One issue with the vampires in the undead roster...

[stalis85]

So Zombies have max 16 ws. Vampires have max 15.. The first time ive ever heard of zombies being better fighters then vampires. Just dont add up, zombies should have the worst ws, but if they hit. they hit like a truck or poison or something.

[hammerinn]

Not an issue at all. You did however find one thing to complain about. Gratz!

[Sigmar's Faithful]

Yes, it's strange that a zombie is perhaps the second best melee res/parry henchman in combat, as far as I can see. Especially consider how good the Vampire's heroes and leader is right off the bat. I found the Dreg a great melee hero, and the thrall great with a shield or a halberd.

It's quite odd considering overall you'd expect the Vampires to do most killing but I've found my zombies getting the most 1 on 1 kills.

[Papa Yash]

I think zombies need a tone down for 10 or 12.
They would not be zombies if they were good warrior.

[Kernest]

It's a balance issue primarily.

Before you go declaring zombies the best henchman ever, you need to rememember their limitations, such as movement and low armour absorption, though those can be fixed by a Necromancer (who might then risk curses, and doesn't spend those spell points on something else), but also the fact that they have less skill points to spend, which is a very big deal.

[caduvasconcellos6]

Continuing on the balance issue

The adaptation for the video game works with a hard cap of units, the same for all warbans, and the unit strengh of each types must be more or less the same. At the TT the warbands could bring different number of units (with different caps) so this wasn't an issue.

Following the lore and TT rules the vampire should have the best stats of the entire warband, maybe losing just on pysical to the impressive. If this followed in the game it would be really unbanced as we would never bring henchman to a undead fight and the leader would just trash the other warbands weaker units.

[cantila1]

It's an obvious balancing issue, why would you make the zombie compeltely useless only because you want it to be lore friendly? By extension, would you prefer to have a useless warband as long as it's lore friendly, or a fun and competitive one that is not 100% lore accurate but good enough?

[Sigmar's Faithful]

Originally posted by cantila1:

It's an obvious balanacing issue, why would you make the zmbie compeltely useless only because you want it to be lore friendly? By extension, would you prefer to have a useless warband as long as it's lore friendly, or a fun and competitive one that is not 100% lore accurate but good enough?

The zombies can have high toughness instead of high melee res and innate stun res if you want them to be tarpits.

The warband is strong enough already, with virtually every other unit in it capable of dishing out tons of hurt while remain durable. The necromancer isn't even doing anything necromanie -- so why call it a necromancer? Why even make a vampire warband if it doesn't at least remotely feel like one?

Necromancers cant resurrect zombies -- fine; why can't call of vanhal heal zombies than? Why instead make the zombies melee power houses? If you want a good necromancer-undead synergy, why isn't any of this in game?

You wrote as if the only way to balance the warband is to make the necromancers not-necromancers and zombies not zombies.

[cantila1]

Originally posted by Sigmar's Faithful:

Originally posted by cantila1:

It's an obvious balanacing issue, why would you make the zmbie compeltely useless only because you want it to be lore friendly? By extension, would you prefer to have a useless warband as long as it's lore friendly, or a fun and competitive one that is not 100% lore accurate but good enough?

The zombies can have high toughness instead of high melee res and innate stun res if you want them to be tarpits.

The warband is strong enough already, with virtually every other unit in it capable of dishing out tons of hurt while remain durable. The necromancer isn't even doing anything necromanie -- so why call it a necromancer? Why even make a vampire warband if it doesn't at least remotely feel like one?

Necromancers cant resurrect zombies -- fine; why can't call of vanhal heal zombies than? Why instead make the zombies melee power houses? If you want a good necromancer-undead synergy, why isn't any of this in game?

You wrote as if the only way to balance the warband is to make the necromancers not-necromancers and zombies not zombies.

Zombies already have high toughness, they have 16, which happens to be higher than the Leader's 15. It's ironic how you think it's unfitting they have higher WS but not that they are tougher and you even suggest an increase of it? How lore friendly is that?

But you view the balancing from the wrong angle. It's not about vampires compensating for crappy zombies, it's the fact that you'd always choose ghouls over zombies. You have to compare zombies to ghouls not heroes/leaders.

I didn't comment anything about Necromancers, you didn't even mention them in your OP? And I disagree on Necros not doing necro stuff. Heart Failure? Life Steal? Buffing ghouls and zombies? Your idea of what necromancy is seems to be limited ot raising zombies and healing them.

