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.

I was just wondering when I was comparing the ushapti to the crypt horrors and the vargheist. The suhapti costs a bigger amount of points then they do. But I do feel that the other two are better. Trye the ushapti crumbels less, has armour, a better S and leadership. Also the tomb guards costs as mutch as the graveguards, but the graveguards come with heavy armour. On comparing the codexes I understand that you cannot take one unit out of the army book and compere it to another unit in another armybook. There are just to many variabels. They have different marching rules. The tomb kings havy mutch more army multeplyers (king/princes, necrotects, the lore of necrahal etc) and better leadership. But I cannot help feel that perhaps the vampiers costs just slightly less then the tomb king variant.

What do people feel? I do not know the codexes well enough to make a good judgement.

The tomb guard may have light armor, but they also have higher leadership, and a BS skill (no idea why though...)
They also only crumble if the hierophant dies but not the general, meaning that you can stick the king/prince with them and they'll be absolutely fine AND benefit from the tomb/princes WS


Ushabti...I got nothing. Necroknights are better anyway

I think the main difference between the two armies is that VC are basically undead on easy mode. They are fairly easy to use and get into to.
TK are undead on hard mode. You have to use a degree of tactics and forethought in order to get them to perform. That's not to say VC are better; in the right hands TK are dangerous.

Tomb Kings definitely came off worse in terms of Monstrous Infantry. Ushabti are on a completely different level to not only Horrors and Vargheist, but all MI in general. Trolls, Ironguts and Maneaters all come out on top.
This isn't to say that TK as a whole are flawed, simply that they have a bad unit. Perhaps Cruddace has a different attitude or pricing or it was to influence sales, but the simple issue is Ushabti are an inferior unit. It sucks because they're so pretty, but ultimately we can either suck it up and deal with a slight handicap or take a different unit for the job.

This isn't really a bad thing either, books will never be perfectly balanced. I would rather deal with rubbish Ushabti and have MI in other books rebalanced, than everyone having rubbish MI in general. Otherwise everyone is unhappy.
No doubt they'll be brought into line eventually, it just might take a while.

Yep, and the TK do have some fairly awesome monstrous cavalry, such as Stalkers and necroknights, which imo both look amazing.

This is the main problem that comes up when you have no standardised design for specific unit types and different authors for every book. While it has the benefit of having every book feel unique, it has the drawback of if one author (Cruddace) has a different opinion on something, like unit costs, the entire book can suffer.

Vampire Counts was just a better designed book by a better Army Book writer.

It's tough for me to say that VC isn't better than TK. I think they have a lot of the same options TK have except more.

That said, I'm not a tactician with either army.

Tomb Kings are also suffering from being the bar that got set. Maybe Jervis felt the need to 1-up Tomb Kings and also felt pressured by Ogre Kingdoms.

There is also the role to unit plays in the army. Crypt Horrors and Varghiests are a heavy hitting unit in the VC army book.

Their counterpart in the TK army book would be more equivilent to Sphinx and Chariots then Ushabti.

Ushabti basically got overshadowed by the Sphinxs and became neglected.

I have ushed ushapti with bows to great effect, in a large army with a smiting buble. They are good to thin out whatever is bad and comming at you and usualy safe from S6 until it gets into CC and can do it's bisnis. (Chariots, monsters cannons etc.) They fitt in a shooting army for TK that usualy have to rely on magic or SSC to kill them.

However, it feels odd to compare eather a hybrid bow unit or a S6 greatweapon unit to other units since they are diferent and diferent codexes. Just the pressense of chariots in core mean that they play vastly different. But I just feel that they might just have added some points to mutch on the ushapty? Or are they good balanced, but ushapti are so good in the TK book that they need to cost that mutch?

I am just wondering. The fad fact is that there are probably nobody that collects both TK and Vampiers who has a good understanding of the two army books that can compere.