Some rumours on Vampire Counts (official pics added to first post)

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.

**ph34r**

Kanluwen wrote:
ph34r wrote:It's likely because the VC are based largely near the empire, who do not employ archers nearly as much as the khemrians.

Not "near" the Empire, within the Empire. Sylvania and its surrounding environs are within the province of Stirland, and bordered by Averland, The Moot, and Ostermark.

I would agree with you a bit about the Empire...if the dang Vampires weren't smack dab in the middle of Stirland, which has the claim to fame of being one of the more poor provinces with rustic customs and simple weaponry. The "Uniforms and Heraldry" book even goes so far as to mention that the province is famed for its Huntsmen and Archers, with the 'signature' unit of the province being a unit of scouts known as the "Deathjacks".

Heck, it's also worth mentioning that many of the Blood Dragon lineage go out of their way to try to make the more 'regimented' armies of Wights, Skeletons, and Zombies into grotesque mockeries of Bretonni or Empire formations.

Can you imagine Wights with detachments of Zombies and Skeletons? Fun!

I say near because not all VC are actually within the empire.

Blood Dragons being able to take undead peasant bowmen would indeed be cool. Blood Dragons getting rules at all beyond a few powers and a rare unit would be mega cool.

**-Loki-**

Lahmians being able to take thralls of any kind again would be super mega cool.

Don't even bother with making you have another book. Have a very customiseable non-undead character available to Lahmians.

**Kanluwen**

ph34r wrote:
Blood Dragons being able to take undead peasant bowmen would indeed be cool. Blood Dragons getting rules at all beyond a few powers and a rare unit would be mega cool.

To be fair, Blood Dragons mostly had one 'special rule' which was that they could take the Lance formation for their Black Knights, losing access to the Dogs of War.

I think the 'best fit' for Blood Dragons would be the ability to take Grave Guard(or if the general is mounted, Black Knights) as Core choices with Skeleton 'detachments' and Zombies.

One part that kinda bugs me about the current VC book is the way Zombies are handled.
As it stands: they're kind of expensive, and they're best done as a summoned unit. But somehow, you cannot get Musicians or Standard Bearers for those summoned units of course.

**EldarN00b**

Haven't the VC JUST been redone? I remember a big hoohaa at my LGS.

**ph34r**

Kanluwen wrote:
ph34r wrote:
Blood Dragons being able to take undead peasant bowmen would indeed be cool. Blood Dragons getting rules at all beyond a few powers and a rare unit would be mega cool.

To be fair, Blood Dragons mostly had one 'special rule' which was that they could take the Lance formation for their Black Knights, losing access to the Dogs of War.

I think the 'best fit' for Blood Dragons would be the ability to take Grave Guard(or if the general is mounted, Black Knights) as Core choices with Skeleton 'detachments' and Zombies.

One part that kinda bugs me about the current VC book is the way Zombies are handled.
As it stands: they're kind of expensive, and they're best done as a summoned unit. But somehow, you cannot get Musicians or Standard Bearers for those summoned units of course.

Grave Guard with detachments would be awesome. I'd be all over that in a heartbeat.

**-Loki-**

EldarN00b wrote:Haven't the VC JUST been redone? I remember a big hoohaa at my LGS.

Err... They recently had a wave of releases with a few new units in White Dwarf. That's not being 'redone' though.

**Ozymandias**

HBMC: How is the current VC list "gutted" from the 6 ed list? I finally got to play the list 'I' wanted to play, rather than be pigeon holed into a bloodline. Frankly, the 7th ed book is vastly superior to the old one (though I did miss my skirmishing ghouls).

**Dysartes**

Kanluwen wrote:But somehow, you cannot get Musicians or Standard Bearers for those summoned units of course.

I'm guessing that would be because the Vampire/Necromancer isn't that interested in micro-managing the summoning on the battlefield - more of general call-to-arms Raise Dead than a "Right, I need to remember to raise that body with the French Horn, and the gentleman with the slightly blood-stained Empire banner, and...." thought process.

**LunaHound**

Ozymandias wrote:HBMC: How is the current VC list "gutted" from the 6 ed list? I finally got to play the list 'I' wanted to play, rather than be pigeon holed into a bloodline. Frankly, the 7th ed book is vastly superior to the old one (though I did miss my skirmishing ghouls).

One word: Steadfast

**ph34r**

LunaHound wrote:
Ozymandias wrote:HBMC: How is the current VC list "gutted" from the 6 ed list? I finally got to play the list 'I' wanted to play, rather than be pigeon holed into a bloodline. Frankly, the 7th ed book is vastly superior to the old one (though I did miss my skirmishing ghouls).

One word: Steadfast

That's not so much a problem of the 6th ed list as a problem of steadfast + nerfing fear into the ground making all old VC tactics invalid.

**-Loki-**

Grave Guard as core would get me throwing out my plans for Lahmians and running Blood Knights. That would be awesome.

**Mr Morden**

-Loki- wrote:Lahmians being able to take thralls of any kind again would be super mega cool.

Don't even bother with making you have another book. Have a very customiseable non-undead character available to Lahmians.

Used to make for some great fun lists - I enjoyed making up back stories for who and why the various people were with my Vampire Ladies. A new swains rule could work well given the recent move towards using lots of different things in army lists in Storm of Magic. You could easily have a human Hero Swain template.

Could even bring back human Militia as in Storm of Chaos - Skeleton Archers fits with a number of the bloodlines - Blood Dragons who often have Bretonian or Empire Heritage for instance.

I even made a new list up so I could use them

bit indulgant but there you go......

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/357886.page

**Flashman**

Another army with monstrous infantry then

Anyone remember the days when different armies had different strengths and weaknesses based on the different kind of units they could field?

