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.

 Lockark wrote:

 UlrikDecado wrote:


Please dont... they take most powerful thing with D weapons (or is something better? Im not 100% sure), put against it clearly "unprepared" army and than both of them laughs how ridiculous it is without chaos player trying to make some strategy or VP? Dunno...Im still not conviced that some of LoW are not too destabilizing, but this was just "hey guys, lets make video how its clearly OP, lets make it argument in the style Angry Joe! - yeaaaaah, damned superheavies!" :(

I love playing pick-up games with all comer lists. I don't like building a army based on what i know my oppent is bringing/playing because if i win i don't feel like I won it by being a better player. I one it by out rock-paper-scissor'ing my opponent.

That video bassicly shows why that thought process is dead in the water now. A oppent could bassicly just drop that into a game and yuck it up. Because I know for a fact none of my "all comer lists" could deal with that. All my time in 5th, even when i know the game was going to be a bad match up anyway, I would still play the pick up game to challenge myself.

For the 1st time, I know for a fact I will have to refuse to play people if they start pulling out certain super heavies.

I agree with you with building all around army. But for me it means counting with as many enemy types as possible. I cant guess about what my army would do to the list, because it depends on points, but for me its about countering specific threats...but it also coincides with my rather defensive counter strategy. I still think that people do not count enough the victory points in the LoW and fact, it swallow so many points and has limited number of attacks.

But also, I guess the more points the more powerful LoW is. IMO bringin it for example on 1000pts is suicide,

 AtoMaki wrote:

The Transcendant C'Tan is in Escalation. And it was just an example .

Well, then. That's a problem.

So as long as we aren't counting D weapons and your opponent is fully kitted out to take down a Titan or flying fortress then Escalation is decently balanced.

Sounds about what I'd expect.

And when Escalation allows D weapons... What then?

Since it does and all. So does Stronghold. So stupid.

 UlrikDecado wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

 UlrikDecado wrote:


Please dont... they take most powerful thing with D weapons (or is something better? Im not 100% sure), put against it clearly "unprepared" army and than both of them laughs how ridiculous it is without chaos player trying to make some strategy or VP? Dunno...Im still not conviced that some of LoW are not too destabilizing, but this was just "hey guys, lets make video how its clearly OP, lets make it argument in the style Angry Joe! - yeaaaaah, damned superheavies!" :(

I love playing pick-up games with all comer lists. I don't like building a army based on what i know my oppent is bringing/playing because if i win i don't feel like I won it by being a better player. I one it by out rock-paper-scissor'ing my opponent.

That video bassicly shows why that thought process is dead in the water now. A oppent could bassicly just drop that into a game and yuck it up. Because I know for a fact none of my "all comer lists" could deal with that. All my time in 5th, even when i know the game was going to be a bad match up anyway, I would still play the pick up game to challenge myself.

For the 1st time, I know for a fact I will have to refuse to play people if they start pulling out certain super heavies.

I agree with you with building all around army. But for me it means counting with as many enemy types as possible. I cant guess about what my army would do to the list, because it depends on points, but for me its about countering specific threats...but it also coincides with my rather defensive counter strategy. I still think that people do not count enough the victory points in the LoW and fact, it swallow so many points and has limited number of attacks.

But also, I guess the more points the more powerful LoW is. IMO bringin it for example on 1000pts is suicide,

I agree with you on stuff like the baneblade. Problem is not all lord of war are made equal.

Another nice example is the mighty Stompa whose cc weapons are D weapons. Fast and hard hitting. Ouch!

I'm still baffled that Tau only got the bad Tigershark with transport capacity for drones, because drones really needed a flying super heavy transport.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The new book contains the rule set, same as for apoc, data sheets (same pt costs as in the apoc book) for the Baneblade pattern tanks, Thunder hawk, KLoS, Obelisk, Trans. C'tan, Tess. Vault, Stompa, Rev. Titan, Tiger Shark, and Harridan, and a set of six missions.

What no skullhamma? Orks have a baneblade ripoff. That would seem more reasonable in points cost at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Davor wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The new book contains the rule set, same as for apoc, data sheets (same pt costs as in the apoc book) for the Baneblade pattern tanks, Thunder hawk, KLoS, Obelisk, Trans. C'tan, Tess. Vault, Stompa, Rev. Titan, Tiger Shark, and Harridan, and a set of six missions.

