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.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Why is Lord of War a bad thing? Can anyone explain this to me?

Tranny c'tans are bad mmk?

that did nothing to answer my question...

Why is Dante being a LoW a bad thing?

It wasn't the original question

But its not a bad thing.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Why is Lord of War a bad thing? Can anyone explain this to me?

Lords of War aren't bad but having a named character like Seth in the same category as a Baneblade or Warhound Titan is unnecessarily complicated. It's an escalation of war that a lot of players aren't ready for and shouldn't have to endure. An Imperial Knight, a baby Lord of War, is still a beast and changes the game completely. Far more than fliers or elite infantry or tanks could hope for. Makes the game into 'who can kill the biggest tank'. And that's what fits in the same slot as Dante now.

Anyone know if Honor Guard is still a thing? Would like to know if my Melta gun, Jump pack, Storm Shield HG should be torn apart...

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Why is Lord of War a bad thing? Can anyone explain this to me?

If I'm not mistaken...
If your opponent doesn't have a lord of war in their list, they get free VP for killing yours, even if it's just some T4 dude who's not anymore threatening than a chapter master with shield eternal from standard marines codex.

Also, I'm not sure if it only applied to super heavies or not, but the opponent also gets a good warlord table that focuses on giving their warlord anti-lord of war stuff, and +1 seize

So we are going back a Pre-2007 No Assault Troop Army.
>I don't see as that much of an issue. For me this I m going to have to split up my Assault Squads into two different builds.
Elites: As Vanguard Vets, well it like all of the extra S5, I5 Attacks. As Death Company, the Same.
Fast Attack: As Assault Squads, well they will no long be OS, but with the New Detachment, I would not OS Anyway.
Troops: Well I was wanting an excuse to get the New Shiny Tactical Squad. With the Fast Rhinos and the fact that we can now take Multiple-Assault Weapons and Bolt Pistols, those Tactical Squads can Act Like Assault Squads. You Also Still Have Assault Scouts [Especially if we got Storms].

Then of course We Have Unbound, that Solves Everything.

niv-mizzet wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Why is Lord of War a bad thing? Can anyone explain this to me?

If I'm not mistaken...
If your opponent doesn't have a lord of war in their list, they get free VP for killing yours, even if it's just some T4 dude who's not anymore threatening than a chapter master with shield eternal from standard marines codex.

Also, I'm not sure if it only applied to super heavies or not, but the opponent also gets a good warlord table that focuses on giving their warlord anti-lord of war stuff, and +1 seize

only if you play escalation. which is not mandatory.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Why is Lord of War a bad thing? Can anyone explain this to me?

Tranny c'tans are bad mmk?

that did nothing to answer my question...

Why is Dante being a LoW a bad thing?

Because you still have to pay the HQ tax to get him on the board. But, with the overabundance of cheap HQs, this shouldn't be a deal breaker. I am probably going to pick Dante up now.

I wonder if there is something in the Tacticals that says they can take Special Wargear.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Why is Lord of War a bad thing? Can anyone explain this to me?

Tranny c'tans are bad mmk?

that did nothing to answer my question...

Why is Dante being a LoW a bad thing?

Some folks don't like all LOWs because some are bad. They're LOW-ist.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Why is Lord of War a bad thing? Can anyone explain this to me?

Tranny c'tans are bad mmk?

that did nothing to answer my question...

Why is Dante being a LoW a bad thing?

The biggest problem with characters as LOW is they it means they can't be the compulsory HQ. This isn't so bad for BA as they will almost certainly have a priest or two in HQ, but for for example, take Orks. With Ghazkul as a LOW, it's a bit stupid/annoying to have to have another Warboss or HQ running around after him.

niv-mizzet wrote:

When you already have the well-entrenched standard house rule of "no unbound," it's pretty much gonna be the same process though. :(

Maybe, but you really cannot expect GW to write codices based on people's house rules. Unbound and Lords of War are part of the standard rules, so this new codex did not render your army unplayable, your house rules did.

Assault marines as troops never made any sense anyway; BA do not have any more of them than any codex chapter does (then again, vanilla marines shouldn't be able to take bikes as troops either.)

 Desubot wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Why is Lord of War a bad thing? Can anyone explain this to me?

If I'm not mistaken...
If your opponent doesn't have a lord of war in their list, they get free VP for killing yours, even if it's just some T4 dude who's not anymore threatening than a chapter master with shield eternal from standard marines codex.

Also, I'm not sure if it only applied to super heavies or not, but the opponent also gets a good warlord table that focuses on giving their warlord anti-lord of war stuff, and +1 seize

only if you play escalation. which is not mandatory.

Aren't you automatically playing escalation if you use a lord of war?
Or do you have the option to take say...a thunderhawk or reaver and then tell the opponent you're not playing escalation?
I remember reading escalation and trying like...2 games, and since then, I've always assumed that the LOW slot means you crack it open and let the opponent have a bunch of advantages for you taking one. If it's not that way, then I guess LOW is ok?

I don't mess with the tournament scene at all, but don't a lot limit Lords of war? I could see a lot of people getting irritated that their 160 point, slightly boosted, captain is now considered the organizational equivalent of a Warhound.

I'm by no means trying to jump on the GW hate train, but Seth as a LoW seems to make sense from a fluff perspective, and not at all from a crunch perspective. Not sure I get this decision. Maybe they're trying to free up space in the now extra crowded HQ slot?

niv-mizzet wrote:


Aren't you automatically playing escalation if you use a lord of war?
Or do you have the option to take say...a thunderhawk or reaver and then tell the opponent you're not playing escalation?
I remember reading escalation and trying like...2 games, and since then, I've always assumed that the LOW slot means you crack it open and let the opponent have a bunch of advantages for you taking one. If it's not that way, then I guess LOW is ok?

