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 only ever use the trans c'tan in 3000pts and up games, then you can have some really great battles.

For smaller games I just dont see it right, gw should have made LOW like can only take in 2500+ or 2000+ armies, like back in fantasy when you can only take certain characters if you had X amount of points.

BrianDavion wrote:
fact is, a gaming group whom all loves fluffy units is absolutly the best gaming group to play unbound with. because they're apt to sue unbound to have more fun with fluff, doing things that are fluffy, but "CAD breaking"

Its more for outsiders and newcomers to our group rather than the current members.

@Tyrannosaurus
All I was doing was sharing my experience of LoW for the OP.

Saying "no LOW" is about as logical as stating "no flyers" or "no Eldar" because you dislike NS or WS spam armies.

SOME LoW are horrible, with TCtan being a prime problem. MOST LoW are pretty terrible for their points, and are an active hindrance to you if you take one - any macharius or malcador hull, for example

 Deadshot wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
I think many groups are too quickly to ban stuff.
Why ban Unbound? It seems that everyone in the group is against cheese.. Why not keep Unbound legal and have a gentlemen's agreement against cheesy stuff?
Have you actually fought against Lords of War, like the Imperial Knights?

We ban Unbound because we enjoy fluffy armies and hate spammy or unfluffy armies (outside IG where spammy is fluffy). We don't want to see 6 Wraightknights and Wave Serpents galore without excellent reason.
Plus its easier to keep track of. With so many different detachments now its getting overwhelming. We use a standardised FOC for all armies and factions. You may take the usual FOC we've come to know, and the allies detachment from 6th Ed. You can take any number of allies, dataslates, etc, as long as they fulfill requirements such as 1+ HQ.
We also believe that super heavies and GCs should remain in Apocalypse only, as they were originally intended.

Except then you'd be banning fluffy armies like Terminator chaos armies and the like.

 Zewrath wrote:
Did your oponent mention that when he brings a LoW, you are allowed to roll on the escalation Warlord table, wich have insane buffs towards fighting LoW's? Sounds like you played against TFG. Sorry for your bad exerience.

Incorrect, this was during sixth edition as you had to use it to bring a LOW at all, in seventh those things are only under escalation missions.

 Deadshot wrote:


@Tyrannosaurus
All I was doing was sharing my experience of LoW for the OP.

Apologies if I was a bit strong, there's been a lot of back and forth over this in other threads so I was probably a little defensive/overbearing. Anyway like I said best option if funds are tight is just to ally in your own C'Tan when you play this guy of read up on how to take out/avoid. Much better solution than just refusing to play legal lists.

 Zewrath wrote:
Did your oponent mention that when he brings a LoW, you are allowed to roll on the escalation Warlord table, wich have insane buffs towards fighting LoW's? Sounds like you played against TFG. Sorry for your bad exerience.

No, you're not allowed to do that unless you play an Escalation-mission.
That table is not present in the 7th Edition BRB.

Makumba wrote:
The difference is to counts as a ctan he can use any necron size model and to get an anti ctan you have to order a baneblade from china, and it isn't that good against the ctan. Or your community would have to accept FW, but then one may as well stop playing as it stops to even matter, if you have the cash to buy models.

You can always go to a local toy store and get a big tank for 20 dollar

I absolutely hate it when people do a 'counts as' for powerplaying.
If you want to play an overpowered, 700 point model, you better pay for it.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
On the other hand, just saying "no Lords of War," isn't really a solution, as now you're ruling out models like Ghazghkull Thraka, who are nowhere near the scary end of the LoW spectrum.

No Lords Of War is a pretty easy rule to follow.

It may not be an ideal solution if you want to allow some LoW units and not others. It is a solution, though.

Have GW got the game to to point now that armies are unviable against each other without any LoW involved?

FW's Horus Heresy where the concept of LoW originated had a rule that the LoW could not take up more than 25% of the army's points. I always thought that was a sensible restriction, and stopped a single model entirely dominating the game.

And the smaller superheavies are definitely not overpowered. I have played some games using my Knight, and shooty armies tend to drop it on turn two. Last game I used it ended in a crushing defeat , as the Knight was quickly destroyed having killed only two Ravenwing bikers.

I find most of the people that are against lords of war, are ones who are unable to adapt to them. You're much better suited to try and counter them. You'll find you get better and big bad lords of war won't be so scary. They're tons of fun to field on the table and to play against. Hope this helps!

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I find most of the people that are against lords of war, are ones who are unable to adapt to them.

