Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Voting is open
They are called "blood dragons" for a reason, I presume.
The blood dragons were an imperial knightly order before Wallach (Aborash's "son") turned them and set the guidelines for further reproduction, essentialy creating the bloodline. So Abhorash technically isn't a blood dragon himself.
And Zacharias was a necrarch, student of Melkior, so not a blood dragon at all.
 
The blood dragons were an imperial knightly order before Wallach (Aborash's "son") turned them and set the guidelines for further reproduction, essentialy creating the bloodline. So Abhorash technically isn't a blood dragon himself.
And Zacharias was a necrarch, student of Melkior, so not a blood dragon at all.

Fair enough, only lore I know is for this thread and I assumed blood dragons was about vampires who drank dragons.
 
Fair enough, only lore I know is for this thread and I assumed blood dragons was about vampires who drank dragons.
Their founder did it, and cured himself of needing to drink blood at the same time. He then told his followers that they should seek to emulate him, by becoming apex warriors themselves and also beating down and draining a dragon of blood.
 
Those of Aborash's bloodline are more correctly called Blood Knights, with the Blood Dragons being the specific order of knights that Wallach turned. At least as of 8th edition, IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Those of Aborash's bloodline are more correctly called Blood Knights, with the Blood Dragons being the specific order of knights that Wallach turned. At least as of 8th edition, IIRC.
If we're just sticking to 8th edition, then I don't think 8th edition makes a distinction between the two. In the entry for Blood Knights, it makes no mention of any that didn't come from the tradition Wallach founded.

If we're not sticking purely to 8th edition, then the Bloodline has always been called Blood Dragons, all the way back to 5th edition. Maybe that's more due to Wallach than to Abhorash, but Abhorash hasn't done a whole lot of evangelizing anyway.
 
We already know that a vampiric strain has mental effects- blood dragons are seemingly all obsessed with combat, strigoi are all animalistic, necrarchs seem to be obsessed with research, ect. Notably they all seem to have character traits that echo the founder of the bloodline, which makes me think that the process of embracing makes someone mentally more like the founder of the bloodline embracing them. It seems not a great leap that that process would also include the particular morals, or lack thereof, that the progenitors possess.
The strigoi actually are an argument against that. They do NOT echo the founder of the bloodline and as pointed out in other conversation in this thread don't seem to have originally been particularly animalistic at all. Animalistic strigoi is not some inherent feature of the strigoi bloodline, it is something that developed after the fact.
 
It's slowly (Extremely slowly to be fair) moving to overtake Joerg. If it actually does I'd personally drop Deathfang from my vote. If ten or so other people that are voting for both had the same thought process it could make it. So I'd say there is a slim chance it could happen.
Honestly, if you could drop it and so could others, it getting a lot closer would make people more likely to vote. If it and Joerg get close, maybe vote for it again, but every little bit helps!
 
Question, are there negative effects to letting a Vampire feed on you other than the blood loss? I know some fictional depictions of vampires feed purely on physical components of clood by I've also seen a depiction where the blood was used to establish a sympathetic link to the victim and remotely feed on their mind/soul and was inevitably fatal. I'm not sure where on the scale Warhammer!Vampires lie.

The vote has not meaningfully moved in days, it's not happening.
It could happen but it would be a mammoth undertaking. :V
 
Question, are there negative effects to letting a Vampire feed on you other than the blood loss? I know some fictional depictions of vampires feed purely on physical components of clood by I've also seen a depiction where the blood was used to establish a sympathetic link to the victim and remotely feed on their mind/soul and was inevitably fatal. I'm not sure where on the scale Warhammer!Vampires lie.
Not that I'm aware.
 
Question, are there negative effects to letting a Vampire feed on you other than the blood loss?
This is the only thing I could find in Night's Dark Masters (page 112).


Whether bled willingly or unwillingly, those drained are effectively Stinking Drunk for one hour afterwards (see WFRP page 115). Anyone having their Strength drained below 10% (again, whether willingly or unwillingly) must make a Will Power Test or gain an Insanity Point. Vampires also become Frightening whilst feeding if they were not before.
(oddly it seems like willing feeding is almost more likely to result in the "strength loss below 10%" bit- unwilling feeding drains 1d10, but willing feeding drains 2d10, with the Vampire choosing which dice to use for the loss- unless they roll doubles, in which case they take the sum of the dice)
 
Last edited:
Voting is open
Back
Top