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.

Hi guys, I haven't played WHFB in over 10 years, and I'm somewhat interested in getting back into it. When I did play, I started with Wood Elves and then moved into Undead (this was pre-Vampire counts). When Undead turned into Vampire Counts for the first time, I stayed with them.

I still have a decent amount of my Undead stuff and would probably want to stick with that theme if I got back into it.

However, I don't really know the differences between Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings, and was hoping that you guys could give me a run-down. I'm talking both mechanics and flavor, here (by flavor, I mean what kinds of units are fielded - ghouls vs scorpions or whatever). I also know nothing about the magic phase of WHFB, so if you mention that, please explain as much as you can.

Also, I'm semi-interested in how good these two armies are in the metagame, though this won't really affect my decision to play one of them.

Vampire counts are more like the things in Horror stories with zombies and ghouls all lead by a vampire who can bring them back to "life"
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat440102a&rootCatGameStyle=
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat440103a&rootCatGameStyle=
They are getting a new army book in january so points cost will change and so will their rules.

Tomb kings look silly IMHO with statues that come to life with animal bodies and human heads
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat570032a&rootCatGameStyle=
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat570034a&prodId=prod1190056a

Do they play the same?

With vampire counts there is only 1 really competitive list ATM (lots of ghouls as they are way better than skeletons)
This may change in their new army book in January

Tomb kings skeletons are half the cost of VC skeletons so they are more about fielding lots of skeletons supported by monstrous statues.

The main difference between the two armies is the ranged abilities. Tomb Kings have a decent shooting phase, while the Vampire Counts have no shooting at all. However, Tomb Kings are a lot slower than Vampire Counts are due to not being able to march (they rely on magic to be allowed to move twice in a turn).

If you choose to go with Vampire Counts, wait for the new Armybook in (according to rumours) January. If you are going for Tomb Kings, a good place to start would be a Liche Priest, some Skeleton Archers and something to actually deal damage (Necropolis Knights, Khemrian Warsphinx, Tomb Guard).

All I can say is Vampires if you want a dark gritty army or Tomb Kings if you want a neutral army. I am starting a TK Army my self and I am really enjoying painting them!

VC are old Dracula movie/books canon.
TK are Egyptian death cult.

VC has all the ghosts and ghouls and other types of monsters like wights.

TK is really about skeletons. They do add statues, as stated.


TK is a much newer book and it has some pretty good strategies in it.

What are the magic phases of the two armies like?

Both armies can have a very powerful Magic Phase. Tomb Kings can increase their number of Power Dice through the Casket of Souls, while Vampire Counts can do this by taking the Master of the Black Arts Vampiric Power. Both armies pretty much need to include wizards to be able to move at a decent rate (Vampire Counts can't march without a model with the Vampire rule nearby, while Tomb Kings can't march at all, but rely on a spell to be able to move twice).

Are both armies' magic phases centered primarily around raising new troops?

VAmps raise and recover, TK recover and heal the beasties.

Tangent wrote:Are both armies' magic phases centered primarily around raising new troops?

Not really. Single dicing Invocation of Nehek all Magic Phase long (Vampire Counts) is no longer viable due to a wizard not being allowed to cast anymore after failing to cast (and always failing on a casting roll of 1 or 2). Tomb Kings don't even have a raising spell (except from the bound spell in the Banner of the Undying Legion, which isn't spammable), rather they raise through their Lore Attribute, meaning they raise when they cast other spells.

The two armies are quite different. I don't get along with my VC because of how weak skeletons are compared to points. that's resolved in TK.

I think I decided to go with Vampire Counts if I ever get around to forming the army. I just love the more traditional undead feel. Though, I have to say, I was at my FLGS the other day and got a chance to see the big sphinx statue thing for Tomb Kings and man, that thing is impressive. Almost changed my mind right there!

Vampire Counts are certainly my favourite of the two. They're a lot more 'undead-y' with the Zombie Dragon and hordes of ghouls. However, I feel the TK's Big Monsters have father distanced them from being proper undead, though they're still cool, but that's the reason they're not as appealing to me.

Hey guys, so I thought I would necro this thread to get some people's opinions on the new codex for VC now that it has been out for awhile. I really like a lot of the new models so what do you guys think of the codex? Did this codex fix the skeleton problem? Is anything really good or totally useless?

Tangent wrote:Hey guys, so I thought I would necro this thread to get some people's opinions on the new codex for VC now that it has been out for awhile. I really like a lot of the new models so what do you guys think of the codex? Did this codex fix the skeleton problem? Is anything really good or totally useless?

