Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Grumpy Gnome on March 24, 2022, 08:19:53 AM
-
Arguably some Zombies are fast and some are slow. Some have only their bite but some have swords or firearms. It really depends on the setting. But which do you prefer and why?
-
I consider zombies to be rather "brainless" and driven by instincts. I liked the 28 days later version best, where zombies are infected by the "Rage" virus rather than being "undead". But if undead and rotting they should grow slower with increasing decay and not use tools or weapons at all. That's just my opinion...
-
All any of us have on a topic like this is…well.. like… just our opinions… man. 👍
For example I prefer slow zombies without weapons.
As for slow versus fast… both bring something to the table. Slow for me means zombie, fast means ghoul. And ghouls I still prefer without weapons.
-
Zombies, created either through a virus, magical means or alien mindbugs (or whatever), to me, are mindless, shambling, wandering (near) corpses.
I mostly adhere to the shambler trope when thinking of zombies (like in The walking dead or World War Z (the book!)); sprinters are more like the infected living (like in 28 days later).
I think of them as mindless; their addled brains filled with only the hunger for human flesh (or brains). I certainly don't see them capable of rational thought and actions, such as consiously opening doors or manipulating tools such as weapons. they might occasionally hold on to them because they held them before they turned, but they would not be using them.
An interesting take on imprinted, unconsious actions in shambler zombies is Romero's Dawn of the Dead, where mindless zombies simply fall into their former patterns, such as going to the mall. So I guess stuff like a highly trained soldier who is turned retains a shadow of his training and unconsiously attempts to fire his gun, although it might be long empty, but he would not be capable of reloading or clearing a jam.
When we're talking about fast zombies, that can make tactical decisions and manipulate tools, such as the ones in the recent Army of the Dead, I feel they should fall into the 'infected living' category, rather than the 'true undead'.
Overall though, when I think of zombies, I think of mindless, shambling hordes of the undead, only moving towards a food source and feeding until they're incapacitated...
-
In general I agree with you Daeothar, as usual it seems. You make an interesting point on Zombies potentially being imprinted.
-
I'm in the 'No Firearms' camp. Though I wouldn't limit their attack to bites, I'd include any kind of basic physical attack, so less martial arts of course, biting, tearing and clawing are all good by me. I don't mind fast or slow depending on the nature of the 'zombification'.
-
I'm firmly stuck in Warhammer 2nd edition so zombies are usually armed with a variety of scythes, cleavers and other harmful implements. Definitely no missile weapons though.
-
I quite like a few zombies with weapons (and other tools and implements), but only dragging them around distractedly, as though some part of their brain remembers they are meant to be carrying them, but they can't quite remember how to use them properly. The absolute best zombie figures I ever saw, hands down, were by Redbox ... they were without weapons and just looked like tortured souls trapped in their decaying carcasses. Really nasty.
https://www.tabletopempires.com.au/miniatures-fantasy-10/Red-Box-Games-Fantasy-Miniatures-Australia/Red%20Box%20-%20Infernals/Red-Box-Games-Infernals-Lesser-Undead
Other than that, the vintage pre-slotta one by Citadel was also great, the one flailing his arms about madly.
-
As someone who does a lot of shooting...it's not a particularly easy thing.
Being remotely brainless would make it impossible, even with old muscle memory jostling around in the grey matter. The main element to gunfighting is keeping your weapon loaded and running smoothly...neither of which would be something any zombie would/could do. I can't see a Zombie fixing a weapon malfunction mid-firefight, or reloading from a magazine pouch, or even loading magazines by hand for the next fight, etc.
Even with modern firearms there are quite a few steps to get to the point of going bang. Even if we take a freshly bitten soldier who has a loaded rifle...the accuracy (or lack thereof) from a typical zombie would mean you'd have a guy just hip firing or shooting into the dirt, more prone to shoot other zombies or hurt someone with a ricochet than actually engage a target with a loaded firearm.
