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.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:


You're confusing supplements with expansions. Expansions are alternate game modes, supplements are official rules for the regular game.

Just like you're confusing literal meanings of words with intent?

Until I see it printed in the main rulebook gargantuan creatures and lords of war are just part of the main game, and it continues to require an extra book which adds several extra rules to the game, I am not playing against someone utilizing gargantuan creatures and lords of war (without a lot of prior notice so I can be prepared.) I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment. I also don't think I'm alone in that if/when something like that happens, I'll move on to greener pastures of other games.

I understand how you feel. What I'm saying is Escalation is a supplement when it should have been an expansion. It should be an option both parties have to agree to in order to use. Instead it is as much a part of the game as the allies chart, and both players have to agree not to use if you don't want to worry about being stomped by a Revenant Titan.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

It should be an option both parties have to agree to in order to use. Instead it is as much a part of the game as the allies chart, and both players have to agree not to use if you don't want to worry about being stomped by a Revenant Titan.

Wheres the problem with just dont playing against someone with an escalation list if you feel your army isnt prepared for it? Theres nothing requiring you to play against someone if you dont want. You can avoid tournaments that allow LoW so in the end it doesnt even make a difference if its a supplement or an expansion. The only place where someone could surprise you with a superheavy is in a friendly. How can someone force me to play a friendly against his revenant army? Please explain.

In our club for example we have a non competitive environment. Someone showing up with a triptide/seer council/taudar/whatever list will run out of opponents quickly and will stop to show up fast or adapt. Same with someone that thinks fielding a revenant without telling beforehand would be okay. The problem you are describing just doesnt exisit in reality.

Well, in our local tournaments we don't play with superheavies or D weapons of any kind. At the moment, the majority of players wants it in that way.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think it helps to nitpick over the semantics of supplementary versus expansionary rules. Both of them -- Apocalypse, which isn't described by GW as an expansion anyway, and Escalation -- are external to the core rulebook, and the new units depicted are extra to the standard codexes.

Only people who have bought the extra rules know how to play with them. The population of Apoc/Esca purchasers is a subset of the population of 40K purchasers, so there is often going to be a problem when you bring the new rules and units to a standard game.

The same could be said of codexes, though. I don't own a Tyranid codex. I have no intent of buying a Tyranid codex. But if someone brings a Tyranid army, there aren't any issues with it.

My biggest gripe is that Destroyer weapons are *too powerful.* The last edition's rules were far more balanced. Now, you're completely screwed if you have to invest any significant amount of points in single models.
(For reference: Old Destroyer weapons were all AP1 or 2, +1 on Vehicle Damage chart, ignores cover, auto-wound, auto-pen, instant death. That's still really strong, but it's nothing compared to a near garuntee of instant-killing vehicles, vapporising EW models in one hit, and yet... For sone reason Nurglings are fairly resilient against them. In fact, Nurglings are as resistant as Marneus Calgar or Ghazkull Thraka or the Swarmlord.)

Yes, of course it could, and that's another criticism of GW, since different codexes have masses of special rules unto themselves, unlike a historical game in which any army from any "codex" uses a subset of the rules found in the rulebook.

Tell a WRG Ancients player that a unit is Irr C JLS MI, or Reg B HTW, D HI, and he will know immediately what they are like and be able to judge their fighting characteristics.

Escalation and Stronghold assault are as legal to Play as the Tau or Eldar codex.

I know stronghold *does* have a section of optional rules that you and your opponent may agree on, however none of the fortifications in the book are optional rules.

Not sure about escalation, cant recall.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
If you're part of some form of tournament, league, campaign or other form of organised play you generally don't have the choice to refuse to play against an opponent without forfeiting.

I see your point, but even here you should be aware of what rules are allowed in your league/tournament/whatever and you can still choose not to participate. For example, this weekend in the Seattle area there are two tournaments going on, one in Olympia, the other in Seattle. The Seattle event is allowing Escalation, Forgeworld and Stronghold Assault. The one in Olympia is not allowing any of those, but is allowing dataslates. Given that these two locations are about equidistant to my house, I'm attending the event in Olympia and I've told the organizer of the Seattle event that I'm passing on that event due to the inclusion of Escalation.

