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!
So, I'm guessing from the mere fact that you are reading this post that you have some interest in Vampire Counts.
I don't know what set my curiosity off, though I'm attributing it to Dragorakiba's (Why do you stalk the night?) post. Dragorakiba mentioned the fact that Undead held some appeal, leading to a decision to start Vampire Counts. Fairly easy, straightforward stuff.
And yet... what about Tomb Kings? Are they not Undead too? In fact, weren't the two armies represented by one single Army Book back in the day? A united force of Undead, or something like that.
So, I guess what I'm angling for here are the answers to two questions;
1) How many Vampire Counts players also have a Tomb Kings army?
2) Do Tomb Kings hold any appeal for you whatsoever?
For me, I have to say that I don't have a Tomb Kings army. I did buy a Temple Guard Blister (at least I think it was Temple Guard) but that was only because I wanted to nick one of their swords for a conversion. And a shield later, just because it was lying around.
And personally, I see no attraction from Tomb Kings. I don't particularly dislike them, but... it's just a bunch of skeletons to me. I know all my infantry in my Vampire Counts armies are Skeletons, but somehow this is different!
It makes no sense to me that I can really like one Undead army, even aiming to build it up influenced by the ranks-upon-ranks of Skeleton warriors as similar to a Tomb Kings army, and yet be thoroughly disinterested in Tomb Kings themselves!
So, is it the same for you? Or do you fawn over all manner of undead beasties, no matter their origins? Enlighten me, fellow forumers!
The main reason I "started" (I collect and rarely play, you should see my display case[Im actually looking to sell some]) Vampire Counts is just that. For the vampires.
The main reason I dont collect or play Tomb Kings is because they dont have vampires, and that the only then TK have are skeletons, at least the VC have zombies and ghouls.
Dont get me wrong, I though about having both once, but it just never caught on with me.
That is a good point actually. Both armies did appeal to me because they are undead but the vampires counts have the ability to summon more undead models. I don't know if it is because I have not looked into it enough but I don't think the tomb kings can. The only upside to the tomb kings is that they get catapults, archers, and other shooting units while the vampires have none. (greedy tomb kings)
I feel like the Vampire counts are darker more evil undead then the tomb kings [if thats possible] I was first drawn by the tomb kings because of my huge interest in egyptian history but was quickly put off by TK rules characters etc. I think its that the two armies while both being undead do not share the same feel when playing, painting, etc where as vampire counts are about expendable troops a vampires will TK are an ancient army serving their master after death and tend to be a brighter more unified army. Don't get me wrong i plan to play TK after i finish building my Vamps army
When I first started VC, TK wasn't even out, I don't know which I would of chosen if they were. So good question....
But when TK came and I fliped through it's codex I came to the conclusion that its just like VC except
A) My lords were better
B ) My magic is less complicated (however i was jeaouse they could summon back wight alikes aka tomb guard)
C) They shoot...needing 5s to hit ROFL
Then somehow a friend of mine was convinced to collect them by some other buddies and we had a few 2v2s and we always ended up as enemies...in the end didn't go too well for him thanks to my vampires
Now he wants to go back to skaven and in exchange for getting him some skaven models he will give me his TK...I have no use for them but since the models are so similar, I could definitly convert most of them to fit a VC theme. However if the 7th for them draws my interest, I might play a TK army for fun.
Interesting points of view thus far! Thanks to all contributors!
This raises another point to why I like Counts more. I dont like the thought of archers raining feathery death down on the ranks of the enemy. If you think about it in real life terms, granted it is safer to be an archer, but if your like me, youll want to be on the frontlines hacking and slashing your way through the enemy army, people will have a better chance of remembering your name and what you did. Im all of the books Ive read, its always been Sir So-and-So, a swords/pike/spear-man of the kings army, never So-and-So, bow-man of the kings army.The only upside to the tomb kings is that they get catapults, archers, and other shooting units while the vampires have none. (greedy tomb kings)
As for the war machines, there are a rare few that I actually like, mainly the Dark Elf Reaper Bolt Thrower. Ive come up against these before and for some reason, it rarely ends well.
Last edited by Malacoda; February 6th, 2009 at 15:12.
I play for two reasons. The lesser of the two reasons is their competitiveness. The TK are not. As far as my gaming circle and I are concerned, VC are the premiere army by which we judge all others. The VC have excellent magic, and represent the most important facets of hand to hand (combat resolution and/or ability to kill hordes), and shooting as well, as an enemy which is successful firing against VC will be hugely successful firing against most enemies. If an army can stand against our VC, or defeat our VC, we see it as a solid, valid tournament army.
The first and foremost reason that I play VC however, is for their fluff. The location of the TombKings means that they really play very little role in the affairs of the Old World. They are also 'softer' vampires. I could imagine a 10 year old picking up the army and playing a true-to-fluff, well envisioned force without his parents batting an eye. Sure, they're undead just like VC, but they against the vampire, and only fight in the defense of their land.
Vampires are a darker, more mature army. They play against a lot of human ideals. Vampires are a disgusting creature, and their armies are unstoppable waves that are fueled by the Vampires sheer hatred of the living. Their goal in multi-national, they seek to enslave the world.
The Vampire has persisted in pop culture. The Goth scene proves that it's a powerful image. Books and movies still forward it as the most common beast of Monster Horror. Mummies were just a theme dredged from antiquities and were only popular while we were making discoveries in egypt. Even 'The Mummy' movies are set in that time period, whereas Vampire movies stay current, stay "fresh", and continue to engage the populace.
I've got a bit bored of my VC at the moment, but I'm not getting rid of them. Just concentrating on my brets which are prooving very fun. The thing is VC don't have and shooting, or artillerly like tomb kings which is all good fun.
Saying that though VC have far better looking characters and thats why I collect VC because I like Vampires (not in a weird way), and mummys just don't do anything for me (also not in a weird way).
But you've hit on something else - no doubt the recent update made VC more popular. Who's to say Tomb Kings won't get the same appeal when (if?) they are redone? I think the lack of attention Tomb Kings receive is also a contributing factor to the apathy surrounding them. (Boo, GW! )