No you are not.
7th force org automatically comes with the LOW slot.

Escalation added that into 6th that didnt have it.

It also listed some basic LOW as not all books had it.

Now LOW are all over the place from forgeworld to your normal book.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Why is Lord of War a bad thing? Can anyone explain this to me?

Tranny c'tans are bad mmk?

that did nothing to answer my question...

Why is Dante being a LoW a bad thing?

Some may argue that it's because you will still need to purchase an HQ on top.

niv-mizzet wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Why is Lord of War a bad thing? Can anyone explain this to me?

If I'm not mistaken...
If your opponent doesn't have a lord of war in their list, they get free VP for killing yours, even if it's just some T4 dude who's not anymore threatening than a chapter master with shield eternal from standard marines codex.

Also, I'm not sure if it only applied to super heavies or not, but the opponent also gets a good warlord table that focuses on giving their warlord anti-lord of war stuff, and +1 seize

only if you play escalation. which is not mandatory.

Aren't you automatically playing escalation if you use a lord of war?

Nope, if you aren't running a mission form the Escalation book, then its rules don't apply. You can just use the basic core 7E rules and bring a Reaver Titan as part or a normal "battleforged" list, and none of those advantages apply.

You where probably taking a priest anyway and your warlord can be any character so

are the fast rhinos dedicated?

Well then, it's nice to know that Dante can fit without taking a spot away from the very contested HQ section, and without the disadvantages that our entire group thought they had.

Seriously we have an ork player who hasn't run ghaz since their book because we all thought he brought all the escalation-associated stuff with him.

 Desubot wrote:
You where probably taking a priest anyway and your warlord can be any character so

I suppose this is true. You could look at it as freeing up another HQ slot to take instead if you want two priests in your list.

This Codex actually sounds far more interesting than previous one. I've always liked Blood Angels, but never got around starting them: I played few proxy matches with the WD Codex and liked it (!). However, the Ward-dex totally killed my interest. They became just so over-everything, they didn't feel like a dying chapter anymore.

Too bad that I am now too invested with Dark Angels to start another Marine Chapter. It's understandable that many BA players who had all-Jump Pack armies are pissed, no matter how much sense that change makes lore-wise.

I actually kinda shudder whether they will remove Troop Terminators from next DA codex...OTOH, at least they can't make it suck any more, right...?

 Crimson wrote:

Maybe, but you really cannot expect GW to write codices based on people's house rules.

No, but you should be able to expect them to continue the defining characteristic of the army that they added to differentiate that army from the myriad of other similar ones. For better or worse, BA have been the "jump pack as troops" army for three editions of the game and almost a decade. People bought whole armies to build around that theme. Abandoning now just because they came out with a different new kit that they want to push is showing contempt for their customer base. Add in the apparent abandoning of yet another defining difference, all those landraiders that were previously available as a generic dedicated transport are no longer according to earlier posts. That is a double whammy from GW.

 pretre wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
Let the house ruling commence!

Unbound isn't houseruling.

It's not a solution to "they just made my army invalid" either. For most people, at least.

I mean seriously, I haven't seen a release so designed to feth over the current player base in a while, and I generally don't use that terminology. But consider:

Death Company get changed. Assault Marines get changed. Sang Priests got changed. Tac Squads got emphasised... and a new Tac Box got released. Such coincidence. Much accident. Wow.

Well I'm massively annoyed by the removal of assault squads as troops. It's hyper annoying that to make a fluffy list I have to use unbound and open myself up to the kind of abuse unbound entails.

Tbh the codex just sounds way more bland now, for those arguing that BA have no more assault squads than other chapters this is true but ignores one vital point: BA prefer jump packs, BA assault squads are always full strength as marines jump at the chance to serve in them.

Blood Angels weren't a jump troop Army when I started in 2nd edition, they wasn't in third either.

They've gone back to their roots as far as I'm concerned. You can't wage all wars with jump packs and pistols.

Ya know is it entirely possible that
1 there will be a formation to allow troop ass marines? or
2 that tactical marines can just take jumpers?

 Desubot wrote:
Ya know is it entirely possible that
1 there will be a formation to allow troop ass marines? or
2 that tactical marines can just take jumpers?

As far as 2 is concerned, it's apparently been confirmed that there are no jump packs anywhere in the troop section.

So now we're just holding out for formation/supplement stuff to save our precious jump pack troops.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Blood Angels weren't a jump troop Army when I started in 2nd edition, they wasn't in third either.

Yeah, and back then they were just Ultramarines with different Special Characters, a different paint job, and one unique unit (Death Company). Why would we want to return to a world where things are more bland?

Good thing my brother magnetised all the backpacks/jump packs on all his assault and tactical marines.

With formations outside the CAD limits and GW not giving a rat's ass about tournaments, a formation using Assault Squads and some sort of HQ or Chaplain and Death Company or just something along those lines is HIGHLY likely. I'm sure there will be a way to still do the old builds for the most part and folks just have to be patient.

Or a caveat that allows Assault to come back in as Troops like Vanilla Bikes, but I'm sure we would have heard of that by now if it were a thing.

 Zande4 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
jumped up my ass

Pro tip. If someone is figuratively jumping up your ass, it generally means they're agreeing with you or just giving you compliments to the point where it's over the top.

The phrase you were looking for is "jumped down my throat"

Australians consider "jumping up my ass" to have a positive connotation?

U scary. lol

 DarthOvious wrote:
All I'm asking for is that you don't state your personal opinion as fact.

A fact is an opinion that no one can present a logical counter-argument against.

- - - - - -

On a positive note, aside from the utterly soul crushing buttsmashing of my assault marine army, I like the majority of the changes in the codex. Sneaky GW making Dante awesome just in time to make him a LoW.