Undead over-pointed in 3rd Ed?

[Chico]

Hey,

Having finally found my copy of Warhammer Armies i sat down and had a good read though. Now i know when Warhammer Armies lists are used its designed for 3k lists but am i seeming to be missing something because Undead seem far too over-pointed. Granted Fear is a major factor but their reliance of characters along with high points costs (10 pts for a basic naked Skeleton) seem to put them at a disadvantage also not to mention a lack of elite troops.

Of course I haven't played with these yet so I'd though I'd ask the veterans out there, plus i couldn't careless about being competitive with them rather i just wanted other peoples views on this aspect of 3rd.

Cheers
Chico

 

[Zhu Bajie]

Play 2nd

 

[Chico]

Play 2nd

No, its hard enough to find people to play 3rd lol

 

[Thantsants]

I dunno about being over-pointed - Warlord Paul's Skellies were kicking my orcs' asses yesterday! If it wasn't for the judicious use of a Cause Frenzy spell to negate some of the fear they caused most of my army would have been running for the hills being hacked to pieces!

Even my General refused to charge them several times, but that was more down to my shocking dice rolls on Fear tests!

Mind you once I was going toe to toe with them with frenzied units of Orcs the tide did begin to turn.

 

[Chico]

As i say i've yet to play a game with them, so i hope Fear works as good for me lol. Hope you took lots of pictures of your game

 

[Thantsants]

Yarp, but only quick in-game snaps - WP has some up on his blog already

 

[bug16]

Yep, the army is 25% overpointed in imo in 3rd. Although fear is very useful against some armies, e.g. Orcs and Skaven, against Dwarves or Chaos I just get my butt kicked all over the place.

2nd edition gets the army nearer the mark in terms of points. Also, some of the rules in 2nd are make units more desirable. E.g. zombies in 2nd don't rout off the table for good, you can rally them, Mummies can be used as characters and, IIRC, you don't have to bind Ethereals. As a list it just feel "right". In 3rd they fiddled with a number of rules to the point where you're basically fielding a lot Skeletons with spears with various character support rather than an army full of interesting units. You're also guided towards either going very heavy on the magic or very heavy on the combat vampire builds.

As an aside, I used to win a slightly more games than I lost in 2nd with my Undead but in 3rd I lost quite frequently to the point where I gave up and used my Dark Elves instead. Maybe it was my builds, maybe it was my tactics (or lack of) but I find Undead really hard to play in 3rd.

 

[ardyer]

I thought the ethos of Oldhammer was "points be damned?"

 

[Chico]

Yep, the army is 25% overpointed in imo in 3rd. Although fear is very useful against some armies, e.g. Orcs and Skaven, against Dwarves or Chaos I just get my butt kicked all over the place.

2nd edition gets the army nearer the mark in terms of points. Also, some of the rules in 2nd are make units more desirable. E.g. zombies in 2nd don't rout off the table for good, you can rally them, Mummies can be used as characters and, IIRC, you don't have to bind Ethereals. As a list it just feel "right". In 3rd they fiddled with a number of rules to the point where you're basically fielding a lot Skeletons with spears with various character support rather than an army full of interesting units. You're also guided towards either going very heavy on the magic or very heavy on the combat vampire builds.

As an aside, I used to win a slightly more games than I lost in 2nd with my Undead but in 3rd I lost quite frequently to the point where I gave up and used my Dark Elves instead. Maybe it was my builds, maybe it was my tactics (or lack of) but I find Undead really hard to play in 3rd.

Yeah i can see where your coming from, I don't mind about winning all my games as that defeats the point of playing 3rd. But losing every game wouldn't be much fun either.

I thought the ethos of Oldhammer was "points be damned?"

There's more then one ethos to playing 3rd, I quite like the idea of having pick up and play armies so i choose to bind myself to the points and lists.

 

[Just John]

Actually points do have a roll - even if it is just for assembling/organising your army. Whether you use them for games is another matter.

 

[Skarsnik]

I thought the ethos of Oldhammer was "points be damned?"

Only when people need something to bash the newhammer brigade with.

 

[Dreamfish]

This is what I read about it on WFB3, p. 260. "The relatively high points cost of Skeletons reflects their many unique abilities, including their dogged refusal to rout, and the fact that they cause fear."

Below all the rules that apply to Skeletons:

Skeletons: Subject to stupidity if not controlled and will vanish if unstable.
Causes Fear: In all living creatures and -2 in living creatures with T7 or more
Immune to Poison: +1 S bonus of poisoned attacks does not apply.
Magical Vulnerable: Have no magic save but can use MP or DPP to create magic save.
Never Rout: Cannot be routed and ignore psychology tests.
Subject to Instablility: Test if pushed-back, within 12" of wizard using zone spell, wizard casts dispel magic; to take test roll a D6 and consult chart, see WFB, p. 206.
Subject to Stupidity: Test at start of turn, must roll more than Cl to become effected, leaders can use Cl bonus to add or substract from roll; see WFB, p. 73-74.

 

[Zhu Bajie]

This is what I read about it on WFB3, p. 260. "The relatively high points cost of Skeletons reflects their many unique abilities, including their dogged refusal to rout, and the fact that they cause fear."

If a uniform system of checks and balances were in place to determine PV, this would be justifiable. Unfortunately none of the other troops special abilities effect their PV. The step away from an accountable PV system based on the troops actual effectiveness, into "what the game designer feels like" was a bad move IMHO.

