couldn't be healed. Now, they are equally fragile, I haven't seen their point cost, and can't be efficiently healed therefore I still don't like them.

N.I.B. said:
Are you strange?
Lastly I am not sure what your intent was with the above portion of your post; but, if it was to question my ability or opinions I can just PM you some tournament results from the GW US GT websites that can provide you more accurate performance based examples of my lists in action and my ability in order for you to make that assessment more accurately.

If was it just based on disbelief or suprise over my opinion then whatever; we all have different views, opinions, and different play environments. What is useful in some games and against some armies is not equally useful in another environment.

WC
 

Lord Fear

Master Vampire
True Blood
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
4,834
#37
thewrathchilde said:
Now, they are equally fragile, I haven't seen their point cost, and can't be efficiently healed therefore I still don't like them.
Ouch, you wrote all that only to reveal you don't actually know what you're talking about (Not an insult, but a statement of fact- if you don't know their cost, how can you judge them?)!

As for building armies based on points denial... whatever happened to the good old days when people would build armies based on fun? Anyone remember that? :(
 

Danceman

The Devil in Pale Moonlight
True Blood
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,461
#38
Ok, play nice now guys.

As for building armies based on points denial... whatever happened to the good old days when people would build armies based on fun? Anyone remember that?
Different envoirment, different playstyle. Who´s to say whats fun anyways?
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
114
#39
EvC said:
Ouch, you wrote all that only to reveal you don't actually know what you're talking about (Not an insult, but a statement of fact- if you don't know their cost, how can you judge them?)!

As for building armies based on points denial... whatever happened to the good old days when people would build armies based on fun? Anyone remember that? :(
Not really; we have seen posts indicating that their cost has been reduced. However, regardless of their cost all the other points are valid- they aren't as survivable or healable as most of the other core choices that can perform the same functions that N.I.B references above.

As for building armies based on fun, we all play warhammer for a hobby or enjoyment; however, just like other games it is based on competition. At the end of every game there is a winner and loser. Just because I play for "fun" doesn't mean I am going to bend over and give the game away to my opponent. I will build what I consider to be a competitive army that I think I can do well and strive to meet the constraints /composition requirements (if imposed) for a given game or tournament in order to field something that isn't overly abusive but that I can still win with and be successful. I would expect the same from my opponents as well. I would rather play a tough game against someone who brought their "A" game than victimize someone fielding an ineffective roster.

WC
 

Lord Fear

Master Vampire
True Blood
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
4,834
#40
Well I don't tend to think that making a list without focussing on points denial is necessarily equal to bending over for your opponent, truth be told ;)
 

N.I.B

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
2,370
#41
thewrathchilde said:
If was it just based on disbelief or suprise over my opinion then whatever;
It was, I'm sorry if it came off as rude. I've never heard anyone (except from complete newbies) fielding VC armies without fast cavalry, as fast cavalry are perhaps the most flexible units in the game. As for VC, no other unit can do what they do with the same efficiency. They can't be dispelled like a line of Zombies, unlike skirmishers they can't be tactical charged, and they outrun every other diverting VC unit by more than 100%, at the same time as they cost only 50%. With the new book it's harder to raise and flank, and Zombies in the flank can be a bad choice as they give away so much CR. Dire Wolves have become even more attractive.

These are your main points I found strange:
points didn't change significantly, can only heal/summon one at a time vs. d6 for the infantry........nope, didn't get much/any better.
As already mentioned they got a decent price decrease. And I'd like to know how much you could heal them using the old army book? You can still take them with a champion, and the champion is the first model to be healed, which means in some multi-combat situations you can lock dangerous enemy characters in challenges so your lord won't have to risk anything. The only thing they lost, is Slavering Charge.

Losing S4 on the charge, anyone here that think it's a deciding factor in the light of what Dire Wolves gained, or the roles they perform in a game?

