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.

Thud wrote:


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.

Exactly, no one is forcing you to play the game. If you don't want to play against Tau you don't have to either. And I highly doubt this will be a thing, it'll be done a few times then get buried, especially after tournaments ban it into the ground.

Otherwise you get games like this:

That battle is just so sad. The only thing the chaos player had that could do significant damage was using puppet master on the enemy titan.

I won't mind giving it a go sometimes. However I do not want super heavy units shoved in my face all the time or just appearing in what I thought was a normal friendly game. Having to argue with friends about this thing will mean that it is not worth it.

Thud wrote:
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.

Not only can GW not prevent house rules, they encourage them too. Spirit of the Game mentions adding your own stuff to the game, and page 108 mentions you can use army lists from your own system.

As for the panic of "OH GOD STRENGTH D!!!!", what's stopping people from just saying "no thanks" to games like that? Or saying "sure, but only if we don't use Destroyer Weapons." Why is it always the death of the game as we know it and never seen as "let's communicate more about the game we want to play so no one walks away unsatisfied"?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
As for the panic of "OH GOD STRENGTH D!!!!", what's stopping people from just saying "no thanks" to games like that? Or saying "sure, but only if we don't use Destroyer Weapons." Why is it always the death of the game as we know it and never seen as "let's communicate more about the game we want to play so no one walks away unsatisfied"?

Because many people play 40k as a pickup game with random strangers, and this is yet another step of negotiation required. The general expectation is that you play against whatever (legal) army your opponent brings, and the more restrictions you place on what you're willing to play against the less likely you are to find anyone interested in playing with you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
As for the panic of "OH GOD STRENGTH D!!!!", what's stopping people from just saying "no thanks" to games like that? Or saying "sure, but only if we don't use Destroyer Weapons." Why is it always the death of the game as we know it and never seen as "let's communicate more about the game we want to play so no one walks away unsatisfied"?

Because many people play 40k as a pickup game with random strangers, and this is yet another step of negotiation required. The general expectation is that you play against whatever (legal) army your opponent brings, and the more restrictions you place on what you're willing to play against the less likely you are to find anyone interested in playing with you.

From the get go it's all negotiation. What point size you want, how you want to set up the table, determine deployment and missions, if you want or don't want FW, if you're allowing Double-FOC, what kind of competetive level you want, ect.

Seriously it's all a negotiation from the start no matter what, so adding in something like this isn't that hard. And realistically it's better for everyone involved if everyone is 100% upfront about what they want from their games instead of hiding behind excuses that this is somehow more inconvenient and the new thing that is "killing the game".

I swear new 40k stuff is like Facebook changes: everyone goes into a tizzy for a couple of weeks and then everyone moves on about it and accepts it as the way things are. Rinse, repeat forever.

My stance on D strength weapons is as follows:

The problem, in my opinion, with D-Weapons in normal games is that it renders so much of the armies bland and meaningless. Tanks, whether rhinos or landraiders will get popped just as quickly, as will infantry, whether paladins or grots.

The only things that are relevant are the titan, the few things that can kill the titan, and minimum cost scoring units. Draigowing is dead, screamerstar is dead, Seer Council is dead, anything that remotely resembles a small, elite army is dead.

So much flavor of the game vanishes under a pummeling from the D.


I hope for a ban in tournament play.

There is already too much that has to be houseruled as it is in a standard pick up game. Luckily most people already assume that you're going to place fortifications after terrain and ignore the mysterious terrain/objectives.

The real problem is that when you have to houserule to stop people from taking perfectly legal units, you become that guy. "Oh you can finally take your Eldar titan in more games now? Sorry I don't want to play that."

This is what really pisses me off about the whole thing. Because GW is so reckless with their supplements, and fortifications, and detachments, and allies, and now their Lords of War; now I have to step in and make up my own personal preference on what I want to play against. I may as well just hand my opponent a list of acceptable lists at that point.

But that's not what I want. I want a simple game where I can make a TAC list for each of the major points and not have to swap things out when up against a Titan. I don't want to tell other people what to run as much as I don't want people telling me what to run.

Hey guys, do you think that as a Dark Angel player the thunderhawk could make up for our terrible lack of flyers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually it seems like it could be really good for dark angels. You're only allowed to put units from one of the codexes able to use a transport, so that rules on inquisition in a normal space marine thunderhawk. This means that dark angels would be the only ones with access to divination, and all the goodies that come with it. IE invuln saves and prescience on superheavy transports.