[Sigmar's Faithful]

You know why I suggest high toughness instead of high weapon skill? Because with high weapon skill a zombie can reliably hit and damage enemies. With high toughness he cannot but can still last longer. The same can be accomplish by giving the one text dump skill to actually do something like give zombies skills that increaes that melee resistance without increasing their weapon skills. Or make that skill increases armor absorption of the zombies like the DAEMONS ALREADY HAVE IN-GAME. Anything can be done to make it last longer without making it a killer.

And I don't choose ghouls over zombies -- the zombies can reliably last longer in the filed, and more reliably deal damage than the ghouls. I keep one ghoul around just for picking stones.

As for spells: Life steal -- are you kidding me? That should be a skill a Vampire has -- that's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ you say it is anything necromancer-like. At best it's liche like. Heart failure doesn't even sound necromancy -- lore of death maybe. More importantly, how much does these spells feel different from other already existing spells? No, because it does the same sort of things, just called different names.

And all these spells only serves to show why the necromancer hero is not a necromancer -- it never brought any thing new to the warband -- it's literally just another buff caster with damage spells mixed in. Does this feel like an Undead Warband? Healing zombies is already a low standard for a video game representation of a necromancer because I figure it's probably impossible for the game engine to properly resurrect units. But it went even lower.

Yes, resurrection is important for the undead warband, that's what categorize them -- endless horde of minions exhausting their enemies. No one single zombie cleaving through countless enemies.

[miniaaar]

So zombies are so OP that many players are saying they'll get warpguards henchmen asap?

Something doesn't add up here.

My suggestion: we wait a bit before we judge undead units, the DLC is one day old. :(

[Pirate King]

Be happy you got Undead at all.

[cantila1]

Originally posted by Sigmar's Faithful:

You know why I suggest high toughness instead of high weapon skill? Because with high weapon skill a zombie can reliably hit and damage enemies. With high toughness he cannot but can still last longer. The same can be accomplish by giving the one text dump skill to actually do something like give zombies skills that increaes that melee resistance without increasing their weapon skills. Or make that skill increases armor absorption of the zombies like the DAEMONS ALREADY HAVE IN-GAME. Anything can be done to make it last longer without making it a killer.

And I don't choose ghouls over zombies -- the zombies can reliably last longer in the filed, and more reliably deal damage than the ghouls. I keep one ghoul around just for picking stones.

As for spells: Life steal -- are you kidding me? That should be a skill a Vampire has -- that's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ you say it is anything necromancer-like. At best it's liche like. Heart failure doesn't even sound necromancy.

And all these spells only serves to show why the necromancer hero is not a necromancer -- it never brought any thing new to the warband -- it's literally just another buff caster with damage spells mixed in. Does this feel like an Undead Warband?

Yes, resurrection is important for the undead warband, that's what categorize them -- endless horde of minions exhausting their enemies. No one single zombie cleaving through countless enemies.

The topic of this OP was about zombies, now you make and argument about the Necro instead? First you also said you were fine it didn't raise zombies, but now you say it's important for the warband and its feel? You change subject and arguments as you see fit.

I'm sticking to the zombies becuase that's what the topic was, the topic wasn't that undead warband as a whole doesn't feel like the undead, it was that zombies should not be accurate hitters.

A zombie with low WS and high toughness would still be useless, you say they'd be better at staying alive than the ghoul. What's your absis for this assumption? With much lower MR and very bad at hitting back they'd be abig pile of flesh in clothing.

Of course a ghoul that can dodge and take no damage at all is going to last longer thna a zombie that will get hit every time, eventhough it has 350 wounds (at 20) over the ghoul's 310? Come on, that's not even one hit with a 1h purple in difference.

And if the ghoul can hit and deal damage that's just a so much better way to stay alive as well. Attack is often the best defence :)

[Sigmar's Faithful]

@cantilia I didn't say it's fine as if I like it; I said "Necromancers cant resurrect zombies -- fine" as in I begrudgingly accept a reality of the situation that the devs probably cannot overcome at the moment. If there were any other company making a Mordheim game with a proper necromancy system I'd buy that game in a heart beat.

And let's go back look at this necromancer argument -- why do I mention it frequently? Because how can one talk about Vampire Count zombies without looking at the zombie-necromancer synergy. Had the necromancer been like a necromancer, the zombies would have easily been implemented like actual zombies.

A low weapon skill zombie with high toughness would last longer against common henchman, giving vampires the time it takes to finish off key enemy units by focusing its heroes elsewhere. The necromancers can support the lasting power of the zombies as long as he is not killed. That's the role the zombies should have had. And that gives the ghouls anothe role wouldn't it? Because I already wrote that the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ zombies right now can do damage and survive more reliably than a ghoul, whereas it should have been the other way around! So you just pointed out why the zombie is better than the ghoul.

