Help support TMP

POLL: Warhammer The Undead Armies

198 votes were cast.

Back to POLLS home page

Delthos Inactive Member writes:

pphalen, by that reasoning they shouldn't have Lizardmen, Ogres, Skaven, and perhaps a few of the other armies either.

I too like them being separate, although I wish their power level were equal. The new VC can do everything the Tomb Kings can do and do it better. I'm a big Tomb King fan and their magic has the potential to be really cool, but in practice it sucks. It is just too easy for an opponent to stop the important spells, especially if they know anything about the Tomb Kings. Which is sad as they rely on it to do well.

Back to the Homepage

1,681 hits since 24 Jan 2009
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?

bar of chart
bar of chart
no opinion
bar of chart
not a Warhammer player
bar of chart

Writing in White Dwarf 337, Jervis Johnson of Games Workshop recalls the history of Undead armies in Warhammer:

The Undead were also amongst the first army books we ever wrote. These very early versions of the army mixed together all of the classic Undead archetypes into a single force that included skeletons, zombies, mummies, Necromancers, and Vampires. However, it eventually became clear that there was simply too much stuff here to do justice to in a singler army, and so the momentous decision was taken to split our Undead army into two parts: the Tomb Kings and the Vampire Counts. Each of these armies draws on quite different archetypes. The Tomb Kings are horribly ancient, almost alien creatures from an impossibly distant past, that lie slumbering and which we awake at our peril. The Vampire Counts, on the other hand, draw on a rich seam of visceral, gothic horrow, where the Undead lurk unseen and prey upon the living.

In retrospect, did Games Workshop make the right decision in splitting the Undead into separate armies?