tomb kings vs westeros

[duburu]

an tomb kings dynasty from warhammer fantasy battles somehow was waken to the world of game of thrones through a warp storm. can the tomb kings conquer the houses?

[Forum Explorer]

Yeah Tomb Kings win pretty easily. Westros is basically the Empire with no magic, no black powder weapons, and no special characters. Tomb Kings might lose some battles here and there, but they should be able to easily replenish their losses and Westros doesn't really have an answer to the giant stone statues, the ability to bring the skeletons back to 'life', or a defense against having their knights slain by magic.

[hamishspence]

There is some magic in the Game of Thrones (books) world - but it's rare and not usually at the disposal of the ruling houses. That priestess of the Red God, I think, was the only notable magic-user.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

What are the numbers of the Tomb Kings like? Armies in Westeros tend on the large side for fantasy. The Houses may just outnumber the Tomb Kings by enough to overcome them.

[Eldan]

Not sure if numbers matter all that much if your enemy just comes back if you kill him and he has a chest that kills anything looking at it.

[Forum Explorer]

What are the numbers of the Tomb Kings like? Armies in Westeros tend on the large side for fantasy. The Houses may just outnumber the Tomb Kings by enough to overcome them.

Well the OP didn't specify on how many would be sent into Westeros. If it was all of them? Then they likely outnumber the Westeros armies.

[Aedilred]

What are the numbers of the Tomb Kings like? Armies in Westeros tend on the large side for fantasy. The Houses may just outnumber the Tomb Kings by enough to overcome them.
Depends who's writing the Warhammer background in question. When stated, army sizes outside the RPG supplements tend to range from "probably too large" to "way too large".

If it's a single Tomb King (other than Settra) then Westeros might have a chance. The outnumbering difference would likely have to be substantial to make up for the constructs of the Tomb Kings - the Ushabti, Bone Giants, Sphinxes and so forth are the sort of thing the Westerosi would struggle to deal with even with a massive outnumbering advantage; once you factor in morale and unity of command - where the Westerosi are also at a disadvantage - the Nehekharans have a serious edge. If it's more than 20-30,000 troops coming through, I don't think Westeros is going to be able to put enough troops into the field at once to deal with them. Even the whole Tyrell army would struggle to find a field large enough and deploy quickly enough to bring their numbers to bear, and the Undead aren't going to get tired from long combats so can chew through a large army all day.

Of course, I'm making a couple of major assumptions: firstly that there's no magic operational on the Westerosi side and that there is for the Tomb Kings. If the gateway is cut off and there's no other source of the Winds of Magic, then they'll be left with, at best, a couple of Liche Priests, and they're totally screwed. But if both TKs and Westerosi magicians can draw magic from the same source, then Westeros might be able to fashion some sort of counter. Secondly, and also related, of course, is whether the Westerosi have dragons: they'd completely change the game.

[Wardog]

Yeah Tomb Kings win pretty easily.

Tomb Kings kill Joffrey. Everybody wins ;)

[Seerow]

Tomb Kings win, by the time the war starts everyone in Westeros will already be dead.

[Clertar]

Do the White Walkers join in?

[hamishspence]

Assuming that the guard on the Wall decide that this is exactly the sort of incursion they were created for, would their experience in fighting Wights be of use when it comes to fighting other Undead?

[Eldan]

Well, fire does help against the mummies, if not against most of their minions. So, maybe. Bonus points if Obsidian makes a weapon count as a fire attack.

[Nourjan]

I actually misread this as "Tomb Kings VS Westboro ", suffice to say the thread didn't live up to that expectation.At least this one won't get locked for that.

[Raimun]

Tomb Kings.

From what I've heard of the opposition (no magic, no black powder, bad morale, etc.), Tomb Kings will win this war.

About the only advantage those realms have is the fact that they have numbers... but Tomb Kings possess this advantage too. Typical Warhammer faction is a legion made of legions, which are in turn made of legions too. They can also raise the dead to fight for them and they have gigantic undead monsters of all flavors. Since they are undead, none of them know fear or get tired... and they don't even care that the winter is coming. :smalltongue:

I should also mention that they are ultimately not just a bunch of mindless undead. The eponymous tomb kings have had more than a life time of experience ruling and conquering.

[hamishspence]

Tomb Kings.

From what I've heard of the opposition (no magic, no black powder, bad morale, etc.), Tomb Kings will win this war.

Magic exists in the Game of Thrones setting - it's just rare, and less dramatic.

[Flickerdart]

It really depends on when this happens. Aegon the Conqueror (also, pretty much any Targaryen ruler during the part of history with dragons) would wreck major face. Dragons are pretty much the only saving grace of Westeros though - the world's magic is really weak. Melisandre is pretty much the only one whose mojo has combat applications, but it's way too slow to do anything serious against an army.

Mance Rayder's wildling army would probably do really well, though. There's a lot of them, they're ready to murder things at a moment's notice, and giants and mammoths are a pretty decent substitute for dragons in a pinch. They also have wargs and greenseers on their side - not terribly powerful magic, but every bit helps.

[Forum Explorer]

It really depends on when this happens. Aegon the Conqueror (also, pretty much any Targaryen ruler during the part of history with dragons) would wreck major face. Dragons are pretty much the only saving grace of Westeros though - the world's magic is really weak. Melisandre is pretty much the only one whose mojo has combat applications, but it's way too slow to do anything serious against an army.

Mance Rayder's wildling army would probably do really well, though. There's a lot of them, they're ready to murder things at a moment's notice, and giants and mammoths are a pretty decent substitute for dragons in a pinch. They also have wargs and greenseers on their side - not terribly powerful magic, but every bit helps.

I'm not sure how strong Westros dragons are, but there are Warhammer dragons (and some of them can even cast magic) and the Tomb Kings can handle them just fine. Not to say that they aren't a difficult opponent just not an impossible or unknown opponent. Meanwhile they do have their own bone giants, and giant stone battle sphynx.

[Flickerdart]

I'm not sure how strong Westros dragons are, but there are Warhammer dragons (and some of them can even cast magic) and the Tomb Kings can handle them just fine. Not to say that they aren't a difficult opponent just not an impossible or unknown opponent. Meanwhile they do have their own bone giants, and giant stone battle sphynx.
Westerosi dragons are kind of ridiculous - when fully grown, they are large enough to swallow a mammoth whole, and their flame melts steel. The image of a "powerful dragon" on the Warhammer wiki suggests that Warhammer dragons are much smaller.

