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.

You only get one lord of war, so you can own as many revenants as you want.

But to play along, the phantom has 8, the revenants have 12. But it's also 24 hull points vs 27, so the revenants aren't particularly more survivable than the phantom (which could kill 2 revenants in a turn).

Yet they would probably kill him in a turn or two really depends who goes first.

Ah, so it's just an optional expansion:

https://www.facebook.com/GamesWorkshopDigitalEditions/posts/183649525163221?notif_t=like

So, it is exactly like saying 'let's play a cities of death game' or let's have a planet strike campaign'. It's an additional strata of rules you can opt, with consent, to use.

I'll settle back down now.

Escalation and Stronghold assault are designed to be used in games of Warhammer 40,000.
However, we'd hope that no-one is going to force you to play a game you don't want to, and the rules are as always, as official as you choose to make them.

However, we'd hope that no-one is going to force you to play a game you don't want to, and the rules are as always, as official as you choose to make them.

and the rules are as always, as official as you choose to make them

That statement makes me so angry. Why bother printing rules if your ultimate response and care factor is the equivalent "I don't know, whatever you want to do"

It means they are optional.

This is an optional supplement, not intended to replace or upgrade the basic rulebook.

So, it's like a mini-me version of Apocalypse.

Therefore, nothing to see here, move along, the game is as it was before this book.

I don't read it as that. They're just saying that every rule optional, like it does in the main rulebook. These are just as official as any of those.

So basically it's optional? Get in! No revenants at tournaments!

I am basically with Yak on this. This could have been just fine as official rules if they had done two things:

1- This is your second Force Org (i.e. no Lords of War in less than 2k)

2- Temper Str D into something far less brutal for standard games (if not Apoc, as well). My suggestion would be S10 Armorbane, Fleshbane, Ignores Invulnerable Saves, Instant Death, but that is a whole other debate.

As is, no one will want to play this, especially if you are one of those armies that does not get one of the uber tooled D pie plate tossers, you may as well go rub one out in the corner, because you don't even get to do the coin flip for who wins.

 RobPro wrote:
I don't read it as that. They're just saying that every rule optional, like it does in the main rulebook. These are just as official as any of those.

Which is to say, totally arbitrary. So we, the entire gaming world, can continue to use the rulebook + codices, as we have, and ignore this supplement for 'regular' 40k, just as we have with apocalypse or planet strike or those weird combat additional rules for fliers in death from the skies.

Main rulebook + Codices are here to stay.

But you're free to ignore those if you like and nobody can force you to play, as always.

 RobPro wrote:
But you're free to ignore those if you like and nobody can force you to play, as always.

So, we're all free to look at Escalation as what it is, an occasional supplement.

Nice, I might even try a game, at some point, but I'm very glad it was made clear it's not updated the main rulebook + codices, which remains the way the world will continue to regularly game, unless they want a 20 minute game of 'set up, roll to see who goes first, roll to see if initiative is stolen, remove most of opposing army in first turn', which I don't think most of us do?

Just like you're free to disregard the AP value on weapons if it's what you want. Nobody will hold a gun to your head and force you to forge a narrative.

Basically it sounds like Escalation, as always, is as official as any codex. Nobody will force you to play against Sisters of Battle if you don't want to.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Just like you're free to disregard the AP value on weapons if it's what you want. Nobody will hold a gun to your head and force you to forge a narrative.

Basically it sounds like Escalation, as always, is as official as any codex. Nobody will force you to play against Sisters of Battle if you don't want to.

Certainly, but group think and the inevitable race to the bottom that accompanies massive imbalance by keeping a firewall between apoc and 40k.

There won't be a reese peanut butter cups moment with 40k and apoc "you got peanut butter in my chocolate" "you got chocolate in my peanut butter".

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Just like you're free to disregard the AP value on weapons if it's what you want. Nobody will hold a gun to your head and force you to forge a narrative.

Basically it sounds like Escalation, as always, is as official as any codex. Nobody will force you to play against Sisters of Battle if you don't want to.

He said the rules were as official or unofficial as planetstrike or apocalypse.

So, nothing is official, we are all sailing about deciding what we like and don't like.

There is no fething spoon.

