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'm looking at an opportunity to pick up the Throne of Judgement for $20 (reg. $50) from a gaming store in my area that is moving.  Although the Throne can only be used in a Witch Hunters army in 40K, in Apocalypse I can add him to my Imperial Guard army.  So the question is is he a worthwhile addition or a total waste of points given what we've heard about Apocalypse.

Definite Nay gamewise for me. The moving multimelta that hits almost every round can be fun,but that's it. Apart from a fluff game, i've never played it in two years. Somehow, even when I try to include it, I always find something more important to use for my HQ slots (either Canoness or, god forbid, and Inquisitor lord with a shooty retinue).  Modelling-wise, it's very nice once properly built and painted... Now, with points not being a problem in Apocalyspe, i'll probably field it a lot more, just for the kick of it!

Phil

In an Apocalypse game that wouldn't be a problem. I just need to know if he's effective or a total waste of points.

For $20 you might as well.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I use him in a "just for the fun of it" sisters army that I have.  His only use there is to pop his Holy Relic (or is it Inquisitorial Mandate?) right before a unit of 20 repentia charge.  Other than that, I really think he's only good to make your opponent comment "WTF is that?" or "Jeez thats an ugly model".

I actually like him. Why is it that you can't use him as an allie?

Most people forget to use all the henchmen that he has on board. I don't know how many people forget that he has a laspistol (that he can fire in addition to the the multimelta as he is a monsterous creature), he can re-role a miss with the multimelta, or that he has two close combat weapons.

As he is he is like a pretty good deamon prince, without the wings of course. Then again he does have a better shooting ability. He is also cheaper than a demaon prince and allows re-roles for moral checks to nearby units.

5 strength 6 attacks on the charge with a re-role at WS 5 is nothing to laugh at. Then next turn he still has 5 attacks since he can wip out the Inquisitorial Mandate. With a 4+ invulnerable and toughness 5 he will stick out that fight too.

Because of what his rules say:


To me that specifically prevents him from being used as an ally.

Seems to me that the consensus is that he's not a total waste of points. If he's still there this coming Saturday, it looks like I'll be adding him to my collection.

But the codex also states, "Witch Hunter units may also be feilded as allies in any of the following Codex armies:".

I think he qualifies as a witch hunter unit. I hate to bring fluff into this argument, but not allowing him to lead any army just doesn't seem right.

 

Plus, wasn't there a battle report with them using Saint Celestine as an ally? She has the same wording as Lord Karamozov.

However the unit entry is more specific and limit the special characters to just a Witch Hunters army. He may be a 'Witch Hunter unit', but he has very specific rules as to what type of army he can be used in, and that is a '... Witch Hunters army of 1,500 points or more...'

I like him, and like other Demon Prince type MC he's a good fit in a mechanized force.

I think I may have found a presidence for thins kind of thing. In the LatD Faq that was up on the GW website for a while one of the quesitons asked was: May special characters from the Chaos Codex be allied to a LatD army? The answer was yes. In their entries though it stated that they may be taken in Chaos Space marine armies, or Plague Marine armies, Thousand Sons armies, or Emperor's Children armies.

 

The wordking sounds pretty similar, though I know you can't use a FAQ for one codex for another codex.

You do know that FAQs don't necessarily apply to other armies, right?

Yeah, I know that. That is why I stated it at the bottom of my lat post.

Posted By Ghaz on 08/26/2007 10:44 PM

But the codex also states, "Witch Hunter units may also be feilded as allies in any of the following Codex armies:".

However the unit entry is more specific and limit the special characters to just a Witch Hunters army. He may be a 'Witch Hunter unit', but he has very specific rules as to what type of army he can be used in, and that is a '... Witch Hunters army of 1,500 points or more...'

To be honest Ghaz, I think youre overly worried about taking something like this unit in apocalypse, for no need.

When a marine army can take units of harlies, I really dont think an opponent would have such a tough time accepting the logic that an inquisitor lord sitting on a dreadnought throne could show up to play.

Hell, I bought a Throne of Judgement recently for $25 just because I think the model is snazzy (and not having to pay $50 for it helped as well.. ). Using it in apocalypse is just ...the icing on the cake.

I say go for it. If an opponent is that overly worried about the wording, then play someone else. I am sure there are tons of reasonable people out there to play.

Its a cheap model. If you can pick it up for $20, get it. Its got decent rules (I had this for my WH army, but havent used it for anything except for games where I really didnt care) and in the games I did use it, it fared pretty well. With apocalypses deployement (12" no mans land) I dont think it will be hard for this model to see actual usefulness.

I'm not worried about taking it in Apocalypse. If I were worried, I wouldn't be planning a little 1,000 point auxilliary force consisting of Karamazov, three full units of Arco-flagellants and two Penitent Engines to bolster my Vostroyans. It's in normal games that I wouldn't be able to use it which is where the conversation got sidetracked. I just wanted to know if it was of any tactical use whatsoever. If it was one of those worthless units, then it's better to spend my money on something I could use (like my Ogres for WHFB).

Posted By Ghaz on 08/29/2007 11:51 PM
I'm not worried about taking it in Apocalypse. If I were worried, I wouldn't be planning a little 1,000 point auxilliary force consisting of Karamazov, three full units of Arco-flagellants and two Penitent Engines to bolster my Vostroyans. It's in normal games that I wouldn't be able to use it which is where the conversation got sidetracked. I just wanted to know if it was of any tactical use whatsoever. If it was one of those worthless units, then it's better to spend my money on something I could use (like my Ogres for WHFB).

That setup would kick arse in Cities of Death.  In a standard game, probably not so much.

For $20? Pick him up dude.
Which store in the 'nati is moving?

I'll tell you, but only if you promise not to go scoop him up first ;-)

The store that's moving (and dropping wargames altogether apparently) is The World of Hobbies and Games in Sharonville. They're moving into a single store in Florence they've had since the first of the year. The Florence store does not carry miniatures so I believe they're not going to carry them any longer. It's a shame since they've always discounted their miniatures 15%-20% and I live in Florence.

No worries: I haven't been back to 'nati since 2004.

And anyway, I had the chance to pick him up once for $20 and didn't; I wouldn't let you make that mistake

I hav bno problems with using Karamazov in an Imperial Guard army, at least they are on the same side. A C'Tan or a flyrant would be more questionable.

And again, I have no problem in an Apocalypse game. It's in a normal game of 40K where it would be questionable.