Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Why Not for Lords of War // Why for Lords of War

Continuing to refine, the choices are down to this:

Army Construction

Either -
1) Two Detachments (meaning you could select two Combined Arms Detachments, etc.)
 - Sub-option: If you run 2 Combined Arms Detachments, they must be from the same Faction
OR ...

2) Two Detachments, with a maximum of one Combined Arms Detachment. If a Combined Arms Detachment is chosen, it must be your Primary Detachment


Lords of War

Either -
1) The Following Lords of War are permitted: List TBD

OR ...

2) Lords of War are not permitted



So let's talk about Lords of War, starting with Knights

Knights are going to be allowed, because they aren't Lords of War. OK, next.

Lords of War - Forgeworld vs. Escalation
We're keeping Forgeworld out of the GT and Invitational this year. There's plenty enough new to digest, and the vote went broadly against it back in Jan.

Broadly speaking, some Lords of War were nerfed (D weapon changes), and many were not (those that either have template / ignores cover D, or who relied on other powerful weapons to kill things). Please note - the D weapon nerf is not the decision-point for this. It's more nuanced, in terms of looking at how powerful each model is and how that might impact players who are not prepared. D was a problem b/c it caused you to simply remove large swathes of your army (something that jetseer councils and screamerstars and the like cannot do, and can be actively prevented from doing).

So let's look at the Escalation Lords of War one at a time ...

Baneblade - 525 points (fairly pricey), 9 hp with 14/13/12 av (so exceedingly durable), S9AP2 10" blast and S10AP2 5" blast, neither of which ignore cover
 - Verdict in Short: Baneblade isn't a big deal. It would be legal if Lords are legal.

Banehammer - 410 points (fairly cheap for a lord of war), 9 hp with 14/13/12 av (so exceedingly durable), S8AP3 7" blast that causes dangerous tests and does not ignore cover
 - Verdict in Short: Like the Baneblade, not a big deal ... would be legal.

Banesword - 430 points, basically a Baneblade light (AP3 instead of 2 on main gun), would be legal

Doomhammer - 420 points; basically a super tough Vindicator on slight crack (ap1 vs 2), would be legal

Hellhammer - 540 points; 7" blast ignores cover ... basically a Deathstrike that's extremely hard to kill and fires every turn reliably. NOPE. Against *most* targets this is effectively a D-Weapon in the old rules (ignores whatever their save is, no, most units don't have invulnerable saves, wounds them on a 2+ and kills most things).

Shadowsword - 455 points, 5" D blast, does not ignore cover, would be fine

Stormlord - 480 point land raider for assault purposes that carries 40 models, with a Heavy 30 (when needed) S6 AP3 gun and 9 hull points? People have already pointed out mini guard blobs loaded with charcters and enginseers/techmarines to make it unkillable. This is a borderline NOPE type model.

Stormsword - 485 points, 10" blast that ignores cover at S10AP1. LIKE THE HELLHAMMER, NOPE.

Thunderhawk Gunship - 685 points, with D weapons that don't ignore cover. Basically OK.

Khorne Lord of Skulls- 888 points is very expensive, but durable with a ton of attacks as the game goes on ... hmmm ... probably fine but ... wait ... A S9 Hellstorm template that inflicts instant death and is AP3. NOPE.

Necron Obelisk - 335 points, and is fine

Tesseract Vault - If you can't figure out the theme yet, large templates or blasts that ignore cover and insta-gib most of what they touch are not OK. This, therefore, applies to the Vault as well with its available Wave of Withering ... and also to the ...

Transcendent C'Tan - This is the biggest "no" out there, with a Hellstorm D, a D "line of pain," and 6d6 krak missile shots, just for starters.

Stompa - Stompas are fine, still.

Revenant Titan - Would either be illegal, or allowed with Sonic Lances banned, which like the Khorne Lord of Skulls are basically old D weapons vs. a wide variety of targets

Tiger Shark - Hitty enough and flexible, but fine otherwise for the points

Harridan - A badass, but fine for the points

So if we legalized Lords of War, it would look something like this on the list:

Baneblade
Banehammer
Banesword
Doomhammer
Shadowsword
Thunderhawk
Necron Obelisk
Stompa
Revenant w/out Lances
Tiger Shark
Harridan


Which brings up the question - how many people would refuse to attend if those were on tables; how many people would refuse to attend if we just made it simpler and said Knights Only // No Lords of War?