Because it's impossible to adapt to them with a TAC list. And I want to play "Take All Comers 40k", not "Pseudo Apocalypse 40k". Lords of War are cool in apocalypse games, but I don't want to play apocalypse all the time and I resent that I'm being forced to just so GW can make a few bucks.

(And making Logan and Ghazghkull into Lords of War is such an obvious trojan horse)

The 25% rule is a good guideline to follow. It won't prevent you from bringing Logan to a 1500 point game, but will prevent Knights, C'Tan and Baneblades from appearing in sub-2000 point games (and keeps Titans squarely in the realm of Apocalypse, where they belong).

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I find most of the people that are against lords of war, are ones who are unable to adapt to them. You're much better suited to try and counter them. You'll find you get better and big bad lords of war won't be so scary. They're tons of fun to field on the table and to play against. Hope this helps!

I was a fluffy player that didn't like them because they imbalanced the game and made it into something I didn't enjoy playing. My SOB army had plenty of meltas to take them out, that wasn't the problem. It was the style of game they created that I didn't like.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I find most of the people that are against lords of war, are ones who are unable to adapt to them. You're much better suited to try and counter them. You'll find you get better and big bad lords of war won't be so scary. They're tons of fun to field on the table and to play against. Hope this helps!

Consider this the exception but I must say I am not included in this group you speak of. I played against and with Lords of War before it was cool (very early 6th Ed). My friend had a Shadowsword he wanted to field so we set up a 2K game with his Shadowsword+ another 1550 IG vs 2k Space Marines. A Stormraven dropping in Calgar and a Tactical Terminator Squad (5th Ed book, and Terminators armed with Heavy Flamer and Chainfist). Calgar ripped it to shreds.

The next time we played the same set up with 2.5K, against my GK. 1 Dreadknight with PT and Greatsword=win.

Next time we played vs my Nids. This was after the 6th Ed Nid book dropped so my Mawloc did a hell of a lt of damaged, and a swarm of 20 Genestealers on the flank kept the entire rest of his army busy while my Carnifex punched a hole in its hull.

Another friend decided to use a Stompa in a 2K game and reaped a heavy tally before a meltabomb from a scout sergeant ripped it in half. I've also beaten Eldar superheavies and an Ork Squiggoth with GK in both cases.

On the other hand, I've had a 3.5K army go up against 2 Phantom Titans (double FOC at end of 6th Ed) and a few supporting Guardians and get butchered. I've went up against Transcendent C'tan and cried afterwards. Someone brought a pair of Reavers and a Warhound to a 3K game and I was tabled turn 4.



LoW are very hit or miss. Either you do amazingly against them, or you get butchered. They are fun on occasion but not all the time.

 DanielBeaver wrote:

The 25% rule is a good guideline to follow. It won't prevent you from bringing Logan to a 1500 point game, but will prevent Knights, C'Tan and Baneblades from appearing in sub-2000 point games (and keeps Titans squarely in the realm of Apocalypse, where they belong).

Isn't the Paladin Knight exactly 25% of 1500?

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I find most of the people that are against lords of war, are ones who are unable to adapt to them.

Because it's impossible to adapt to them with a TAC list. And I want to play "Take All Comers 40k", not "Pseudo Apocalypse 40k". Lords of War are cool in apocalypse games, but I don't want to play apocalypse all the time and I resent that I'm being forced to just so GW can make a few bucks.

(And making Logan and Ghazghkull into Lords of War is such an obvious trojan horse)

The 25% rule is a good guideline to follow. It won't prevent you from bringing Logan to a 1500 point game, but will prevent Knights, C'Tan and Baneblades from appearing in sub-2000 point games (and keeps Titans squarely in the realm of Apocalypse, where they belong).

That's just...false.

The vast majority of LoD require no adaptation at all to them, and fighitng them is not very different from a MC spam/tank spam-two things who are already very possible and require just as much attention anyway.

In all seriousness, in 1500 points list you can run into 6 or more MCs or AV13/14 tanks without even going into multiple FOC, some armies can have ALOT more. (you can fit 9! punishers in a 1500 list, that's 27HP with front 14.)
Its just absurd to single out a big tank as anything a TAC list can't handle when these kind of minmax list are already easy to make.


The lords of war, as stated, are one of three types:
1-"The Trinity" (Tctan, warhound and revenant) who are OP on their own right within or outside of apoc games.
2-"Big Boys/Supersized", covers pretty much every GMC and SH LoW outside of the trinity, these guys are usually UNDERpowered, and more often that not gimping the use in favor of being cool as hell.
3-The new "Superheros" class, who are "light LoW" type. new category that seems to cover the "best of the best" of the ICs out there. no point to even argue about these guys-they used to be HQ units and their new LoD status just prevents bringing the superheroes as allies (as the status covers more guys across different codices)

 BoomWolf wrote:

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I find most of the people that are against lords of war, are ones who are unable to adapt to them.