Still won't find a single one of these in my lists.
That's a completely different thing, but if you've found an effective point negating playstyle, all the power to you.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
114
#42
N.I.B. said:
It was, I'm sorry if it came off as rude. I've never heard anyone (except from complete newbies) fielding VC armies without fast cavalry, as fast cavalry are perhaps the most flexible units in the game. As for VC, no other unit can do what they do with the same efficiency.
Well, I am one who didn't field them and performed pretty successfully in some sizeable tournaments without them. Sure, fast cavalry units are some of the most flexible units in the game; in DE I usually run 2-3 units of Dark Riders, in chaos I use 2-3 units of marauder cavalry, and in most other armies that can take fast cavalry I use them unless I have a faster, more maneuverable option (ala pegasus knights).

However, with VC you lose a couple of the key advantages of normal fast cavalry units- 1. the ability to flee & 2. once the got away from the boss they couldn't march any more so lost a good deal of the maneuverability and speed. With the new book the second problem will change and no longer be applicable as any "vampire" can enable them to march but they still won't be able to flee.

Then of course in the last book their was the issue of their cost vs. survivability and the fact they couldn't be healed. Not being able to heal them was the primary reason I didn't use them. My entire army (minus 2 ten model ghouls units) was built around healable models in order to prevent giving up VPs making it easier to gain victories (or more specifically massacres in tournaments) as not giving up any significant amount of points greatly reduces the amount of points you need to earn the massacre.

As far as using them for flanking, war machine hunting, baiting, etc, I simply used other units to perform those roles. Spirit hosts made excellent flankers being ethereal and movement 6. I would also flank with zombies and/or skeletons to negate ranks or ghouls to pound in extra damage against lightly armored troops. For machine hunting I usually used summoned units or didn't worry about the machines too muh in the early turns as most of my choices were replenishable. As far as redirecting units, summoned zombies could do this as effectively as dire wolves and usually for the same or cheaper cost.....and of course with multiple summons could simply tarpit rather than just redirecting. Baiting was also a reason I used ghouls; being living they could flee so you could either set them right at the edge of charge range for the baited unit and reliably escape the khorne knights or other baited unit or you could set them up to flee into terrain where they were guaranteed to get away and bog down the opposing unit with the terrain.

In the new book you still have other options besides wolves for flanking units although zombies become alot less viable- primarily due to their changed toughness. The change to their WS and STR didn't really bother me as I never really counted on them to do any actual damage and most things already hit them on 3's. The toughness change did hurt as it enables the opposing unit to generate more active combat resolution which might (depending on the unit) make up for the possilbe 4 point shift in combat resolution that the zombies in the flank are creating (-3 for ranks, +1 for flank). In this role against infantry units with 1 attack per model they are still viable.

They are considerably less effective at machine and solo wizard hunting than they were before as they can no longer pursue......however, against most non-dwarf machine crews (i.e. toughness three crews) and wizarxDs the d6 per rank extra hits gives youa decent chance in finishing the wizard/crew off or inflicting decent damage to them once they break. Being able to break these types of units shouldn't change much as you are still relying on numbers and combat resolution to break the target- not wounds inflicted.

N.I.B. said:
They can't be dispelled like a line of Zombies, unlike skirmishers they can't be tactical charged, and they outrun every other diverting VC unit by more than 100%, at the same time as they cost only 50%. With the new book it's harder to raise and flank, and Zombies in the flank can be a bad choice as they give away so much CR. Dire Wolves have become even more attractive.
Very true Dire Wolves couldn't be dispelled, but using 9 casting dice and two bound items I usually didn't have any problem getting summons off for zombies as needed. The other points I have addressed above except the movement- in the new book they will be able to maintain a high rate of movement given the ability of multiple models to allow them to march; however, in the old book once outside of general's range they were only out-running ghouls by 1 inch per turn. I will grant that at 50% of their original cost Dire Wolves do become a more attractice option; coupled with the fact they can be healed they an even more attractive option.

My problem is the efficiency of healing/raising them compared to other units. With all the core infantry choices you can heal/raise d6 per spell instead of 1. When I look at multiple casts (on odds) I am getting 7 skeletons or ghouls per two spells cast vs. 2 wolves; and this is just looking at healing them to starting level. To take them above this then you are also taking another blood line power on one or more characters....when you do this for each of the three types you are taking a significant amount of a character powers to be able to raise all your troop types or limiting the flexibility of you characters by only having one or two that can heal each type forcing you to play them near or inconjunction with that specific character so that he can increase them early on......and then we he does it is only going to be by one or two a turn (with 1-2 spells) versus significantly increasing the size of skeletons, ghouls, or zombies.