That and the CAD question, which I'll address separately, are where we're at presently. We're taking feedback from across the community, so offer yours while you can!

28 comments:

  1. Thank goodness it's impossible to get cover ignoring guns/units that can do a lot more damage than a 7 inch blast and don't give up vp's for being damaged...phew:)

    ReplyDelete
  2. lords of war = a bridge too far

    ReplyDelete
  3. I vote 2 CAD. I'd be fine with it being same faction though I don't think it's really an issue. I guess that would be more for people worried about GK's and Daemons teaming up for summoning spam. I can't think of any super abusive combo's but I'm not really trying that hard :)

    If you go the 1 CAD are you going to allow codexes to self ally so that everyone can do it and not a select few?

    I absolutely zero issue with the lords of war presented above. Though I love the Stormlord (my only built super heavy) but I get why people would be all worried about it due to it being "unkillable" though in a world that allowed D weapons I'm not sure you could repair it fast enough.

    My only thing for the LoW would be that maybe an attempt should be made to include at least one for each faction? No non-flying LoW for SM/Tau and no LoW at all for Chaos/Daemons makes me a little sad.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I also vote for two CAD, but I don't see any reason to limit it to a single Faction. As for the LoWs, I think you either need to say all or none. Banning individual units because you think they are too powerful is a very slippery slope. I tend to think they should be allowed (I don't think they are worse than other non-LoW problem children), but I doubt too many would fault you for saying "maybe next year".

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the problem is that double cad allows armies that are extremely efficient in one or more slots to increase the ability to get that efficiency. Think 6 annihilation barges or 4 farseers. Or the ability to spam cheap objective secured units, like 6 jetbike squads AND still having wave serpents. Same with marines and rhinos/drop pods. For about 120 points they can get two decently durable objective secured units. Now they can get 10-12 of them per army.

    I think that is where the problem with double cad is going to come from.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm more than fine with the list of Lord of War you have up there. I have no idea what GW was thinking of with the Stormsword - massively buff the Baneblade's cannon at a severely reduced price. They really value a Demolisher I guess.

    The Lord of Skulls would probably be an option if you banned the Hellstorm template. I can't see a 1000 point model being too useful in either case.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The lord of skulls is way overrated with the template you are speaking about. It has gets hot, adds more points to an already non cost efficient model, and the gore storm cannon allows for regular saves (+2) unlike a D weapon. If it is too OP to be in the game I think we have other units to worry about as well that are in "regular 40k "

    ReplyDelete
  8. limited LOW seems like a fine first step into it.

    dont really care about multiple detachments..

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please God option one. We already played 6th. Lets go into the smart world of two detachments. Then when it comes to the LoW Limited is fine.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1 CAD plus one other Detachment (but not a second CAD);

    No Lords of War...maybe next year.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not a fan of Lords of War for a very specific reason: Imperial armies are far and away more fully treated with these units, followed by Chaos, Eldar, then Necrons and Orks. Tau are pretty much shafted, as are Tyranids. The restricted list imbalances it even more.

    As for the detachments, I think two detachments, only one CAD would take care of a lot of potential issues, but either way should be fine.

    so, for the answers, 1 with option or 2, and no LoW.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think by allowing the LoWs above, 2 CAD detachments are needed for those armies that don't have direct access to them. Yes it gives some armies more spammy options, but is that any worse than a Low? I don't think so.

    Plus, with only the 2 total detachments whether they be CAD or not, you still won't have to worry about the 3 or 4 source armies that I am sure people have gotten comfortable playing as of late.

    Personally, if Lords of War are in I would like 2 CAD detachments. If not, it makes no difference to me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. How about 1 Detachment + 1 Allied detachment and give codices the option to ally with themselves as battle brothers. I think this helps the non-imperial armies who don't have any bros. I prefer that to two detachments, as I feel the two detachment set-up will lead to some ridiculous lists (6 barges, 6 bike squads + 6 serpents, tons of daemon psykers, GK/INQ, etc, etc).

