Escalation and Stronghold

While we’ve all been dithering over Formations and people have been throwing around ideas on how to incorporate them into tournament play or just plain bitching, Escalation and Stronghold have snuck up on us. (Avatar posted a lovely summary here). Β The short and skinny is – superheavies are in ‘normal’ 40k. That’s great,I couldn’t care less if GW is stupid enough to take one of their great failures and shove it into their major success of a system as most people just aren’t going to buy and/or use those types of models as they are very expensive (several hundred dollars) and not cheap points wise (easily 25-50% of an army). So that doesn’t phase me too much but of course, there’s always going to be a couple of people who have either more money than sense, are awesome hobbyists or “pay to win” and will either bring them for fun or figure something out which actually works on the table.

And here-in lies the problem, D-Weapons. There are four levels (five if we include Necrons) of saves for 40k and they all play an important role; you can bypass some but never all of them and if you cannot bypass any of them, you’ll often find your shooting becomes inefficient. Saves fall to AP, cover falls to ignores cover and combat, FNP falls to instant death and invuls do not fall. Until D-Weapons. This is not a good thing as it places too much emphasis on who shoots first and hits. Alpha-striking is all well and good but hey I rolled a hit with this here 10″ blast, remove everything from underneath. Yes, even your super duper character with a 2++ and W10 (over exaggeration for effect). Yaya, 2++ re-roll invuls would no longer be a thing but it’s not something which requires skill to use or implement and takes away from the fun of the game. Forging a narrative! *enter massive hole in army* aw :(.

Again, I don’t think this is going to be a huge thing as for the most part, a lot of these units are going to be hard to put into an army which works and they are basically just vehicles or tough MCs – you can deal with those right now ya? Good.

And fortifications – never been a fan of bringing your own terrain and some of these pieces can get insanely big – does GW just expect people to remove terrain from half of the table to put theirs down now? Again some access to d-weapons which is silly but there are some interesting bits like the Void Shields; protect against the Alpha Strike for 200 points might become quite common.

Anyway, GW has essentially confirmed they have no care for playtesting or game balance and I imagine a lot of tournaments are going to start reintroducing some form of comp or restrictions; the vast majority of 6th edition has ignored terrain setup, mysterious terrain, etc. and I’m predicting a wholesale swing towards taking this further. There were rumblings before about Screamstar, Spiritstar, Triple WK/Riptide, etc. and I wouldn’t be surprised to see things like this get swept up in the banhammer fest but we shall see; after the dust settles in a couple of months at least.

Hasbro – please buy already and fix whoever is making these odd decisions at the higher levels and un-doing the good work the codex writers have done the past several years.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

200 responses to Escalation and Stronghold

So you want Hasbro, aka Wizards of the Coast, to ruin Warhammer 40k like they did Dungeons and Dragons with 4th edition? You're hysterical.

A) 4th Ed is actually pretty good.

and B) More like Magic the Gathering, which is still one of the best supported and growing hobby games on the planet. Not to mention their rules writing staff are incredible at making rules that, while complex, detail every single minor situation that could possibly happen. And lets not forget the Tourney System that Magic has; multiple layers of officially sanctioned rules from casual product releases all the way to the Pro Tour featured on ESPN.

Yeah. Wizards of the Coast would be the BEST THING that could happen to Games Workshop.

I agree. Fourth Edition was actually brilliant for it's stated goals (and that's all I'll say lest we derail significantly; It's a hot button topic for me).

The problem is that Hasbro (the parent company) has no idea what to expect from a tabletop RPG for the most part, and keeps firing people in Wizards of the Coast that they should keep, promoting people that have no business being in that role (the MECHANICS for 4e were tight, the fluff was god-awful), and forcing changes into the system to try and monetize it like they would other properties that they understand better as far as marketing goes.

WotC has some issues, but Hasbro's the major instigator here. That said, I think they might THEORETICALLY understand how to monetize and market a tabletop wargame, but at the same time… I remember what they did with the Miniatures Battle subsystem of D&D3rd (I Can't Believe It's Not HeroClix). So I'm not exactly 100% thrilled with the prospect, either.

GW needs some help, just not sure I trust Hasbro/WotC to be what they need or what we, as players, want. 😐

4th may have been a good game (mechanically), but it just didn't feel like D+D.

IT felt like a tabletop MMO.

D&D has always been a game of "kick down the door and kill monsters." The fact that they codified that into the rules and it bothered people was the silly part.

I certainly don't agree with all the choices they made for it and it wasn't anywhere near my favorite game system, but for what it was- a balanced way to bring a group of folks together and fight encounters for a couple hours- it was probably the best.

agreed. The worst part of 3.5Ed was sitting down as a DM & explaining to new players "no, don't bother putting any skills into 'knowledge: esoteric, multidimensional butt-plugs' as that simply will not matter in this campaign"

D&D is just like WH in that if you get too bogged down in all the possible rules & rules interactions you can spoil what should be a fun afternoon by being too worried about making little mistakes here & there

Yeah, actually taking steps backward in design is fail. Back to 1st level characters being oneshotted by non-critical hits, hooray!