Looking at the armies I am planning with the new book in most of the lists I end up restricting myself to only using one or two core troop types to maximize the flexibility of my casters to heal/raise and am focusing primarily on skeletons as then all my casters only need one "master" and with d6 summons from multiple casters and a healthy casting pool I can significantly increase their size in most cases.

It all comes down to personal preference. Most of us have certain styles of play that we prefer or are comfortable with. If Dire Wolves are a unit that is necessary for you to execute your battle plan or if they provide a significant amount of support to your other units then by all means use them; however, in evaluating them in accordance with the way I want my army to function and intend to play they weren't worth it before and they still aren't worth it now.

EvC said:
As for building armies based on points denial... whatever happened to the good old days when people would build armies based on fun? Anyone remember that?
Lastly because I didn't explain this earlier; 90% of what I discuss on forums is targeted towards tournament play not pick-up games with the fellas. If I am looking at something for a pick-up game I am not worried about whether or not it will be effective but will through whatever I need to so we can have a good time slinging dice and shooting the bull. For tournaments it is a different approach as while we are playing because we enjoy the game but the goal is still to be competitive and perform well. That is the frame of reference for most of my views, discussions, or opinions on most forums.

WC
 

N.I.B

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
2,370
#43
I will grant that at 50% of their original cost Dire Wolves do become a more attractice option
I guess I was unclear - I meant a min-sized Wolf unit will cost only 50% of a min-sized core infantry unit.

I find that after the first turn (especially with an 18" march) marching is seldom needed, most likely you'll be march blocked anyway. Here, the free reform of the fast cavalry really allows Wolves to get the most out of their M9.

In the new book you still have other options besides wolves for flanking units although zombies become alot less viable
Not only Zombies, also the Black Coach as it lost the US 5. The Varghulf is only US 4 too. The infantry units are M4 so you'll probably need magic to get the crucial flank charges.
Spirit Hosts are a gamble in most tournaments, with the popularity of Wood Elves and Daemonic Legion. Though they've become slightly better against Forest Spirits and Daemons, with their now magical attacks.

Depending on magic to get flank charges is always going to be risky, now more than ever thanks to the loss of Unholy Cynosure. And now you won't be able to Vanhels a unit more than once each magic phase. But I think that you will find that same as I - the new VC aren't very dependant on taking away those ranks. We can win combats in the front now, with all those vampires and hard hitting rare choices. And most of all - VC have never had a hard time winning against ranked armies (maybe with the exception of the 7th ed. Dwarfs) - it's been the skirmish armies (WE, Lizardmen) and monster armies (Chaos Dragons + units of Khorne Minotaurs & Dragon Ogres, chariot galore) that's been hard to get to grips with.

But Wolves have so many more uses.

They really shine when diverting heavy hitters like chosen Chaos knights, and to break up lines of Bret lances. This will be much harder to do with only a 12" raise. And they are excellent in a cavalry based VC army - sacrifice them in the first turn to march block enemy fast cavalry that would otherwise had made life miserably for your hammer units, to buy them time to get into place. Works like a charm. Fell Bats can do the same, but are more expensive and takes up special slots.

They can't flee, but they are fear-causing. Especially on flanks, that can mean that they will get where I want them to be, unmolested.

And you can buy a min-sized unit of Dire Wolves for the price of another 5 Skellies. In my world, that's a no-brainer :)

It all comes down to personal preference. Most of us have certain styles of play that we prefer or are comfortable with.
Agreed. But perhaps I'm odd, in that I've never had just one prefered style of play. Usually I take wildy different armies to tournaments to not bore myself. Different bloodline/theme/concept every time. However, I've never gone without my Wolves. They aren't needed in infantry heavy lists, but they make our un-life much easier.
 

Voltaire

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
2,763
#46
This was about who was going to be the sacrifical lamb. May I advise you to start a new topic on the tactics forum for this sort of thing. thread locked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top