Thank you very much for the quick reply.

You're welcome.
Additionally, there are two pages explaining the Lords of War ruleset.
In particular, if your opponent fields a superheavy, your warlord can choose to roll on the escalation warlord traits table instead of one of the normal warlord traits tables.

Unless your warlord is a special character with set rules, then you are boned.

I need to ask one question, I haven't find time to read the whole threads about escalation. Please can someone answer me if this new book is free for anyone to play or should you agree if the enemy plays it? I mean am I going to play at my LGS and find out another kid with new escalation super 40k end killer list with titans ruin the competitiveness of the game?

Picked up the book today.

One thing people appear to be misreading is that the special Esculation Warlords Table can be used by both sides if they both have Lords of War, not just fi you don't have one and are fighting one.

Its very annoying that the Adepta Sororitas get nothing from this book..........

Its a bit wierd the Dark Eldar using Revenants............which seem very very good.

only if you play a special character , your warlord trait is fixed and you can't switch it to the escalation one and a lot of the tables are rolle for only in the special scenarios from the book.

Makumba wrote:
only if you play a special character , your warlord trait is fixed and you can't switch it to the escalation one and a lot of the tables are rolle for only in the special scenarios from the book.

losing scout is acceptable for my white scars, but what about armies that have no choice? What about deathwing or ravenwing, who need characters like belial. Or the farsight enclaves, you have to take ovesa.

Poor planning for this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I was told that superheavies are immune to tesla and grav weapons. Are they only mostly unharmed by sniper shots now?

Well I was told that superheavies can't be effected by weapons with a str stat.

I love the escalation warlord table. For marines or tau it could be cool . prefared enemy or armor bane in melee , no scater when you deep strike 6" away from the super heavy. Not so awesome when your warlord has geq stats. The one turn rending +ap1 on all weapon is the only one cool , but it is one turn only and your warlord has to be alive to use it .

I see where if you use the eldar titan with what 4 strength d large blast shots will be broken and destroy most armies but not counting that titan and using say baneblades or shadow swords would the game still be broken?

I mean a shadow swords main weapon is its volcano cannon with 1 strength d large blast at bs3 and if you take sponsons you now add on 2 twinlinked heavy bolters for a total of 3(it already has one stock) and then you get 2 lascannons (not twinlinked). Is this really broken in say 1850-2k? I mean its just a russ with better rear armor and a stronger large blast.

So looking at pros and cons I personally think it would be stupid to bring a lord of war in low points as thats where I see it unreasonably unfair. So for this I would say use escalation rules at 1750+.

The tank itself is 500 some points which will tank a good chunk out of your army then you have your hq and troops you need as well. So say in 1750 you take a shadowsword with sponsons, a CCS, and 2 vet squads and because vendettas can almost be argued into every IG list then add 2 vendettas and you only have 795 points left? not including any special weapons on your guys and that leaves one of your squads without a transport.

So for this point just to take a super heavy you are looking at using a bit of points.

Most people argue that the Battle tank is terrible as if your opponent is "properly spaced" then you will kill maybe 4 models? well shadow sword has the same large blast(except it really kills whatever it hits)(unless it rolls a one)

The tank is bs3 so there is a good chance that large blast is scattering.

both lascannons are bs3 so effectively only 1 should hit a turn and guess what 3 twinlinked heavy bolters, well unless its got a 4+or worse save I dont see them being effective.

Pod heavy armies would tear this tank open easily. Or any army that can get melta across the board easily.

I didnt read much else in the book but the person without a LoW gets bonus points for removing hull points and can get a roll on a new warlord table.

So aside from the eldar titan and playing in 1750+ would a super heavy really be OP?

I believe its almost impossible for a persons army to be able to counter every army in the game so I someone brough a LoW and you werent prepared then of course you may lose.

Also a question I didnt get the escalation book so I havent read through it but I didnt get the stronghold assault book. Im pretty sure the stronghold book says that those are updated rules to the game that are allowed in 40k games but is that the same with escalation? Is it an expansion like apoc or is it just a standard rule now that armies have the option for a LoW?

