Welcome to Librarium Online!
I am a 40k player coming over to fantasy and I have purchased both the TK and DE army books. I'm trying to decide on an army to start and I wanted to purchase probably the VC book next to see their model range. Before I fork out the cash on the VC book, can some of you please tell me the main differences between them and the TK are. How do their play styles differ? Stronger heros, magic, items, etc.? Thanks in advance.
essinitaly how VC and TK are different are in the heros and the troops
VC are well known for having kick ass lords. the vampires can get scary good, but also very expensive points wise too. they also have ghouls which are their scrimishing unit. a giant, which is prettymuch a normal giant. the black coach (i have yet to see anyone field one of those) but they can regain their wounds.
they are much slower army (for the most part) then TK. they realy dont have chariots (except for the black coach). they dont have bows also. but their heros are kick ass.
VC do not shoot, but can march if within 12" of the general, even tough undead. They don't have any fast cav. but the Black coach is the ONLY chariot. The Black Coach is rather good, and you should field one ASAP at 2000+ points.
The greatest difference is prop the magic:
VC generate Power Dice and Dispel Dice as normal, and all in all function like normal spellcasters (still having minimum roll needed and so on).
spell no. 1 can raise skeletons and zombies (not just on allready made units, but also out of the blue), but cannot raise any other unit then skeletons or zombies. Altough it can regenerate wounds on MULTIBLE WOUND models. But NEVER bring anything back to life apart from skeletons and zombies.
-lurking in the shadows of LO.
Officially diagnosed by TekoreMelkhior, Necrarch Lord
From what you're saying, it seems like the TK are a much more well-balanced army. However, the VC have more powerful heros, can march, and can raise skeletons and zombies easier. It seems to me that the TK are much more balanced since they have access to chariots, catapults, bowmen, and light cavalry. Plus, the TK magic seems more reliable since it is automatically cast. Does this about sum it up?
Also, how are the VC magic items? Better or worse than the TK's?
A Tomb King's stat line is nothing to sneeze at. It can hold up in combat, despite giving up WS and In to vampire counts. With the right weapon and talisman, a Tomb King can kick butt in combat.
When I think of the TK army, magic always comes to mind. They have a dominant magic phase.
The second thing that comes to mind is its lack of maneuverability. The inability to march puts a TK army at a significant disadvantage to other armies.
Still, TK have solid archers, war machines, and deadlier monsters than VC. Consider TK's Ushabti versus VC's Spirit Hosts, and of course, those scorpions are nasty.
Another disadvantage for TK's is that their troops are light. Ushabti have decent toughness but not enough to stand up against Str 4 enemies, not for very long. And we all know what pathetic stats a skeleton has.
VC magic items complement the army well. Arcane items can help movement and offense, bolstering more than the magic phase. The right weapons in the hands of a vampire count or lord is a gruesome sight indeed.
To quit wondering just what it is that I think, the difference seems to boil down to this:
If having a shooting phase and a stronger magic phase are important to you, go with TK's, but accept the lack of maneuverability.
If shooting is less important to you, and you don't mind swapping a lot of light chariots for one heavy one, go with VC's and enjoy more mobility and a still strong magic phase.