Blood Bowl Zombie vs Skeleton resilience comparison

....it ain't about how hard you hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much can you take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done! Rocky Balboa (2006)
 

I was talking to Lycos at the Chelmsford Bunker Bowl in October 2011 and we got to discussing the undead team, in particular my loathing of the over-costed Skeletons. They used to cost 30K but recently (in Blood Bowl terms) moved to 40K for the addition of "Thick-Skull".


So Lycos, NAF president and all round good guy (he got my vote again this year), said that he always takes at-least one Skeleton in his Undead team. He explained that he took them mainly for the increased movement but also because they are just as resilient as a Zombie due to the "Thick-Skull" skill.


I, on the other hand am a Zombie guy, sure he is only movement 4, but he is a top drawer meat shield and foul bot. I personally never go near Skeletons unless I am playing Khemri.


So I thought I would have a quick scan over the numbers and see what comes out.


The challengers

1. Skeleton AV7 with Thick-Skull
2. Zombie AV8 

Percentage chance of breaking armour for each

1. Skeleton 41.67%
2. Zombie 27.78%

 Percentage chance of getting a KO of better for each

1. Skeleton 11.58%
2. Zombie 11.58%

 Percentage chance of getting a injury for each

1. Skeleton 6.95%
2. Zombie 4.63%

So the conclusion is, that if you are looking at the narrow band of getting a KO or better then the Zombie and Skeleton come out identical. However, in regards to both Stunned and Casualty results, the Skeleton is 50% more likely to be on the receiving end than the Zombie. Is that increased Stunned and Casuality rate worth the trade for the increased movement value? Not in my books, but then I have won exactly zero NAF tournaments and Lycos has a houses full of trophies.