Niexist wrote:
This means that dark angels would be the only ones with access to divination, and all the goodies that come with it. IE invuln saves and prescience on superheavy transports.

You can't cast psychic powers from inside a transport, and if you're outside the transport any battle brothers army can cast powers on the transport itself.

 Peregrine wrote:

Niexist wrote:
This means that dark angels would be the only ones with access to divination, and all the goodies that come with it. IE invuln saves and prescience on superheavy transports.

You can't cast psychic powers from inside a transport, and if you're outside the transport any battle brothers army can cast powers on the transport itself.

Actually I'm pretty sure that a unit inside a transport can cast psychic powers on its own unit, and the transport itself.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:
My stance on D strength weapons is as follows:

The problem, in my opinion, with D-Weapons in normal games is that it renders so much of the armies bland and meaningless. Tanks, whether rhinos or landraiders will get popped just as quickly, as will infantry, whether paladins or grots.

The only things that are relevant are the titan, the few things that can kill the titan, and minimum cost scoring units. Draigowing is dead, screamerstar is dead, Seer Council is dead, anything that remotely resembles a small, elite army is dead.

So much flavor of the game vanishes under a pummeling from the D.


I hope for a ban in tournament play.

Does it really kill these armies? I already listed how if your opponent being IG takes a shadow sword it isnt that effective. Seriously if your worried SPREAD OUT! If your opponent bring an eldar titan with 4 strength d large blasts then sure you may as well resign but why not read my last post? I personally think the only super heavy that ruins escalation is the eldar one.

Okay a shadow sword has strength d its 1 large blast shot at bs3, average scatter is 7inches, if you are super worried spread all your units out 2 inches apart and the large blast should only kill what 4 guys? and if it fires at a transport then okay it blows up 1 transport a turn and then if it fires at the guys inside it should only kill 4.

This is also assuming the strength d doesnt roll a 1 or scatter terribly off, think about it for 1 turn if that cannon scatters way off since its only bs 3 that 505 points gone! only one of the lascannons should hit a turn and thats not including an invuln or cover save and then that leave 3 twinlinked heavy bolters to make up 505 points for a turn.

Can anyone clarify as to what the warlord table is if your opponent takes a super heavy? it also gives up1 vp for every 3 hull points take off.

Its like I said before not every army has a counter to every army, you will see armies that you arent prepared for and you will lose. But is everyone and their friend going to go out and buy a super heavy now???? no! the only reason I even have 1 shadow sword is because my friends all pitched in as a gift. Not everyone have 120 bucks to just go out and drop money on a model especially since most tournies require a painted standard.

Also like I said before, tournies saw double FOC as over powered so they created 1999+1 do you really believe tournies will allow super heavies??? most will probably ban them as most tournies dont acknowledge gw expansions like cities of death.

Like I said I personally see at 1750+ the eldar titan is the only broken unit in escalation so far with its 4 strength d weapons but I dont see that as reason to completely bash everything else in escalation and say its terrible for allowing super heavies in a game. If you play a game of 1500pts or less and allow your opponent to bring a super heavy and you dont have one then you are asking to lose. But once you get to higher point games your army should have some sort of anti tank, if not then thats what your army lacks and will suffer from, Not every army can handle everything.

As an IG player I like running mass infantry with some russ support but when I played against eldar with their rerolling 2+ cover and against daemons with a 2++ I thought it was slowed that for competitive I basically need to take artillery and vendettas in order to to good. ive played casual games against friends and havent used vendettas or artillery and its sad that IG is so poor without those units in order for it to be competitive.

Sorry for the rant, long night but I personally believe if you play in a reasonable point value without using the eldar titan then escalation could be a nice twist to some games. If you start using LoW at low points and all your opponents start using the eldar titans then you might have a bad time.

I know for a fact I wont be going out to buy this titan and I know not everyone in the world will go out and buy it so there will obviously be lists without superheavies and their will be some with super heavies but not all armies will have them and as said most tournies will probably ban them.

 Ravenous D wrote:

Thud wrote:


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.

