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.

I don't understand the proliferation of massive models and lords of war. I started in 3rd, and at that time you would once in a while get a glimpse in White Dwarf of a custom built titan set up for Games Day or a Thunderhawk as part of a diorama. But nowadays people are trying to field these things in regular 40k battles, not just 30,000 point megabattles. And frankly, I don't get it. Imperial Knights, Wraith Knights, Riptides, Baneblades...these things barely fit onto the table, they don't seem to fit into 40k the game. Is it really fun to carry around one massive tank to the store, put it on the table, roll the die, and then pick it up again having never moved it? There's no strategy in it.

It's the same reason why it's more fun when Rogue Squadron didn't let you play as the Death Star. When Battlefield 1942 didn't let you fly the Enola Gay. When people take these massive point sinks, the game stops being a battle and becomes an arcade game.

I dislike the fact that the LOW now occupy a slot in normal, "default" 40K, but I like the fact that they are in the game. I'm quite enjoyed some of the special scenarios which have featured my stompa, and I loved the megabattle where my opponent revealed a Baneblade.

I don't like them in 'default' 40K because their inclusion (like the inclusion of some other elements, like Flyers and so many huge walkers/monstrous creatures) allows the player, rather than the players as a team, to dictate the nature of the board. Densely packed jungle terrain, or narrow cityfight boards, or claustrophobic Space Hulk boards all don't allow the placement and use of such models (or make it very, very hard). Because those types of models are now 'normal 40K', people have a reasonable expectation of being able to use them, so entire board layouts and styles of play get discouraged because they aren't friendly to superheavies/flyers/big walkers/monsters.

I really wish GW had defined different types of warzones in their rulebook, and made it clear that certain types of units where inappropriate for certain types of warzones. That way, two players could agree on a Warzone, and that agreement would lead to natural restrictions about the types of units fielded. For example, a "Cityfight" warzone would tell you that infantry would be privileged, but that vehicles (particularly large vehicles) might be unable to move freely about the board, and that flyers might be restricted further, while an 'Open Field of Battle" warzone might be fairly large, and relatively sparse on terrain, making vehicles and flyers attractive, and hindering foot-slogging infantry and the like.

I think there's a role for LoW (and a lot of other stuff) but GW puts the cart before the horse, making it 'legal' to choose anything, and then turning one player or the other into a jerk. An organized, sensible system of "Warzones" (or whatever) would do a much better job of setting and communicating expectations for gamers seeking a game.

They have no place in standard games.

I dont use them. I have some but never used them for the reasons above.

Although I dont see what the big deal is of having the option there.

Well this is a double edged sword, really.

Lords of War are cool.

Lords of War are limited to 1, which is also cool.

Being able to take an FOC simply for every HQ and 2 Troops you take (and therefore multiple LoWs) is not cool.

with the nerf of D strength weapons I have no issue with allowing them in normal games. I think it might make some games more fun for some players who want to try them out. Same with stronghold assault rules. I'm currently preparing my imperial strong point for my astra militarum in a 1500 pt game

Also as Da Butcha implies, there already is a natural balancing factor for LoWs: terrain.

If you bring one to a cityfight board and cant get decent LoS with it for the majority of the game, its your own fault.

The purpose of Lords of War is to sell big profitable kits.

They seem a fun idea for big games, exactly the sort of excess that 40K is all about. I don't think they "fit" in regular games, though.

I would prefer them to be an add-on option like they were in Apocalypse. The same for stronghold assault, flyers, and a few other things.

The basic structure of the game does not scale well above 2,000 points and units for very large games and tables ought to be in general not taken in standard size games.

 MWHistorian wrote:
They have no place in standard games.

Other than in the core rules. You can refuse to play against them of course, just like you can refuse to play against any army or unit, but you'll have to justify why you want to ignore the core rules. Lords of War are now for standard games unless you want to house rule it. Characters are now being placed in the LoW slot too - would you refuse to play against Ghazkull?

There seems to be a lot of unjustified fear around superheavies, mostly from people who have never used them [perhaps they can't afford them so don't want others to use them?]. With the D weapon nerf they're fine.

I think they're a great addition to 40k. I never met anyone who had time to play a game of apocalypse, which meant lots of superheavies were sitting on shelves gathering dust. Also, they really speed up play with less models to move around the table. Finally, they just look so cool on the table.

Lords of War are here in standard games. You can choose to either accept it, or bury your head in the sand and pretend they don't exist, despite the core rules.

I don't think you understand, we've chosen just to stop buying and playing 40k. Th lords of war in basic games is just one of many reasons. Fear? Lack of money? Lack of knowledge? No, we understand it perfectly well - we just don't like it and see it as GW breaking the rules to sell larger models.

Some of them aren't any issue. If you can deal with 3 Leman Russ tanks, a Baneblade won't present any greater threat or challenge. But a Transcendant C'tan? That's another story altogether.

I don't mind it either way - it can either be cool, or not cool, depending on the situation. Having a LoW in a regular 40k game can add to it, and like someone mentioned, gives players the chance to use their super-heavies where Apoc games are rare. Most of them are not invincible, despite whatever reputation they may have (my Eldar army blows up Warhounds in 2 turns). But using it in the context of WAAC, just like anything else, becomes not cool. There's a lot of that in 7th (read: Unbound). So what do I do when I think it's an uncool situation? I just nicely let the other player know, and we figure out a way to make it cool. If the other player is not willing to do this, then just politely refuse to play the game.