[Arkady]

Originally posted by Sigmar's Faithful:

As for spells: Life steal -- are you kidding me? That should be a skill a Vampire has -- that's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ you say it is anything necromancer-like. At best it's liche like. Heart failure doesn't even sound necromancy.

And all these spells only serves to show why the necromancer hero is not a necromancer -- it never brought any thing new to the warband -- it's literally just another buff caster with damage spells mixed in. Does this feel like an Undead Warband?

Yes, resurrection is important for the undead warband, that's what categorize them -- endless horde of minions exhausting their enemies. No one single zombie cleaving through countless enemies.

There is some missunderstundings on your thoughts about an undead warband:

1º) Even the vampire leader is a "lesser" undead, he isn't one of those vampire lords or general raising armies and leading them to battle. He is a lesser servant to Vlad Von Carstein (maybie a 50 or less years old vampire)

2º) Necromancy isn't only the raising undead and keep them up, it's something more deeper than that, Necromancy even in the real world folk (and in WH lore) is the study and the control over the life and death, and to be loyal to the WH lore necromancers are the real masters of the magic not the vampires, that's mean spells like "Life leech" are a good choice for any necromancer since the necromancer is the teacher and not the student. The necromancer on any vampire army or in this case warband is a support for that weak point of every vampire (the magic) Heart attack, life leech, vanhel spell etc... All those spells are lore friendly (more or less usefull).

3º) The zombies are the anvil of any army and since they have no mind and it's the necromancer/vampire who is leading their attacks shouldn't be bad warriors, it's easy to explain the body is rotten, but free from living weakness and the mind of his master is leading the hit against the enemy that's allow the zombie to hit with precision and hard while his body is an anvil against the enemies strikes. At the other hand you have they cannot wear any armor (light/heavy) their AGI stat is ♥♥♥♥ so you can avoid the dodge stance, they re the slowest henchman on the whole game and at the end has 4 skill point less.

At least for me made the zombie well balanced, a hard to beat warrior, but slow and unskilled with the only way to stay alive to make em like a fcking wall.

4º) Ghouls: you should give em a chance that rotten touch is OP! weak an enemy with your ghouls and then run with one of your vampires and see what happen to your enemy. Actually i'm using 3 zombies like meat wall and bodyguards for my heroes/leader and 2 ghouls for flanking and weaks the enemies before my real killer go for them (even sometimes my ghouls killed the enemy before my vampire leader reach him).

At the end if feel the warband is very balanced and pretty accurate to the TT game and the old version of the undead army (before vampire counts codex were released).

PD: A lich is an undead necromancer, and that's the goal of any mortal who study necromancy became a lich to be inmmortal ;) (so if the undead version of a necromancer is lore-friendly to use "life leech" why the living necromancer should't? Take a look on AD&D Necromancy spells/WH Fantasy 4º ed Necromancy Spells you will find the source of the necromancer spells devs give to this one.)

[stalis85]

Originally posted by hammerinn:

Not an issue at all. You did however find one thing to complain about. Gratz!

Originally posted by Pirate King:

Be happy you got Undead at all.

So for clarification. I'm not complaining, I raise an issue as i percive it. I love the undead and it was my only TT warband, i miss the dogs (but honestly, they couldnt be implemented, very strong didnt get exp..). My issue is a zombie is a bad fighter. I hope we can all agree to that?
High WS = god fighter. if you compare units over the warhammer armies, the highest ws is with chaos and elf, esp high elfs.
I like their use of the undead warband, the thrall was my favorite bow man (mainly because he was the only one able of using a bow. The Leader is a powerhouse, mostly like TT version, but alot toned down here and i like it.

I agree with Sigmar's Faithful about higher Toughness, for the "zombie feel".
But honestly i have only played one match with this new team and its hard to say anything. I do remember that the ghoul was the strongest "hero" in the TT version, if you got lads got talent on him he was the one able to make the most attacks per turn.

fyi I have lvl 10 on 4 warbands and i think lvl 7 on the witch hunters.

Mordheim is a very good game and hope they can fix some of the bugs still in the game (i almost got stuck behind cover with my bowman running around for a better angle).

Thanks for all the responses and I really enjoy the disscussion so far, but keep it nice and cival. I hope for a game not so reliant on Melee resist and Ranged resist, where a hp pool can be justified.