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think that the limited Lords of War is a great way to go. They are some great models that really add to the visual appeal of the game. I have always thought it was bad to throw out all Lords of War because of a few bad apples. I would love to build a Baneblade or Stompa for my armies that could be taken to the NOVA Open. That's my two cents.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes for limited LOW. I'm leaning toward double CAD as well but will wait to see what your thoughts are on that before going all in.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 2 CAD and Limited LOW is a great option

    -pissclams

    ReplyDelete
  18. Limited LOW sucks for those armies whose LOW has been banned. To say yes we will have LOW, but a whole bunch of factions can't use theirs is pretty crappy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which factions are left w/o a LOW? I think all factions have access to one as it stands now maybe with the exception of Sisters. The LOW list was always terribly unbalanced. Some real winners and losers in Escalation. Mike's list at least moves the bar to LOW won't completely dominate the game.

      Delete
  19. I like the limited LOW list as well. It would be a good starting point to see how Super heavies will interact in 40k

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey Mike, just chipping in my 2 cents here. All in all, I don't see LoW as being a good addition to the GT or the Invitational... For things like Trios or the Narrative, I'd be all for it, because in those games you get an odd collection of things and a broad spectrum of armies with players that aren't the most competitive or touchy. In the GT you are going to see a heavy hand with the imperial factions this year, followed by demons and eldar. Allowing Imperials access to a list of fairly strong and very difficult to kill weapons that have the ability to put out extreme amounts of firepower (525 points is still cheap for how much damage it can soak up, and pump out) is going to give these guys a solid advantage over most players. Due to it being a scoring model that is massive on the tabletop, parking on the objective so you can make it so opponents can't contest the objective is going to be another advantage. If you are going to allow these monstrosities on the table, there has to be a balancing factor. I'm not sure what it would be, but there has to be something to allow your normal every day gamer to compete against something that silly... also keep in mind, if these monstrosities are allowed suddenly 2 months before the tournament, you are going to find that the majority of your gamer base doesn't have the expendable income to go drop $140-$160 (taxes and the like) on these things to make them competitive against the gamers who can that now suddenly have a durability advantage over other players.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Here's the deal with 2 cad. Its mostly useful for spamming that one unit in a codex that is great. I cant recall a time where I spammed a unit, or played against a spam in a tourney, and had fun. And I'm more of a power gamer. Limited low or k nights is fine with me.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hello everyone,

    I vote for the following:

    1) the complete list of Lords of War, as presented above
    2) only up to one Combined Arms Detachment, with the choice of allying with yourself or with an external force


    ---Cassidy

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mike,

    Will there be a three colour minimum for the Narrative Nightfighters or for the GT? Will WYSIWYG be strictly enforced? Thank you for your time.

    --Cassidy

    ReplyDelete
  24. Right now, I won't be attending any large events as all I'm reading is selective banning and still knee jerk reactions from players with little/no actual experience with said units (I've attended 1-2 events per year each year including NOVA).

    LoW out of the Escalation book are generally not going to win in 7th edition. There are still rules in Escalation that give away VPs for every 3 HP knocked off a LoW, plus the Warlord Chart and +1 to get first turn can be quite game changing.

    Specifically speaking, why should a Revenant not be allowed to run Sonic Lances? First off, the model is 900 points which is about half of an army (assuming 1750-1850). Let's imagine the Revenant laden army is paired off against a Marine Drop Pod army (7-9 DP) which has the ability to Combat Squad most of the units. How on earth does the Eldar player even make this game close? Sonic Lances would help, but by no means game changing; you need 3+ to wound. The Marine player can generally ignore the Revenant and go after the rest of the 950 or so points of the army. Basically, a Revenant army is ok, but definitely has bad matchups, especially in 7th where MSU will make a big return.

    The most vocal point against LoW in 40K games in the edition were 'D' weapons were OP. GW listened and toned them down. And now, folks still don't want them on the tabletop. I suppose I don't understand how others can tell me what I can or cannot take when it is perfectly legal, fully assembled and painted, fully WYSIWYG and generally is not that good in a competitive environment.

    As it stands, I think the 40K community is about as toxic as I've ever seen and the TO's, who have a lot of money tied to such events, are at their mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. When are we going to be informed on LoW and CAD? I'd like to bring nicely painted models to a tourney that im spending +$1k to get to and participate in. I appreciate taking time to come up with a well thought out decision, but I for one need some answers soon on huge list making decisions.

    ReplyDelete