From a design standpoint 4e was interesting. It made some mathematical errors and had feat tax issues, but the power imbalances were far less grotesque than the peaks of 3.x.

If 40k 7e had similar design philosophy to 4e, that would be fantastic.

Something which "worked out pretty well" wouldn't be on the way out the door this quickly. 4E was obviously an abject failure for WotC, so much so that Pathfinder was outselling D&D with WotC's hand-me-downs.

It worked out well? They started republishing 3.5 because enough people hated the change. 1-9 things you can do in combat over the course of 30 levels is NOT what makes a DnD player happy ("What do you mean I can't try to disarm him without an Encounter power? What does that even mean!?").

Yeah, but nothing actually makes those kind of players happy. Some people get stuck on an edition and refuse to ever change- the D&D guys complain about how AD&D ruined it, the AD&D guys complain about how 3E wrecked the game, the 3E guys hate that 4E "is just a computer game," etc, etc.

-shrugs-. Hey, at least as a 3rd ed player ( with D+D 1st. :P) I admit that MECHANICALLY 4th works fine. πŸ˜€

So what part of the game doesn't work for 4E? RPG rules are just mechanics for a group to use to Role-play, so if the mechanics work then any Fluff based choices are in the hands of the audience.

That is not to say that some systems lend themselves better to interaction outside of combat, but for the most part it exists independent of the system.

always remember that the published rules are a jumping off point & that as players you are encouraged in the game system to create your own skills, equipment, monsters etc.

Does your DM ONLY play published WOTC adventures or does he come up with his own? Do you only use treasure generated using random rolls? IF so I would argue you're misplaying the game & drastically limiting yourself…

BEST game of D&D ever was the campaign where my necromancer received a special dagger & bag of holding – allowing me to store the souls of anything killed by the dagger in the pocket dimension that was my bag of holding…. Pokémon with beholders & illithids? Yes Please!

4E was the world of warcraft edition. Gary Gyrax is probably rolling around in his grave mourning that horrible POS edition.

Monetizing Warhammer 40k wouldn't be that hard.
They would pretty much do what GW is doing (create awesome minis) and lure more people to the hobby by creating good "competitive" environments. Because more people = more profit.

You can pretty much pop into any store selling comic books or games in North America or Europe and enter a Friday Night Magic mini-tournament with your DCI membership card during any time of the year. In the same stores you can join the prerelease and release events and have a great time. Wherever you go, you are playing by the same rules, have TOs who judge and punish by the same rules, simply because WotC cares about that kind of stuff and enforces it. This is probably the sole reason why Magic hasn't dropped dead at some point, like most other TCGs did.

Now imagine the owner of WH40k doing the same for the game, creating rules for tournament play and organize regular events in all their stores. Imagine them pondering whether getting first turn is too much of an advantage, and how to offset that advantage. Imagine them thinking up balanced terrain set-ups and distributing them to tournament organizers as mandatory. Imagine them thinking up a tournament ranking which is fair for everyone. Imagine them streamlining rules up to a point where no situation the game can't be resolved by looking at your BRB, codex and errata. Imagine them thoroughly play-testing their rules half a year before they see print to catch the biggest offenders of your balance. Imagine them releasing a FAQ about unclear rules at the same time as a new release. Imagine them continuously improving their rules to make games run more fluent and axing unintuitive rules. Imagine them paying their chief rules designer to answer the most common email questions in a weekly column, and make that column search-able. Imagine them thinking up new crazy scenarios and then organizing competitive events to promote those. Imagine them picking up a popular community-created variant of the game and creating new models and terrain just for that variant.

WotC did all that for Magic:The Gathering. I think they could to it for Warhammer 40k, too.

If they'd manage to break the curse of models being attached to codices, which in turn are attached to rule editions (like, replacing codices with decks of stat cards), they could drop new models whenever they felt like it. For example. it would be possible to release a single new unit for every codex every six months, leaving no one in the rain and actually making all their armies attractive to buy at any time. No one in their right mind would buy an ork army right now, so all those $80 ork battlewagons are gathering dust in stores. What sort of business plan is that?
In addition, they could actually do something about underused units, for example releasing a new stat-card for flayed ones, which reduces their cost and adds a USR or something. To get it, you'd have to buy the 2014 summer upgrade pack including all upgraded rules, or get one free with a box of flayed ones. Ta-da, I'm making money off caring for my rules.

MtG has its own problems, like the continuous power-creep invalidating old cards and printing of blatantly overpowered cards to keep selling those boosters. However, until now, it hasn't spun out of control yet, and it's not like 40k doesn't have the same problems.

Also imagine Booster Boxes, with 3 Common, 1 Uncommon, and 1 Rare model, and no way of knowing what they are!

In other words, their existing model methodology….

