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.

Arguably some Zombies are fast and some are slow. Some have only their bite but some have swords or firearms. It really depends on the setting. But which do you prefer and why?

This applies to all the various mediums, from movies to comic books, computer games to tabletop wargames…

Zombies should either have no weapons at all or be capable of firing an assault rifle. Any other solution is cowardly.

I prefer them without weapons but I will not have a problem with them using some melee ones. In fact 4 of my Fireforge zombies have melee weapons/peasant tools. I cannot see them using ranged weapons as they are too stupid for that.

Depends.

Are they magical zombies that don't spread by infection but are raised by necromancers? Then they should use weapons.

Are they "realistic" zombies that are infected by a disease and spread by infecting others through bites, other wounds, or fluids? Then no weapons, they're dangerous enough.

It'd be fun to see a short story were a fantasy world that deals with the first kind of zombie (magical, slow) encounters the second kind (fast, infectious). Imagine a necromancer's surprise when they have no control over a pack of fast zombies and gets torn to shreds.

 infinite_array wrote:
Depends.

Are they magical zombies that don't spread by infection but are raised by necromancers? Then they should use weapons.

Are they "realistic" zombies that are infected by a disease and spread by infecting others through bites, other wounds, or fluids? Then no weapons, they're dangerous enough.

It'd be fun to see a short story were a fantasy world that deals with the first kind of zombie (magical, slow) encounters the second kind (fast, infectious). Imagine a necromancer's surprise when they have no control over a pack of fast zombies and gets torn to shreds.

Interesting idea there, mixing things up like that. Fair point about necromancer risen magical undead… I had not considered that.

The better/more entertaining I find the the work they're in, the less I care about speed/weapons.

i like the distinction between magically controlled zombies with simple melee weapons and 'wild' zombies caused by a virus (or where they've 'naturally' raised themselves in a magical environment)

the added control of a Necromancer beng just enough to get them to remember to hold a sword or whatever and hack slowly with it, but without that they're just not smart enough

i'd allow zombies in an urban fantasy setting pull the trigger of a firearm they'd been controlled into holding but not let them actually aim or reload

Definitely a good distinction made between the plague and puppet variations.

I'll just add that when you give weapons (and therefore the ability to use tools) to plague zombies, you start REALLY pushing the whole problematic "we just wanted people would could deem as subhuman to shoot" thing.

I prefer slow zombies. Fast zombies feel like a reskiin of vampires or ghouls or something that already fit that niche.

Although this isn’t the common wisdom, I feel like a zombie who picks up a weapon transforms into a skeleton warrior who just hasn’t shed his flesh yet.

Depends on the Zombies, narrative, game etc.

For basic appoclaypse - teeth and occassionally badly aimed weapon

but I also enjoy Zombies like those in I Zombie - so human intelligence as long as they have their brain food.

As others pointed out, it depends on the type of zombie. Magical puppets can be armed (as per fantasy RPGs: SJ Games GURPS uses the same spell to make both zombies and skeletons. Zombies are more durable, but skeletons are faster, more agile and immune to implaling damage.) Anyway, for fantasy, be it RPG or tabletop war, I like the look of zombie men-at-arms still in the remnants of their kit, dragging their weapons along. (I backed the Fireforge Games KS for the assorted zombies, military and civilian.)

The "wild" zombies caused by a virus as seen in contemporary Zombicide and Romero movies should not be armed, unless they have a weapon in a deathgrip. Even then it they could only use it as a club at best, and really, it's the bite you should be worried about.

Yep, agree with the above that there have become distinct zombie strains.

Zombie riflemen are clearly artificial constructs. Otherwise you’re just going to end up with “zombie” and “undead” meaning the same thing…

 LunarSol wrote:
Definitely a good distinction made between the plague and puppet variations.

I'll just add that when you give weapons (and therefore the ability to use tools) to plague zombies, you start REALLY pushing the whole problematic "we just wanted people would could deem as subhuman to shoot" thing.

This is actually something I want to revisit. The whole Zombie-prepper thing was already ugly with the implication that some people really just wanted the okay to start shooting other people totally-not-people. These days, when terms like “Orcs” are used as euphemisms in the same way as “urban” or “globalist”, I would be very uncomfortable with anyone who spent a lot of time talking about “zombies with guns” as an ideal enemy to shoot at. At what point are you really just fantasizing about killing humans who are just different enough you can pretend they’re inhuman?

Unarmed... sometimes unlegged too....

I was first exposed to Zombies through the original Dawn Of The Dead, so my preference will always be with the slow moving, biting ones who are comically dumb and slow, but who became scary given enough numbers and proximity to their victims. I love that duality of "comically harmless" -> "one bite and RIP"

My preference in fiction is for the slow ones too, they don't need weapons when they have numbers and sheer horde power.

Biting.

The essential horror of a zombie is it's unthinking, driven bloodlust for human flesh.

A zombie capable of using weaponry breaks this, and isn't a zombie anymore. It's a reskinned whatever.

They're mindless eating machines so I don't know why they would have/know how to use weapons.

Humans are not really well armed with natural weapons.

Magically altered creatures like ghouls, demon-possessed or vampires can be scary with teeth and claws, but a bunch of half-rotted folks with nothing but teeth and dirty nails just aren't going to scare me. They should have meat cleavers, clubs and the like.

Occurs to me that maybe we need two words for the two kinds of pop culture zombies. Since the word comes from voodoo I'd say the necromancer-puppet kind should be zombies, with maybe the plague type as living dead or walking dead (to steal from movies and TV).

Unless of course their bite/scratch (blood/saliva) can infect you…

I feel like this is a language issue. That the definitions of various creatures are very loose which can cause some confusion.