Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

TBF the vampire armies always sucked

Lookin through the new book, one thing I can't really figure out is what exactly do the Vyrkos dynasty named characters get out of being counted as Generals? Is that almost purely futrue-proofing for AoS 3.0 where Generals have better Command Ability range?

I guess in current 2.0 the basic Command Abilities also get range buffs...

I almost wish that Vyrkos Dynasty had a battle trait that let every hero get a command trait a la Slaves to Darkness Ravagers.

BlackoCatto wrote:Same exact thoughts, this army doesnt work for me anymore and it just sucks that it does.

Well, they ARE Vampires, so some amount of sucking is going to occur one way or another.

But are they like vacuums in that they both suck and blow?

NinthMusketeer wrote:TBF the vampire armies always sucked

You beat me to it!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF the vampire armies always sucked

They suck.... and now they are just bad to play.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I just think having character upgrades as alt-builds in kits is a great way for us to get extra hero options without GW doing a whole extra kit for them. Anyone who is unhappy with the models not matching up in number can simply not assemble the character, just like they can now. It would be an objective improvement over not having the option at all.

Sure. Provided there either isn't warscroll for that or there's alternative way to get that model. Forcing to buy whole box and waste bunch of models is crammy anti-customer behaviour.

See though it isn't a choice between getting a separate character or getting one that is an upgrade in the kit. It is a choice between getting one that is an upgrade in the kit or not getting the option at all. Besides, a $50 mounted vlord? People would shell out the extra to get a blood knight box and convert one anyways. And people would split things out on ebay, and the models wouldn't be wasted because someone could say convert a unit filler for that extra dude. Warcry exists as well.

Ideals are great, but let's be realistic here.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I just think having character upgrades as alt-builds in kits is a great way for us to get extra hero options without GW doing a whole extra kit for them.

I agree in principle but when you're selling those models in units of 3 and arbitrarily limit unit sizes to multiples of 3, it seems every bit as anti-customer as if they'd just not bothered making the heroes in the first place.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Anyone who is unhappy with the models not matching up in number can simply not assemble the character, just like they can now. It would be an objective improvement over not having the option at all.

What about the option to choose how many models you want in the unit, rather than only being able to have 3, 6 or 9? That used to be an option as well and retaining it would have gone a long way to make this sort of thing more reasonable.

I agree, it would be better if we could add models individually and I don't think it would be difficult to implement either.

 BlackoCatto wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF the vampire armies always sucked

They suck.... and now they are just bad to play.

I've had no issues with my Soulblight. The codex is quite fun to play and the new model range is gorgeous. What kinds of issues have you seen that make them "bad to play?"

Its an improvement on Legions for sure, but it still feels like an early 2e book imo. Almost all the sub faction allegiance traits, command traits and artefacts feel pretty underwhelming, no endless spells or faction terrain, little in the way of powerful synergies to build across the faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and tha Battalions are also mostly quite poor and there are very few of them.

 Stux wrote:
Its an improvement on Legions for sure, but it still feels like an early 2e book imo. Almost all the sub faction allegiance traits, command traits and artefacts feel pretty underwhelming, no endless spells or faction terrain, little in the way of powerful synergies to build across the faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and tha Battalions are also mostly quite poor and there are very few of them.

The Gravesites represent a faction terrain in my opinion.

I wonder if the new edition is going to open up endless spells to everyone in Death/Destruction and so on. So we might have access to Nighthaunt and FEC endless spells, because they are also death, even though we dont have them.

Maybe that's wishful thinking.

I don't see terrain/spells as being necessary for a 'complete' allegiance. Oruuks, CoS, KO, and others are lacking them plus many more who only have one or the other. But they don't feel incomplete--quite the opposite in CoS case! Besides, getting an 'optional' terrain piece is in a realistic sense needing to buy/convert and paint up a terrain piece one may not even like because it is a pointless handicap not to bring it.

Do you think an all Blood Knights army in a Kastali Dynasty be viable?

So Im looking at 40 Knights and Lord on Zombie dragon clocking in at exactly 1995 points.

It's all in the potency your going for. The same list can be overpowered in one group then turn around and get utterly wrecked in another, due to how wide the power spread is. However to answer your question yes I think it would be viable (running the units as 15/15/5/5) but particularly prone to having large advantages or disadvantages based on the matchup.

Rounding out the list with some other units would help. Dire wolves or fell bats could jump in without messing up the theme; knights have their hunting hounds and falcons do they not? It would give you room to upgrade to Vhordrai as well.

@NinthMusketeer

Thanks for the input. I'm trying to decide if I need 2 more boxes of Knights or not. I dont want to use Vhordrai because he doesn't get access to Artifacts or anything.

Using Wolves would stick to the fluff, the little bit of fluff they have, and allow me to take advantage of some of the genric special rules I'll lost for not fielding ANY summonable units. I wish there was a Blood Senechal as mentioned.

I do really wish there was a nightmare-mounted lord option.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do really wish there was a nightmare-mounted lord option.

I literally just got the Red Duke and then it disappeared with SBG. Ah well, Anvil of Blood character it is then.

The Path to Glory tweaks (being point based) seem to sit really nicely with Anvil stuff - seriously considering seeing if the local group would be willing to run some hybrid Narrative-matched stuff as a campaign.

Create your anvil character, advance with it.

Thinking of setting 20 DP as the start (depending on the Anvil of Destruction options) and allowing people to spend X Glory to buy more DP for their Anvil character to overhaul or upgrade.

The base Anvil rules in GHB20 tells you how you can go about gaining more DP.

It's funny, the moment it came out I added the anvil into the house system we use at my flgs for PtG so I totally forgot that the base rules don't have it. With the old style PtG it isn't an intuitive matter of slotting it in either, so I'm glad people will be able to do that more readily in the new edition.

As an FYI, one of the White Dwarfs (the last one I think?) has an anvil specifically for vampires in it with a bunch of thematic options. Highly reccomend.

 Platuan4th wrote:
The base Anvil rules in GHB20 tells you how you can go about gaining more DP.

They do, however those are more suggestions and guidelines than anything solid. And considering the nature of PtG, something more solid than a vague suggestion may go down better.