**kenshin620**

Flashman wrote:Another army with monstrous infantry then

Anyone remember the days when different armies had different strengths and weaknesses based on the different kind of units they could field?

Hey, I liked using Dogs of War cannons in my VC armies!

**Alpharius**

GW seems to be leaning towards the model of some of the more recent game systems with the "Balance shall come from the fact that everyone has the same things!" school of game design?

**Slinky**

Alpharius wrote:GW seems to be leaning towards the model of some of the more recent game systems with the "Balance shall come from the fact that everyone has the same things!" school of game design?

Quite - I'd prefer the different armies to be differentiated rather more than that

**Kanluwen**

Alpharius wrote:GW seems to be leaning towards the model of some of the more recent game systems with the "Balance shall come from the fact that everyone has the same things!" school of game design?

Is that really a problem though?

**Flashman**

Kanluwen wrote:
Alpharius wrote:GW seems to be leaning towards the model of some of the more recent game systems with the "Balance shall come from the fact that everyone has the same things!" school of game design?

Is that really a problem though?

Yes

To elaborate, it removes the tactical constraints from armies as well as part of their character. You may as well play chess.

**Kanluwen**

Flashman wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Alpharius wrote:GW seems to be leaning towards the model of some of the more recent game systems with the "Balance shall come from the fact that everyone has the same things!" school of game design?

Is that really a problem though?

Yes

To elaborate, it removes the tactical constraints from armies as well as their character. You may as well play chess.

By simply having the same model types available to each army? I don't see how simply having the options there mean that "it removes the tactical constraints from armies".

Mind you, I'm saying that there's no issue with things such as Monstrous Creatures/Cavalry being available for most armies.

It's when they become "no-brainer" options all the way across every single army that you will see the big problem, as them simply being "optional" would not be that big of a deal.

**Mr Morden**

Is one races cavalry the same as anothers - likely not, you can give all armies a good basic selction of troops which can still operate in different ways, appear differently and give different tactical options - IMO of course.

I'd rather have lots of interesting options than a few that mean all of X races armies play basically the same way. Most races are large enough that there can be radically different styles of army within the basic list - so a Blood Dragons force is going to be very different to a Strigori force but still retain a Vampirirc character.

You can I feell can add Skeleton bowmen, monsterous Zombie creations, living militia and swains to the list without disrupting the essential character......

**Vampirate of Sartosa**

The Throne of Chaos book mentions Bloodline Powers in the rules section, so it'd be reasonable to assume that they'll be coming back- presumably fairly soon.

**Kanluwen**

There's a Vampire list in Throne of Chaos?

**Vampirate of Sartosa**

No- in the Scenarios section it says something about a restriction on magic items but not other character upgrade options, "such as Vampire Counts Bloodline powers".

**Flashman**

It definitely says "Bloodline"?

Hmm... curious

**Kanluwen**

Might just be a misprint, to be honest. The Vampire Powers are referred to at least once in the current book as "Bloodlines".

**Minsc**

Ozymandias wrote:HBMC: How is the current VC list "gutted" from the 6 ed list? I finally got to play the list 'I' wanted to play, rather than be pigeon holed into a bloodline. Frankly, the 7th ed book is vastly superior to the old one (though I did miss my skirmishing ghouls).

Well, for starters, Necromancer Armies. It'd sort of be like an O&G book stating "An Orc must be your general."

**Kanluwen**

Minsc wrote:
Ozymandias wrote:HBMC: How is the current VC list "gutted" from the 6 ed list? I finally got to play the list 'I' wanted to play, rather than be pigeon holed into a bloodline. Frankly, the 7th ed book is vastly superior to the old one (though I did miss my skirmishing ghouls).
Well, for starters, Necromancer Armies. It'd sort of be like an O&G book stating "An Orc must be your general."

It's "Warhammer Armies: Vampire Counts", not "Warhammer Armies: Undead".

**12thRonin**

Kanluwen wrote:
Flashman wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Alpharius wrote:GW seems to be leaning towards the model of some of the more recent game systems with the "Balance shall come from the fact that everyone has the same things!" school of game design?

Is that really a problem though?

Yes

To elaborate, it removes the tactical constraints from armies as well as their character. You may as well play chess.

By simply having the same model types available to each army? I don't see how simply having the options there mean that "it removes the tactical constraints from armies".

Mind you, I'm saying that there's no issue with things such as Monstrous Creatures/Cavalry being available for most armies.

It's when they become "no-brainer" options all the way across every single army that you will see the big problem, as them simply being "optional" would not be that big of a deal.

Please see Epic: 40,000 for an example of what happens.

**Kanluwen**

12thRonin wrote:
Please see Epic: 40,000 for an example of what happens.

Or you can explain it, rather than forcing people to dig through looking an entire game system for an oblique reference being made as an attempt at a witty commentary.

**Minsc**

Kanluwen wrote:
Minsc wrote:
Ozymandias wrote:HBMC: How is the current VC list "gutted" from the 6 ed list? I finally got to play the list 'I' wanted to play, rather than be pigeon holed into a bloodline. Frankly, the 7th ed book is vastly superior to the old one (though I did miss my skirmishing ghouls).
Well, for starters, Necromancer Armies. It'd sort of be like an O&G book stating "An Orc must be your general."

It's "Warhammer Armies: Vampire Counts", not "Warhammer Armies: Undead".

Oh, alright then. I'm glad it at least gives focus then on Blood Dragons, Lahmians, and... oh, wait.

In before, by the way, you either counter with "counts as" or "well they're a part of Vampire Counts" which then begs the question what Necromancers are.