I belive that in the common view there are no greater maniacs of experimenting than the Necrarchs. That is, however, the common view. And I'm sure that it is, as usual, biased against us Necromancers.
That is why I would like to ask you, brothers Necromancers, what do you think on this matter. Do you conduct mad experiments with eagerness equal to that of the Necrarch? Or do you simply dabble in Necromancy out of fear of death? Or perhaps you experience some sort of a mixture of both?

I'd like to encourage all forum members, not only Necromancers, to post their view, as long as it is not insulting for us.


Lord Gorthuar de Veris
Cult of Nagash

I see Necromancers as being more grounded in magical theory than Necrarch, having a generally better understanding of and grasp on the magical energies. The Necrarch are come from an alchemical background and have a better grasp of natural history and philosophie, with some moree esoteric lore. My opibion only though.

I agree with MDmann, but I do think that when trying to raise undead, something can go wrong now and then, either good or bad... Perhaps the necromancer found a better to raise dead from their sleep, or perhaps a new creature... In such cases I think that he'll try to figure it out for his own benefit.. Thus he will be experimenting..

Now I dont know if this makes any sence, so if it aint, say so and I'll write it better...


Darlan

I would see Necromancers as people trying to escape death and beginning to discover the secrets to raising death , where as necrach do crazier experiments because they already have that basic knowledge and now they find ways of raising more dead , creating more dead in more insane ways.

That's right, the necromancers would do experiments to stay alive whilst the Necrarch's (who are already undead) experiments are much more crazier simply because they have got the time.

Belakith

Edit: spelling

I don't agree. I think Necromancers are trying to belay death, but not necessarily by "staying alive" - hence the idea of the Unliving or Undead.

Whereas Dr. Frankenstien was trying to imbue life into the lifeless corpse of his Monster, Necromancers animate the dead, they don't give them life...

A necromancer's fascination is not with eternal life, but with remaining eternally undying (see the difference?).

While Necrarchs seem to enjoy building patchwork creatures and such, I think Necros focus more on death itself... raising the undead, summoning spirit hosts, communing withthe dead, studying vampiric unlife, and such.

Necromancers would be grave-robbers, they would revel in plagues and the vast amount of corpses they produce (more subjects to study).

The Mighty Necromancer Devlis originally pursued the dark path of Necromancy to avoid the inevitability of Death. As time went by however, avoiding death took a secondary priority to the more ambitious goal of complete world domination.

Devlis posseses a cold intellect that borders on insanity. The art of Necromancy is something he finds facinating, and he experiments on the corrupting effect of Dark magic on the living with great regularity.

Devlis is currently under the command of his so-called "Master" - the mad high elf vampire known as Dranthar the Fallen. While Dranthar believes he is the unquestioned Master of the Legions of Terror, it is Devlis who calls the shots, subtly manipulating Dranthars genocidal urges to acheieve his own ends.

^_^

Taking a cold, slightly clinical view from the VC army book I would say that Necromancers are better at large scale Necromancy but Necrarchs are better at Necromantic experiments and control of Necromancy. My reasons for this are thus.

1) Necromancers have higher magic levels usually in the VC book, hence they are better at Necromancy generally, however the fact Necrarchs have a 1+ dice modifyer shows they can control necromancey better when they do use it.

2) The Army lists in the back of the book: Necromancers can buy skeletons and zombies for less suggesting a better grasp of large scale necromancey. Necrarchs however, can field unridden zombie dragons and heros on winged nightmares suggesting a tendancey towards experimentation and a tighter grasp of necromancey on a smaller level.

3)The Necrarch Fluff: In this we see a young necromancer challenge his master vampire and loose however (as the fluff states) the fact he's still human shows the craving to cheat death and a drive vampires lack. Therefore it is understandable that Necromancers know a wider range of Necromantic arts since it represents their burning desire to cheat death. Not having death to worry about means that the Necrarch is less motivated and so knows less but throughly masters what he does know before moving on.