[Eldan]

They are much smaller than that, yes. But how powerful they are is, really, difficult to say. That said, they are certainly as intelligent as humans, if not more so. And the strongest of them are just as good as magic as the greatest human archmage.

[hamishspence]

Warhammer dragons vary a lot in size. The dragon in Dragonslayer was as long as a dwarven airship.

[Forum Explorer]

Warhammer dragons vary a lot in size. The dragon in Dragonslayer was as long as a dwarven airship.

I think it's because Warhammer dragons never stop growing, though they do have a tendency to fall and stay asleep.

[Don Julio Anejo]

I'm not much for Warhammer lore, but Westrosi do have access to substantial amounts of wildfyre, which should be more than effective against mummies if lobbed from siege weapons. The biggest problem I see is that.. if it's set at any time in the books, well, there's no way the houses would unite, even if to fight off a horde of undead zombie monsters running rampant. At best, each faction (Starks + Tullys; Lannisters + Tyrells + Martells; Stannis) would try to fight the Tomb Kings on its own. At worst, they'll take apart house armies one by one with little effort.

[Raimun]

Magic exists in the Game of Thrones setting - it's just rare, and less dramatic.

Okay but if the magic in question can't, for example, halt entire regiments, kill knights in full battle gear and raise the fallen (common trick of the undead), they are pretty much boned. One critical part of most warhammer battles is the caster fight.

Wizards of the setting can alter the battlefield on regimental scale and any general worth their salt has wizards in their army. Sometimes they are not even expected to cast any spells (If they do? Bonus.) but just to counter a few key spells of enemy wizards that would screw the battle plans. Magic heavy warhammer army has a huge advantage against an army without any magical protection. Undead are usually pretty magic heavy, what with raising skeletons all the time and such.

Many people have mentioned the dragons. What I've understood, via cultural osmosis, is that they are not active movers and shakers in the setting. And even if they were, can those people actually control or even ally with these dragons?

Warhammer dragons do vary in size and power but it is kind of a moot point since tomb kings are not known to have dragons in their army... unless they animate the remains of dragon, which should be possible even with the tomb king's version of necromancy. Regardless, they do have their own gigantic undead monsters.

[Eldan]

Okay but if the magic in question can't, for example, halt entire regiments, kill knights in full battle gear and raise the fallen (common trick of the undead), they are pretty much boned. One critical part of most warhammer battles is the caster fight.

It can do two of those things. Melisandre, the setting's primary caster, summons a shadow that moves into an enemy camp and kills the king while his bodyguards can only starte at it stupidly. Other priests of the red god show the ability to raise the dead.

Dragons, at the time, have virtually died out. However, Daenerys Targaryen has successfully managed to breed three eggs. Still, even by the sixth book, they are still not fully grown. About elephant-sized, IIRC?

[Aedilred]

Wizards of the setting can alter the battlefield on regimental scale and any general worth their salt has wizards in their army.
This is debatable, and I think there's a massive difference in WHF between a "normal" tabletop battle and a "normal" battle in the background. It wouldn't be uncommon for a tabletop army to contain several vampires or necromancers, or an Imperial army to feature two or three wizards, but looking across at when battles are portrayed in the fluff they're usually much more down-to-earth. In a necromantic army it would be extremely rare to see more than one necromancer and any additional ones would likely be apprentices there to help keep the army together rather than to engage and destroy enemy wizards. For thousands of years the Empire had no wizards in their armies at all and still managed to be effective; even in the current setting battle-capable wizards are supposedly very rare. That isn't to say magic isn't still effective, but it'd be a less critical and game-changing part of the battle than the tabletop might suggest.

Nehekharan magic, even on the tabletop, is one of the less directly offensive lores, too, with most of its spells based around buffing and debuffing (and, by extension, also raising more troops) rather than destroying enemy armies directly. It would still be hard for Westerosi armies to deal with, no doubt, but it might not be an automatic trump card.

[Forum Explorer]

This is debatable, and I think there's a massive difference in WHF between a "normal" tabletop battle and a "normal" battle in the background. It wouldn't be uncommon for a tabletop army to contain several vampires or necromancers, or an Imperial army to feature two or three wizards, but looking across at when battles are portrayed in the fluff they're usually much more down-to-earth. In a necromantic army it would be extremely rare to see more than one necromancer and any additional ones would likely be apprentices there to help keep the army together rather than to engage and destroy enemy wizards. For thousands of years the Empire had no wizards in their armies at all and still managed to be effective; even in the current setting battle-capable wizards are supposedly very rare. That isn't to say magic isn't still effective, but it'd be a less critical and game-changing part of the battle than the tabletop might suggest.

Nehekharan magic, even on the tabletop, is one of the less directly offensive lores, too, with most of its spells based around buffing and debuffing (and, by extension, also raising more troops) rather than destroying enemy armies directly. It would still be hard for Westerosi armies to deal with, no doubt, but it might not be an automatic trump card.

The fluff varies but considering how the Empire was actually on the verge of destruction without magic, well that kinda points to it being a pretty big advantage. Anyways, the fluff does have magic be a big deal as well. For example one slann mage-priest took on an army of deamons by himself with his magic.

[Raimun]

It can do two of those things. Melisandre, the setting's primary caster, summons a shadow that moves into an enemy camp and kills the king while his bodyguards can only starte at it stupidly. Other priests of the red god show the ability to raise the dead.


Okay. Can they do it on regimental scale? You know, killing off most of the enemy cavalry and raising legions of undead skeleton warriors? All during a single battle of two armies, which is usually over within a day.



Dragons, at the time, have virtually died out. However, Daenerys Targaryen has successfully managed to breed three eggs. Still, even by the sixth book, they are still not fully grown. About elephant-sized, IIRC?

Tomb kings have usually unspecified number of elephant-sized monsters at their beck an call. Kind of like a WWI or II-army has tanks in addition to infantry.

