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.

Ive been hearing about Ghaz being made a lord of war and possibly characters like Logan or Bjorn (and in the future maybe big boys like Abaddon and Calgar too) and based my understanding of the rule it sounds like a good idea, because now you can take them and still have valuable HQ slots available to use (esp for orks with all their mekboys and mad docs). PLus it makes sense because these guys are a bit on the super special awesome range of special characters. Yet I hear everyone bemoaning the fact that hes a Lord of War now. What am i missing about this that makes it bad?

It's a reflection of the general attitude to the LoW slot as a whole, and the way units like Ghazzie compare to the units who already occupied it.

So, simultaneously, you have players who object to the LoW slot in "standard" 40K and the those that cite a comparison between Ghazzie and a Stompa (or similar.) Neither of which encourage a favourable attitude.

It's the slippery slope argument. There are people who dislike lords of war in regular games. Yet how could they argue against a special character who used to be a HQ?

Eventually, games workshop want everyone to like lords of war. They will be okay with gazzie, soon they won't mind stompas and then they won't mind larger things like fell blades and trandescent C'tans.

 welshhoppo wrote:
It's the slippery slope argument. There are people who dislike lords of war in regular games. Yet how could they argue against a special character who used to be a HQ?

Eventually, games workshop want everyone to like lords of war. They will be okay with gazzie, soon they won't mind stompas and then they won't mind larger things like fell blades and trandescent C'tans.

Ahh never thought about that, then again no one i play against uses stuff like baneblades or stompas, so its never been a problem for me (besides, thats what meltas are for!)

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It's the slippery slope argument. There are people who dislike lords of war in regular games. Yet how could they argue against a special character who used to be a HQ?

Eventually, games workshop want everyone to like lords of war. They will be okay with gazzie, soon they won't mind stompas and then they won't mind larger things like fell blades and trandescent C'tans.

Ahh never thought about that, then again no one i play against uses stuff like baneblades or stompas, so its never been a problem for me (besides, thats what meltas are for!)

True, I've played against a shadowsword and a stormsword. Both games involved me pretending they were not there and racking up all the victory points I could.

But the most common complaint against lord of war is that they are all overpowered and should be banned from regular games. If GW start bringing in lessor lords of war, people will have lost their major complaint.

Plus, don't forget the Knights Codex, an entire faction whose entire selection of units are what would technically constitute a LoW unit in almost any other context. So anyone objecting to SH or LoW in regular 40K has to object to an entire official faction and units that were just regular HQs until recently.

Once a line gets blurry, it's very difficult to take a hard one.

And seeing as they are now a slot. Banning them is the same as banning the fast attack slot. Or how about those overpowered troop choices? I mean if you play bound then there is no way to capture the objective without chasing them from it.

 welshhoppo wrote:
If GW start bringing in lessor lords of war, people will have lost their major complaint.

I don't think anyone would suggest the Tigershark isn't a lesser lord of war out of all options available.
Because LoW were put out as a single model per faction it was extremely easy to see the terrible balance between them. The biggest reason why people haven't played Escalation around my area isn't because some options are overpowered but because it's a bad book, with bad units, and bad rules.

Basically it smells like a deliberate attempt to further blur the lines between LoW units and others to try and force their overall acceptance in games. The IK seems like the first step, since once you ban one army what's to stop banning others, and things like making a character a LoW blurs things further because now if you ban all LoW then someone can't field Ghaz but if you allow Ghaz then it's harder to refuse other true LoWs without looking biased.

So it's yet another thing that requires chatting with your opponent before a game to decide what's allowed or not at best, and another reason for arguments over what's "legal" at worse.