Forge World List of Lords of War for Escalation

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.

**spiralingcadaver**

Yeah, gotta' agree: homebrews and house rules should be there to make a game more fun, not to make it not broken.

**ninjafiredragon**

Wait so it is totally legal for me to actually feild a phantom titan in a game of 40k now? even though its 2k points...

**CthuluIsSpy**

ninjafiredragon wrote:
Wait so it is totally legal for me to actually feild a phantom titan in a game of 40k now? even though its 2k points...

Yes. Good luck carrying one to the FLGS

**Massawyrm**

When WotC sat down to develop DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 3rd Edition (the edition still in print and play in the form of PATHFINDER) they set down a design maxim that carried on throughout its lifespan: OPTIONS, NOT LIMITATIONS. All of their design throughout the 00's - and much of Patherfinder's - has been built upon it. The idea is that you are providing tools to fuel the imaginations of players, not creating a series of rules that say "No, you can't do that." It didn't matter what previous editions said about race or class - if you wanted to build it, they wanted to provide rules to let you. No one buys a supplement that is useless to them, so they made it so just about everything was useful. But when WotC moved on to 4th ed, they threw out that design policy in order to replace it with something 3rd definitely didn't have: balance. D&D 3.5 was broken as hell. It was easy to piece together a tooled up, twinked out death machine that broke all the rules of what a character should be able to do. But not 4th. 4th was a model of elegance in design. Everything was balanced against everything else - classes, monsters, magic items.

And people hated it. They revolted, killed the edition long before it ever really got off the ground, and fled to an jucied up offbrand OLG version of the 3.5 rules. They wanted options, not limitations.

This is the policy GW has adopted in 6th ed. You want to ally Necrons and Grey Knights? Go for it. You want to have an Inquisitor leading your Cadian 4th Armored division? Sure. Why not? You want to run a group of marines and their Thunderhawk teaming up with Commander Farsight? Abso-freaking-lutely. These options don't just sell models to competitive players eking out any advantage they can get - they make casual and narrative players happy. And happy players buy more stuff. More books, more models, more paint.

In a game in which everything is perfectly balanced, everything becomes cosmetic and you don't really need a whole hell of a lot. In a game in which the only real balance comes from the players, then the sky is the limit. This policy isn't going to kill the demand for GW product; it is going to expand it.

**ninjafiredragon**

^^^ you do relize that allot of major tournament,s local tournaments, and people are banning all of the new rules gw is making? So, actually most people arent happy with this.

**spiralingcadaver**

There's a huge difference between a co-operative and narrative game, vs. a competitive and non-narrative one.

When I GM, I bend (and let players bend) the rules all the time, make stuff up on the fly, rebalance as I see fit, and generally do whatever I feel will make the game entertaining- none of us power game, so there's no reason to restrict some rules technicality, and if someone exploited RAW, I'd say "nope, that doesn't work"

When I play a competitive miniatures game, if something comes up, I consult the rules. The furthest I'll allow someone to bend the rules is by a couple mm because I don't want to be anal about it and expect them to do the same thing for me. I expect rules to be clear, concise, and reasonably balanced*, and when they're not, it's annoying.

* balanced as in, two players of roughly equivalent skill levels should be able to give each other a good fight regardless of faction/race/etc., not sides should be identical

Two completely different contexts.

**Noctem**

I usually prefer to have many options and play casually and just for fun with friends and at some stores, than very seriously at a competitive level at tournaments. Of course there's people who prefer the opposite though.

**spiralingcadaver**

I guess I just feel that Apocalypse is fine for giant whacky games with no balance and huge models, don't really see why they needed a whole expansion for "you can use these in smaller games, too"

**Massawyrm**

ninjafiredragon wrote:
^^^ you do relize that allot of major tournament,s local tournaments, and people are banning all of the new rules gw is making? So, actually most people arent happy with this.

I realize that *some* major tournaments are making widespread rules changes and that *some* national and local tournaments are banning the new rules before testing them. Of course, these are the same tournaments that were already ignoring sections of the rulebook to maintain the feel and play of previous editions anyhow (Double force org and terrain placement, anyone?) More to the point, Internet forums are no metric for customer satisfaction. They never have been. Only sales reflect that - and sales are up. GW is up $3M in profit this year, but that is pre-SM release. We won't really know until well into next year how *most people* actually feel. It might actually be a gamble that doesn't pay off - like D&D 4th ed. But everyone convinced that GW is being handed its hat on the way out the door has no basis for that outside of their own bias.