[Flickerdart]

Many people have mentioned the dragons. What I've understood, via cultural osmosis, is that they are not active movers and shakers in the setting. And even if they were, can those people actually control or even ally with these dragons?
This is why the timing is critical - at the current time of the books, there are only three dragons and their owner has trouble controlling them. During the conquest of the Seven Kingdoms, Aegon the Conqueror controlled three incredibly powerful dragons that were basically the reason he won the war. Before the Doom of Valyria, there were loads of dragons and they were the strongest weapon of the Valyrian army. The Valyrians, incidentally, also commanded magic much greater than even Melisandre.

Actually, there's a couple of magical feats we've forgotten - R'hllor's priests have pyromancy on their side, and the warlocks, shadowbinders, and various other mystics of Essos have (poorly documented) abilities, though whether they count for this challenge is questionable since the OP appears to have a poor grasp of the difference between the continent of Westeros and the Known World of aSoIaF.

[Eldan]

Okay. Can they do it on regimental scale? You know, killing off most of the enemy cavalry and raising legions of undead skeleton warriors? All during a single battle of two armies, which is usually over within a day.

They can not, currentlyl But it is also said that magic has vanished from the world for a while and is only now returning and still weak compared to what it could do in past centuries. So, again, timing.

[Selrahc]

So, a united Westeros under Robert, before the war of the five kings, probably has the capacity to raise about a quarter of a million men. Renly managed to raise a hundred thousand, despite being a rebel with a weak claim, and just the Reach and the Stormlands behind him. Against a literal army of monsters? Robert and the Lords Paramount could probably get a quarter of a million men. Maybe against undead monstrosities the Faith of the Seven really whips up the small folk, and numbers close more on the 350000 mark.

But bringing all those numbers to bear would be incredibly difficult. And the Tomb Kings are qualitatively much much better. Even if it was a relatively miniscule force of 8000 or so, it could deliver defeats to forces much larger.


It's important to remember though, the Tomb King army does have irreplaceable parts. It can summon up skeletons en masse from their defeated foes... but skeletons are fodder. The powerful Tomb Guardians, Sphinxes, Mummies and the all important Liches? Not going to come back. And necromancers can't hide away in fortresses, they are required to personally lead their undead thralls. If you kill a Liche, his skeletons decay into dust. And armies of relatively conventional medieval soldiery can and have beat the Tomb Kings back before.

Depending on the size of the Tomb King initial force, I don't think it is all that cut and dried. But it also does depend on the Westeros force being able to hold things together, and not collapse into anarchy. How long can the Lords Paramount feed troops into a meatgrinder before mutiny sets in? Can the Westerosi learn to target the right troops? Will the Tomb Kings manage to kill important figures (Like Robert, Ned or Tywin)? How will the logistics hold out?

I'd give an edge to the Tomb King even for a force as small as 8000 . But I think it would be a tough time for the undead, and need good generals.

[russdm]

I think for Westeros, Its a flat-out "No, they lose." I am assuming that the OP is using what is in books or HBO show.

The reasons why)

1) Unity: The houses are too divided to combine their armies since all are playing the game of thrones. Few if any would be willing to sign up without planning to betray the others.

2) Logistics: Westeros has frequently shown that it's houses have piss-poor logistics. With the last war that happened in the books mostly done, Westeros is starving. Only a couple of cities are actually making more food, but everywhere else was wonderfully pillaged. Also, winter is showing up, so I am seeing massive starvation for Westeros and an army that cannot eat is an army that doesn't fight.

3) Magic: Westeros doesn't have the magic to make this work and if magic is coming back, it is not reached the point where it can help out here.

4) Undead: From the books, it is heavily implied that there are either no clerics in Westeros or that Undead cannot be handled by those clerics. Otherwise, we would have seen some at the wall and the whole needing weapons to fight the white walkers would not have mattered so much.

5) Unstable: Westeros has been unstable in that there happens to be continuous infighting among its factions. There is no central recognized leadership nor is anyone really able to secure that leadership and have it stick. The whole game of thrones thing, remember?

6) Healing: Aside from a few rare cases, there appears to be no magical healing in Westeros. So if people die, its very likely they will stay dead unless the enemy raises dead stuff, which would happen a lot.

7) Army: The bulk of the Westeros' armies are made up of conscripts without any training. Conscripts in medieval times, (not like more recent times) had an appalling tendency to break in battle and flee or they simply lacked the skills to be nothing but cannon fodder/arrow fodder. This is why armies of mercenaries were preferred, because they were among the closest to professional soldiers that existed at the time, and were pretty reliable in battle.

[comicshorse]

7) Army: The bulk of the Westeros' armies are made up of conscripts without any training. Conscripts in medieval times, (not like more recent times) had an appalling tendency to break in battle and flee or they simply lacked the skills to be nothing but cannon fodder/arrow fodder. This is why armies of mercenaries were preferred, because they were among the closest to professional soldiers that existed at the time, and were pretty reliable in battle.

And remember a lot of the Tomb King armies will have the ability to cause Fear (as in the WRFP rules) and some to cause Terror

[Aedilred]

1) Unity: The houses are too divided to combine their armies since all are playing the game of thrones. Few if any would be willing to sign up without planning to betray the others.

5) Unstable: Westeros has been unstable in that there happens to be continuous infighting among its factions. There is no central recognized leadership nor is anyone really able to secure that leadership and have it stick. The whole game of thrones thing, remember?
Timing is critical. Under Robert, there was talk of a Dothraki invasion, and while both Ned and Tywin dismissed the realistic chances of its happening, both of them were alive to the danger presented were a Dothraki army actually to make landfall. Renly and Stannis would likely pitch in and bring the Stormlands, the Crownlands islands, and the Reach. The Riverlands are almost certainly in. Even without the Vale, Dorne or the Iron Islands (and the Vale and Dorne would likely send contingents if not their full armies in response to the command of an undisputed king like Robert) that's still a massive army. It seems likely that they could have united against a common threat at least long enough to see it off - this was why Varys and Illyrio were keen to get their timing spot on. The Dothraki (and/or Golden Company) had to hit when Westeros was divided politically as well as personally. The same goes for the Tomb Kings, I think, especially since they're obviously malevolent and even Walder Frey is going to see them as a threat rather than a potential ally.