Exactly, no one is forcing you to play the game. If you don't want to play against Tau you don't have to either. And I highly doubt this will be a thing, it'll be done a few times then get buried, especially after tournaments ban it into the ground.

Otherwise you get games like this:

On the upside you'll be able to get like 10-15 games a day...

Well, at least it can be a great laugh if somebody fields a Rev. Titan. With puppet master, this guy killed almost everthing on the table. Indeed, four D 5'' blasts, that's ridiculous.

As for the panic of "OH GOD STRENGTH D!!!!", what's stopping people from just saying "no thanks" to games like that? Or saying "sure, but only if we don't use Destroyer Weapons." Why is it always the death of the game as we know it and never seen as "let's communicate more about the game we want to play so no one walks away unsatisfied"?

There is no rule that says you can say no thanks and lists are shown after the game , so you will see your opponent has a D weapon armed unit when he deploys it . You can of course drop the game when he deploys , but this means you just took a trip to where ever you play for nothing . for me that is 2 hours here and there by bus .

. Seriously if your worried SPREAD OUT! If your opponent bring an eldar titan with 4 strength d large blasts then sure you may as well resign but why not read my last post? I personally think the only super heavy that ruins escalation is the eldar one.

how do I spread a single manticor or a lemman russ ? he is more or less killing two tanks per turn or he can kill my vet chimeras . And before you say play footslogger blob IG , then I would like to point out that this army loses to tau and eldar , because it is too slow.

Its like I said before not every army has a counter to every army, you will see armies that you arent prepared for and you will lose.

taudar and demons do.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
As for the panic of "OH GOD STRENGTH D!!!!", what's stopping people from just saying "no thanks" to games like that? Or saying "sure, but only if we don't use Destroyer Weapons." Why is it always the death of the game as we know it and never seen as "let's communicate more about the game we want to play so no one walks away unsatisfied"?

Because many people play 40k as a pickup game with random strangers, and this is yet another step of negotiation required. The general expectation is that you play against whatever (legal) army your opponent brings, and the more restrictions you place on what you're willing to play against the less likely you are to find anyone interested in playing with you.

Completely agree. Also, the more things you tell your opponent they can't use or you wont play them, the more petty and obsessed with winning you appear. If you say: "I wont play you unless you don't use Tau, or Riptides, or X" everyone here should be able to grasp the principle that you sound like you just want to nerf your opponent and are blackmailing them into playing how you want. Why do some here think there is a difference with superheavies? Same principle, no difference. We don't want to face them and we don't want to seem like dicks for saying 'if you don't let me remove things from your army, you don't get to play'.

There's an expectation amongst most, rightly or wrongly, that what GW says is okay is the default. Defaults matter, they set expectations and determine whether something is 'normal' or you're asking your opponent to do something special just for you. Many of also enjoy a competitive angle to the game (and that's not just tourneys) - for that, an official set of rules is almost a requirement because it becomes: 'I want to use my best stuff' and 'well only because I played with one baneblade tied behind my back'.

Surely the above argument is understandable and there's nothing in there that is not factual. So why the antagonism?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
From the get go it's all negotiation.

No it isn't. That's the point. You agree on a points limit for that battle based on how many midels you have and how lomg you want to play. That's basically it. What this sort of stuff does, is FORCE it to be a negotiation with all the negatives that brings - starting a potentially antagonistic process with a stranger or even a friend (no, you're not allowed to use your new model because I say so and I know better than GW about what things should be costed at), additional delay, harder to play competitively when you begin the session by one side removing troops the other side doesn't like, etc.

I swear new 40k stuff is like Facebook changes: everyone goes into a tizzy for a couple of weeks and then everyone moves on about it and accepts it as the way things are. Rinse, repeat forever.

Or maybe not everyone plays in the same environment with the same people who share their same tastes with you.

 tankboy145 wrote:

Like I said I personally see at 1750+ the eldar titan is the only broken unit in escalation so far with its 4 strength d weapons but I dont see that as reason to completely bash everything else in escalation and say its terrible for allowing super heavies in a game. If you play a game of 1500pts or less and allow your opponent to bring a super heavy and you dont have one then you are asking to lose. But once you get to higher point games your army should have some sort of anti tank, if not then thats what your army lacks and will suffer from, Not every army can handle everything.