I thought the ethos of Oldhammer was "points be damned?"

Hmm. Not really, it's just that the points system in Newhammer makes no sense, whereas the Points system in 2nd does - it also doesn't account for everything that might happen on the battlefield, but provides a basis for scenario design and for the GM to base rulings and situational modifiers on.

 

[Dreamfish]

If a uniform system of checks and balances were in place to determine PV, this would be justifiable. Unfortunately none of the other troops special abilities effect their PV. The step away from an accountable PV system based on the troops actual effectiveness, into "what the game designer feels like" was a bad move IMHO.

That's not entirely true. All abilities can be traced back to a certain PV, see below:

Animal Handlers = 5
Assasins = 25
Beserkers = 5
Bombadiers = 20
Falconer = 3
Fanatics = 30
Flagellant = 4
Forester = 2
Levy = 5
+1 Missile Elite = 1
+2 Missile Elite = 2
+3 Missile Elite = 3
Plague Censers = 40
Poison Wind Globadiers = 20.5
Shapechangers = 20
+1 Shock Elites = 1
+2 Shock Elites = 2
+3 Shock Elites = 3
+4 Shock Elites = 4
Sappers = 3
Scout = 5
Skirmishers = 0
Wardancers = 12

However, traits (as I call them) like fear, never rout, hatred and the like seem to be bound to the specific race of choice. Dark Elves, Wood Elves and High Elves all share the same PV of 8, but Dark Elves include hatred against High Elves for free. Giant Slayers especially include a whole list of traits for free. 2nd edition uses the same principle. Skeletons or Undead in 3rd edition are the only exception to the rule. So, in that regard you're absolutely right.

How come Skeletons end up being worth 2.5 pts in 2nd edition and not 2 pts when using the Universal Point System?

 

[Zhu Bajie]

Skeletons or Undead in 3rd edition are the only exception to the rule. So, in that regard you're absolutely right.

Of course I am. Otherwise it's just splitting hairs between abilities and "traits". I wouldn't consider skaven weapons as either, as they're equipment, and Elites and variant troop types are mostly statline adjustments, not really abilities..

They fiddled with a bunch of PVs in 3rd, but not to accommodate abilities or any tactical factor, just because they felt like it at the time (Zoats too cheap, Fimir too expensive). We wouldn't even be having a "is this unit over-pointed" conversation in 2nd. The points system is what it is, it respects its own limitations, and opinions of the designers or whoever else don't really come into it. As soon as the system breaks away from a simple mathematical basis and trys to accommodate situational factors the whole thing turns to mud, hence overpriced skeletons.

Cause fear and psychological immunity won't matter when facing a battery of warmachines and wizards, so it shouldn't be a factor in determining the PV.

 

[ardyer]

This is what I read about it on WFB3, p. 260. "The relatively high points cost of Skeletons reflects their many unique abilities, including their dogged refusal to rout, and the fact that they cause fear."

If a uniform system of checks and balances were in place to determine PV, this would be justifiable. Unfortunately none of the other troops special abilities effect their PV. The step away from an accountable PV system based on the troops actual effectiveness, into "what the game designer feels like" was a bad move IMHO.

While I somewhat agree with this, they've still publicly towing this line for undead for some reason unbeknownst to me. Alessio flat out said after the release of one of the Vampire Count books that it was the studio's opinion that skeletons should cost more to offset the cost of the better stuff so as to make the point values of the really cool undead stuff attainable. He naively concluded that if players would just choose well-balanced armies, the cost of the army would be correct and the players would never notice that the skeletons were priced too high and bad ass ethereal vampire-mounted vampire (or some such nonsense) was priced too low. To sum up, basically at some point in third edition GW decided that skeletons should be priced way more than they are actually worth and won't budge from that position (And why that was the lone piece of third edition they decided to dig their heals in on boggles my mind).

I thought the ethos of Oldhammer was "points be damned?"

Hmm. Not really, it's just that the points system in Newhammer makes no sense, whereas the Points system in 2nd does - it also doesn't account for everything that might happen on the battlefield, but provides a basis for scenario design and for the GM to base rulings and situational modifiers on.

I know, I know. Really just taking the opportunity to rag on Chico...mainly because I'm kind of a jerk (it's the law school, it crushes your soul!)

 

[Zhu Bajie]

How come Skeletons end up being worth 2.5 pts in 2nd edition and not 2 pts when using the Universal Point System?

Human error? I can't see any justification for it in the text.

To sum up, basically at some point in third edition GW decided that skeletons should be priced way more than they are actually worth and won't budge from that position (And why that was the lone piece of third edition they decided to dig their heals in on boggles my mind)

That's just weird. Bet they use the same statline tho!

 

[Basement Dweller]

Don't wreck 3rd edition by telling me the Skeletons are overpriced.

I have been collecting an army for a while and want to get them on the table but don't want to them to suck too bad...

Are the mummies useful? I have lots of those despite their high point cost...

 

[Erny]

Skele's are awesome in 3rd even against relatively high cool armies like elves. You just have to play to their strengths of which there are many. Against low Cl, lets say I'm scared.

 

[bug16]

Against low Cl, lets say I'm scared.

Mummies aren't worth the points unless you're playing 3k+ imo. They're better in 2nd because you can use them as unit leaders.