6 Questions for the RT

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • 1. Was VC the nr. 1 army? Or was it really just a specific type of build spamming Wraiths and Altars?

    2. The Cadaver Wagon is still a totally failed design because you basically don't play the unit. It encourages only deathstar/turtle builds, and because it have absolutely no other effect than providing it's buff you could easily replace the whole entry with a magic banner doing the same thing. The very fact that a small cart now cost more than the Coven Throne and its Vampire Crew speaks volume. Why can't it be an activated like the original design, so we can actually play with it? That could also keep the absurd price down...

    3. What was the goal behind the increase in Core? To nerf the army across the board (see nr. 1 above) whether every build deserved it or not? Worse we don't have very many options for how to play our Core unit, so an increase in that percentage REALLY should have been followed up by more blood tie options or other things to at least increase variation in the Core section. I like big units of Skeletons, but in terms of gameplay the army just got 5% more boring. So why?
  • 1. Why Altars cost more than before after being nerfed? We count already a lot on magic so we cannot use our precious dices for a BP D6 F4. Why not giving channel (1)?

    2. Same question as most of the people: is this 5% of more core nerf is really justified. It is like VC was the number 1 army and I don t think it is the case. I seems it is only some people opinion but not based on results. Ou army suffer already a lot of restriction: marchig aura, dust to dust, etc. More core to fit in 12 inch bubble make our game slower due to complex movement phase and more boring...

    3. Why cadaver wagon are so expensive. I mean 400 points to protect cheap core units? It is really not well costed
    Yilmi
  • Please subscribe me to the list of people asking about the 5% increase in core.

    1.What is the justification to the 5% core nerf for bloodlines (not the relative boost for non-bloodline armies)?

    It seems like a serious punishment for bloodlines that are not combat monsters like VonK who pay 50pts per vampire for the privilege of being in a bloodline and taking 225pts more of also not combat-efficient core. Maybe if the bloodline were free and powers were much cheaper (though probably not the ancient) then it'd be worth it. That would encourage me to play with more vampire characters, because I could actually fit more into my characters section and since I'm paying 5% more core (which, as mentioned, is not combat-effective) I may as well take as many vampires as I can to make up for the lack of combat power and to maximise value per vampire. As it is, I'm actually being encouraged to take fewer vampires and more necros, as they can provide much needed magic support for the extra 5% points I'm not spending in core and can put into barrow somethings or ghosts (my speedy death is already maxed out).

    2. What's the deal with the coach? It got slightly worse (because being harder to wound>>having one more wound) but it still costs the same? And I'm still paying to give it stubborn because...Why am I doing that again? What does stubborn actually do for it? Can't the VonK blood tie make it's march bubble like 3" bigger or something?
  • huitzilopochtli wrote:

    What's the deal with the coach? It got slightly worse (because being harder to wound>>having one more wound) but it still costs the same? And I'm still paying to give it stubborn because...Why am I doing that again? What does stubborn actually do for it? Can't the VonK blood tie make it's march bubble like 3" bigger or something?
    I dont think this is correct. When you take vampiric, cannons or healing into account.
    #freekillerinstinct
  • duxbuse wrote:

    huitzilopochtli wrote:

    What's the deal with the coach? It got slightly worse (because being harder to wound>>having one more wound) but it still costs the same? And I'm still paying to give it stubborn because...Why am I doing that again? What does stubborn actually do for it? Can't the VonK blood tie make it's march bubble like 3" bigger or something?
    I dont think this is correct. When you take vampiric, cannons or healing into account.
    It is, when you take damage from combat results into account. Low Health Units like Coach suffer a damn lot from every additional wound they take.
  • duxbuse wrote:

    huitzilopochtli wrote:

    What's the deal with the coach? It got slightly worse (because being harder to wound>>having one more wound) but it still costs the same? And I'm still paying to give it stubborn because...Why am I doing that again? What does stubborn actually do for it? Can't the VonK blood tie make it's march bubble like 3" bigger or something?
    I dont think this is correct. When you take vampiric, cannons or healing into account.
    That's fair - I didn't think of cannons or similars that will wound on twos regardless. I was more focused on how it will fare against S4 (I was thinking in combat, but there's a fair bit of S4 shooting too) - it'll now take twice as many wounds as before, but only has 25% more wounds on its profile. That's a big (additional) gap for healing and vampiric to cover, and that's before you consider the added crumbling potential in combat. And this is something that can only gain 1 wound back per instance. I suppose the prevalence of cannons in your opponent's army might shift the benefit back in favour of +1 wound, but against mid-strength attacks (anything below strength 7, actually, will have a higher % increase in wounds caused than the coach has in wounds gained), of which there are substantially more in general, it still seems like the coach is more vulnerable than before.
  • huitzilopochtli wrote:

    against mid-strength attacks (anything below strength 7, actually, will have a higher % increase in wounds caused than the coach has in wounds gained), of which there are substantially more in general, it still seems like the coach is more vulnerable than before.
    Honestly I still think this is a good thing. I would love for people to waste their small and medium arms fire into my coach. The thing is tough as nails even with only T5 still has a 3+/4++. Much rather that then against anything from swift death. The only time my coach has ever died is due to my impact hits wiffing and losing combat to 3 ranks and 2 banners. The extra wound makes this way more difficult, and hence it buys enough time for either vampiric or arise to kick in.
    #freekillerinstinct
  • duxbuse wrote:


    • Would still like to see the removal of Winged Reapers. They are great for UD but dont fit VC's theme. Alternative to not invalidate the model is to rework the unit to fit into the Suffering category and make the ghostly.

    Why do you think that they don't fit VC's theme? What about their stat line is not fitting?