Sorry for the rant, long night but I personally believe if you play in a reasonable point value without using the eldar titan then escalation could be a nice twist to some games. If you start using LoW at low points and all your opponents start using the eldar titans then you might have a bad time.

I know for a fact I wont be going out to buy this titan and I know not everyone in the world will go out and buy it so there will obviously be lists without superheavies and their will be some with super heavies but not all armies will have them and as said most tournies will probably ban them.

This and this. I completely agree.

 UlrikDecado wrote:

 tankboy145 wrote:

Like I said I personally see at 1750+ the eldar titan is the only broken unit in escalation so far with its 4 strength d weapons but I dont see that as reason to completely bash everything else in escalation and say its terrible for allowing super heavies in a game. If you play a game of 1500pts or less and allow your opponent to bring a super heavy and you dont have one then you are asking to lose. But once you get to higher point games your army should have some sort of anti tank, if not then thats what your army lacks and will suffer from, Not every army can handle everything.

Sorry for the rant, long night but I personally believe if you play in a reasonable point value without using the eldar titan then escalation could be a nice twist to some games. If you start using LoW at low points and all your opponents start using the eldar titans then you might have a bad time.

I know for a fact I wont be going out to buy this titan and I know not everyone in the world will go out and buy it so there will obviously be lists without superheavies and their will be some with super heavies but not all armies will have them and as said most tournies will probably ban them.

This and this. I completely agree.

It's unfortunate, because Escalation had a lot of potential. Even within the Lords of War, there is terrible imbalance. It looks like the Transcendent C'tan and Revenant Titan are just going to dominate everything. LoWs like Baneblades and Shadowswords are fine, maybe even Stompas, but when the Revenant is on the field, you may as well just play Apocalypse instead.

Makumba wrote:

As for the panic of "OH GOD STRENGTH D!!!!", what's stopping people from just saying "no thanks" to games like that? Or saying "sure, but only if we don't use Destroyer Weapons." Why is it always the death of the game as we know it and never seen as "let's communicate more about the game we want to play so no one walks away unsatisfied"?

There is no rule that says you can say no thanks and lists are shown after the game , so you will see your opponent has a D weapon armed unit when he deploys it . You can of course drop the game when he deploys , but this means you just took a trip to where ever you play for nothing . for me that is 2 hours here and there by bus .

. Seriously if your worried SPREAD OUT! If your opponent bring an eldar titan with 4 strength d large blasts then sure you may as well resign but why not read my last post? I personally think the only super heavy that ruins escalation is the eldar one.

how do I spread a single manticor or a lemman russ ? he is more or less killing two tanks per turn or he can kill my vet chimeras . And before you say play footslogger blob IG , then I would like to point out that this army loses to tau and eldar , because it is too slow.

Its like I said before not every army has a counter to every army, you will see armies that you arent prepared for and you will lose.

taudar and demons do.

Congrats you spent 505pts of a shadowsword to kill 1 manticore(which should be hidden out of sight so idk why its even being shot at) so you trade 505pts to kill 160...nice And thats the same for a russ, a fully kitted out russ is about 210pts, congrats you had a good trade off. Not counting that you may roll a 1 and only do a pen or you may scatter terrubly off.

No im not suggesting foot guard but Im saying spread your vehicles out so he can only kill 1, okay he fires at a chimera loaded with vets or a rhino of marines, Wow 505pts just amazingly killed off 35 or 55pts!

And awesome taudar and daemons now dont, im glad, as an IG player its sad that if I want to play competitively I have to take specific units like Vendettas and Manticores. I should be able to take any unit I want and play a game strategically and win. But no theres armies that have reroll 2++ that can just run around absorb all shots and roll people, I dont think theirs much tactic in those armies except for keeping the one unit alive that gives the bonus. If that its almost impossible to do so!

Makumba wrote:

As for the panic of "OH GOD STRENGTH D!!!!", what's stopping people from just saying "no thanks" to games like that? Or saying "sure, but only if we don't use Destroyer Weapons." Why is it always the death of the game as we know it and never seen as "let's communicate more about the game we want to play so no one walks away unsatisfied"?

There is no rule that says you can say no thanks and lists are shown after the game , so you will see your opponent has a D weapon armed unit when he deploys it . You can of course drop the game when he deploys , but this means you just took a trip to where ever you play for nothing . for me that is 2 hours here and there by bus .

