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.

What benefit does a character get if he becomes a Lord Of War?

It seems to me that it just frees up a HQ slot...

It's not about "benefits".

What "benefit" does a unit gain by being Fast Attack rather than Troops? None.

The same applies here, there are no intrinsic rules that apply to any Battlefield Role, although some rules do interact with them: For example - Troops in a Combined Arms Detachment gain Objective Secured as a benefit, but that's a rule of the detachment, not anything in the Role itself.

In most cases, LoW just stops you allying one in simply (as the Allied Detachment doesn't have a LoW slot, you'd need a CAD). It also means you still need to fill the mandatory HQ slot if you have a detachment that requires one.

Ta

Is there not a detachment which is just a LOW detachment?

In any event, it's also frequently a disadvantage. It's common to see events restrict or ban LOW units.

For the Imperial Knights codex there is. Can't think of another that allows just a LoW.

Can IK armies, as forces of the IOM, take other Lords of War?

Because a legal detachment of 3 Reaver titans would be hilarious.

Yes and they'd all have ObSec too

I think GW's intent with making some characters into Lords of War was to limit how many you would have in an army. Of course, I think GW still operates under the idea that people don't use multiple CADs, but instead one CAD plus Allied Detachment or other formations.

They also had a very good Rule for limiting one of a particular Model already, called 'Unique,' that named characters filling a Lord of War role are likely to have.
As much as I hate the terminology, the concept of 'troop tax' comes to mind...' want a second Baneblade, without resorting to unbound, then one needs to pay for an additional detachment.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I think GW's intent with making some characters into Lords of War was to limit how many you would have in an army. Of course, I think GW still operates under the idea that people don't use multiple CADs, but instead one CAD plus Allied Detachment or other formations.

I doubt the design studio think even remotely in the 1 CAD + 1 AD mindset. They've made that style of play repeatedly more and more impossible with each 7th Ed codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact the move of Characters to LoW seems more the opposite of what is being stated here. Rather than making those characters seem less fieldable it seems far more likely that this was done to reduce the mind set that LoW belong only in Apoc as was largely the response to Escalation and early 7th.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes and they'd all have ObSec too

This is incorrect. All units in that detachment must have the Imperial Knights faction.

Which they would by virtue of being taken in an imperial knights detachment... Assuming reavers areisted in the allowed units section.

greytalon666 wrote:
Which they would by virtue of being taken in an imperial knights detachment... Assuming reavers areisted in the allowed units section.

Reavers have no Faction, which is why they would can be taken in a Knights Detachment without a problem. But just being taken in a Detachment doesn't mean they gain that detachment's faction.

 Selym wrote:
Can IK armies, as forces of the IOM, take other Lords of War?

Because a legal detachment of 3 Reaver titans would be hilarious.

IKs only have the option to take Imperial Knights as LoWs

Most detatchments are x-faction or no faction; or state all same faction or no faction.

The knights detatchment are pure knights faction only.

Trying to claim a unit becomes a certain faction by virtue of sticking it in a detatchment us against the rules and would allow a gk faction detatchment(they have a specific one) to add daemons to it.

Admittedly I haven't checked the FW FAQ on titans I thought it said they could be taken as a LoW as part of any Imperial Faction? Am I wrong on that?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Admittedly I haven't checked the FW FAQ on titans I thought it said they could be taken as a LoW as part of any Imperial Faction? Am I wrong on that?

No, they proceed to list all the codexs that can take a Titan. Imperial Knights are not one of them

Cool

 Jimsolo wrote:
Is there not a detachment which is just a LOW detachment?

30k has an optional (mission based) detachment that is pure lords of war

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I think GW's intent with making some characters into Lords of War was to limit how many you would have in an army. Of course, I think GW still operates under the idea that people don't use multiple CADs, but instead one CAD plus Allied Detachment or other formations.

I believe the majority (if not all) of the characters that are Lords of War are unique and therefore limited to one per army anyway.