So, we can, as players, decide that putting titans on a table for 40k is daft, or we can claim it's 'official rules' and be pointed to the same argument, it isn't official. 'Well they're as official as codices!'... Yep, they are also as official as Planetstrike and Apocalypse and homegrown rules for Darth Vader.

Personally, I take this facebook answer as what I need, Escalation is an additional supplement and won't be played in the grand scheme. It's not to be clipped onto the Main Rulebook any more than Cities of Death was.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Ah, so it's just an optional expansion:

https://www.facebook.com/GamesWorkshopDigitalEditions/posts/183649525163221?notif_t=like

So, it is exactly like saying 'let's play a cities of death game' or let's have a planet strike campaign'. It's an additional strata of rules you can opt, with consent, to use.

I'll settle back down now.

That's a mildly selective way of reading what they wrote.

He said the rules were as official or unofficial as planetstrike or apocalypse.

The question asked if it, and I quote,

Is Escalation a direct tag-on to the rules, or is it an agreed upon supplement, in the way Planetstrike or Cities of Death were for 5th ed?

That's two options. The answer was "It's, as always, as official as you make it."
That doesn't say what you think it says. It says that rules all have the exact same weight, which is a terrible stance to take on the issue imho.

Agreed. They didn't actually answer the question. They might as well have written "lol i dunno!" and it would achieve the same result.

What they didn't say though is "They're the same as Planetstrike and Apocalypse". They said a lot more than that. Those words were certainly used, but looking at them in isolation and free of context is dishonest.

Why is that a bad stance to take? Their position is "Here's the rules. We think you'll like them and all, but if you don't want to use them, that's cool too." They explicitly do not care about competitive play, so why should we care that they are ambivalent to the effect this would have on tournaments? Frankly, it is irresponsible to look at a book at this point and just assume that it would be fair or wise to use them in tournaments.

 tomjoad wrote:
Why is that a bad stance to take? Their position is "Here's the rules. We think you'll like them and all, but if you don't want to use them, that's cool too." They explicitly do not care about competitive play, so why should we care that they are ambivalent to the effect this would have on tournaments? Frankly, it is irresponsible to look at a book at this point and just assume that it would be fair or wise to use them in tournaments.

Okay, here's the example. They release Esca-strong-calypse: The Revengencing. In it, all armies are allowed to take a Face Punching Champion. Army A gets an armor 15/15/20 titan with "Don't even bother" hullpoints that rolls to hit and wound as you pull models from the case. Army B gets a Sausage cart that explodes when hit with any weapon.
Extreme, yes, but it's necessary for the example. Now same setting, they are allowed in normal games as it's written, but obviously nobody is going to play army B. So Army A wants to use their model. You decline. Why? It's in the rules. It's totally fair and he does nothing wrong because he's only following the rules to the best of his abilities and trying to bring a good list.
There will be bad people who do this as well, but it's wrong that we have to be policing what is done because a company can't be bothered to. It's not just tournaments either. Why should people avoid playing a pick up game because of all these additions.
I can't imagine that in MtG. It always used to be simple "Want to play?" "Sure, what type 2 or type 1" "2" Then you pull out decks and have fun. Now 40K should come with a cheek list. "Want to play a game?" "Sure, what kind?" "Stronghold, Escalation, Codex, Ally, Inquisition, and Formations." "Oh sorry, I just want to play Stronghold, Codex, Ally, Inquisition, and Formations"
It's a game. Their game. If they don't care about the rules, th.en why should anybody? Why did I pay $55 for a codex with rules if the ones I can make up are just as important? Why are they selling $50 supplements if your homebrew Farsight enclave is just as valid?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Agreed. They didn't actually answer the question. They might as well have written "lol i dunno!" and it would achieve the same result.

What they didn't say though is "They're the same as Planetstrike and Apocalypse". They said a lot more than that. Those words were certainly used, but looking at them in isolation and free of context is dishonest.

They said that Games Workshop releases all rules with the idea that they have as little or as much weight or use as you want to give them, that this release, the codices, the online add-ons, Forge World books, Apocalypse and everything else are wide open to your decision to use them. So, Escalation has the same 'legitimacy' as the rulebook it's self and at the precise same time, it has the same 'legitimacy' as Planetstrike. Also, Planetstrike and the rulebook have the same 'legitimacy'.