The skeletons are now a little more viable than they previously were. The problem now is that zombies are almost the same stats, no armor but they heal an extra d6. There is nothing in the book that is 100% useless. There are things that I (as a VC player) don't like and probably wont use but I can see their potential. Like the other 8th ed books, this book is completely internally balanced and I don't see anything that is OP or UP.

P.s. I think its ok to necro a thread that you started as long as you are asking about something new and not just continuing the old discussion.

Yeah, I didn't do a lot of digging but I didn't see any threads on critiquing the new book in general. So, can you equip zombies and skeletons the same, as well?

No they have the same options as before but now there is no charge for spears on skeletons.

The main difference is Zombies are tougher than skeletons are more easily raised, making them a better tarpit, while skeletons are slightly better in combat - though still primarily a tarpit.

It mostly comes down to whether you want a solid tarpit that can't fight its way out of a wet paper bag (zombies) and will get reinfoced extremely will through Invocation of Nehek, or a slightly worse tarpit that might actually inflict a few casualties on the enemy and won't get reinforced as well through Invocation.

Personally, I'm still more of a fan of Skeletons, but I can see the value of a big Zombie block.

So, I'm assuming their points costs are more similar, but the idea with zombies is that you want to tie up enemy units for as long as possible (and can do so easier by being able to raise more in the magic phase). Skeletons can do this too, but trade the ability to be reinforced by magic with greater combat abilities and, I'm assuming the possibility for better combat gear?

Also, here's a question that may be too broad and/or too vague, but that just came to mind that I don't think I really know the answer to: How do you win a game as VC? Which units/phases are you using to win?

Winning a game with VCs is dependent on the opponent. Different armies require different tactics. Here is my breakdown of the phases:

Movement: Like all non-gunline armies, it is crucial to have good positioning and a good tactical analysis of the battlefield. This is even more true with VCs because if a unit gets caught outside of the 12" march bubble, they will fall behind and could easily be taken out by opposing flanking units or cavalry. Also set up good flank charges with your hard hitting units, like the vargheist, vargulf, or black knights. Remember to use terrain to your advantage. If there is a big piece of forest between you and the enemy, place your unit touching the edge of if so when the enemy charges you they will need dangerous terrain (if applicable) and it will break their steadfast immediately.

Magic: Just like before, VCs need to be dominant in this phase. If you are facing an anti-magic dwarf army, expect it to be a hard fight. Whatever the point value is, I recommend a level 4 wizard. I never leave home without one. I also grab one or two level 1 wizards as well for the extra Invocations. Its nice to know that if the situation is bad enough, I can heal 3 times in one phase. My personal favorite spells are danse, Invo, and vigor. I try to make sure my wizard has all three of these every time. These spells are invaluable and can really turn the tide of any fight. If you have zombies that are hit by both of the spells and have a corpse cart near them, you can kill anything.

Shooting: expect this phase to just be a harassment phase. You can't do much more than that.

Close combat: With this phase you kinda just have to enjoy the ride. You don't have any real tactics because you just resolve the fights as they come up.

I'll go over units next time. But now I'm off to work. Hope this helped.

It did! Thanks. Though, what I guess I mean is... What kind of goal do the main tactics focus their attention on? As in, do you win via vampire combat, and so you do whatever it takes to keep your vamp protected? Do you win by making units rout with fear and chasing them off the board? Do you win by beating them with dice from your powerful units via flanking charges while your weak units like zombies and skeletons tarpit them?

I win with my VC by screaming at them.

You scream at your army?

Nah my lovely ladies scream at the opponents army

Oh. I... don't know what that means.

Banshees... 6 of em

Ah, I see.

Johnny-Crass wrote:Banshees... 6 of em

*shudders with horror* WTF is wrong with you!? That could wipe a unit off the board each turn! I think i would just quit if i saw someone take 6 banshees in a single game.

Tangent wrote:It did! Thanks. Though, what I guess I mean is... What kind of goal do the main tactics focus their attention on? As in, do you win via vampire combat, and so you do whatever it takes to keep your vamp protected? Do you win by making units rout with fear and chasing them off the board? Do you win by beating them with dice from your powerful units via flanking charges while your weak units like zombies and skeletons tarpit them?

You're welcome. I usually win either through an excellent sandwich where the enemy is the center of at least 3 of my units. Following that, I continue to ensure that battles are fought on my terms, not the opponents. Just be sure that if you are using zombies to be the tarpit, that they are almost all gone by the time anyone else shows up. If you have a unit of 20 zombie left when all your other units get in combat, the zombies will die so fast that you wont have a chance to win combat.

With the new rules on how a new caster can stop crumbling, I like using a combat lord instead of a weak caster. They still have access to Red Fury and they also have an extra attack base int he new book for about the same points. Just make sure to have him protected well.

BTW, Fear has a different set of rules in 8th ed. It just has a chance to lower you to WS 1.