It's a different matter if you don't have that kind of choice in your area. I feel for you if your choice is to play against that stuff or not play at all, but there is always a choice. You could always start your own league or tournament or whatever that bars Escalation.

D-weapons weren't an issue for us. It's almost impossible to one-shot the Stompa and it forced us to get creative with our lists. Game was quick, lots of fun and looked great.

I just find it strange that so many people seem to think it is terrible for the game without ever playing it. I am always willing to give something a chance before just writing it off. My advice is to jump on board, get a superheavy, and have some fun!

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
D-weapons weren't an issue for us. It's almost impossible to one-shot the Stompa and it forced us to get creative with our lists. Game was quick, lots of fun and looked great.

I just find it strange that so many people seem to think it is terrible for the game without ever playing it. I am always willing to give something a chance before just writing it off. My advice is to jump on board, get a superheavy, and have some fun!

I've seen games won in a single turn because of D-weapons. Sure, you can't one-shot a Stompa, but D weapons *will* one-shot 500 point Deathstars, nigh-indesctructible super warriors, and basically everything you can bring to a normal 40k game.
Unless you bring a super-heavy of your own, there's little that can stand against an enemy's super-heavy. And I don't like the idea of bringing a Super Heavy to every single game I play.

 Mywik wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Mywik wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Aren't Warhounds FW and not escalation , the only titan in escalation is the eldar one ?

FW released a list of units that are legal in escalation shortly after the escalation release. The Warhound is in that list.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/L/lordsofwar.pdf

Forge World does not get a say in what is legal in anything except Apocalypse.

Sorry ... but what?

With the publication of Warhammer 40,000: Escalation, players now have the option of taking Lords of War choices in their armies. The following is a list of Forge World models that should be considered Lords of War choices and may therefore be taken using the guidelines detailed in Warhammer 40,000: Escalation, along with the publication in which the model’s most up to date rules can be found.

Looks like they have a say. What are you trying to say? Please dont start a "FW isnt official"-debate no one cares about.

honestly the whole FW debate starts to look silly once you add super heavies to the mix "so my FW made thunderhawk is cool, but my FW made titan isn't.... because?"

blaktoof wrote:
Escalation and Stronghold assault are as legal to Play as the Tau or Eldar codex.

I know stronghold *does* have a section of optional rules that you and your opponent may agree on, however none of the fortifications in the book are optional rules.

Not sure about escalation, cant recall.

Even so, I would be easy in my mind to refuse to play either of them, while I would never refuse to play a core codex.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Tell a WRG Ancients player that a unit is Irr C JLS MI, or Reg B HTW, D HI, and he will know immediately what they are like and be able to judge their fighting characteristics.

Ah, the good ole days of WRG 7th. It was filled with arguments as well. I think Americans just have a hard time with English written rules.

-Grim Dark

At first I thought it was cheesy but I came around. And now with SA it's more balanced. It should be discussed beforehand.

 Grim Dark wrote:

Ah, the good ole days of WRG 7th. It was filled with arguments as well. I think Americans just have a hard time with English written rules.

-Grim Dark

Education point of the day: Americans tend to be an extremely anal people when it comes to wording. It has to do with the fact we're a letigious society. Our country was built on laws and the courts having great power and influence in our lives, as well as the ability to change it through legislation. The UK operated for centuries under the idea of Common Law, while the US has no such things. If it's not written, it's not a legal rule.

The long and short of it is, people from my country expect things to be worded in ways that are unambiguous and leave no room for error. It unfortunately drives a large segment of our population to obey the letter of the law and not the spirit of it. It's why YMDC is a wasteland of giant egos and angry people, rather than folks who rationally talk how they'd play a situation.

Obviously these are sweeping generalizations as people in the UK are capable of being as anal retentive as any American just as any American is as capable as a Brit of having a dry wit.

Americans with dry wit... Lies!!

 crazyfoxdemon wrote:
I have no problem with Escalation and would gladly play it if both players agreed upon it. However, that's the thing. If both players agree upon it. I'm not about to force my Stompas on someone who doesn't want to play against them. That just makes things not fun for everyone.

