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 am wondering how people feel about allowing the use of the Lord of War characters we have seen so far in the first three new seventh edition codices (i.e., Ghaz, Logan Grimnar and Draigo) for tournaments. None of them seem overpowered to me compared to some of the other Lord of War entries such as the Trans-C'tan and Revenant Titan. Some of you might remember there was once a time when you required your opponent's permission to use special characters... Seems like we are falling back into that mode of thinking again. Should it be all or nothing or would you prefer to allow the use of characters?

Personally, I'd go with a ban list. Or an acceptance list.
Whichever is shorter.

Several options:

- No LoW allowed, including characters.
- All LoWs allowed, so no issue.
- Only character LoWs allowed.
- Ban/accepted list, with character LoWs allowed.
- LoW characters instead count as an HQ choice for their codex.

Personally I think either all LoW, or selective lords of war. I think the outright banning of LoW is now an outdated concept.

Ban list. If it can drop a Helstorm template, keep it out. Maybe a few select others. But yeah, most LOW are fine under 7th edition rules.

How about using a percentage such 20-25 percent like 30k ?

I don't think a percentage system is needed. What ruins the fun of the game (and competitive balance) is the 18", often torrent, Helstorm template. At lower point levels, the cost of most LOWs make them poor competitive choices (one guy in Austin brought a Revenant and 8 bikes to a 1250 tourney and lost at least 2 of his 3 games). At higher levels, the new "D" weapon rules that allow cover most of the time balance them out. It's the auto hit, ignore cover nature of the ridiculously sized Helstorm that makes it plain unfun to play against.

Basically currently the C'tan and any unit that can throw out a Helstorm or blast larger than 5" that ignores cover. Outside of those it should be open season.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Basically currently the C'tan and any unit that can throw out a Helstorm or blast larger than 5" that ignores cover. Outside of those it should be open season.

Out of curiosity, why ban the C'tan if the hellstorm option is the "problem"? Why not just ban that option? It has plenty of other choices without ignores cover.

C'tan is a whole bag of over the top. Really the only LoW that I've seen where that is the case outside of their weapons. His banning is seperate from the weapon ban based on being horrible

The templates and blast guideline is just a simple way to make sure the weapons don't end up on the table. It makes an easy ban list for units. Make a ban list for an upgrade is harder for people reading to the rules for the event to catch. Especially since it's not like they name weapons "Helstorm Cannon" or " 7+" Blast Template that is AP2 and Ignores cover"

I would much rather see a banlist done with a scalpel than a cleaver. If you think the Transcendent C'Tan is a bigger problem than just a few weapons options, then that might merit it's own discussion.

Selective ban list is where I think most people will go with time, because GW really wants us to use Lords of War (let's put basic dudes in there alongside titans! They're heroes so it's fine!!!111111oneoneoneeleventyone). Draigo might be the breaker; with Gate all the time, he's quite useful for some builds, and making Pallies obsec is pretty cool. People will want to use him, so they'll push for him. Noisy people. Less so the case with Ghazkull and Logan, both of whom are fairly not great. It's one of the highlights/realities, that most players actually do care more about units that are competitive.

Where does Draigo make Pallies obsec? Did I miss that?

On the whole all 3 "LoW" characters aren't that great. Paying 245 for gate and a tank isn't amazing. Ghaz is arguably worse than he was. And Logan is worth his points but not a force multiplier.

On the whole a selective ban list is what should be used. Take units that completely bust the game (more so than normal) out of it and there you go. And so far only the weapons I noted above and the C'Tan are generally considered horrible enough for removal. That kinda sets the bar

Draigo no longer makes paladins troops, so no obsec. And stat wise he's not much different than a daemon prince, good at CC with some psychic powers.
Logan and Ghaz aren't radically changed either, definitely not into an incarnation that puts them in the same class as a Warhound or even a Shadowsword. A simpler allow list would be "only codex units" if you wanted to allow them but restrict apoc/escalation. If you want the other stuff, a ban/allow list would be the best way.

Orks can haz Stompas!

 Hulksmash wrote:
Basically currently the C'tan and any unit that can throw out a Helstorm or blast larger than 5" that ignores cover. Outside of those it should be open season.

Why do the anti-MEQ weapons need to be banned? I've heard this claim before, and every time the only argument seems to be "it's not fair to make marine players feel the pain of removing models without a save like every non-marine player has to do", and that argument is nonsense. That Stormsword might be scary on paper, but the ban argument seems to ignore the fact that it's 500 points and is going to struggle to kill 500 points of MEQs/TEQs before it is destroyed. How about instead of banning units we just expect marine players to understand how to use 2" coherency to minimize the value of blast weapons, take MSU squads to avoid offering an ideal death star target for the LoW to kill, and accept that this is 40k and models die?

 greyknight12 wrote:
Draigo no longer makes paladins troops, so no obsec. And stat wise he's not much different than a daemon prince, good at CC with some psychic powers.
Logan and Ghaz aren't radically changed either, definitely not into an incarnation that puts them in the same class as a Warhound or even a Shadowsword. A simpler allow list would be "only codex units" if you wanted to allow them but restrict apoc/escalation. If you want the other stuff, a ban/allow list would be the best way.

Built in Gate is a big deal .

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Built in Gate is a big deal .

But somehow it wasn't a big deal when people had Tigurius fishing for it with re-rollable ML3 and sticking him in a buffed-to-heck centurion star for 80 points cheaper.

It's still not a big deal and now there's no reason not to run them both.

400pts limit

or no D weapons that Ignores Cover

They are the only two limits worth considering

You'll probably see a yes to character lords of war and no to the super heavy and gargantuan creature lords of war. It's jervis being passive aggressive, that's all it is really.

Come on MVB get with the program please. Last week I could take Draigo no questions asked. Duh ...