    It could make for a Suffering unit but.. it's definitely a cramped category.
  • Hexed wrote:

    Why do you think that they don't fit VC's theme? What about their stat line is not fitting?

    It could make for a Suffering unit but.. it's definitely a cramped category.
    Since they are neither vampires nor deceased corpse raised to fulfill the wishes of said vampires. they dont really fit the theme of vampires.
    The vampiric theme is more about reviving the dead but overpowering their free will.

    Since they are the undead construct weaved together of stone they perfectly fit the UD theme. Of animating the inanimate.


    I wish they werent in the book or ever created by GW, I only suggest the suffering because I know that t9a doesnt like invalidating peoples units, but i agree that that is a poor option as well.
    #freekillerinstinct
  • duxbuse wrote:

    Hexed wrote:

    Why do you think that they don't fit VC's theme? What about their stat line is not fitting?

    It could make for a Suffering unit but.. it's definitely a cramped category.
    Since they are neither vampires nor deceased corpse raised to fulfill the wishes of said vampires. they dont really fit the theme of vampires.The vampiric theme is more about reviving the dead but overpowering their free will.

    Since they are the undead construct weaved together of stone they perfectly fit the UD theme. Of animating the inanimate.


    I wish they werent in the book or ever created by GW, I only suggest the suffering because I know that t9a doesnt like invalidating peoples units, but i agree that that is a poor option as well.
    Limiting the VC fluff to reviving the dead is a bit harsh though (outside of the core that is). Varkolaks, Ghasts, Ghouls, Vampire Spawns, Terrorgheists wouldn't really fit then.
    I think the winged reapers are bone construct, sort of giant skeletons with spectral wings. Kinda like vampire spawns and varkolaks are similar to giant bats, and ghasts are giant ghouls.
    They just need autonomous and they would be really fluff.
  • Osarphi wrote:

    duxbuse wrote:

    Hexed wrote:

    Why do you think that they don't fit VC's theme? What about their stat line is not fitting?

    It could make for a Suffering unit but.. it's definitely a cramped category.
    Since they are neither vampires nor deceased corpse raised to fulfill the wishes of said vampires. they dont really fit the theme of vampires.The vampiric theme is more about reviving the dead but overpowering their free will.
    Since they are the undead construct weaved together of stone they perfectly fit the UD theme. Of animating the inanimate.


    I wish they werent in the book or ever created by GW, I only suggest the suffering because I know that t9a doesnt like invalidating peoples units, but i agree that that is a poor option as well.
    Limiting the VC fluff to reviving the dead is a bit harsh though (outside of the core that is). Varkolaks, Ghasts, Ghouls, Vampire Spawns, Terrorgheists wouldn't really fit then.I think the winged reapers are bone construct, sort of giant skeletons with spectral wings. Kinda like vampire spawns and varkolaks are similar to giant bats, and ghasts are giant ghouls.
    They just need autonomous and they would be really fluff.
    You could go as far as to say skeletons, skeletal horses, and barrow units are all skeletal constructs
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.


    Bane of the Thin Skinned

  • duxbuse wrote:

    Hexed wrote:

    Why do you think that they don't fit VC's theme? What about their stat line is not fitting?

    It could make for a Suffering unit but.. it's definitely a cramped category.
    Since they are neither vampires nor deceased corpse raised to fulfill the wishes of said vampires. they dont really fit the theme of vampires.The vampiric theme is more about reviving the dead but overpowering their free will.

    Since they are the undead construct weaved together of stone they perfectly fit the UD theme. Of animating the inanimate.


    I wish they werent in the book or ever created by GW, I only suggest the suffering because I know that t9a doesnt like invalidating peoples units, but i agree that that is a poor option as well.
    The problem is that all you see is the GW models that people use as Winged Reapers. Where does it say in the statline that they are stone constructs?

    I agree with you, it would fit better as an ethereal unit, but Suffering is overcrowded. Necromancers creating bone golems, it's not a new concept. It's pretty ingrained in all fantasy.
  • Hexed wrote:

    The problem is that all you see is the GW models that people use as Winged Reapers. Where does it say in the statline that they are stone constructs?

    I agree with you, it would fit better as an ethereal unit, but Suffering is overcrowded. Necromancers creating bone golems, it's not a new concept. It's pretty ingrained in all fantasy.
    Sure, in t9a it doesnt say anything about them. But I dont like them in the swift death category. In their current incarnation they are just slower vampire spawn. I would very much prefer the unit either removed or completely reworked into something more interesting. GW decided that every army needs some form of monstrous cav so that is what we got. In contrast to the altar of death or the shrieking horror which changed how the army can play the current incarnation of Winged Reapers are completely interchangeable with vampire knights or vampire spawn. They are terrible design from both fluff and game play perspectives.
    #freekillerinstinct
  • duxbuse wrote:

    Hexed wrote:

    The problem is that all you see is the GW models that people use as Winged Reapers. Where does it say in the statline that they are stone constructs?

    I agree with you, it would fit better as an ethereal unit, but Suffering is overcrowded. Necromancers creating bone golems, it's not a new concept. It's pretty ingrained in all fantasy.
    Sure, in t9a it doesnt say anything about them. But I dont like them in the swift death category. In their current incarnation they are just slower vampire spawn. I would very much prefer the unit either removed or completely reworked into something more interesting. GW decided that every army needs some form of monstrous cav so that is what we got. In contrast to the altar of death or the shrieking horror which changed how the army can play the current incarnation of Winged Reapers are completely interchangeable with vampire knights or vampire spawn. They are terrible design from both fluff and game play perspectives.
    #freewingedreapers