Throw in the deterioration of blood, bone, and muscle...and it's essentially impossible. I picture even fantasy zombies with weapons as simply grasping the thing they died carrying...and their fingers have probably frozen around it due to decomposition/rigor mortis, etc. :D
I think if you get an undead creature to the point of being able to function and load a magazine, then load a gun, then properly manipulate the safety/charging handle, then engage targets with precise aimed fire...then being capable of reloading the weapon and clearing jams and malfunctions...I think you're past a zombie at that point and you've moved onto another creature entirely.
Also, it amuses me imagining something with rotten flesh and deteriorating muscle trying to manipulate certain weapons which required pretty serious handstrength...just imagining fingers and flesh ripping off the zombie as it tries to manipulate certain firearms, lol.
-
Some great points folks, keep them coming!
-
I tend to prefer the 'mob up' zombies armed with teeth and hands (or, worse, stumps with bones protruding) to rend at their prey. I think in the Zombie Survival Guide Max Brooks suggests suits of armour are not a great option as the undead will simply tear them off the wearer describing suit folk as 'tinned food'.
In the Newsflesh series (I think this is the one, been a while since I read it) a lone zombie is essentially mindless but as their numbers increase they exhibit some sort of group low cunning where they can attempt the herd and ambush their prey. Interesting concept.
-
A bit like the roamer herds/stampedes in the Walking Dead and World War Z (book); there they tended to consolidate in ever larger groups, swamping areas with their presence, becoming a veritable force of nature such as tsunamis or hurricanes.
And primitive group behaviour is often not learned or even instinctive. I used to play an F-16 simulator a LOT on my father's 8086 (with monochrome screen) back in the eighties. It was called Falcon and had some OK AI for the MiG-21 opposition.
I had also bought some books on the game and in it the designers explained that the AI was solely written for 1:1 engagements. But when they introduced 2 and 3 opponents simultaneously, the very simple AI's controlling the enemy planes automatically started to work together (playing carrot and stick for instance), even though nothing of the kind was written into the code.
The same thing with ants and bees.
I find it totally plausible (within the fantastical parameters of the realm of zombies of course) that multiple ones would start working together in what what would look to the (probably not so) casual observer as complex group behaviour, while in reality it would be simple individual entities unconsiously working in sync.
Although when talking about magically raised zombies, I can totally see them using simple close combat weapons to club and stab opponents, and working together in more complex ways, even with allied units, such as skeletons for instance, because they're under the sway of a controlling intelligence such as a necromancer or vampire. And those would use them as an extention of their will, making a zombie more of a re-animated automaton than a mindless drone looking for food.
-
I have often heard it said that when it comes to group behavior, entities that want the same thing can often look like they are working together without actually working together intentionally. Your basic AI example supports that mate. Parallel paths rather than a cohesive network and all that.
-
Yeah, that might be it. In Newsflesh the characters were very aware of the way that groups of zombies would act in concert and were pretty careful not to get cornered ore enter unfamiliar areas when groups of them were about.
Then again, that's how it might have looked to the people on the ground who weren't necessarily interested in the 'why' but more the how - and how not to get eaten.
-
Never really understood the fascination with zombies but then I saw the film World War Z which I thought was great. So my vote is for them to be like those in the film. Not dead or armed but just as fast and agile as humans.
-
I dont like my zombies to be armed but I do like the zombies in JL Bourne`s world. Irradiated zombies are faster and more intelligent. So basic problem solving(eg learning to turn a door handle) etc becomes possible. They have a tiny amount of human intelligence left in them. Also tackling a radiation dripping zombie adds to the perils of hand to hand.
-
Never really understood the fascination with zombies but then I saw the film World War Z which I thought was great. So my vote is for them to be like those in the film. Not dead or armed but just as fast and agile as humans.
If you liked the film you (might) like the book - they are totally different. I found the book a terrific read but the film very much a let-down - when I saw it at the cinema in the big dramatic lab scene half the audience laughed when B.Pitt injected himself. The book is a series of interviews with survivors from World War Z very much in the Studs Terkel style.