Anyhow thats the general impression I get from reading the VC book. B)

This is very interesting and fairly reasonable. However there are parts I must disagree with:

In the fluff piece concerning the duel between the Necromancer and his Necrarch master it was the Necromancer who won the magical duel, wrestling control over the Skeletons from the Vampire. The Vampire only survived due to his physical strenght.

This would mean that the Necromancers have greater mastership over the Dark Art than even the Necrarch do, would it not? If the Necrarch was superior in controlling the power he wields, he would not allow the Necromancer to take control over his minions.

I thank you for your time.


Lord Gorthuar de Veris
Cult of Nagash

That is a fair point and a logical assumption, however I belive I can try to counter it with this quote...

"The human had wisely attacked in the middle of the day when Nicodemous' powers were at their weakest. The Vampire could feel the presence of the sun even this deep underground."

Poor Nicodemous was at his weakest when his pupil attack and, having just awoken in the middle of the day, and cannot be expected to have been as fully prepared for battle as his student. It even says how when the Skeletons rose Nero had been expecting it and thus was ready to counter. If anything the fact Nero felt obliged to attack Nicodemous at his weakest suggests that he felt he couldn't win should he have attacked during the day!

Your move! ;)

I completley forgot to include the timing of Neros attack. Given your argumentation there are no other moves left for me than to pass ;)

I thought you'd have trouble with that one! :D Mind you I am only going by what the book says and using the fluff. I do acknowledge the fact for a Necrarch to equal a Master Lv4 Necromancer costs an insane amount points wise and can only be done with an upgraded lord with Noble Blood, thus making Necromancers far more practical to field as wizards in gaming terms.

Points and character slots efficiency is the last thing we need to bring up. Let's just say they reflect the fact that a Necromancer is inclined to learn as much as he can while he still is able to, while the Necrarch does not need to hurry.

There is, still, one thing amiss in the rules reflecting the fluff I belive. The Necrarch Bloodline Power: The Awakening suggests that a Necrarch is potentially capable of rising much more Undead minions than a Necromancer. On the other hand it is the Necromancer Appendix list that has most units with a discount.

Anyone has an idea how to explain it?

I thank you for your time.


Lord Gorthuar de Veris
Cult of Nagash

Hmm that one is a tough cookie since both suggest a high mastery of rasing the dead that equals each other. Erm I really can't think what to put it down to! :blink:

I think that that's for making the necromancer list a bit better, they lack really god combat characters such as vampires. And maybe the necrarch like it more to study harder things to raise and the necromancers just want troops?

Good thinking! I fogot that a Necromancer army does like the fighting edge of a zampire army and so making the troops cheaper to make up for this would help it be more balanced! Nice work Marine!

So Necrarch, despite the possibility of rising more troops than Necromancers would be interested rather in animating some horrid necromantic constructs. Interesting and fairly logical given the 'constant experimentator' psyche of a typical Necrarch fed to us in the fluff.

The Necromancers, standing on the gorund more firmly than the Necrarch must know that +3 for ranks and +1 for outnumber is worht more than several high strenght attacks of a monster ;)

I thank you for your time.


Lord Gorthuar de Veris
Cult of Nagash

I guess since Nercrachs have long overcome any fear of death they find it more of a subject to be studied unlike necromancers who see it as something to be afraid of and obsessed about, hence why they want to know how to raise the dead since they probably see it as being helpful to them oneday.

Personally I'd take a fully kitted out Necrarch Count on a Zombie Dragon withs its ever useful flame template over a Necromancer with a load of skeletons any day... mind you that probably explains why I belong to the Necrarchs :P

The uselesness of a Zombie Dragon to most VC generals (and aspecially Necromancers) prevents me from taking it as long as I can spend my points on something more useful. On the other hand I love the concept of a undead Dragon mount, what is easily observed in my stories in the Fiction forum.

That is propably why I belong to the Necromancers ;)

I thank you for your time.


Lord Gorthuar de Veris
Cult of Nagash

I think an aspect that has been overlooked is the relative scarcity of Necrarchs. Judging from the fluff there are but a handful of Necrarch Lords in existance, possibly significantly less than a dozen. Those who do exist are very reluctant to wage open war preferring instead to work their will through magic and subterfuge, scheming in preparation for the realization of their long term goals.

