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.

So while I am more of a 40k player than Fantasy at the moment, I'm slowly building up a Tomb Kings army. Watching the FB forums a bit, I don't see a lot of conversations around Tomb Kings and am curious are they an uncommon army that fewer people play or are they too straight forward in terms of rules and such? Just seems disproportionate in the conversations and am curious if there are issues with my chosen army.

It seems that way but I think there are a good number of TK players on here. They definitely seem to be less common than Vampires as far as undead goes. The top tier armies get the most discussion probably because they are used more by competitive players. On a more local level though I am still yet to meet another Tomb King player in my area. There are multiple Lizards, O&G, skaven, High Elf, WoC and dwarf and bretonia players but almost no undead players (that i know of).

I think they are uncommon because 1. they have a certain aesthetic that some people just aren't into and 2. they can be damn tricky to play sometimes. I find the hardest part about playing TK is not over extending my faster units during the movement phase. Since our movement is so low and cannot march we need to rely on magic to get us to the action, but if we go too magic heavy we run into a greater chance of nuking our hierphant from a miscast and turning our army to dust. that being said there are a lot of awesome things about tomb kings like incredibly tough monsters, unmodifiable shooting, some really cool rares and powerful rares, super cheap units and units that can essentially deep strike. oh and chariots as core

Honestly I think most players underestimate Tomb Kings because they aren't so easily competitive compared to the other 8th books. but that notion changes when they get slapped with 10(usually more) str5 impact hits from a unit of 6 chariots or a casket of souls runs their army off the board turn 2.

Opeth30 wrote:
1.They have a certain aesthetic that some people just aren't into and 2. they can be damn tricky to play sometimes.

The first I think odd - that seems to be what draws/drew most everyone I know to them in the first place. It is the second that pushes some away - though even that is a bit mis-stated, as the "sometimes" in your quote should probably be removed.

Tomb Kings cannot take advantage of some of the biggest "normal" advantages in the game.
Steadfast means basically nothing for Tomb Kings - unless its the opponent's.
Tomb Kings cannot march.
They also seem to be designed with the Special characters in mind - and many groups/tourneys ban Special Characters (ETC goes so far as to ban our characters and then give us extra points because we are at a disadvantage).

For people looking for the "raise hordes of undead!" type armies Vampire Counts fit better, as they can raise more - and even create new units!

They are also good/bad as there are not obvious "netlist" type of THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO PLAY THEM ideas about the army.

That said, Tomb Kings are the best.

Just because people use SCs doesn't mean that's the way they were designed. People used Teclis because he was really good. They do the same with TK SCs (though they are far less OP).

Tomb Kings seem to be written with the assumption that the SCs will be available. editing to add: The other option is much more cynical - the author has no idea what 8e WHFB is about and is a total tool designing it for 7.5. At least I am trying to give some credit and assume that the author thought that anything in the army book would be able to be included in the army.

end edit:
Even mentioning Teclis in relation to TK SC is way too inflammatory to be relevant.

TK was early 8th. So were O&G. Both are kind of at the lowish end of power. They had the unfortunate situation of having to coexist with predominately 7th. If they came out at WoC/HE power, they would have stomped the crap out of everything.

Though Ogres came out very powerful. Maybe it was easier because very few people had them. I don't know.

You understand that Teclis is an SC right? And Khalida is an SC right? And people take them because not taking them isn't as good as taking them right? It's not inflammatory or even calculus. It's pretty simple.

Got it, you think last edition Teclis and current edition Khalida are comparable.

Not going top touch that.

The TK have never been one of the more popular armies and have had periods of time when they were very much outclassed. The current situation is that they are mediocre or a bit below.

The army has some great models but can be frustrating to play, I do not think the latest book does them justice and it did not receive a great reception from TK players when it came out. Indeed many of the more competitive players panned the book at length on the Warhammer Forum.

Sad to hear. If I was going to play a fantasy army it would either be Kings or lizardmen, just from the looks.

Tomb Kings are almost exactly the same in Blood Bowl, believe it or not. They're not especially good at anything starting off, you need an absurd amount of luck/planning to get anywhere, and the other undead teams just do a better job for less effort.

 kirsanth wrote:
Got it, you think last edition Teclis and current edition Khalida are comparable.

Yes, they are both special characters who make their armies better than not having them. That is what I said. Twice. Now three times. And you don't seem to understand.

A bicycle and a helicopter both make you travel faster than walking. For some reason you are saying that cannot be true. That degrees make items completely unalike in all ways. If you roll a six on a die and roll a 1 they are no longer values on dies as one is greater than the other.

 kirsanth wrote:

Opeth30 wrote:
1.They have a certain aesthetic that some people just aren't into and 2. they can be damn tricky to play sometimes.