Wrong. Spirit of the Game on page 8. Games are supposed to be an enjoyable experience for everyone. Not everyone likes watching their army get skulldragged across the table. Communication about what you want is paramount in ensuring you actually try and make the game fun for both people.

And how is turning down D-Weapons any different than turning down a Double-FOC army, or a Triptide army? No one can force anyone else to play and anyone who likes to try and surprise his opponents with a Lord of War is likely going to be having trouble finding games.

knas ser wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
As for the panic of "OH GOD STRENGTH D!!!!", what's stopping people from just saying "no thanks" to games like that? Or saying "sure, but only if we don't use Destroyer Weapons." Why is it always the death of the game as we know it and never seen as "let's communicate more about the game we want to play so no one walks away unsatisfied"?

Because many people play 40k as a pickup game with random strangers, and this is yet another step of negotiation required. The general expectation is that you play against whatever (legal) army your opponent brings, and the more restrictions you place on what you're willing to play against the less likely you are to find anyone interested in playing with you.

Completely agree. Also, the more things you tell your opponent they can't use or you wont play them, the more petty and obsessed with winning you appear. If you say: "I wont play you unless you don't use Tau, or Riptides, or X" everyone here should be able to grasp the principle that you sound like you just want to nerf your opponent and are blackmailing them into playing how you want. Why do some here think there is a difference with superheavies? Same principle, no difference. We don't want to face them and we don't want to seem like dicks for saying 'if you don't let me remove things from your army, you don't get to play'.

I'm not claiming that you need a long list of things you don't want to play with or should be trying to strong arm anyone into anything. But turning down games that have D-Weapons is no more unreasonable than turning down games in 5th against IG Leafblower armies.

knas ser wrote:
There's an expectation amongst most, rightly or wrongly, that what GW says is okay is the default. Defaults matter, they set expectations and determine whether something is 'normal' or you're asking your opponent to do something special just for you. Many of also enjoy a competitive angle to the game (and that's not just tourneys) - for that, an official set of rules is almost a requirement because it becomes: 'I want to use my best stuff' and 'well only because I played with one baneblade tied behind my back'.

GW's default is "we're giving you all these options, so play what you like and have fun!" the community instead acts like everything that is legal must be used every game.

Did you know there is a note that talks about just agreeing to play certain missions with your opponent instead of rolling for them in Escalation? It's not a rule, but an option presented for people. But if you "have" to play the rules (which are only just a framework, not a concrete structure, again Spirit of the Game) then you can't do that, now can you?

GW flies loose with the restrictions because they're not trying to write people into corners and prevent them from playing, or not playing anything they want too. Farsight with Ethereals? Sure, now you can represent the time before he went rogue! An army of Plague Zombies? Typhus has obviously turned the masses on this planet against the defenders. Ect.

This game isn't a strict checklist of things you must do, but a loose collections of ideas you can do.

knas ser wrote:
Surely the above argument is understandable and there's nothing in there that is not factual. So why the antagonism?

It wasn't antagonism, it's how I really feel whenever the doomsayers come out. Everything always ruins the game...for about two to three weeks then we mostly move on and stop worrying about it. I was just commenting that the first thing people do is cry the game is ruined, the last is actually wanting to talk to their opponents.

knas ser wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
From the get go it's all negotiation.

No it isn't. That's the point. You agree on a points limit for that battle based on how many midels you have and how lomg you want to play. That's basically it. What this sort of stuff does, is FORCE it to be a negotiation with all the negatives that brings - starting a potentially antagonistic process with a stranger or even a friend (no, you're not allowed to use your new model because I say so and I know better than GW about what things should be costed at), additional delay, harder to play competitively when you begin the session by one side removing troops the other side doesn't like, etc.

I swear new 40k stuff is like Facebook changes: everyone goes into a tizzy for a couple of weeks and then everyone moves on about it and accepts it as the way things are. Rinse, repeat forever.

Or maybe not everyone plays in the same environment with the same people who share their same tastes with you.

It's not even the enviroement I play in (and I have played in more than one) it's this constant cloud that hangs overhead when you participate with the online community and how so many apparently don't want to talk to their opponents in a game that requires you to talk to your opponent to make it work. It's baffling that people "shouldn't" have to talk about if they want D-Weapons or not, when there is already a whole list of other things people ask about or refuse to play with all the time. Why are D-Weapons suddenly the thing that's so hard to ask about? I mean your opponent should already not be a dick and trying to sneak in things that on you, but is it really that hard to talk to people to make sure both people are getting what they want, or do I apparently live on an island by myself when it comes to this concept of "decent human beings playing games together"?