**ninjafiredragon**

Im not using the internet to base customer satisfaction, im basing it on what people say in my gaming metas stores, my freinds gamings metas, and everyones gaming metas i know. And the majority of people are not satisfied. Likewise, you shoudnt be basing peoples happiness on products by the sales. for example, say 1000 people buy super heavies, effectivly raising the sales of gw. But, the majority of peole who face those super heavies wont like it, and therefore the sails go up, and the customer satisfaction goes down. And i also find it funny how you say that the tournaments are makign the rule changes wothout playtesting them, which is one, not true as the people who run gts have doubltess played escaltation already and decided it isnt fair, and also 2, games workshop made these rules without playtesting them also, which is very obvouse because of how unfair and imbalanced the rules are now.
Are you a power gamer? because powergamers are the ones who like this escaltion.

**MarsNZ**

ninjafiredragon wrote:
^^^ you do relize that allot of major tournament,s local tournaments, and people are banning all of the new rules gw is making? So, actually most people arent happy with this.

You realise that "most" people who play this game never play tournaments and never plan to?

**Noctem**

MarsNZ wrote:
ninjafiredragon wrote:
^^^ you do relize that allot of major tournament,s local tournaments, and people are banning all of the new rules gw is making? So, actually most people arent happy with this.

You realise that "most" people who play this game never play tournaments and never plan to?

Quoted for truth.

**ansacs**

ninjafiredragon wrote:
Im not using the internet to base customer satisfaction, im basing it on what people say in my gaming metas stores, my freinds gamings metas, and everyones gaming metas i know. And the majority of people are not satisfied. Likewise, you shoudnt be basing peoples happiness on products by the sales. for example, say 1000 people buy super heavies, effectivly raising the sales of gw. But, the majority of peole who face those super heavies wont like it, and therefore the sails go up, and the customer satisfaction goes down. And i also find it funny how you say that the tournaments are makign the rule changes wothout playtesting them, which is one, not true as the people who run gts have doubltess played escaltation already and decided it isnt fair, and also 2, games workshop made these rules without playtesting them also, which is very obvouse because of how unfair and imbalanced the rules are now.
Are you a power gamer? because powergamers are the ones who like this escaltion.

Actually this is an incredibly unfair statement. Most of the people who are happy about escalation are strictly narrative players. These people organize the game to be balanced themselves. The people who are unhappy about it are the ones who play GW rules without modification and take GW rules as gospel, power gamer or not.

Also, please realize that escalation had a lot of great additions to the game in the way of new missions, warlord traits, etc. Even the SH and GMC are not that big of a deal. The Str D weapons are what makes this such a contentious subject.

**Eyjio**

Honestly, I'd have absolutely no issue with Escalation if D weapons hadn't changed from 5e. Automatic penetration with +1 on damage chart? Pretty deadly. Instant death? Extremely threatening. The thing is, both of those things are manageable and it didn't ignore inv saves. Even nids could cope with Iron Arm and auto-pens might make it so serpent spam didn't just always fire their shields. In that environment, I'd love to play escalation as I think it'd just add to the game.

That is not where we are unfortunately. I played 3 games of it yesterday and none of them were fun. The first was against my fiancée's nids - my Transcendent C'tan just walked through her army and she couldn't do much at all. My second was against an Eldar player. He got first turn and proceeded to almost table me, the sole reason he didn't being my Night Scythes. The second, I went first and actually did table him. It's stupid and a boring game to play. There's very little you can actually do against Str D, so when something has lots of it at range the game becomes almost meaningless. I'm sure that, given time I could adapt to this new way of playing to an extent where it'd still be relatively skill based but it's just not fun to play IMO. Nids are just screwed - they have no Str D, no way to shut down the Revenant and no way to kill it at range. they can tailor to beat a Revenant but then they lose to Aircron.

So that's my final verdict on Escalation generally, regardless of who adds what to it - it's not fun. It's in no way fun to play and that is the cardinal sin of gaming.

**Noctem**

Eyjio wrote:
Honestly, I'd have absolutely no issue with Escalation if D weapons hadn't changed from 5e. Automatic penetration with +1 on damage chart? Pretty deadly. Instant death? Extremely threatening. The thing is, both of those things are manageable and it didn't ignore inv saves. Even nids could cope with Iron Arm and auto-pens might make it so serpent spam didn't just always fire their shields. In that environment, I'd love to play escalation as I think it'd just add to the game.

