Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Having received my copy of the new VC book today I was having a nosey. Nice and pretty, sure, but one thing stood out. Why do most of the lists I see posted here focus around skellies when the same could be done with ghouls.
Ghouls have the increased toughness, which statistically is the same as skellies with a +6 sv. They have 2 poisoned attacks at a higher ws, not a fantastic ws I grant, but still on a par with average. They even have a higher leadership allowing for more independent operation, ie they can lose combat and have a chance that they don't lose models.
If its survivability, then you're not casting IoN enough. Plus, take ghoulkin put your characters in ghoul units and your about 1/3 at worse, 2/3 at best, towards your enemy before they have even notched an arrow or loaded their cannons.
The only failing I can see why to choose skellies over ghouls is lack of standard and musician. However, that means more ghouls, and can't you make back the +1 from the standard with kills? Something that I statistically don't expect a skeleton to manage unless its undoing the straps that hold it together.
Anyone of a like mind here? Or prehaps willing to open my eyes to what I'm missing?
There was another thread about this recently:
http://www.librarium-online.com/foru...skeletons.html (Ghouls or Skeletons?)
Both units can be effective and have good points, you can check it out there.
Just one thing I would like to add, though. The leadership of a unit has nothing to do with how many wounds it takes after losing a combat. The VC army doesn't take instability tests like daemons, it just takes a number of wounds equal to the amount by which they lost combat. The only thing the leadership will help with is for crumble checks if the general is killed and then things that target it (casket, enemy banshees, etc).
You make a good point mate.
Ghouls are indeed fairly great for their points cost but as you will have noticed, most people use them in smaller units on the flanks rather than up the middle. Skeletons are far more resilient as giant tarpit units that actually have a decent armour save in CC. Ghouls will die rather easily, even with toughness 4. As such, you gotta ask yourself exactly which units you want to throw at what. My army is based around having large units with armour saves to protect a solid character-based magic phase. I want them to at least have a chance against missile fire. I also let the enemy come towards me rather than feel I need to bash them quickly. As such, Skellies are the better choice. I
If you want a fast-advancing combat army, then Ghouls are great, especially with a Ghoulkin Vampire.
The best choice is probably to give them both a nod, as each can be great in their own way. Spamming one choice is rather limiting and can have major drawbacks if things dont go to plan. I aim to spend the first few turns raising more and more Skeletons to create massive static combat resolution. But I will also use a unit of 10 Ghouls to run up a flank and cause a diversion.
Personally, the choice for a lot of people comes down to which models they prefer. and how do they fit within the theme of the army itself. The Ghouls have character, but the skeletons and GG are by far the nicest models the VC range has.
Was this post helpful? Please click the Thumbs Up button to the left if it was. Cheers!
Quannum, funkin' out in every way. Since 1987.
Ghouls are ugly and smelly, that's why no-one likes them.
As has been mentioned, it's predominately a personal preference kind of thing. I personally think skeletons look better, although I have been thinking about giving Ghouls a try. Though it's likely I'll stick with Skeletons for the moment, just because they fit with the rest of my army better (because the rest of my troops units are also skeletons).
Personally I'm still adjusting to the idea of ghouls being normal ranked infantry instead of skirmishers.
As skirmishers their T4 made up for their lack of armour, as ranked infantry it's not as effective.
2000AD's answer to all "How do VC deal with ..." questions: Forbidden Lore + 2 Power Stones.
Further answers will require more vodka.
I think the main reason a lot of lists don't have the ghouls in them yet is the fact that, as skirmishers previously, people just don't have enough models of them yet to be a fully ranked unit - I know I don't have any of them.
That and skellies are just quintessentially undead - so maybe it's a look thing?
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain (It's time to roll the dice)- Mattrim Cauthon
I'm not using many ghouls as they have not convinced me they are better than skeletons as ranked infantry in the games I have played. I don't like the new models so will have to get old ones or convert some. I just think they are now less useful to the army than before which is a shame.
In a few months you will probably start seeing a bit more of a mix of heavy ghoul lists and skellie lists. I quite like the new ghouls and when I start up my VC again (got the book and new models on order finally) I want to focus on ghouls as the core troops. But even that won't happen for a while since I have no ghoul models at the moment and a distinct lack of funds.
Ghouls don't conform to the basic undead approach. They trade away static combat res for increased hitting power. It's just not compatible with most people's strategies for their core blocks of troops. It may become more popular if people start to have success with it, but I think it will be a very different undead army from one based on skeletons, much more so than first glance would suggest. (and as lots of people said, nobody has the models yet =) )