If they arrive in the "present" setting, Westeros is screwed.


The fluff varies but considering how the Empire was actually on the verge of destruction without magic, well that kinda points to it being a pretty big advantage. Anyways, the fluff does have magic be a big deal as well. For example one slann mage-priest took on an army of deamons by himself with his magic.
The Empire still survived for a thousand years of civil war without meaningful magic even against magic-heavy armies like the vampires. Magic is an advantage, sure, and potentially a big one, but it's not necessarily essential. People can and do survive without it. Dwarfs and Bretonnians manage fine with no conventional magic.

As for the Slann, yes, they were amazing, but (firstly) they're all dead, and (secondly) even if there were a figure of similar magical ability around (whether Teclis, Nagash, Malekith are is debatable) the magic isn't there for them to use thanks to the Vortex. If the Winds of Magic don't blow in Westeros - and why would they? - magic is a non-event. If we assume that the Tomb Kings are able to draw on local sources of magic, the power of magicians on the Westerosi side - which could be very significant - will also grow: it seems the only reason magic hasn't been much of a feature in the series to date is that the Westerosi "winds" have been very faint for a long time and are only now starting to blow again. At the "current" magical level in Westeros, the Tomb Kings will be struggling to keep their army upright, let alone use magic offensively.

[Forum Explorer]

Timing is critical. Under Robert, there was talk of a Dothraki invasion, and while both Ned and Tywin dismissed the realistic chances of its happening, both of them were alive to the danger presented were a Dothraki army actually to make landfall. Renly and Stannis would likely pitch in and bring the Stormlands, the Crownlands islands, and the Reach. The Riverlands are almost certainly in. Even without the Vale, Dorne or the Iron Islands (and the Vale and Dorne would likely send contingents if not their full armies in response to the command of an undisputed king like Robert) that's still a massive army. It seems likely that they could have united against a common threat at least long enough to see it off - this was why Varys and Illyrio were keen to get their timing spot on. The Dothraki (and/or Golden Company) had to hit when Westeros was divided politically as well as personally. The same goes for the Tomb Kings, I think, especially since they're obviously malevolent and even Walder Frey is going to see them as a threat rather than a potential ally.

If they arrive in the "present" setting, Westeros is screwed.

The Empire still survived for a thousand years of civil war without meaningful magic even against magic-heavy armies like the vampires. Magic is an advantage, sure, and potentially a big one, but it's not necessarily essential. People can and do survive without it. Dwarfs and Bretonnians manage fine with no conventional magic.

As for the Slann, yes, they were amazing, but (firstly) they're all dead, and (secondly) even if there were a figure of similar magical ability around (whether Teclis, Nagash, Malekith are is debatable) the magic isn't there for them to use thanks to the Vortex. If the Winds of Magic don't blow in Westeros - and why would they? - magic is a non-event. If we assume that the Tomb Kings are able to draw on local sources of magic, the power of magicians on the Westerosi side - which could be very significant - will also grow: it seems the only reason magic hasn't been much of a feature in the series to date is that the Westerosi "winds" have been very faint for a long time and are only now starting to blow again. At the "current" magical level in Westeros, the Tomb Kings will be struggling to keep their army upright, let alone use magic offensively.

Well that depends on how many Tomb King armies get to fight. If we take say Setta's entire army then I don't think Westros has a chance without fully grown dragons.



They did have magic, and in fact destroyed an entire undead army (under Mannfred) with a single spell. They also had cannons, guns, and other blackpowder weaponry. Bretonians again do have magic. They also have the direct blessing of the Lady of the Lake. Dwarfs again have blackpowder weapons, runic weapons, and magic resistance. Magic has a huge impact on the setting (and the games. Try to win without using any sort of magic. It's almost impossible.)

The Winds of Magic are setting specific, saying that the Tomb Kings can't use magic because it's a different setting is like saying the Jedi can't use the Force in a crossover between Starwars and Mass Effect. Particularly since the Tomb Kings literally cannot exist without magic. They can't use magic then they simply all fall apart immediately.

[The Glyphstone]

The Winds of Magic are setting specific, saying that the Tomb Kings can't use magic because it's a different setting is like saying the Jedi can't use the Force in a crossover between Starwars and Mass Effect. Particularly since the Tomb Kings literally cannot exist without magic. They can't use magic then they simply all fall apart immediately.

That would seem to be a big point in Westeros's favor on the defensive then, wouldn't it?:smallconfused:

[Aedilred]

They did have magic, and in fact destroyed an entire undead army (under Mannfred) with a single spell.
Well, what happened there was that someone found a copy of the ritual Mannfred used and - effectively - read it backwards. A Westeros maester could do the same thing. They didn't have any magic at Hel Fenn. Or at Grim Moor or the Four Armies against Konrad, or in any of the battles against Vlad, etc.


They also had cannons, guns, and other blackpowder weaponry.
Which are, frankly, overrated in this sort of war, especially against the Undead. Besides, the point was they didn't have magic. Obviously Westeros doesn't have Steam Tanks either, but the Empire doesn't have wildfire, and we could go on like this all day.


Bretonians again do have magic. They also have the direct blessing of the Lady of the Lake. Dwarfs again have blackpowder weapons, runic weapons, and magic resistance.
Again, ignoring black powder, and taking Valyrian steel as not entirely dissimilar to runic weapons, my point was that neither Bretonnians nor Dwarfs have conventional magic. It's been claimed that WHF magic is sufficiently potent to win battles pretty much on its own, yet here are two factions which have pretty much no offensive magic at all. Bretonnians get a negligible proportion of their population turned into superhumans and it's a bit harder to shoot at them. Dwarfs are quite good at avoiding being hit by magic, but don't deploy any of their own (leaving aside the Anvils of Doom, which are vanishingly rare). It's clearly not necessary to have big flashy magic spells in order to survive and perform adequately in battle. And Westeros does have access to some magic anyway - not just the resurrection tricks and shadow assassins, but stuff like warging too, which could be very significant on a strategic level (as it was north of the Wall).


Magic has a huge impact on the setting (and the games. Try to win without using any sort of magic. It's almost impossible.)
I'm deliberately ignoring the games as they're almost as non-representative of the setting as it's possible to get while still being nominally representative of the setting.