That is not where we are unfortunately. I played 3 games of it yesterday and none of them were fun. The first was against my fiancée's nids - my Transcendent C'tan just walked through her army and she couldn't do much at all. My second was against an Eldar player. He got first turn and proceeded to almost table me, the sole reason he didn't being my Night Scythes. The second, I went first and actually did table him. It's stupid and a boring game to play. There's very little you can actually do against Str D, so when something has lots of it at range the game becomes almost meaningless. I'm sure that, given time I could adapt to this new way of playing to an extent where it'd still be relatively skill based but it's just not fun to play IMO. Nids are just screwed - they have no Str D, no way to shut down the Revenant and no way to kill it at range. they can tailor to beat a Revenant but then they lose to Aircron.

So that's my final verdict on Escalation generally, regardless of who adds what to it - it's not fun. It's in no way fun to play and that is the cardinal sin of gaming.

Luckily you not having fun doesn't mean every single player isn't having fun =P

**Massawyrm**

ninjafiredragon wrote:im basing it on what people say in my gaming metas stores, my freinds gamings metas, and everyones gaming metas i know. And the majority of people are not satisfied.

This is a form of confirmation bias. You've extrapolated your community's views and applied them to the player base as a whole. This is pisspoor methodology.

ninjafiredragon wrote:you shoudnt be basing peoples happiness on products by the sales. for example, say 1000 people buy super heavies, effectivly raising the sales of gw. But, the majority of peole who face those super heavies wont like it, and therefore the sails go up, and the customer satisfaction goes down.

That's why you don't track the immediate sales, but rather those over the longterm. People unhappy playing the current meta are more likely to leave the game and less likely to buy product. If Escalation ruins the game, we'll see that reflected in next year's sales. We'll also be able to get some short term indicators from the secondary market. Watch Bartertown and Dakka Swap Shop. If there's a major uptick in people getting out of the game, we'll know there's a real problem and not just the typical teeth gnashing every time there's a major change in the game.

ninjafiredragon wrote:And i also find it funny how you say that the tournaments are makign the rule changes wothout playtesting them, which is one, not true as the people who run gts have doubltess played escaltation already and decided it isnt fair, and also 2, games workshop made these rules without playtesting them also, which is very obvouse because of how unfair and imbalanced the rules are now.

Here's my favorite part of your argument. You *assume* that despite not running any tournaments with Escalation or releasing blogs about playtests - or even acknowledging playtesting of any kind - that the TOs have properly playtested this. But in the same breath, you assume that GW hasn't because you don't like the result. You should go out and read some of the Escalation battle reports. With Apoc 2nd GW wildly altered a number of the point costs - we're starting to see why. It appears they were planning Escalation for quite some time. The reports that are coming in are far from one sided.

ninjafiredragon wrote:Are you a power gamer? because powergamers are the ones who like this escaltion.

Nope. I'm a narrative gamer. I played my last tournament four years ago. NARRATIVE gamers love this. For narrative and garage gamers, balance is handled by what game designers call "a self-correcting problem." If Bill is showing up with a Revenant Titan and no one has fun playing against it, Bill stops getting invited over until Bill decides to shelve the Titan. Balance is only important in games in which you have little to no choice about who your opponent is because the self-correcting problem is best solved socially. Which is where TOs come in. By running tournaments played by WAAC strangers, you have no way to correct the problem without enforcing strict restrictions on units that people have no fun playing against. The complaints many of us have against these TOs is that we have yet to see what effect Escalation will *actually* have on the meta. The GW/dakka/warseer thinktank is notoriously slow and terrible at predicting the meta. They said Grey Knights was underpowered. That Necrons wouldn't make a dent in the meta. That the Heldrake, Riptide and Wraithknight were too many points for too little damage output. And they said the Daemon codex was terrible and had no competitive builds. So pardon me if I think I need to see a few tournament results that include Escalation before deciding whether it is actually overpowered or not. But I will say I like having the option.

**Matt1785**

Massawyrm wrote:
Nope. I'm a narrative gamer. I played my last tournament four years ago. NARRATIVE gamers love this. For narrative and garage gamers, balance is handled by what game designers call "a self-correcting problem." If Bill is showing up with a Revenant Titan and no one has fun playing against it, Bill stops getting invited over until Bill decides to shelve the Titan. Balance is only important in games in which you have little to no choice about who your opponent is because the self-correcting problem is best solved socially. Which is where TOs come in. By running tournaments played by WAAC strangers, you have no way to correct the problem without enforcing strict restrictions on units that people have no fun playing against. The complaints many of us have against these TOs is that we have yet to see what effect Escalation will *actually* have on the meta. The GW/dakka/warseer thinktank is notoriously slow and terrible at predicting the meta. They said Grey Knights was underpowered. That Necrons wouldn't make a dent in the meta. That the Heldrake, Riptide and Wraithknight were too many points for too little damage output. And they said the Daemon codex was terrible and had no competitive builds. So pardon me if I think I need to see a few tournament results that include Escalation before deciding whether it is actually overpowered or not. But I will say I like having the option.