Necromancers, on the other hand, seem much more common. Journeyman level necromancers (levels 1 & 2) seem ambundant in the retinues of pretty much any vampire. Even master necromancers serve under vampire lords and counts when these co-exist. Independent minded master necromancers pursue plans of their own, raising and maintaining their own forces, sometimes in direct oppositon of each other or vampires. Evidence suggest that necromancers may be, relatively speaking, the most common type of undead magic user. This no doubt stems from their will and ability to learn fast and to develop their mastery in a comparatively short time span.

If we accept these premises it seems that not only are Necromancers superior in their use of necromantic magic to all but the Necrarch vampires (I'll leave the debate of who's the mostest and the bestest for later) - they are also the most numerous. And in the words of Josef Stalin "quantity is a quality all to its own". A necromancer force is not only very powerful in its use of magic, it has the strategic ability to rebuild itself with a speed no vampire bloodline can match (least of all the Necrarchs). The availability of the necromancer means the master necromancer can build a large infrastructure, allowing for extended control of large stretches of land or of huge armies. I like to think that one of the true strengths of the necromancer would he his combinatory abilities. Unlike vampires they are not plagued by the same ammount of infighting, pride, vanity or overblown ego.

It stands to reason that since necromancers are able to learn and advance their mastery in a relatively short time span, they are quite eager to try out new ways of doing things and thus of experimenting. Perhaps the reason why Necrarchs are often brought up as the primary experimentors is the dramatic kind of experiments they do (building abonimations and testing the limits of undeath/life specifically) and the fact that they work towards a definite goal of ending all life, rather than learning as much about necromancy as possible.

I think we're generalizing too much here; not every Necromancer is going to have the same motivations and Modus Operandi. I think that if you can justify your Necromancer's (or Necrarch's) actions through a viable background story (i.e. fluff), then use it!

For instance - La vieille bique (my necromancer), had a natural talent for necromancy as a child (the story of her origin to come) and although she never studied the art formally, she did a lot of experimenting in the swamps she was exiled to... her early motivations come from a need for companionship (as grotesque as it may seem, :wacko: I guess undead family is better than no family!), and latter turn to a desire for revenge.

Victor von Frankenstien was motivated by a desire to create life. He was driven, obsessed, and bordering on insane. I could easily see a Necromancer who experiments in the same manner.

Or how about a wizard whose beloved dies, and he turns to the dark arts to try and bring her back... thereby slowly descending into Necromancy. He constantly tries new spells or combinations of enchantments to bring her lifeless corpse back from the dead... eventually going insane, and so on, and so forth...

@ Tymos:

I don't think the Necrarch are as scarce as you say, but that is due to my theory of Vampire generations. There could be less than dozen Children of W'soran, but they would be no less than Special Characters. Their Children, in turn, could be regular Necrarch Lords, theirs - Counts and finally Thralls.

Back on topic: I do agree that the Necromancers are far more numerous than any of the Vampire Bloodlines, tough infighting between them might be of the same level. The difference, as you pointed out, is quantity. While a lot of Necromancers may be competitiors or even enemies, there are still more Necromancers who would cooperate with each other than there are Vampires.

@ Malface:

Splendid. Again you live up to the high meaning I have of you. I wish there was no 'general wiev' of a Necromancers, but rather _wievs_ as varied as the reasons for one to become a Necromancer as you gave.

Some other, perhaps less fitting than yours:

A medic who endevours to learn more about anatomy by dissecting corpses. At first he is able to help his patients better, but then he becomes more and more interested in his experiments and cares less and less about the people he used to help...

Or better yet:

Imagine a wizard tryes to defy death for the good of his community. In Nehekhara it led to the rising of the Mortuary Cult, and ultimatley - the invention of Necromancy by Lord Nagash.

I thank you for your time.


Lord Gorthuar de Veris
Cult of Nagash

Former Priests of Morr would make grat candidates for both those ideas Gorthuar! Sounds cool!