The Winds of Magic are setting specific, saying that the Tomb Kings can't use magic because it's a different setting is like saying the Jedi can't use the Force in a crossover between Starwars and Mass Effect. Particularly since the Tomb Kings literally cannot exist without magic. They can't use magic then they simply all fall apart immediately.

That would seem to be a big point in Westeros's favor on the defensive then, wouldn't it?:smallconfused:
Well, indeed.

[Forum Explorer]

Well, what happened there was that someone found a copy of the ritual Mannfred used and - effectively - read it backwards. A Westeros maester could do the same thing. They didn't have any magic at Hel Fenn. Or at Grim Moor or the Four Armies against Konrad, or in any of the battles against Vlad, etc.


Which are, frankly, overrated in this sort of war, especially against the Undead. Besides, the point was they didn't have magic. Obviously Westeros doesn't have Steam Tanks either, but the Empire doesn't have wildfire, and we could go on like this all day.


Again, ignoring black powder, and taking Valyrian steel as not entirely dissimilar to runic weapons, my point was that neither Bretonnians nor Dwarfs have conventional magic. It's been claimed that WHF magic is sufficiently potent to win battles pretty much on its own, yet here are two factions which have pretty much no offensive magic at all. Bretonnians get a negligible proportion of their population turned into superhumans and it's a bit harder to shoot at them. Dwarfs are quite good at avoiding being hit by magic, but don't deploy any of their own (leaving aside the Anvils of Doom, which are vanishingly rare). It's clearly not necessary to have big flashy magic spells in order to survive and perform adequately in battle. And Westeros does have access to some magic anyway - not just the resurrection tricks and shadow assassins, but stuff like warging too, which could be very significant on a strategic level (as it was north of the Wall).


I'm deliberately ignoring the games as they're almost as non-representative of the setting as it's possible to get while still being nominally representative of the setting.



Well, indeed.

...That's not what happened at all. He read a spell from a spellbook. It was a very powerful spell. It wasn't the same spell the vampire used but backwards.

Presumably they did, but it wasn't mentioned because we don't get play by play reenactments of those fights. They certainly don't say that they have no magic at all.

Yes, guns weren't an advancement in military weaponry at all, what was I thinking. :smallyuk:

Wildfire is pretty limited in use if I remember correctly. A Steam Tank is a literal tank. It's like comparing a hand grenade to a bomb.

Valyerian Steel isn't like Runic Weapons (or other magic weapons) at all, except perhaps for the weakest ones. I don't know the Dwarf weapons as well (particularly since they got a new codex) but I do remember them having runes that shot fireballs or something out of them to incinerate their enemies. (or however they wanted to fluff the 2d6 strength 4 shooting attack)

Dwarves have a literal resistance to magic. They aren't avoiding it, they literally have a genetic resistance to it. There is a huge difference. And again their runes very much are a form of magic.

Again Bretonians do have mages. The Damsels are pretty strong mages in fact. Saying they don't have mages is like saying Skaven don't use warpstone.

TL DR: You are flat out incorrect in pretty much every single one of your statements. There are a few that are merely a gross exaggeration.


As for the no magic thing, well yeah. But going by the OP the Tomb Kings were brought in via Warpstorm, so there must be a connection, and therefore they must have magic in this vs match up.

[Raimun]

If we assume for the sake of this excercise that the undead have all of their usual tricks, Tomb Kings most likely win. For example: the Winds of Magic are there but it does not avail the westeros forces because learning to be a battle wizard capable of magical feats I mentioned earlier would take a normal human being many years or even decade or two. The reason Empire got good at magic was that they have a college of magic, founded by one of the most powerful mages at the time, Teclis of the high elves.

If there are no Winds of Magic? The Tomb Kings will either try to build tombs to hide for centuries if need be (possible) or terrorize westeros briefly until they all crumble to dust (unlikely, this is not a mindless zombie horde).

[Aedilred]

...That's not what happened at all. He read a spell from a spellbook. It was a very powerful spell. It wasn't the same spell the vampire used but backwards.
It was a book of undead rituals that had been nicked from Mannfred's dad, and almost certainly the same one Mannfred himself was using a different copy of. Then he read out the part that said "get rid of this bigass army". Maybe I exaggerated for rhetorical effect, but all the same, it's basically what happened. It's also worth noting that the guy who read it wasn't a wizard and had no experience with necromancy.


Presumably they did, but it wasn't mentioned because we don't get play by play reenactments of those fights. They certainly don't say that they have no magic at all.
Well we know the Colleges of Magic weren't established until 2304, and that before that wizards were persecuted. Wizards even capable of using their magic in a battlefield capacity would have been even rarer than they are now, and good luck finding a general who'd let them try, rather than just handing them over to the witch hunters or (likely at best) refusing in order to avoid the stigma of guilt by association and the dangers that come with having an untrained wizard running about.

So it's a reasonable assumption that in any major battles undertaken by the Empire before 2304 they didn't have a wizard on staff. Ironically they might have been more common in smaller battles, because all parties involved would be less likely to worry about being caught.

(Also, the von Carstein campaigns have been depicted in novel format, even if their canonicity is now dubious.)


Yes, guns weren't an advancement in military weaponry at all, what was I thinking. :smallyuk:
Less than it might appear. Early (WHF-era) handguns were not significantly more effective than crossbows or longbows in application, and arguably quite a lot worse, they just made the logistics easier. The sort of cannon the Empire uses has a fairly minimal application on a realistic battlefield, and is really more of a siege weapon. Against an undead army, late mediaeval/early modern black powder technology wouldn't be nearly as game-changing as one might think.


As for the no magic thing, well yeah. But going by the OP the Tomb Kings were brought in via Warpstorm, so there must be a connection, and therefore they must have magic in this vs match up.
So the Tomb Kings win because they have magic, which they must have because if they don't have magic they can't win. Well that was an interesting discussion :smallamused:

[Selrahc]

So the Tomb Kings win because they have magic, which they must have because if they don't have magic they can't win. Well that was an interesting discussion :smallamused:

If you want to change the character of one of the factions, then you aren't really engaging with the discussion. Tomb Kings need magic, because without magic they aren't Tomb Kings, and this is the topic where we discuss Tomb Kings vs. Westeros.