Well, that's a bit of a stretch, SOME narrative players like it... I wouldn't go tossing the term LOVE around about Escalation. The truth of the matter is that D weapons are right up there with the 2+ re-rollable invulnerable saves, they shouldn't have a place in a standard 40K game but do. I don't think anyone could argue for the inclusion of D weapons in regular games, I don't care how many points they are.

Well, now that that's out of the way, I do actually agree with lots of your points. I too am more into the narrative and story behind an army and a list. But if you want to argue narrative, go read some other threads, it's a hated term around this forum. I finally was able to find a Warhound on eBay, and am getting ready to put the purchase in. It has two grades of game, 40K and Apocalypse. IF I were to run it just as a quirk in a 40K game, it runs with a Vulcan and Plasma Blast Gun, why? Because D weapons don't belong. Play in Apoc? Laser blaster please.

I would argue that TOs have to ban Escalation though, as the Revenant is a pretty polarizing inclusion in the book. Then again, like you I don't frequent tournaments and really could care less about what they do in their games. (Unless comp starts to come back, in which case I may be able to return to a tournament or two)

**ninjafiredragon**

Massawyrm wrote:
ninjafiredragon wrote:im basing it on what people say in my gaming metas stores, my freinds gamings metas, and everyones gaming metas i know. And the majority of people are not satisfied.

This is a form of confirmation bias. You've extrapolated your community's views and applied them to the player base as a whole. This is pisspoor methodology.

My friends live all around the country and outside it. They dont all live in my community.

ninjafiredragon wrote:you shoudnt be basing peoples happiness on products by the sales. for example, say 1000 people buy super heavies, effectivly raising the sales of gw. But, the majority of peole who face those super heavies wont like it, and therefore the sails go up, and the customer satisfaction goes down.

That's why you don't track the immediate sales, but rather those over the longterm. People unhappy playing the current meta are more likely to leave the game and less likely to buy product. If Escalation ruins the game, we'll see that reflected in next year's sales. We'll also be able to get some short term indicators from the secondary market. Watch Bartertown and Dakka Swap Shop. If there's a major uptick in people getting out of the game, we'll know there's a real problem and not just the typical teeth gnashing every time there's a major change in the game.

Ok fair enough

ninjafiredragon wrote:And i also find it funny how you say that the tournaments are makign the rule changes wothout playtesting them, which is one, not true as the people who run gts have doubltess played escaltation already and decided it isnt fair, and also 2, games workshop made these rules without playtesting them also, which is very obvouse because of how unfair and imbalanced the rules are now.

Here's my favorite part of your argument. You *assume* that despite not running any tournaments with Escalation or releasing blogs about playtests - or even acknowledging playtesting of any kind - that the TOs have properly playtested this. But in the same breath, you assume that GW hasn't because you don't like the result. You should go out and read some of the Escalation battle reports. With Apoc 2nd GW wildly altered a number of the point costs - we're starting to see why. It appears they were planning Escalation for quite some time. The reports that are coming in are far from one sided.

OK so while i know for a fact that my tournament organizors in my area have playested this, so i assumed that TOs for GTs would be doing the same

ninjafiredragon wrote:Are you a power gamer? because powergamers are the ones who like this escaltion.

Nope. I'm a narrative gamer. I played my last tournament four years ago. NARRATIVE gamers love this. For narrative and garage gamers, balance is handled by what game designers call "a self-correcting problem." If Bill is showing up with a Revenant Titan and no one has fun playing against it, Bill stops getting invited over until Bill decides to shelve the Titan. Balance is only important in games in which you have little to no choice about who your opponent is because the self-correcting problem is best solved socially. Which is where TOs come in. By running tournaments played by WAAC strangers, you have no way to correct the problem without enforcing strict restrictions on units that people have no fun playing against. The complaints many of us have against these TOs is that we have yet to see what effect Escalation will *actually* have on the meta. The GW/dakka/warseer thinktank is notoriously slow and terrible at predicting the meta. They said Grey Knights was underpowered. That Necrons wouldn't make a dent in the meta. That the Heldrake, Riptide and Wraithknight were too many points for too little damage output. And they said the Daemon codex was terrible and had no competitive builds. So pardon me if I think I need to see a few tournament results that include Escalation before deciding whether it is actually overpowered or not. But I will say I like having the option.