I've always seen Necrarchs as being more deliberate and artistic, in a sick kind of way, slowly perfecting their dark powers. Necormancers I think are more like a scientist on a deadline. He/she is methodical, but driven, trying to gain a good idea of what they're doing and how to do it before death hits them. The fine print can wait till later. Right now, they just need to get enough understanding to acquire undeath. It'a like the difference between how an elf and a human approach wizardry. One sees a lifetime of growth, one sees power to gain and master here and now, even if that power is to be used for the best reasons.

fellow practitioners,

let us not forget...
we figured how to ascend life, and after having realized that mortality is a loosing game, stepped across.
tha vampires were given undeath by an external entity via the elixir of life.
we earned our path, they bought theirs.
what is so gruesome about necromancy? it is mere superstition and survival tactic to view the dead as forbidden. man fears death because of loss of loved ones and corpses promote disease. but once one has learned the truth of life and hygene, there is litle to fear. why burn out shaking ones impotent fist at the universe when one can prepare and opt out of the role appointed by random chance?

i hold the nechrarch as the most evolved vampires but we are the masters of undeath, unbound to blood and free of binding pacts to some ancient demon.

True.. but we are more easily grabbed by becoming older, and we can be wounded easierly.


Darlan

Oh really? How have the Necrarch changed the most? I'd have thought that was Strigoii.

I fail to truely see how necromancers are the true masters of undeath. Yes you do not need blood to survive but in time you become weaker and frail and depend upon increasing use of magic to sustain yourselfs where as a vampire does not. Secondly Many vampires are just as good to necromancy as necromancers. Therefore due to this there are no "True" masters of undeath, necromancers and vampires are both the true masters but in differing ways.


As for the ancient daemon that gave the vampires its power, it was no daemon there is more suspision pointing towards the elven god khaine being behind the creation of vampires as nagash learnt parts of necromancy from dark elves and then inturn neferata (sp?) read the books of nagash and made a pact with what ever god was behind the scenes in helping create that. Lastly witch elves bath in blood to become youthful again, thats kind of a link in itself.

MDMann: Strigoi and necrachs have changed to the same degree in my belief but in different ways, the strigoi have become feral and fearful, whereas the necrachs have also changed in appearance but have a very strong link to the realm of death and to them the world of the living is some what blurred as the necrach lives more in the realm of the dead then other vampires.

Malface: Priests of mor could turn to necromancy but with great difficulty. This is because if he did the enter priesthood would rally to hunt him down as would the witch hunters, thus due to this not many priests have become necromancers and those did very quickly ended up end (Its kinda hard to survive when all the black guard of morr and some witch hunters are after you)

My ultimate goal as a necromancer is no longer eternal life solely but, i must agree, world domination, the coming of the Kingdom of Undeath... Okay so maybe Nagash is pulling the strings abit :P

I always thought that a necromancer dabbled in the dark arts for any number of reasons, anywhere from bringing back loved ones or prolonging their own existance. Though ultimately it always leads down the same path and the enevitable struggle to cheat death, as the fear of death was what drove them to be more powerful than necrachs (or at least to master the same level of power in just a fraction of the time). As for experimenting I could well see a necromancer creating his own experiements but only when his powers are really great (unlike a necrach who seems to be thinking and doing of nothing else)

No shame in that... I preach the word of Nagash the Great myself, and prodly admit to having my strings pulled ;)

Greetings.

My background for Faust is that he was an orphan who was apprenticed to the witch hunters. The witchhunters were cruel and mistreated him until he betrayed them to a necromancer whom he became apprentice to afterwards. Faust has strong hatred towards Sigmar which is also reflected in his views towards Ulric and Morr. If given the opportunity Faust would hunt witch hunters to excact revenge.

Faust, thrice damned.

Of recent, Gorthuar, I have looked forward to acculmulating my necromantic powers crushing the oldest enemies of Nagash, the infidel 'kings' of Nehekhara. I will send them back to their tombs as little more than dust! Ha!Ha!Ha!HAAAA! Opps! I guess I do serve Nagash more than I think.

After all, they were at the top of my hit list during the Storm of Chaos. :D