-
If you liked the film you (might) like the book - they are totally different. I found the book a terrific read but the film very much a let-down - when I saw it at the cinema in the big dramatic lab scene half the audience laughed when B.Pitt injected himself. The book is a series of interviews with survivors from World War Z very much in the Studs Terkel style.
I agree with Muzfish4. The audiobook with Mark Hamill was pretty good too.
-
Absolutely; totally different beasts, the book and the film.
For me, the film is kind of OK, but the book is just awesome... 8)
(can't comment on the audiobook, but... Mark Hamil!)
-
I understand that zombies were resurrected and enslaved corpses from Haitian folklore under the control of their master. So I see them as somewhat slow, slack jawed and dim witted, capable of wielding agricultural implements, (hence scythes), but lacking willpower. They have no especial taste for human flesh. In "The Horse Lord" by Peter Morwood, the Necromancer raised the dead of ancient battlefield and changed the weather to stop them from decaying. Hidden amongst his dead army were units of human mercenaries who attacked with speed, surprising their protagonists who were tied up fighting the slow but difficult to put down dead.
The fast zombie, which seeks to kill and consume, is more like a Ghoul, (Ghul), but only in that it seeks to kill and eat. Wendigo is similar with an insatiable desire to eat human flesh. Both have similar famine/starvation origin stories I suppose.
The modern fast zombie seems to be a plague victim however, rather than undead. A different monster altogether.
-
I understand that zombies were resurrected and enslaved corpses from Haitian folklore under the control of their master. So I see them as somewhat slow, slack jawed and dim witted, capable of wielding agricultural implements, (hence scythes), but lacking willpower. They have no especial taste for human flesh. In "The Horse Lord" by Peter Morwood, the Necromancer raised the dead of ancient battlefield and changed the weather to stop them from decaying. Hidden amongst his dead army were units of human mercenaries who attacked with speed, surprising their protagonists who were tied up fighting the slow but difficult to put down dead.
The fast zombie, which seeks to kill and consume, is more like a Ghoul, (Ghul), but only in that it seeks to kill and eat. Wendigo is similar with an insatiable desire to eat human flesh. Both have similar famine/starvation origin stories I suppose.
The modern fast zombie seems to be a plague victim however, rather than undead. A different monster altogether.
That's not true is it? :D
;)
-
Absolutely; totally different beasts, the book and the film.
For me, the film is kind of OK, but the book is just awesome... 8)
(can't comment on the audiobook, but... Mark Hamil!)
I believe he only does one small bit, a Yonkers Vet. You can hear him here…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sQphbRo_Clk
-
Cheers mate; I'll listen to this if I get the chance to paint this evening :)
-
Cheers mate; I'll listen to this if I get the chance to paint this evening :)
-
Whacky weapons are fine, even old firearms that they still like to thump people with.
-
Aesthetically, I prefer a divide between "fantasy zombies" and "sci-fi zombies".
The former are the kind you get in D&D, RuneQuest, Warhammer and Fighting Fantasy:
(https://fightingfantasyproject.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/wofm-006.png)
They're really more akin to the draugr-type walking dead of Norse myth (as seen, for example, at the final battle in Hrolf Kraki's Saga (http://hobgoblinry.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-spotters-guide-to-beorn.html)). And they use weapons by default.
Sci-fi zombies, on the other hand, aren't magically reanimated warriors but corpses turned into predators by dint of some pseudo-scientific rationale: radiation, alien virus, whatever. The use of weapons isn't really part of the pop-culture tradition here - whereas it very much is for the fantasy type.
-
That is an interesting way of looking at it Hobgoblin. I was nodding along with your point until I began to wonder, what makes a Draugr a Draugr and not a Zombie? When does a Zombie stop being a Zombie but instead is a Ghoul?
The lines between different classifications of undead seem easy to blur.