OK now i apoligize for that part. Not everyone who likes escalation is a power gamer, but i would say allot of power gamers enjoy it. I just believe that Games workshop has really outdone itself in this. There was a reason that apocalypse is a supplement. I think that GW should have just made this a expansion also, instead of allowing it for every game. But, since already allot of people wont play it, It kind of is a expansion.

**spiralingcadaver**

Massawyrm wrote:
NARRATIVE gamers love this.

Ahem. This man does not speak for me.
-Signed, a gamer who's only back to 40k for the narrative funsies.

**Massawyrm**

ninjafiredragon wrote:
OK so while i know for a fact that my tournament organizors in my area have playested this, so i assumed that TOs for GTs would be doing the same

The trouble is that what little "playtesting" is going on is akin to what many (like you) are accusing GW of doing: A few internal games meant only to prove a pre-established hypothesis. What we need is a tournament full of the craftiest, beardiest WAACers on the scene to try and break the hell out of it to see what happens when 5 Revenant titans show up to an 1850pt tournament. That's the only way we're going to get any real idea of what this really means for 40k.

ninjafiredragon wrote:
There was a reason that apocalypse is a supplement. I think that GW should have just made this a expansion also, instead of allowing it for every game. But, since already allot of people wont play it, It kind of is a expansion.

I certainly feel that. But I'd bet all the money in my pocket against all the money in your pocket that when someone at GW mentioned doing that, someone else said "You mean like Planetstrike?" Planetstrike gave us fortifications, but no one played with them. They sat on shelves. But the minute they became part of 6th edition, they sold like hotcakes. Remember when TOs freaked out about those too? Banned them from tournaments? Even now that everyone has gotten over the initial shock, folks rarely bring some of them because they're too expensive points-wise. You see the Aegis all the time, but rarely bastions or the FoR. They were trying to avoid this becoming like Planetstrike and Cities of Death.

GW knows it is going to lose people over this - but they're playing a long game. With superheavies as a part of the basic game, every new kid who gets into 40k will want one. And in five years those of us still around are going to think it was weird to play without them.

**Peregrine**

Massawyrm wrote:
Remember when TOs freaked out about those too? Banned them from tournaments?

No, actually I don't. The only objections I remember were about the broken and ambiguous rules, and some concerns about the sheer size of two of them interfering with tournaments that use pre-set terrain. The ADL + quad gun became a default part of most tournament lists pretty much immediately and there was never really any doubt about allowing it.

With superheavies as a part of the basic game, every new kid who gets into 40k will want one.

And then the kid will get their $150 kit, discover that nobody is going to let them use it in a game, and ragequit. Result: short term sales boost, long-term damage to the game. IOW, a typical GW decision these days.

And in five years those of us still around are going to think it was weird to play without them.

Only if they fix the rules, especially the D-weapon rules. Otherwise in five years those of us still around are going to talk about the good old days when we didn't have to keep explaining the superheavy ban to every new player.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Massawyrm wrote:
NARRATIVE gamers love this.

And I have no idea why. You could already use superheavies in a narrative game by saying "hey, it would be appropriate if there was a Baneblade at this point in the story, let's use one". You don't need a $30 stamp of approval from GW to do that. So all Escalation accomplished was getting some easy money for GW by copy/pasting the same old Apocalypse stuff into another $30 "book", and causing a lot of trouble for people who enjoy playing pickup games and tournaments.

If Bill is showing up with a Revenant Titan and no one has fun playing against it, Bill stops getting invited over until Bill decides to shelve the Titan

What does this have to do with enjoying the story of the game? I think you're making the typical mistake of assuming that "narrative" and "not competitive" are exactly the same thing.

**Massawyrm**

Peregrine Google it. Some still ban them outright, though it's not as common as it was threatened. And kids buying superheavies but not being able to play with them? That was pre-Dec 7. Kids tend to play with each other - if there are rules, you can bet they'll play with them. They haven't become quite as entitled about their rulesets as older folks.

I love anything that gives me options for play. By your rationale, I can play Squats too - but that doesn't mean I'd spit in the face of them writing, printing and selling them. Escalation actually gave us a real reason to consider SH as something other than an auto take - the VP and seize bonus. Those rules didn't exist before. Neither did the missions or the warlords table. I could have done without the reprinting of rules I already have, but hey, had they not reprinted them, everyone would have HOWLED that they had to buy a new book **AND** the $75 apoc book.