The first I think odd - that seems to be what draws/drew most everyone I know to them in the first place. It is the second that pushes some away - though even that is a bit mis-stated, as the "sometimes" in your quote should probably be removed.

Yeah right? From talking to gamers about army aesthetics quite a few around here say they don't like the egypt theme, but what ever we all picked our armies for a reason. And you're right the sometimes should be removed lol

I played them in 6th but missed all of 7th and got back into the hobby when the 8th book came out, I love the new units they included but it felt like more of a "this is how your magic works now" update. not that I want a wardian power book, I just think there were a lot of things they could have improved on. like allowing skellie archers to stand and shoot as a charge reaction, after all they are the souls of disciplined soldiers.

They get a lot of unfounded criticism from people saying they're a weak army, which isn't accurate. People just use them awfully, similar to how you'll sometimes read that O&G are a weak army because people use them badly (ie, try to use them as a combat army instead of the magical-shooting force that they are).

 tmarichards wrote:
They get a lot of unfounded criticism from people saying they're a weak army, which isn't accurate. People just use them awfully, similar to how you'll sometimes read that O&G are a weak army because people use them badly (ie, try to use them as a combat army instead of the magical-shooting force that they are).

This hits the nail on the head.

 tmarichards wrote:
They get a lot of unfounded criticism from people saying they're a weak army, which isn't accurate. People just use them awfully, similar to how you'll sometimes read that O&G are a weak army because people use them badly (ie, try to use them as a combat army instead of the magical-shooting force that they are).

I use them with almost no shooting and tend to smash combat armies (That aren't high elves). It's the shooting armies I struggle with. The fact they should be used as a shooting army to make them good is a myth, usually stemming from people getting unlucky against rock lobbers/doom divers. Green skins tend to do best because they can go for shooty war machines and combat blocks and monsters and magic. Going all shooting/magic seems a waste of the book and it's cheap, cheap units.

Anyway, back OT. Yes they are fairly uncommon, for a couple of reeasons.

- As already stated, idiots use them wrong.

- Said idiots tell people that you need 200 skellies for them to work. Even the meerest hint of spending £200 on skellies for core will put folks off (can't blame them).

- The Egyptian aesthetic tends to not appeal more than vampires to the bulk of wargamers for some reason.

Following up on some comments about idiots using them wrong, why should the TK attract more idiots than other armies. I know some pretty good players that own several armies and they do not have a high opinion of TK. You never really see TK do well at tournaments either, in fact you rarely see them at a tournaments, they are rarer than beastmen.

JWhex wrote:
Following up on some comments about idiots using them wrong, why should the TK attract more idiots than other armies. I know some pretty good players that own several armies and they do not have a high opinion of TK. You never really see TK do well at tournaments either, in fact you rarely see them at a tournaments, they are rarer than beastmen.

The whole "Idiots" thing is just us citing the more common reasons. For the vast bulk of wargamers, tourney play and it's effect on the meta does not factor into buying an army.

With that said, they don't tend to place well at tournies because the things that counter them tend to crop up allot.

Quite a lot of WHF players seem to think that the way to play is to just charge forwards and smash face, and Tomb Kings don't do that, they require more subtlety.

Pincushion the enemy with arrows as they march closer, and countercharge with blocks of killing blow tomb guard and massed chariots, and then grind them into the dust.

 kirsanth wrote:
The other option is much more cynical - the author has no idea what 8e WHFB is about and is a total tool designing it for 7.5. At least I am trying to give some credit and assume that the author thought that anything in the army book would be able to be included in the army.

Looking at the terrible internal balance issues that plague the Tyranid and Imperial Guard codex, it's pretty obvious Cruddace doesn't know much about the game other than 'push some toy soldiers around'. Which is fine if you're not designing army lists. His method is simply 'throw gak at the wall and see what sticks', and the overall power of the army depends on how much stuck (for example, Imperial Guard are powerful, because he threw a lot and a lot of good gak stuck, while Tyranids turned out pretty terrible, because he didn't throw much at all, and not much good gak stuck out of that).

I've been playing TK for almost a year and a half, and competitively for 2013. I've finished in the upper 3rd for every event. and have won 2 of the 7. Lost 2 events at table 1 in last round as well.That being said matchups matter. Out deploying people really matters. It's not that bad.

I do think that the SC matter a lot of TK and are big helps. I've only used Ramotep, Khelida and Arkhan but they work very well.

Those three, along with Khatep seem the most obvious SC choices to build an army around

I've not tried Khatep yet, it's on my to do list, I think he works best with a TG horde and I don't have one yet.