So, Escalation has the same legitimacy as Planetstrike, Apocalypse, Cities of Death or any other supplement, you can leave them off with not an eyebrow raised.

It is only by consensus that the 'community' has used the rulebook and codices alone as it's just as feasible to only play using apocalypse rules from now on. Escalation games are as valid as Apocalypse games or Planetsrike games.

So, if you slam your Giant Khorne thing or an Eldar titan down on the table, just realize it has no validity, because nothing has validity.

And that's official!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Agreed. They didn't actually answer the question. They might as well have written "lol i dunno!" and it would achieve the same result.

What they didn't say though is "They're the same as Planetstrike and Apocalypse". They said a lot more than that. Those words were certainly used, but looking at them in isolation and free of context is dishonest.

They said that Games Workshop releases all rules with the idea that they have as little or as much weight or use as you want to give them, that this release, the codices, the online add-ons, Forge World books, Apocalypse and everything else are wide open to your decision to use them. So, Escalation has the same 'legitimacy' as the rulebook it's self and at the precise same time, it has the same 'legitimacy' as Planetstrike. Also, Planetstrike and the rulebook have the same 'legitimacy'.

So, Escalation has the same legitimacy as Planetstrike, Apocalypse, Cities of Death or any other supplement, you can leave them off with not an eyebrow raised.

It is only by consensus that the 'community' has used the rulebook and codices alone as it's just as feasible to only play using apocalypse rules from now on. Escalation games are as valid as Apocalypse games or Planetsrike games.

So, if you slam your Giant Khorne thing or an Eldar titan down on the table, just realize it has no validity, because nothing has validity.

And that's official!

The community also uses the Iyanden, Farsight, and Black Legion supplements, and it looks like Dataslates and Formations will be in. If Escalation is as legal as any codex or supplement, what makes it less legal than those I just listed?

Also, weren't Planetstrike and Cities of Death written for 4th-5th ed?

Is everything available in this Escalation book broken or just those things with access to Strength D weapons?

Would nerfing strength D be the best route if the book is "official"?

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
Why is that a bad stance to take? Their position is "Here's the rules. We think you'll like them and all, but if you don't want to use them, that's cool too." They explicitly do not care about competitive play, so why should we care that they are ambivalent to the effect this would have on tournaments? Frankly, it is irresponsible to look at a book at this point and just assume that it would be fair or wise to use them in tournaments.

I can't imagine that in MtG. It always used to be simple "Want to play?" "Sure, what type 2 or type 1" "2" Then you pull out decks and have fun. Now 40K should come with a cheek list. "Want to play a game?" "Sure, what kind?" "Stronghold, Escalation, Codex, Ally, Inquisition, and Formations." "Oh sorry, I just want to play Stronghold, Codex, Ally, Inquisition, and Formations"
It's a game. Their game. If they don't care about the rules, th.en why should anybody? Why did I pay $55 for a codex with rules if the ones I can make up are just as important? Why are they selling $50 supplements if your homebrew Farsight enclave is just as valid?

Ok, in your M:tG example, I lose you straight away. This happens all the time to me in game shops.
"You want to play some Magic?"
"Yeah. I only have Commander, ok?"
"Oh, I didn't bring mine."
"Maybe next time, then."

So, the analogy in 40K I guess would be:
"You wanna play some 40K?"
"Sure. 2000 point game?"
"Great! I have my Revenant!"
"Oh, no. I'll pass then."

Besides, NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT PICKUP GAMES. In a tournament setting, you look at Titans and a lot of people will say they won't pay to play an event with titans, no matter what GW says. If TOs want to maximize participation, it behooves them to make these amendments. In M;tG, TOs don't do this because the thoughtful people at WotC take care of bannings and format delineations for them. In GW games, is the absence of sanity at the top, TOs must step in. This is only wise and just and in fact is so obvious that I can't understand, really, the rational argument against it.

 RobPro wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Agreed. They didn't actually answer the question. They might as well have written "lol i dunno!" and it would achieve the same result.

What they didn't say though is "They're the same as Planetstrike and Apocalypse". They said a lot more than that. Those words were certainly used, but looking at them in isolation and free of context is dishonest.