[Forum Explorer]

So the Tomb Kings win because they have magic, which they must have because if they don't have magic they can't win. Well that was an interesting discussion :smallamused:

Magic isn't the only reason they win, but lacking it would mean they instantly lose. Because like the guy above me said, they aren't the Tomb Kings without magic.

Anyways, a different faction from Warhammer would neatly avoid that problem but instead we got Tomb Kings

[The Glyphstone]

Couldn't we compromise and assume that all the magic the Tomb Kings bring with them (as Westeros has no Winds, their energy needs to be imported with them) is devoted to keeping their forces intact, so the actual battles are entirely a question of martial skill/numbers/capability?

[Forum Explorer]

Couldn't we compromise and assume that all the magic the Tomb Kings bring with them (as Westeros has no Winds, their energy needs to be imported with them) is devoted to keeping their forces intact, so the actual battles are entirely a question of martial skill/numbers/capability?

Alright, well then it depends on how many Tomb Kings get sent through.

Advantages for Tomb Kings as I see them:

Better archers on average (got the magic arrows of Asp)
Better Artillery
Better Leaders
More Common Magical items that are better
Giant Monsters
Better Elite troops
Normal sized monsters
Certain special units like Casket of Souls or a special character.
Unified and fearless
Are terrifying
No need for food or even air.

Westros
Numbers (might be enough on it's own with a high enough disparity)
Better Calvary (Knights)
They may have a few small dragons
Time (The Tomb Kings are getting any stronger without full access to magic. Westros can train new troops and fortify)
Fortifications

[Aedilred]

The Nehekharan archers have special arrows that make them more accurate in difficult conditions, but taking a Westerosi archer as roughly equivalent in skill to a WHF Imperial one, the skeleton archer is worse to start with. So the Nehekharan archery would improve relatively in poor archery conditions, but Westeros would have an advantage all things being equal in that department.

Whether the command is better depends heavily which Tomb King comes through. Settra is almost certainly going to be superior to anyone Westeros can muster. A more junior one who doesn't have extensive experience fighting Westeros-style armies in that sort of terrain might not be significantly better than, say, Randyll Tarly. Of course it depends going the other way as well. Who would be the best person to put in command of a Westerosi counter-TK army? (Probably Bloodraven, but nobody knows he's alive).

Time period is critical again. Under Robert, Robert will likely command, with Ned, Tywin, Jaime and Mace (pp Randyll) as his subcommanders (the four Wardens). They're all pretty competent, but they lack expertise against the Undead and have only conventional armies - although after initial skirmishes they might start listening to Melisandre who has a bit of a better idea how to fight them. The Starks may also have magic anti-Undead abilities that have been suggested but are still speculative.

But if they arrived two hundred years earlier, it'd be a different story, with getting on for fifteen fully-grown dragons knocking about. Westerosi dragons actually compare pretty favourably to WHF ones, if you look at what Aegon accomplished with just three - and deploying at most two of them at once, except in one battle where they won it single-handed - and can't be written off. They would present a serious challenge to the Tomb Kings if available. But in Westeros at least, in the timeline of the series so far, they're not, since they're all in Meereen.

Man for man, the Tomb Kings are probably both outnumbered and outperformed. While much of the Westerosi army will be quite poor-quality, between them they can probably muster enough knights and men at arms to match the skellies, and in every respect except morale and discipline they'll be better. Of course, morale and discipline are important. Westeros would need shrewd commanders capable of keeping their troops in hand, but I think they have them.

Likewise I'm not sure there's much of a gulf between elite infantry and cavalry on either side, and the Westerosi knights might actually be better than the skeletons. The same goes for artillery. The Tomb Kings have a lot of stuff in their army that's effectively obsolete for the setting and in there for rule of cool only - if an Old Kingdom Egyptian army turned up in the Middle Ages, no matter how kickass chariots look, there's a reason they were almost entirely superseded by cavalry even before the invention of the stirrup. Assuming we're playing by ASoIaF's slightly more "realistic" rules rather than Warhammer's "eh, throw it in" ones, quite a lot of the TK army probably just wouldn't be very effective. Where they do have a serious edge, though, is in large constructs and monsters (although again, going by background rather than tabletop one these will probably make up a very small proportion of the overall army). Westeros could fashion answers to these, but it would be a serious challenge and they could do a lot of damage in the meanwhile.

Discipline and unity of command are also issues, of course, but given the way ASoIaF is going, looking at the legends of the Battle for the Dawn and the stories of the Wall and so on, it does seem to follow the convention that when faced with certain death people will fight to the bitter end, rather than run for their lives. So just as the obvious threat presented by the TKs might help to draw the disparate lords of Westeros together in the first place, it might also help them keep fighting or at least returning to the fray after they've suffered defeats in the initial battles.

I think it really comes down to whether the Westerosi can fashion responses to the particular challenges presented by the Tomb Kings while they still have enough troops to carry the plans out. They certainly have the brains to be able to do so if they listen to them (and Tywin has shown he will listen to Tyrion, even if he hates him), it's really just a question of timing and expediency. There's also a good chance Westeros could lose some of its best warriors in the first battle (people like Gregor Clegane, Jaime, Loras) since they would likely be leading the vanguard and that would dent their chances of recovery. The other critical factor is numbers. After a certain point - and I don't know exactly what that point is - there would just be too many of them and they'd win through attrition (barring something amazing like the Long Night heroics, of course: Westeros has survived all-consuming Undead invasions before, just not recently).

But if you level the playing field - i.e. remove the Tomb Kings' magical advantage (because we are in Westeros, after all) it could be a closer-run thing than at first glance it would appear.

[Forum Explorer]

The Nehekharan archers have special arrows that make them more accurate in difficult conditions, but taking a Westerosi archer as roughly equivalent in skill to a WHF Imperial one, the skeleton archer is worse to start with. So the Nehekharan archery would improve relatively in poor archery conditions, but Westeros would have an advantage all things being equal in that department.

Whether the command is better depends heavily which Tomb King comes through. Settra is almost certainly going to be superior to anyone Westeros can muster. A more junior one who doesn't have extensive experience fighting Westeros-style armies in that sort of terrain might not be significantly better than, say, Randyll Tarly. Of course it depends going the other way as well. Who would be the best person to put in command of a Westerosi counter-TK army? (Probably Bloodraven, but nobody knows he's alive).

