Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 vipoid wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
• Commisar Yarick is a Lord of War.

I'd much rather he wasn't, to be honest.

Making a character a LoW is a terrible idea. It means that we cannot use it in many gaming groups and tournaments, and stops us from taking superheavies.

Except the people who ban them are being unreasonable and if they are banning the characters they are banning the superheavies anyway so it isn't a loss at all in those particular circles.

I don't suggest houserules and changes based on other people's houserules or opinions, I base them on warhammer 40k. Making him a lord of war is almost guaranteed to happen in the next book.

But why does Yarrick need to be a LoW at all?

Why can't he just be a solid HQ choice?

IG needs vehicles to not suck.

Lyth I don't think even GW is as strict about "systems" as you are. They might try something new or go in a completely different direction just because it's more attractive.

 vipoid wrote:
But why does Yarrick need to be a LoW at all?

Why can't he just be a solid HQ choice?

Same reason that Ghazkhull and Papa Smurf are LoW choices. Because they're warlords.

I haven't any fething clue how someone could think that its a good idea. Being a LoW does not grant you bonuses, and they can't be the Warlord...

Wait... Lords of War can't be your Warlord?

I wasn't actually aware of that. Any idea what page that rule is on?

The bit where it says you have to use a HQ unit.

Are you sure you're not thinking of 6th?

In 7th:

"When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord. Unless specified otherwise, this must be a character model. If you do not have any character models in your army, then select any other model in your army to be the Warlord. The model you choose as your Warlord also determines your Primary Detachment."

I know what you can have a sergeant (or equivalent) as your Warlord, and if your army has no characters your warlord can be literally anything.

It's possible that LoWs have a specific exception, but I'm not aware of such.

Huh, page 124 specifies that it just needs to be a character.
Probably was thinking of 6th.

Coolio.

Still wouldn't want Yarrick as a LoW though.

Yeah. It means I can't take him and a Beihnblehd.

 Selym wrote:
The problem is that at the current costs, a typical IG army takes two large briefcases to move to the FLGS.

5 ppm for infantry is about the right cost for cannon fodder, but our cannnon fodder is worth about 3 ppm.

My standby army-wide rule that fixes our infantry (minus killpower):

Human Ingenuity:
Humans are right bastards to remove once entrenched.
-All IG infantry gain a permanent +1 cover save, to a minimum of 6+, and a maximum of 2+.

No. Just no. Do you have any idea how much tougher that makes the IG? That's easily worth doubling their costs. And I have no idea what your taking about "fixing" their killpower.

 Formosa wrote:
would I be mad in suggesting for every 3 infantry platoons you get a 4th free, including its special and heavy weapons? or for every 2 you get the 3rd free, so for one troop slot you would pay for 4 infantry platoons, a command section and get 2 infantry platoons for free, obviously paying for the chimera if you want it?

Yes.

Not you again

You're that dude that thinks that the IG are broken.

 Selym wrote:
Not you again

You're that dude that thinks that the IG are broken.

Well they are.

Yarrick is just a man with a Power Klaw. He's not comparable to a Knight Titan, unless he comes with a free Baneblade.

That'd be nice

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yarrick is just a man with a Power Klaw. He's not comparable to a Knight Titan, unless he comes with a free Baneblade.

Why would an efficient character be allowed a Baneblade for free? They're undercosted as it is...

Thus ignoring all of statistics.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Not you again

You're that dude that thinks that the IG are broken.

Well they are.

This is beyond hilarious. Almost as good as the guy who claims IG are fine as they are.

And baneblades are undercosted? I have a bridge to sell you.

Why would you want to sell me a bridge? Baneblades have enormous amounts of firepower, 3 more hullpoints than an Imperial Knight, Av 14/13/12, and can move 12" per turn.

What's weak about that?

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Why would you want to sell me a bridge? Baneblades have enormous amounts of firepower, 3 more hullpoints than an Imperial Knight, Av 14/13/12, and can move 12" per turn.

What's weak about that?

I call troll.