They said that Games Workshop releases all rules with the idea that they have as little or as much weight or use as you want to give them, that this release, the codices, the online add-ons, Forge World books, Apocalypse and everything else are wide open to your decision to use them. So, Escalation has the same 'legitimacy' as the rulebook it's self and at the precise same time, it has the same 'legitimacy' as Planetstrike. Also, Planetstrike and the rulebook have the same 'legitimacy'.

So, Escalation has the same legitimacy as Planetstrike, Apocalypse, Cities of Death or any other supplement, you can leave them off with not an eyebrow raised.

It is only by consensus that the 'community' has used the rulebook and codices alone as it's just as feasible to only play using apocalypse rules from now on. Escalation games are as valid as Apocalypse games or Planetsrike games.

So, if you slam your Giant Khorne thing or an Eldar titan down on the table, just realize it has no validity, because nothing has validity.

And that's official!

The community also uses the Iyanden, Farsight, and Black Legion supplements, and it looks like Dataslates and Formations will be in. If Escalation is as legal as any codex or supplement, what makes it less legal than those I just listed?

What makes it more legal than Apocalypse?

GW Rep at my local store told the owner, emphatically, three times on the phone that Escalation is meant to be used as part of the regular rulebook all the time. Obviously, I can't provide a source for that because how do you source word of mouth?

Of course, you can agree not to use it in an individual game, but it's something you should expect people to use unless you agree not to use it.

 RobPro wrote:
GW Rep at my local store told the owner, emphatically, three times on the phone that Escalation is meant to be used as part of the regular rulebook all the time. Obviously, I can't provide a source for that because how do you source word of mouth?

Of course, you can agree not to use it in an individual game, but it's something you should expect people to use unless you agree not to use it.

The Rep told him?


Oh, ok, I was obviously wrong.


I mean if a regional salesman told him...

To further SavageConvoy's M:tG analogy, I want to add this:

This uproar is not different to the rage in the Magic community over the HUGE rules changes in 2009 (or before that in in 1999), or double-sided cards, or the introduction of Planeswalkers (this might all sound like mularky, but if you're an experienced Magic player, you know what I mean). Big, or seemingly big, changes came to the game, and people were afraid. They thought it was all over for Magic and they hated it.

BUT, Wizards of the Coast had two things going for it. One, they engaged and explained the changes to the community. Two, they had a history of openly caring about game balance, which bought them some credibility.

Games Workshop has ceded their authority to tell us what to use in ANY situation, or how to use these rules/supplements by refusing to interact with us and explain how and why they figured out that Escalation (or anything else) would make for a better playing experience. As long as they don't have the sense to do that, people like Reece and Mike Brandt are as good a proxy as tournament players have. If you disagree with their judgments, that's ok too. It just means Nova or the LVO or Feast or whatever might not be for you. No reason to rage there.

Edit: The Dakka language filter thought I was using a slur up there, so I edited this to remove the potentially offensive word.

Does anybody think that allowing the use of FW "40k official" rules counter Escalation significantly?

 tomjoad wrote:
Games Workshop has ceded their authority to tell us what to use in ANY situation, or how to use these rules/supplements by refusing to interact with us and explain how and why they figured out that Escalation (or anything else) would make for a better playing experience. As long as they don't have the sense to do that, people like Reece and Mike Brandt are as good a proxy as tournament players have. If you disagree with their judgments, that's ok too. It just means Nova or the LVO or Feast or whatever might not be for you. No reason to rage there.

Agree 100%

The most pervasive insanity is what we've seen played out again and again on the forums. The situation in which a poster asks very reasonably for more balance through reduction in variables and another poster straw man's that into asking for "perfect balance". There is no question in my mind the decisions made about the las vegas open will make the games "more balanced" than the alternative, and I think that's a good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Does anybody think that allowing the use of FW "40k official" rules counter Escalation significantly?

There is no getting around the stupidity of D Weapons and I can't help but feel anyone espousing the opposing perspective is doing so while looking over ther shoulder and smiling at a revenenant titan or a wraithknight in the midst of being converted.

Sorry, little dig here, so it's okay to use escalation rules for casual pickup games, but FW is still out?....

Cheers

Andrew