I don't think it's fair that while VC get the extremly powerful Vampire Lords while our TK counterparts the Tomb Kings have nothing compared to them. Now don't get me wrong I love the army and TK have good stats just not as good as Vampire Lords. The Armies are VERY similar yet they seem to outshoot TK here by a bit.

Well, the thing is, the armies aren't similar at all. VC need to be agressive, and have many powerful units, can raise new units, and all that stuff.
TK can stay back, can't raise new units, and get all 6 spells of their lore. Not same, except that they are both undead....
---Baran

actually, only a 4 spell lore, but TK can re-raise any unit and have powerful constructs
VC are more 'eggs in one basket' with the general and heirophant being the same model, and the vampire lord costs a lot more than the tomb king, and uses up a hero choice as well as a lord.

AoAlgebra :lol:

True True but I mean units-wise. We are similar in units as we both have Skelly units (duh) the VC get a few cheap units for Horde tactics but they have practically the equivallent of our TG in the form of GG. Now if our units are similar I'd expect our characters to be similar but no where they have Vampire Counts to square up with Tomb Kings they take it further and develop super Vampire Lords which they tool up with powerful equipment.

Well, TK are one of the most broken lists (i.e. they highest possbiility of cheese) there are. But, its all about the man behind the models.
---Baran

one little point, VC were made before TK, and thus that statement should be reversed

AoAlgebra :lol:

To AoA: Shut up thats not the point your just being awkward
To Baran: Probably right...I better go read the rulebook again just to study maybe I'll be better next time