I think lords of war are cool. Then again, I am working on a primary detachment of imperial knights so...

LoW models are awesome and bring a bit of Apoc to regular 40K, which is fine by me. I only ever got to play one Apoc game in 5th edition: it was great fun, but organizing it was a pain. Having the option to field a limited number of these super-heavies in regular games is a great addition in my opinion.

Super-heavies and large monstrous creatures honestly aren't so bad. You can't stall them like you would with other, smaller vehicles, but you can still kill them by glancing them to death or shooting them so many times they'll fail their saves.

7th edition also nerfed destroyer weapons, making them fit into 40K more. They can still remove models from play (stompy stompy stomp!) and the reaper chainsword can still 'crit', but most of the time you'll get to take invulnerable saves.

They belong in Apocalypse, not Standard 40k.

 ashikenshin wrote:
with the nerf of D strength weapons I have no issue with allowing them in normal games. I think it might make some games more fun for some players who want to try them out. Same with stronghold assault rules. I'm currently preparing my imperial strong point for my astra militarum in a 1500 pt game

Strength D nerf was much needed. Unfortunately, they forgot to nerf the other weapons on the Transcendant CTan at the same time. He's gotten a lot harder to kill with the Destroyer nerf, while his 6D6 Krak missile power works just fine still

I'd argue that they should be in standard games, or they shouldn't exist at all. Apocalypse shouldn't really exist either.

I'm glad they're in standard, but GW is probably doing it's typical thing where they have tons of balance issues.

They shouldn't even be using the same stat lines as they use in Apocalypse, not even the same rules at all.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of Lords of War - having a baneblade in your army is awesome (I still plan on getting one), but as you say it's GWs incompetence with balancing and general rule writing that makes them annoying to have on the field.

The idea is good but as ever the point costs of so many are ridiculous in one way or another.

 Vertrucio wrote:
I'd argue that they should be in standard games, or they shouldn't exist at all. Apocalypse shouldn't really exist either.

I'm glad they're in standard, but GW is probably doing it's typical thing where they have tons of balance issues.

They shouldn't even be using the same stat lines as they use in Apocalypse, not even the same rules at all.

I did not like Apocalypse but while it was a separate book that was not a problem. Someone could just ask if you wanted a game of Apocalypse and you could say no thanks.

The problem now is that rather than choosing to include that sort of thing in a game, you have to talk about excluding it.

I know that some people like Lords of War and so on. More power to them. I don't. The Apocalypse add-on system allowed both of us to have fun in our preferred ways.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The problem now is that rather than choosing to include that sort of thing in a game, you have to talk about excluding it.

I think this about sums up one of the major issues. Usually, you have a standard set of core rules and then have extras that you can pick. 40k has the opposite approach: Include everything and put the burden on you for denying it. It's a known fact that it's often harder to exclude something than include it, because excluding something that already is included puts more emphasis on why that thing should be excluded since the default is to have it included.

Add in things like making Ghazghkull a LoW and it becomes a very slippery slope (if you exclude LoWs, you exclude Ghazghkull, if you allow Ghazghkull then you allow LoW), which I honestly think is done on purpose to further blur the line and get LoWs to be accepted in normal games.

We use them. When I show up, I'm prepared to fight anything from titans to superheavy tanks....it's a challenge. Every now and them, I'll throw one in to see how it fills out an army.

The way I see it, fluffwise, none of our armies really knows what to expect when they show up to a battle, and the ENEMY always is trying to win, so come prepared. Sometimes I win, sometimes I don't, no biggie. It's a game, I have fun.

Plus, as stated in a previous post, my superheavies don't have to sit on a shelf waiting for an APOC game, and they look really good on the table.

Seeing as I am currently putting together a 1500 point Ork list with a Stompa, guess that makes me TFG. However I am aware it is a controversial topic. I play primarily with a private group of friends who are all mostly OK with it. Dunno what would happen if I tried to play at a local club.

You are not TFG for wanting to play with a Stompa. GW are TFG for deliberately creating a situation in which two sets of players are forced to clash.

However if you play at a club you will probably find they are happy to come to some compromise. The big problems come at tournaments and pick up games at shops.

Do you play with Lords of War?

No.

I cant afford a baneblade, if i could i would play it at l larger point games.

YES! Sort of... We WOULD play with them, but we are poor and can't afford them. (goes to cry softly in the corner)

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
YES! Sort of... We WOULD play with them, but we are poor and can't afford them. (goes to cry softly in the corner)

true, exalted

Every time I have faced a LoW I have smashed it. In tournament settings I think they cost too much for their points. In a casual game people may not have the tools to handle it.

My Necron Flyer list smashes them b/c most LoW don't have anti flier.

My GK has 21 monkeys w/ Prescience and a lot of Shriek.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Some of them aren't any issue. If you can deal with 3 Leman Russ tanks, a Baneblade won't present any greater threat or challenge.

Except 3 Leman Russes have 9 HPs while a Baneblade has 12 and better armor. Also, the firepower of 3 non-Pask Russes is less than that of one Baneblade.

Lords of War are liabilities...so of course I play with them!