This.

When my Ork army finally gets finished (sometime this decade hopefully with the amount I still have to do) it'll have a Stompa & Kill Bursta as I flat out like the models, no matter what the rules actually are. Really looking forward to getting them on a tabletop sometime but would only ever expect to field them against someone agreeing to play against them. For a standard 40k game I'd be leaving them at home and running with the fluffy footsloggers, even up against my pal's Tau army complete with its 3 Riptides and multiple Hammerheads & Broadsides. Sure chances are I'll get my backside handed to me, but hey, we'll play over a few beers & it'll be a laugh.

The key thing is players should agree on the kind of battle they're having beforehand, or in a tourney setting, have clear prior notice on what's in/out of the lists.

When I first heard about it, I was excited.

I've never been keen to play Apoc, but there are a handful of super heavies I'm a fan of, but could never justify buying just to use as display (they're hard enough to justify as it is)

So, Escalation, tailor made for me, right?

Ah, no. I'm sorry, but I believe in having as fair and even a contest as possible, as a close game means a more fun game for me, and if I win, I feel like it meant something more substantial, and if I lose, at least I can spend the next week analysing the game in my head and trying to learn from it.

If they had spent more time and effort in genuinely incorporating super heavies into 40K proper, rather than cut/pasting the Apoc rules, chiefly D weapons, but also being selective in what units were eligible (FW kinda guilty for that more than GW proper) and maybe thrown in a few fun new rules for the hell of it, I'd be all over it.

As it stands, it's just another great GW idea, poorly executed, as has happened so frequently lately.

The CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT thinks it is brilliant, but that it does not solve the question of what to put in it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT thinks it is brilliant, but that it does not solve the question of what to put in it.

Another CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT of course!

Who else thinks Escalation is brilliant?

I do. I get to use my Stompa and Ork Battle Fortress.

I have not played... however, with the new Imperial Knight I plan on getting, and Warhammer 7th Edition out May 2014, incorporating data slates, escalation, stronghold assault, and some tweaks to 6th....I will be doing it soon! WooHoo

As a dark eldar player, I must respectfully but firmly disagree with anyone who thinks escalation allows for balanced games when some armies haven't a single super heavy unit to bring, and others have only weak or outrageously expensive ones (Tau barracuda; money and points-wise).

You'd be completely right, if DE didn't access to the Revenant. Ironically though, Tau do get rather gimped when it comes to Escalation. Peaks and troughs as it were.

Still, Escalation is about as balanced as a drunk polar bear on a unicycle.

I entirely agree that it was a good idea, but with poor execution.

D weapons really are the crux of the matter, but even beyond D weapons, there are superheavies which are enormously powerful and imbalancing without them (Bio-titan, for one).

Forgeworld's version of "lords of war" in their Horus Heresy ruleset made a hell of a lot more sense; it can be no more than 25% of your total points, only in games of 2k+ and none of their Lords of War have D weapons.

How hard would that been to introduce into the game? I was hoping that escalation would encourage the use of the lower-tier superheavies myself; heirodules, Macharius/Malcador tanks, Brass Scorpions and so on, with the only St D being when they blow up magnificently. Instead, it's just another avenue for powergamers to do their thing, being painfully easy to exploit.

That being said, having to deal repeatedly with insanely broken stuff inside normal 40k, I do occasionally have the urge to drop some D templates on Wave Serpents and the entire Daemon codex.

 Mywik wrote:

Looks like they have a say. What are you trying to say? Please dont start a "FW isnt official"-debate no one cares about.

Haha this guy sums it up nicely

Lots of people get really upset when you bring up the topic of Forgeworld because they got stomped by a guy utilizing a model bought from there once upon a time, or so I find. They are also the types of people who run Tri-Riptide and Eldar Jetbike Warlock Councils. Go figure.

As does this guy.

Escalation is a blast. A D blast to be precise.

You quote someone saying not to start a debate, then deliberately attempt to provoke a debate? The troll is strong in this one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Even so, I would be easy in my mind to refuse to play either of them, while I would never refuse to play a core codex.