 Selym wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Why would you want to sell me a bridge? Baneblades have enormous amounts of firepower, 3 more hullpoints than an Imperial Knight, Av 14/13/12, and can move 12" per turn.

What's weak about that?

I call troll.

I call person who has no valid argument against Baneblades being undercosted.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Why would you want to sell me a bridge? Baneblades have enormous amounts of firepower, 3 more hullpoints than an Imperial Knight, Av 14/13/12, and can move 12" per turn.

What's weak about that?

I call troll.

I call person who has no valid argument against Baneblades being undercosted.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]
Go and look at the stats son, 500 points for a mediocre cannon, a demolisher cannon (WTF are you doing that close in the first place?) twin heavy bolters and an autocannon.

*525 pts.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Why would you want to sell me a bridge? Baneblades have enormous amounts of firepower, 3 more hullpoints than an Imperial Knight, Av 14/13/12, and can move 12" per turn.

What's weak about that?

I call troll.

I call person who has no valid argument against Baneblades being undercosted.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]
Go and look at the stats son, 500 points for a mediocre cannon, a demolisher cannon (WTF are you doing that close in the first place?) twin heavy bolters and an autocannon.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS] Seriously. The damn thing is durable as all hell, and has a main gun with 72" range, Str 9 Ap 2 Apocalypse Blast.

You'll easily knock out almost anything under that template, and it covers a vast amount of space.

I play the arguably superior Hellhammer. With ignores cover on the main gun. Str 10, Ap 1. No saves, wounds on 2's, etc.

Still sucks.

 Selym wrote:
I play the arguably superior Hellhammer. With ignores cover on the main gun. Str 10, Ap 1. No saves, wounds on 2's, etc.

Still sucks.

Lol wat.

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
Why would you want to sell me a bridge? Baneblades have enormous amounts of firepower, 3 more hullpoints than an Imperial Knight, Av 14/13/12, and can move 12" per turn.

What's weak about that?

I call troll.

I call person who has no valid argument against Baneblades being undercosted.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]
Go and look at the stats son, 500 points for a mediocre cannon, a demolisher cannon (WTF are you doing that close in the first place?) twin heavy bolters and an autocannon.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]Seriously. The damn thing is durable as all hell, and has a main gun with 72" range, Str 9 Ap 2 Apocalypse Blast.

You'll easily knock out almost anything under that template, and it covers a vast amount of space.

Never played IG.. Don't know much.. But I do know I took out a babe blade with 10 tank bustas and a battle wagon once.. So if it's so OP idk how it died to that..

Typically-Wardian wrote:

 Selym wrote:
The problem is that at the current costs, a typical IG army takes two large briefcases to move to the FLGS.

5 ppm for infantry is about the right cost for cannon fodder, but our cannnon fodder is worth about 3 ppm.

My standby army-wide rule that fixes our infantry (minus killpower):

Human Ingenuity:
Humans are right bastards to remove once entrenched.
-All IG infantry gain a permanent +1 cover save, to a minimum of 6+, and a maximum of 2+.

No. Just no. Do you have any idea how much tougher that makes the IG? That's easily worth doubling their costs. And I have no idea what your taking about "fixing" their killpower.

Whats the matter? Scared that the Guard might actually get a save against your AP5 and better spam? That you might actually have to apply more than brute force to deal with us?
A +1 to the cover save is nothing. It gives us a 6+ out of terrain and a slightly better save in it. And given that we are usually being hit and wounded on a 3+ or better there is no reason to deny us a little survivability.
As for the kill power, YOU try equipping all of your guys with Lasguns and see what happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Typically-Wardian wrote:
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS] Seriously. The damn thing is durable as all hell, and has a main gun with 72" range, Str 9 Ap 2 Apocalypse Blast.

You'll easily knock out almost anything under that template, and it covers a vast amount of space.

Well that is odd.... Because I have been playing IG since 3rd edition dropped. In other words, whilst you where still sucking your mothers tit I was playing IG and winning.
Durable? In the age of Hull Points, grav spam, massed AT and rapid fire medium strength weapons? You are out of your mind. And that blast is easy to avoid - just dont bunch up and use cover.