Time period is critical again. Under Robert, Robert will likely command, with Ned, Tywin, Jaime and Mace (pp Randyll) as his subcommanders (the four Wardens). They're all pretty competent, but they lack expertise against the Undead and have only conventional armies - although after initial skirmishes they might start listening to Melisandre who has a bit of a better idea how to fight them. The Starks may also have magic anti-Undead abilities that have been suggested but are still speculative.

But if they arrived two hundred years earlier, it'd be a different story, with getting on for fifteen fully-grown dragons knocking about. Westerosi dragons actually compare pretty favourably to WHF ones, if you look at what Aegon accomplished with just three - and deploying at most two of them at once, except in one battle where they won it single-handed - and can't be written off. They would present a serious challenge to the Tomb Kings if available. But in Westeros at least, in the timeline of the series so far, they're not, since they're all in Meereen.

Man for man, the Tomb Kings are probably both outnumbered and outperformed. While much of the Westerosi army will be quite poor-quality, between them they can probably muster enough knights and men at arms to match the skellies, and in every respect except morale and discipline they'll be better. Of course, morale and discipline are important. Westeros would need shrewd commanders capable of keeping their troops in hand, but I think they have them.

Likewise I'm not sure there's much of a gulf between elite infantry and cavalry on either side, and the Westerosi knights might actually be better than the skeletons. The same goes for artillery. The Tomb Kings have a lot of stuff in their army that's effectively obsolete for the setting and in there for rule of cool only - if an Old Kingdom Egyptian army turned up in the Middle Ages, no matter how kickass chariots look, there's a reason they were almost entirely superseded by cavalry even before the invention of the stirrup. Assuming we're playing by ASoIaF's slightly more "realistic" rules rather than Warhammer's "eh, throw it in" ones, quite a lot of the TK army probably just wouldn't be very effective. Where they do have a serious edge, though, is in large constructs and monsters (although again, going by background rather than tabletop one these will probably make up a very small proportion of the overall army). Westeros could fashion answers to these, but it would be a serious challenge and they could do a lot of damage in the meanwhile.

Discipline and unity of command are also issues, of course, but given the way ASoIaF is going, looking at the legends of the Battle for the Dawn and the stories of the Wall and so on, it does seem to follow the convention that when faced with certain death people will fight to the bitter end, rather than run for their lives. So just as the obvious threat presented by the TKs might help to draw the disparate lords of Westeros together in the first place, it might also help them keep fighting or at least returning to the fray after they've suffered defeats in the initial battles.

I think it really comes down to whether the Westerosi can fashion responses to the particular challenges presented by the Tomb Kings while they still have enough troops to carry the plans out. They certainly have the brains to be able to do so if they listen to them (and Tywin has shown he will listen to Tyrion, even if he hates him), it's really just a question of timing and expediency. There's also a good chance Westeros could lose some of its best warriors in the first battle (people like Gregor Clegane, Jaime, Loras) since they would likely be leading the vanguard and that would dent their chances of recovery. The other critical factor is numbers. After a certain point - and I don't know exactly what that point is - there would just be too many of them and they'd win through attrition (barring something amazing like the Long Night heroics, of course: Westeros has survived all-consuming Undead invasions before, just not recently).

But if you level the playing field - i.e. remove the Tomb Kings' magical advantage (because we are in Westeros, after all) it could be a closer-run thing than at first glance it would appear.

I disagree with your assessment of Westeros archers, I'd peg them more at Bretonnian men at arms (and therefore BS 2). In fact I'd use the Bretonnians for mostly everything to estimate what Westros armies would be like.

Westeros does have some genius commanders, but they also have a fair bit of idiots. Tomb Kings, not so much. They aren't all geniuses, but due to infighting most of the truly incompetent have already been destroyed by their rivals. As for terrain experience, well it does depend on the commander but I believe there is mention of Tomb Kings fighting in Lustria for whatever reason, so it's not like they haven't had their own variance of terrain. They certainly have invaded Bretonnia before.

I doubt the Stark's anti undead would really work, as the undead in Westeros are closely linked with winter, and thus it's stuff that has a link to fire that is incredibly effective.

Yeah if they get the 15 fully grown dragons I'd say the Tomb Kings would need full access to magic to even compete. (Or all the Tomb Kings, ever)

Eh the disparity isn't that big, and I'd give the advantage to the skeletons over the average foot trooper from Westeros. Not due to skill, but the unholy fear they give off and the fact that they won't get tired in an day long fight. Plus they can lose things like arms, or legs and will still be capable of fighting, if at reduced ability.

As for elite infantry, well Westeros has knights, and barbarians correct? On the non-monsterous side for the Tomb Kings we have Tomb Guard. Well armored, well trained, and possess cursed blades to kill their targets better. Plus the usual undead stuff. Plus as they are mummies rather then skeletons they are both substantially stronger and tougher then the average human.

Artillery wise, the only thing the Tomb Kings have is a Screaming Skull Catapult. I don't know why you'd say those are worse, as far as I remember the Westeros armies pretty much have that level of technology. (And Wildfire). Plus the Screaming Skull Catapult punishes the Westeros armies in that they are a terror weapon, making it even harder for them to maintain their morale and discipline.

[The Glyphstone]

I doubt the Stark's anti undead would really work, as the undead in Westeros are closely linked with winter, and thus it's stuff that has a link to fire that is incredibly effective.


The infantry, sure. Though Tomb Kings and Princes are Flammable, not sure if that would have an effect.

[Forum Explorer]

The infantry, sure. Though Tomb Kings and Princes are Flammable, not sure if that would have an effect.

I don't think it would, I mean not beyond say normal fire would. That is to say, their weakness to fire isn't because of any sort of supernatural weakness but it's because they are dry and covered in paper.

[Selrahc]

I disagree with your assessment of Westeros archers, I'd peg them more at Bretonnian men at arms (and therefore BS 2). In fact I'd use the Bretonnians for mostly everything to estimate what Westros armies would be like.


Bretonnian Peasants are ludicrously downtrodden. I don't see a particularly good reason to use them as the baseline.