Maybe this is why we need, I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, now when we have D strength weapons. If you know you are going to get shot at, you make sure, you are close to your enemy so they get shot up as well.

One of the reasons why I stopped playing 40K. Found it not fun, especially if you are 2nd and you can't do nothing but watch and see your army get shot up on turn 1.

I dont like it personally
Theres a doubles tourney coming up at the store
1750 with 1 FOC
Me (Tau) my friend (nids)
we share the FOC and all armies count as Allies of convience

I thought this was going to be fun
but now he says that we can take a lord of war..
I said thats broken.. he goes on to tell me how balanced it is and that it will be fine

I said fine.. Im not taking my tau anymore... Im taking my necrons with a trancendant Ctan with a hellstorm strength D

he then says im a dick and its a good thing he gets to pick who I go up against..
I just said.. thanks for proving my point... its rediculous

I said fine.. Im not taking my tau anymore... Im taking my necrons with a trancendant Ctan with a hellstorm strength D

Its not the most durable gargantum creature but it can be equipped with two hellstorm weapons. Ouch.

ImotekhTheStormlord wrote: Draigowing is dead, screamerstar is dead, Seer Council is dead, anything that remotely resembles a small, elite army is dead.

So much flavor of the game vanishes under a pummeling from the D.

Wait, there is "flavor" in taking small elite armies?

This sounds like one bad thing killing another bad thing.


Not exactly a "good" scenario, but all it's doing, like I've seen mentioned, is screw over WAACers by creating all of these ridiculous combo killers.

And well, nobody really likes those guys anyway.

 wuestenfux wrote:

I said fine.. Im not taking my tau anymore... Im taking my necrons with a trancendant Ctan with a hellstorm strength D

Its not the most durable gargantum creature but it can be equipped with two hellstorm weapons. Ouch.

I know he dies easily

but i will be kitting him with both hellstorm templates...
we will see what he can do..
and with this loadout I believe he is around 660p (which doesnt seem that bad for what you get.. if I get him in a good position I could kill that many points in 1 shooting phase)

Whats the range on the ctan weapons? Hellstorm with D sounds way worse than 4 blasts. The hellstorm is huge and probably doesn`t scatter. Sounds like taking a helldrake and turning it up to 11

 Illumini wrote:
Whats the range on the ctan weapons? Hellstorm with D sounds way worse than 4 blasts. The hellstorm is huge and probably doesn`t scatter. Sounds like taking a helldrake and turning it up to 11

Indeed, the hellstorm template is huge and doesn't scatter while the 5'' D blasts of the Rev. Titan can. In our apoc games we noticed that scattering of a 5'' blast against the centre of a Baneblade is generally not a big problem. Most of the time, the blast still hits the tank since the Baneblade is so huge.

Let's not forget the Strength D Vector Strike it can do.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Thud wrote:
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.

Not only can GW not prevent house rules, they encourage them too. Spirit of the Game mentions adding your own stuff to the game, and page 108 mentions you can use army lists from your own system.

As for the panic of "OH GOD STRENGTH D!!!!", what's stopping people from just saying "no thanks" to games like that? Or saying "sure, but only if we don't use Destroyer Weapons." Why is it always the death of the game as we know it and never seen as "let's communicate more about the game we want to play so no one walks away unsatisfied"?

^This.

This game is supposed to be played between friends, not hostile strangers. Friends talk. If you are playing with strangers, I think you should make an effort to communicate.

If someone brings the most competitive stuff he has to a game, then he should accept the possibility that many people will not play with him. It is not fun. It is awfully boring, awkward and unfair for people who want to play the game as it is supposed to be played. Read the rulebook: house rules and "talking" are part of the game. GW actively encourages it.

I like Escalation, but if I bring a superheavy to a battle with a stranger and I am unable to tone down or adapt my list if needed I am doing it wrong. And if I bring a 1000 pts fluffy list and someone brings a superheavy.... well it is a "no thanks" for me. No bad feelings, but no need to waste anyone´s time.