I think you can make many of the Lords of War even more scary with Divination? It certainly helped a Warhound in a recent battle - and I can;t see anything any more about Superheavies ignoring Psychic powers - although they are pretty much immune now to Scrabs which is good

Escalation is allowed:

Page 34: "If you wish, you can take a Lords of War detachment when choosing your force. This is an optional detachment just like Fortifications and Allied detachments, as shown in the Force Organization Chart opposite."

Basically, your Primary Detachment, which is required consists of a minimum of 1 HQ and 2 Troops. Everything else is considered optional including Lords of War.

On the plus side, if you are facing off against armies with 2+/2++ rerollable saves, you now have access to things that can handle them.

However, just like anything else, this can get horribly abused as well.

But, to be clear, it's perfectly legit to bring it to a regular game of 40K. It will be up to your opponent whether he/she wants to play against it which is just like any other game of 40K you play.

Well, after looking through Escalation it's pretty cool. I know I was mad about it before, but whatever. I'd still never expect an opponent to play one without asking, and I'd be up for the challenge to face one if asked.

Revenants are fairly cheap too, so I'd imagine they'll be getting some views.

I'm hoping that FW releases some more options for the Lord of War slot, could be interesting.

It's meant for fun, and if you can take it in the sense that it is released great. Before I was judging it too harshly, it's something to add a challenge to a 40K game, no one is going to out rightly demand to play with a Lord of War, I mean come on.

I too was surprised SoB didn't get anything, but I'm sure that they'll probably gain access to something as Forge World continues to make books.

Tournaments will just ban them, so it's not a big deal. That video is... whatever, I will be spending more of my Dakka time away from the 'tournament' threads. D-weapons stink, but everything else we should just tolerate... oh well.

Play the game for fun, and if your opponent brings a Lord of War, talk to them about it as I would talk to an opponent about bringing it. Let's not blow this thing out of proportion.

For IG our only way of getting prescience is inquisitor for 55 points or allying in a marine which then adds the librarians cost with then his troop tax. But if you do that then you have a lone psyker out there and pretty much the best way to guard him in an IG army is with a blob which then adds more of a tax on your army and then if you want close combat weapons, special weapons or heavy weapons it continues to add points to your army. But like a said before you can twinlink that shadow swords large blast but if your opponent is spaced out you wont be hitting many models.

From the GW Digital Editions Facebook Page:

Question:

Bjørn Berg Olsen Please tell me Escalation requires consent?

Answered:

Games Workshop: Digital Editions Hi Bjørn,
As with all our rules, they are as official as you decide to make them.

The intent is that they be used in regular games of Warhammer 40,000, but I'd hope no-one is going to force you to play a game you don't want to.

- Eddie

Of course this will be debated and argued about forever anyway....

 cvtuttle wrote:
From the GW Digital Editions Facebook Page:

Question:

Bjørn Berg Olsen Please tell me Escalation requires consent?

Answered:

Games Workshop: Digital Editions Hi Bjørn,
As with all our rules, they are as official as you decide to make them.

The intent is that they be used in regular games of Warhammer 40,000, but I'd hope no-one is going to force you to play a game you don't want to.

- Eddie

Of course this will be debated and argued about forever anyway....

So it sounds like---- if a tourny allows it then you will have to play against the opposing enemy super heavy or just lose(but just being reasonable Im pretty sure tournies will ban the book just like how there is 1999+1 games to not allow double FOC)

IF you are playing a pick up game and your opponent brings one then you obviously have the option to say "hey I dont want to play against that, so dont use it or I wont play you"

What more is there that can be argued?

Seems the main problem is neither d-weapons or super-heavies being allowed, but rather that some of those super-heavies are grossly undercosted. As mentioned, a shadowsword is hardly that great, a single large blast is not very scary for infantry. Sure, sucks for land raiders and riptides, but for 500+ pts, the damage output is mediocre.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

 Matt1785 wrote:

In all seriousness though, I am a casual "Hobby" player, so I could see maybe one or two games against titans.. but I definitely won't be playing EVERY game against a Titan... hopefully others feel the same way.

Everyone loves a Attack on Titan.

SIE SIND DAS ESSEN UND WIR SIND DIE JAEGER!

In seriousness, though, I am disappointed that, as a Chaos player, I can't use a Baneblade. I know Baneblades aren't particularly competitive or even good as far as superheavies go, but I just really like Baneblades and would very much like to have one in my army.