[Forum Explorer]

Bretonnian Peasants are ludicrously downtrodden. I don't see a particularly good reason to use them as the baseline.

Because the average peasant in Westros is ludicrously downtrodden. The Men At Arms are better trained but unless I mistaken the majority of Westros infantry are levies raised for war, then sent back to the farm after the fighting is done.

[Raimun]

Because the average peasant in Westros is ludicrously downtrodden. The Men At Arms are better trained but unless I mistaken the majority of Westros infantry are levies raised for war, then sent back to the farm after the fighting is done.

Yeah. State troopers of Empire form standing armies of professional soldiers. Meanwhile, Bretonnia men at arms are mostly farmers who are only levied at the times of war and they are by fluff and rules inferior to state troopers.

[Aedilred]

Empire archers are militia, rather than state troopers.

The quality of infantry in Westeros seems to vary. While there are undoubtedly a lot of untrained peasants, there seem to be full-time soldiers amongst them too.

[Forum Explorer]

Empire archers are militia, rather than state troopers.

The quality of infantry in Westeros seems to vary. While there are undoubtedly a lot of untrained peasants, there seem to be full-time soldiers amongst them too.

No they are state troopers. I double checked to be sure. You might be thinking of Huntsmen, however they are used to traveling the mutant infested forests of the Empire (and yes their mutant hunting abilities are part of their fluff) so they can hardly be said to equivalent to a hunter in Westeros.

Well I don't have any hard numbers, but the impression I got is that it was a few men at arms that acted as squad leaders for the drafted militia. Of course it would vary per place, as I imagine certain places like King's Landing would have a more professional army available.

[Raimun]

Empire archers are militia, rather than state troopers.

The quality of infantry in Westeros seems to vary. While there are undoubtedly a lot of untrained peasants, there seem to be full-time soldiers amongst them too.

The militia are actually battle hardened mercenaries, "adventureres" and bandits, not mere peasants. It's an actual lore point that they are recruited to armies of elector counts because life of war and fighting has made them unable to integrate back to society as normal city dweller or peasants. They are thus described by both fluff and rules as more skilled fighters than bretonnian men at arms.

However you want to look at it, Tomb Kings have the advantage. While many people might argue that Game of Thrones is superior entertainment to Warhammer fluff and Tyrion the dwarf is way cooler than Tyrion the elf, that doesn't mean armies of westeros would be that effective in the grand scheme of things.

For example, I think Philip Marlowe is way more interesting than Batman but I don't think for a second that Batman wouldn't win if the two were to fight.

[SoC175]

It can do two of those things. Very slowly on single target basis, while Warhammer mages slay/animate dozends with the wave of a hand (kind like in D&D)

It's important to remember though, the Tomb King army does have irreplaceable parts. It can summon up skeletons en masse from their defeated foes... but skeletons are fodder. As are the westerosi armies. If the Lannisters raise 40k, that may contain 2K actual soldiers/warriors and 38K levies called from the fields and being handed a spear

That's why an possible invasion of 40K Dothraki (their version of huns) is so scary, since that would mean an army really consisting of 40k professional fighters vs. their much larger armies of much lower quality soldiers

Well, what happened there was that someone found a copy of the ritual Mannfred used and - effectively - read it backwards. A Westeros maester could do the same thing. Don't think so. Most young students at the citdael eventually try the old spells they have recorded their, only for nothing to happen

[duburu]

Well the OP didn't specify on how many would be sent into Westeros. If it was all of them? Then they likely outnumber the Westeros armies.
sorry for not checking after a long time i was having computer problem :S. you can think this was a dynasty or enough to make it a fair fight/ the number of a kingdom against westeros

love; D of U

[SowZ]

Westeros would have Hero units. In the books, (they toned it down a bit in the show,) the best swordsman is charged by six knights, (one of whom is an elite and well reknown knight,) in full plate. Syrio Forel has a stick. He literally has no armor and a small piece of wood. The knights charge him, there is a quick flash of blades, and Syrio falls dead along with 5 of the knights. From a stick. If those were six random troops, that'd be nothing for a Warhammer hero. But that was six well armed and armored elite troops. Westeros has some hero troops. Some of the feats that Barriston Selmy has pulled off are equally heroic. And GRRM himself pegs Jaime Lannister as an equal to Aragorn, (which I call bull on, and GRRM's opinions don't change the books, but depending on your point of view that may count for something.)

And magic is a bit more common in the ASoIaF than you all might think. It is just less common in actual Westeros. There are the warlocks, the Faceless Men, the red priests, random animistic witches, etc. And in Westeros, dragons are known to reach 75m wingspans. That could probably kill any monster in Tomb Kings. Ultimately, the war could go either way depending on the parameters that are set.

Of course, even a 1000 point army could take out all of Westeros in 40k.

[Eldan]

Well, I can't really recall any feats of Swordsmanship from Aragorn that were that impressive. Just saying.

[Selrahc]

Westeros would have Hero units. In the books, (they toned it down a bit in the show,) the best swordsman is charged by six knights, (one of whom is an elite and well reknown knight,) in full plate. Syrio Forel has a stick. He literally has no armor and a small piece of wood. The knights charge him, there is a quick flash of blades, and Syrio falls dead along with 5 of the knights. From a stick. If those were six random troops, that'd be nothing for a Warhammer hero. But that was six well armed and armored elite troops

I think you might want to reread that scene. The 5 guys he beats are all idiot guardsmen in chainmail. The sixth man is a well armoured elite troop and swiftly defeats Syrio solo (as far as we know, because we lose our view on the fight as Syrio loses his blade, but since his attacker is alive and well and Syrio has never been heard from again...)

[Aedilred]

Don't think so. Most young students at the citdael eventually try the old spells they have recorded their, only for nothing to happen
Only because the magic's gone. If there's either native Westerosi magic or the Tomb Kings have brought their own magic with them, there's no reason why it couldn't work.


Very slowly on single target basis, while Warhammer mages slay/animate dozends with the wave of a hand (kind like in D&D)
Tomb Kings armies are absurdly vulnerable to having a few key personnel eliminated, though. If a couple of shadow assassins took out the king and/or leading Liche Priest(s), they'd be in serious trouble.