Because it's impossible to adapt to them with a TAC list. And I want to play "Take All Comers 40k", not "Pseudo Apocalypse 40k". Lords of War are cool in apocalypse games, but I don't want to play apocalypse all the time and I resent that I'm being forced to just so GW can make a few bucks.

(And making Logan and Ghazghkull into Lords of War is such an obvious trojan horse)

The 25% rule is a good guideline to follow. It won't prevent you from bringing Logan to a 1500 point game, but will prevent Knights, C'Tan and Baneblades from appearing in sub-2000 point games (and keeps Titans squarely in the realm of Apocalypse, where they belong).

That's just...false.

The vast majority of LoD require no adaptation at all to them, and fighitng them is not very different from a MC spam/tank spam-two things who are already very possible and require just as much attention anyway.

In all seriousness, in 1500 points list you can run into 6 or more MCs or AV13/14 tanks without even going into multiple FOC, some armies can have ALOT more. (you can fit 9! punishers in a 1500 list, that's 27HP with front 14.)
Its just absurd to single out a big tank as anything a TAC list can't handle when these kind of minmax list are already easy to make.


The lords of war, as stated, are one of three types:
1-"The Trinity" (Tctan, warhound and revenant) who are OP on their own right within or outside of apoc games.
2-"Big Boys/Supersized", covers pretty much every GMC and SH LoW outside of the trinity, these guys are usually UNDERpowered, and more often that not gimping the use in favor of being cool as hell.
3-The new "Superheros" class, who are "light LoW" type. new category that seems to cover the "best of the best" of the ICs out there. no point to even argue about these guys-they used to be HQ units and their new LoD status just prevents bringing the superheroes as allies (as the status covers more guys across different codices)

Amen brother. It's no different. People just pigeonhole themselves into only thinking one way and not adapting. Lords of war are fine.

In my area LoW is not an issue. The beauty of 40k is you find like minded players and play how you want. We have 8 regular players in our group and simply do not include LoW. If I ever wanted to play with LoW I would seek out a group that prefers to include them.

Same with tournaments, you have the rules before you sign up and can choose to play or not. The reasons why someone chooses to play or not to play LoW are not important IMO, we all have a choice.

cnpopo wrote:
In my area LoW is not an issue. The beauty of 40k is you find like minded players and play how you want. We have 8 regular players in our group and simply do not include LoW. If I ever wanted to play with LoW I would seek out a group that prefers to include them.

Same with tournaments, you have the rules before you sign up and can choose to play or not. The reasons why someone chooses to play or not to play LoW are not important IMO, we all have a choice.

That's fine if you've got lots of different gaming groups around you, and you're mobile. What if (and I'm assuming this applies to most people) you only have one group/store locally, who, for no other reason than "I don't think they should be in 40k because Lords of War" don't allow them? Surely it's reasonable to expect to turn up with a legal list and be allowed to use it? I'd be pretty pissed if I turned up with my Space Marines and was told I couldn't use drop pods or bikes because they're too powerful and don't fit in with the vision of what 40k should be to the veterans at the shop/group.

If I want to play Lords of War I have the rules on my side. You have opinion.

People who are not interested in playing with LoW will just drop the game and play something else.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
People who are not interested in playing with LoW will just drop the game and play something else.

Good. Better this than stopping others using perfectly legal lists and forcing them to play 40k the way they think it 'should' be played.

Makumba wrote:

LoW are here now, so the same two options apply.

The difference is to counts as a ctan he can use any necron size model and to get an anti ctan you have to order a baneblade from china, and it isn't that good against the ctan. Or your community would have to accept FW, but then one may as well stop playing as it stops to even matter, if you have the cash to buy models.

Slightly wrong here about he can take any c'tan model for the trancendent C'tan. it has it's own model the other two C'tan are shards and do not represent the Trancendent C'tan's base size or height.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
People who are not interested in playing with LoW will just drop the game and play something else.

Good. Better this than stopping others using perfectly legal lists and forcing them to play 40k the way they think it 'should' be played.

play my way or get out!
Thats healthy for 40k. Good thing they're not losing players by the day. Oh wait, they are.

Actually, the one refusing to play the LoW is doing exactly the same "play my way or get out" thing. Except his position is different from what the rules say.