That said, I probably will be using a Baneblade anyway in casual (in other words, all) games.

wait what does chaos even get? (both variants)

The big guy that comes in a plastic kit sold by GW, of course.

Was that a trick question?

 StarTrotter wrote:


wait what does chaos even get? (both variants)

Chaos Space Marines only get the Fat Lord of Skulls, not sure about Chaos Daemons.

Deamons only get access to the Lord of Skulls as well.
Because there's only one Chaos god.

 Illumini wrote:
Seems the main problem is neither d-weapons or super-heavies being allowed, but rather that some of those super-heavies are grossly undercosted. As mentioned, a shadowsword is hardly that great, a single large blast is not very scary for infantry. Sure, sucks for land raiders and riptides, but for 500+ pts, the damage output is mediocre.

Right.
I found that the Stormlord (I guess its the right name) is more scary, since it has a 10'' blast, S10, AP1, ignoring cover. It blasts away all your units behind an Aegis in one volley as seen in our last apoc battle.

It seems that the Eldar love is still very strong at GW. Rather amusingly they still refuse to fix points costs, even with strong evidence.

I think what depresses me the most about the Escalation book is the fact that GW has decided to make, almost unannounced changes to the core rules.

This, coming without any notice and barely a year after 6th edition dropped (which had big changes itself e.g. overwatch and flyers) is, to me, rather infuriating.

I understand that GW is a business, and needs to be a profitable one for its shareholders, but it just seems like they're trying to push too many products in too short a time, and without enough notice.

Sorry if this seems like a rant, but I've play 40k since the 90's and I just get frustrated at GW's current way of force-feeding us updates month after month.

Harry.

knas ser wrote:

 tankboy145 wrote:
Yea I would agree that D weapons dont belong as you can drop monstrous creatures and vehicles like nothing. But when you play against a unit with a rerollable 2+ cover or invuln then the game is just stupid and a D weapon is the perfect solution!

I'm of the opinion that two wrong's don't make a right. Yes, it is a counter to the 2+ reroll invuls. But if one badly designed thing marginalizes normal units and play, then adding a second thing that marginalizes normal units and play doesn't necessarily reduce the problem, it just marginalizes farther. And the game becomes about these units even more.

Escalation is a good name for this book. Do I need to remind people that the word escalation is almost always used negatively, e.g. nuclear escalation. One person has them so others get them, and conventional armies become less relevant.

Pretty much. Its ony going to increase problems.

The pretend problem of 2++ deathstars in casual 40k is so off the charts that people need to bring super heavies to prevent that from ever happening? C'mon guys, I know its the internet but you cant be that stupid. No tournament worth its salt will allow super heavies, and a majority of tournaments are looking into the 2++ deathstars.

And really, why are you playing against that stuff anyway? And do you really think the guy at your store is going to be all "Oh boy Strength D, I'll just pull out my screamerstar list because this will work totally in my favour!".






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dirty Harry wrote:
I think what depresses me the most about the Escalation book is the fact that GW has decided to make, almost unannounced changes to the core rules.

This, coming without any notice and barely a year after 6th edition dropped (which had big changes itself e.g. overwatch and flyers) is, to me, rather infuriating.

I understand that GW is a business, and needs to be a profitable one for its shareholders, but it just seems like they're trying to push too many products in too short a time, and without enough notice.

Sorry if this seems like a rant, but I've play 40k since the 90's and I just get frustrated at GW's current way of force-feeding us updates month after month.

Harry.

Honestly dude, don't worry about it, this will go away and wont see the light of day unless your buddy wants to have a "dumb game". Talk to anyone in real life and their face says it all.

 cvtuttle wrote:
From the GW Digital Editions Facebook Page:

Question:

Bjørn Berg Olsen Please tell me Escalation requires consent?

Answered:

Games Workshop: Digital Editions Hi Bjørn,
As with all our rules, they are as official as you decide to make them.

The intent is that they be used in regular games of Warhammer 40,000, but I'd hope no-one is going to force you to play a game you don't want to.

- Eddie

Of course this will be debated and argued about forever anyway....

I've never understood people who get hung up in what's official or not. GW can't force anyone to use Escalation, and they can't stop people from making house rules. Same goes for tournaments. What GW says is irrelevant, the rules pack tells you what goes.