-
I guess it's a case of what force is animating them. Most of us probably think of the same physical thing when we think of zombies - a dead body with no higher functions, slowly decomposing. An exception could be the Haitian type zombie who might just be a living body controlled through drugs/magic. But what is the will behind their motivation and aggression? Is it the instinctive remnants of a much reduced human (tortured?) soul, or the controlling will of a necromancer? To go down the Warhammer lines, I saw zombies as being the former and skeletons the latter. Hence skeletons have some skill with using weapons that zombies lack. A ghoul I see as not strictly undead, so much as a transformed human that feeds on the dead, and then of course we get into all sorts of weird classifications like lyches, wraiths, wights etc..
-
For me a zombie is a reanimated corpse. A ghoul is a living creature than has been corrupted from feeding on human flesh.
-
I guess it's a case of what force is animating them. Most of us probably think of the same physical thing when we think of zombies - a dead body with no higher functions, slowly decomposing. An exception could be the Haitian type zombie who might just be a living body controlled through drugs/magic. But what is the will behind their motivation and aggression? Is it the instinctive remnants of a much reduced human (tortured?) soul, or the controlling will of a necromancer? To go down the Warhammer lines, I saw zombies as being the former and skeletons the latter. Hence skeletons have some skill with using weapons that zombies lack. A ghoul I see as not strictly undead, so much as a transformed human that feeds on the dead, and then of course we get into all sorts of weird classifications like lyches, wraiths, wights etc..
That's the way I look at it too:
Ghoul - Living being that feeds on corpses and suffers from mental degression, more driven by instincts and less by planning
Haitian "Zombie" - bewitched living being under mental control by a living master
Zombie - undead soulless being driven by predator instincts
Skeleton (warrior) - (un)dead (magically resurrected) not-being (corpse in any state of decay) under magical & mental control by a (not necessarily living) master - I would even accept a single corps resurrected by a necromancer's spirit who is going to possess it. Due to the master's will and his magic a "skeleton" can be formed out of fragments or heaps of single bones and also use any sort of tool and weapon.
Golem - Much like the "Skeleton", but made of anything
-
:D To me it depends on what kind of zombie is in your game...
1) romero style zombie be it fast(first 24 hours after death) or slow(after rigor sets in) needs only teeth because it's only function is to make more zombies by infectious bite.
2)cursed zombies protecting an area may use weapons if their only purpose to kill trespassers not add more to the group.
3) cursed(movie voodoo) zombies have insane back breaking strength to kill the target of their makers wrath and are immune to weapons without a specific component needed to end them(such as salt in mouth covered with holy wax etc...) with no need to bite or use a weapon to kill.
4) raised zombies to be used as troops use what weapons they had in life and are used to attack other armed and armored living troops usually without the need to make more of themselves by such mundane means as biting to infect. :D
that's how i see it anyways.
-
:D To me it depends on what kind of zombie is in your game...
1) romero style zombie be it fast(first 24 hours after death) or slow(after rigor sets in) needs only teeth because it's only function is to make more zombies by infectious bite.
2)cursed zombies protecting an area may use weapons if their only purpose to kill trespassers not add more to the group.
3) cursed(movie voodoo) zombies have insane back breaking strength to kill the target of their makers wrath and are immune to weapons without a specific component needed to end them(such as salt in mouth covered with holy wax etc...) with no need to bite or use a weapon to kill.
4) raised zombies to be used as troops use what weapons they had in life and are used to attack other armed and armored living troops usually without the need to make more of themselves by such mundane means as biting to infect. :D
that's how i see it anyways.
This is basically where I'm at as well.
Of course these descriptions can overlap to some degree (but not 100%) with ghouls, etc. (IIRC the critical distinction in many - but not all - works is that ghouls are not reanimated dead, but debased living, or a standalone species entirely). Ultimately there's enough overlap that really it's down to a given authors and how they choose to label and portray their creatures. So long as it's internally consistent within a given story or game that really all that matters.
But Gun Bunny seems to have described most of the varieties of undead commonly referred to as zombies.
-
Fantasy (or modern) undead clumsily using hand weapons are fine but guns? No.
-
Yeah, gun use feels like a line zombies of any strip should never be able to cross.
If you want ranged zombies have them throw something or fart in the enemy's general direction, or whatever.