I have yet to see someone win a game when fielding a stompa against any kind of serious army. It's easier to stop a stompa than to stop a blitz brigade (five scouting battlewagons). For what reason are you denying some a game with his perfectly legal GW model?

That's the problem with lords of war, no ifs no buts they are entirely legal and using them is exactly the same as using something from the fast attack slot. Just like some units are more powerful than others, the same goes for lords of war. Unfortunately, most answers to a Lord of War are often another Lord of War.

Most answers to lords of war, are the same things you use to answer tanks or MCs to begin with.

What is the difference, offinsive-wise between killing a tank squad, and killing a single big tank?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

cnpopo wrote:
In my area LoW is not an issue. The beauty of 40k is you find like minded players and play how you want. We have 8 regular players in our group and simply do not include LoW. If I ever wanted to play with LoW I would seek out a group that prefers to include them.

Same with tournaments, you have the rules before you sign up and can choose to play or not. The reasons why someone chooses to play or not to play LoW are not important IMO, we all have a choice.

That's fine if you've got lots of different gaming groups around you, and you're mobile. What if (and I'm assuming this applies to most people) you only have one group/store locally, who, for no other reason than "I don't think they should be in 40k because Lords of War" don't allow them? Surely it's reasonable to expect to turn up with a legal list and be allowed to use it? I'd be pretty pissed if I turned up with my Space Marines and was told I couldn't use drop pods or bikes because they're too powerful and don't fit in with the vision of what 40k should be to the veterans at the shop/group.

If I want to play Lords of War I have the rules on my side. You have opinion.

I have more then opinion on my side. Page 116 clearly says in bold "players must agree on how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use". So I have rules on my side.

The point I was making is everyone can choose to play or not to play. If you don't like playing against grav centurians, or tactical squads or pink grots then that is your choice. Claiming you have the rules on your side has no merit however, as the above quote says games must be agreed upon which was my original point.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
People who are not interested in playing with LoW will just drop the game and play something else.

And yet, I'm still here. o.o

I think the issue is that while they are a legal unit (Won't deny that), I feel it is gentlemanly/womanly to at least INFORM your opponent when bringing such a unit. I won't deny a game because someone is using a LoW or some other Super Heavy. But knowing they were bringing it would have been nice so I could have at least prepared for it. Especially as an Ork player, my tools for dealing with such a unit are pretty far and few between. So, I'd like to be allowed to properly prepare and not be destroyed by turn 2 or 3.

I myself have yet to play my Stompa. I wish to play with it a couple of times, but I've been politely asked not to field it, and that's fine. He can come along in the Apoc game coming up this weekend for his first game, and that's fine too. I'm not upset I was asked not to use it. My opponent didn't think it would be fun to face such a unit, or felt he didn't have the models to beat it. And that's FINE.

But the people who plug their ears and simply repeat "Rules say I can!" like a 5 year old really bug me. Maybe other people's game groups are either so large they can afford to alienate players left and right. Our group is fairly small, roughly 20 of us. But we are all on good terms, like each other, and do what we can to have an enjoyable game eacgh and every time we put models on the table. Just because the rules say I can do this or that, doesn't mean I need to be a jack off and do it despite knowing it will ruin the experience for the other players.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Most answers to lords of war, are the same things you use to answer tanks or MCs to begin with.
What is the difference, offinsive-wise between killing a tank squad, and killing a single big tank?

Well, you should play against a Stompa with a KFF-Mek in it to understand the difference
A dozen HP's, 5++, IWND and some Meks to keep repairing it.

 Zewrath wrote:
Did your oponent mention that when he brings a LoW, you are allowed to roll on the escalation Warlord table, wich have insane buffs towards fighting LoW's? Sounds like you played against TFG. Sorry for your bad exerience.

Agreed, those traits are very useful if it's just you. Free tank/monster hunter, sign me up. Did you also get Victory point if 3 wounds/HP are gone?

 Zewrath wrote:
Did your oponent mention that when he brings a LoW, you are allowed to roll on the escalation Warlord table, wich have insane buffs towards fighting LoW's? Sounds like you played against TFG. Sorry for your bad exerience.

Actually in 7th literally the ONLY mention to that book is under the LoW description, and all it says is that rules for such models can be found in some codices or the escalation book.

I saw what that book puts in for LoW and i just went "dafuq?" - seriously, it ruins the fun of bringing one since theyre not THAT hard to kill outside the two reeeeaaaallly big ones that have been mentioned already multiple times and those rules basically make you auto-win if you kill one (what was it 1VP per 3HP removed or something dumb like that?)