Your idea of narrative play seems to be pre-IA8, back when narrative meant premade lists. Now Narrative involves saying "Hey, let's play some Betalis 3 missions this weekend. Bring 2000pts of Eldar & Corsairs and I'll bring 2000pts of Cadian 6th Armored and maybe some SW allies." You can still play narratively AND competitively. You just can't WAAC it or else no one will ever want to come over.

**wuestenfux**

Finally, FW found a way to sell all their Superheavies.

**Ravenous D**

Considering the few games Ive seen with super heavies and the faces and attutides of the players over this weekend I don't think this will be a thing. Because lets be real here, if you're the guy that keeps showing up with janky gak (even before this abomination) nobody wants to play you, and in tournaments there is already enough complaints against screamerstar and Jetstar that comp was already becoming a thing, no good tournament will allow this in.

Games last 30 minutes and only one person is happy during the game, just as I already said would happen. Nothing is worse in this game then being impotent to stop or counter something.

After people get stomped on by or stomp on super heavies the tune will change pretty quick. It makes for short uninteresting games. Escalation should be treated like the optional permission only expansions that it is.

**thisisnotaseriousaccount**

Ravenous D wrote:
Considering the few games Ive seen with super heavies and the faces and attutides of the players over this weekend I don't think this will be a thing.

Games last 30 minutes and only one person is happy during the game, just as I already said would happen. Nothing is worse in this game then being impotent to stop or counter something.

After people get stomped on by or stomp on super heavies the tune will change pretty quick. It makes for short uninteresting games. Escalation should be treated like the optional permission only expansions that it is.

Is this with or without Strength D? Because every game I've seen with SD was no fun and every game I've seen without SD both players had a great time, especially when both sides had a super-heavy. A baneblade isn't any scarier than a bunch of Leman Russes really, it's harder to neutralise the firepower but it pays for it in the points cost. There is maybe one combination that is completely slowed and doesn't involve strength D, and aside from that SHV are just a new, often-cheaper kind of deathstar.

**Ravenous D**

First had no D. Lord of skulls was blown up in 1 turn and the game lasted 20minutes after that. Chaos guy was not impressed. The second had the D, transcendent C'tan moved up 18" with his D slide, sprayed his hellstorm D template followed by the S6ap2 hellstorm template and the game was basically over. Opponent refused to play against escalation bs ever again. 3rd was a proxy of what a revenant titan can do on a skyshield.

It's only being accepted by goobs that might as well not bother using dice and just say "pew pew" at each other.

The stronghold assault book is a little different, the fortification networks might as well be banned because they suck so badly or in the case of the void shield network is just too stupid good. And no one with any sense will allow the Macro cannon or vortex missile building, people already have problems with the fortress of redemption. The rest is actually not bad for normal 40k.

**ClockworkZion**

Ravenous D wrote:
It's only being accepted by goobs that might as well not bother using dice and just say "pew pew" at each other.

Really? You're seriously taking cracks at people for having different taste than you?

**CthuluIsSpy**

Ravenous D wrote:

First had no D. Lord of skulls was blown up in 1 turn and the game lasted 20minutes after that. Chaos guy was not impressed. The second had the D, transcendent C'tan moved up 18" with his D slide, sprayed his hellstorm D template followed by the S6ap2 hellstorm template and the game was basically over. Opponent refused to play against escalation bs ever again. 3rd was a proxy of what a revenant titan can do on a skyshield.

It's only being accepted by goobs that might as well not bother using dice and just say "pew pew" at each other.

The stronghold assault book is a little different, the fortification networks might as well be banned because they suck so badly or in the case of the void shield network is just too stupid good. And no one with any sense will allow the Macro cannon or vortex missile building, people already have problems with the fortress of redemption. The rest is actually not bad for normal 40k.

How many points was the Lord of Skulls in?

**ClockworkZion**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How many points was the Lord of Skulls in?

Rocking Khorne's number thrice in a row. It's points cost is more based on fluff not actual power.

**CthuluIsSpy**

ClockworkZion wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How many points was the Lord of Skulls in?

Rocking Khorne's number thrice in a row. It's points cost is more based on fluff not actual power.

I know that, I was asking how many points the game was. If he was being used in something like 1k, of course the Chaos player will lose after it falls.

After looking at it's rules, I think it's points cost is indicative of it's power as well. It's not something I would want to engage in CC with, that's for sure.