Which is fine, but that's just your personal preference. There are plenty of people who would never refuse to play against a list with a Baneblade just because it's from Escalation, but would reject codex-only lists that they don't like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
but also being selective in what units were eligible (FW kinda guilty for that more than GW proper

Really? IMO the FW stuff is much more balanced and reasonable, it's the GW Escalation book that did stupid stuff like giving Eldar a blatantly overpowered titan while only giving Tau a terrible flyer that nobody will ever use. Really, the FW list looks like them just saying "fine, if GW is going to bring in this nonsense you can use all of our stuff too". Adding things like Warhounds and railgun Tigersharks just evens it up a bit.

(Also, fun fact: all of those D-weapon units were terrible when FW first published them. For example, the original Warhound titan's turbolasers were STR 9 AP 2 small blast. Those units didn't become powerful until GW published the original Apocalypse expansion and introduced D-weapons, 7"/10" blasts, etc. Meanwhile FW's own superheavies have had much saner rules than the stuff GW has done.)

 MajorStoffer wrote:
Forgeworld's version of "lords of war" in their Horus Heresy ruleset made a hell of a lot more sense; it can be no more than 25% of your total points, only in games of 2k+ and none of their Lords of War have D weapons.

Small nitpick: some of them do have D-weapons. Titans are available (though obviously not below 3000 points for a Warhound), and you're also allowed to take Shadowswords (which, granted, have a much worse D-weapon than the titans).

As for the system as a whole, it's not a bad idea, but IMO it's still not perfect. The 25% cap is kind of small for normal games (30k is meant to be played in the 2000-3000+ range) since even relatively weak stuff like Baneblades won't fit. IMO the 40k version should have been a 33% cap that also takes up your allied detachment.

Esscalation, as a whole, is pretty good.
It even gives the superheavy-depraved player some bonuses to compensate, and make it a different, yet very intresting type of game.

There are two SPESIFIC issues in there.
The eldar titan
The C'tan.
These two are overpowered, that's the end of the story. fix these two, and the game turns out fine.
Most other SH are even practically underpowered for the price, FW one included. (tau suffer the worst here, out SH are all practically useless)
As proof, in recent turnies that DO allow SH, nearly nobody brought any regardless. and that's a "WAAC" environment if there is any.

 Peregrine wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
but also being selective in what units were eligible (FW kinda guilty for that more than GW proper

Really? IMO the FW stuff is much more balanced and reasonable, it's the GW Escalation book that did stupid stuff like giving Eldar a blatantly overpowered titan while only giving Tau a terrible flyer that nobody will ever use. Really, the FW list looks like them just saying "fine, if GW is going to bring in this nonsense you can use all of our stuff too". Adding things like Warhounds and railgun Tigersharks just evens it up a bit.

(Also, fun fact: all of those D-weapon units were terrible when FW first published them. For example, the original Warhound titan's turbolasers were STR 9 AP 2 small blast. Those units didn't become powerful until GW published the original Apocalypse expansion and introduced D-weapons, 7"/10" blasts, etc. Meanwhile FW's own superheavies have had much saner rules than the stuff GW has done.)

I'm not saying Fw stuff shouldn't be in Escalation, but that the list should have been more selective than "here's everything we make for Apocalypse"

Phantom Titans in "normal" 40K, I mean, come on?

 BoomWolf wrote:
Esscalation, as a whole, is pretty good.
It even gives the superheavy-depraved player some bonuses to compensate, and make it a different, yet very intresting type of game.

There are two SPESIFIC issues in there.
The eldar titan
The C'tan.
These two are overpowered, that's the end of the story. fix these two, and the game turns out fine.
Most other SH are even practically underpowered for the price, FW one included. (tau suffer the worst here, out SH are all practically useless)
As proof, in recent turnies that DO allow SH, nearly nobody brought any regardless. and that's a "WAAC" environment if there is any.

The worst part is, both OP titans belong to top teir armies already. If Blood Angels had an OP titan, nobody would complain because they currently suck so much.