Haha, when I read that, I was immediately thinking about the devastator box. Three weapons no one wants, one weapon some people want and one which everyone wants, and you need a full set of four play it well. 40k already is like magic πŸ˜€

Anyone playing competitively isn't buying boosters anyways. All rarity does is increase secondary market price, since buying single is almost always cheaper than buying boosters to get the amount of cards you need. Buying boosters would be pretty much like buying black boxes with random models inside while regular boxes are still available.

By the way, Hasbro has already failed with that type of game. It was a tabletop with little pirate ships built out of paper, where you had a random one in each "booster". I've never seen it played, the booster display box gathered dust for years, until the shop owner gave them away for free.

The 40k equivalent would be allowing any import seller in the world to buy and trade both foreign and domestic packs and singles. I can go to most card shops and buy SOME foreign language cards, normally Japanese or Russian in my area.

That'd be like letting gaming stores, both online and in person, to sell your models at roughly the same prices as everywhere else in the world, including Australia. And allowing stores to sell bits (single cards) while their at it.


My card shops don't even stock all of the latest English Language releases of Magic.

But. Again, no. You are going back to comparing to the card boosters. Wizards have already produced miniatures, and they did so in random boosters. THAT is the point being made.

Nothing to do with the (valid) issues with GW's foreign policy.

Out of curiosity are you referring to the "default" fluff, published adventures, books or something else?

I guess I find it funny when people complain about the fluff since for the most part that changes depending upon the group actual playing, to what suits there own vision of their RPG world.

4th Ed is a good system in and of itself. It was just too radical a departure from previous versions to be accepted by many under the D&D brand.

And honestly, the changes made in 4th were exactly the kind of standardization, mechanics-first design, and cleanup that 40K needs.

So… has anyone poked around the general rules for Super Heavies? How do Grav Weapons interact with them? It looks like there's no effect at all? That seems… weird lol.

Grav Weapons will still do the on-a-six thing against them, but since Superheavies can't be immobilized, they'll just lose the hull point.

how does anything interact with void shields? Q: you fire (4) lascannons at my warhound titan – titan has (2) AV12 void shields + AV14 front armor – do you roll each armor pen individually or do you roll them as a group. If as a group you have the potential that the "first" or the "last" missiles are striking at an AV that is either inappropriately high or low. This always caused a bit of grief in 5th edition, but as 6th has explicit rules for wound pools it is less of an issue (except for the sequence of generating wound pools happens AFTER rolls to wound / pen…. so the issue still exists)

While rolling the Lascannons one-by-one against the Shields is obnoxiously slow and has no direct support for that interpretation in the rules, I can't see any other reasonable way to handle it- that's the way we've always played them, at least, in both 5th and 6th.

Come on Kirby; allow lords of war in the next 3++con/Clash of the Titans.
I want to bring my Revenant.

Just to note: GW doesn't expect people to remove terrain to put down their fortifications, since fortifications go up before terrain. If tournaments want pre-placed terrain, then that already messed with any "balance" factor GW has set up in their rules. I place, you place, I place, you place. I can try to thwart you, help me, and vice versa.

I'm still in the camp that D-weapons existing in normal terrain will hopefully shift the meta away from 500+ point death stars that are pretty much immortal. A 500 point baneblade with a D-weapon will show that army. Time to take all-comers instead of just have an army that can beat the current meta – especially if the current meta is extremely varied from Super-heavies, massive fortifications, multiple troop spams with allies and Inquisition/etc. Super-heavies are hard to fit in, and I agree with your appraisal…most people won't find the money or points to get them in their army, but just the fact that it's something to be concerned with will hopefully knock the game in the right direction.

It’s not just Deathstars though. A Revenant Titan has no real issues removing two units of pretty much anything ler turn with four Str D Large Blasts, bypassing all saves, and they are exceedingly difficult to shut down.

I think one of the major issues with Escalation is just how you’re going to play it on a 6×4. I don’t believe you can actually have your Thunderhawk on the board for more than one turn at a time.

The second big problem is the inter-Super Heavy balance. Eldar get the Revenant, which is an extremely strong choice. Nids get the Harridan, which has two glaring issues; the first being that it sucks, the second being that nobody owns one. Seems like every Nid player and their mum has a Heirodule, and Heirophants are hardly rare, but Harridans? Never seen one outside of a GW display case.

Thirdly, you can take Coteaz and, I dunno, Imotekh (could work with Vect too) to go with your Lord of War for 3+ re-rollable Seize. This has certainly not been playtested. Honestly, the Coteaz/Imotekh thing is already gimmicky but reliable, so a better example would simply be Coteaz. 5+ re-rollable Seize is really good.


You missed the point that the one WITHOUT the superheavy is the one getting the bonus to seize.

And you think nids have it bad? tau got the tigershark.
Not the 1-0 version with the single-shot D gun, the one that is basically a transport unit for 14 drones and ion cannons.
14 drones. slightly onver a squad that could deepstrike anyway, and a hammerhead. THATS the superheavy.
Forget D weapons, it dosent even pack S9 or AP2. (S8 optional, if you give away the drones for a few seeker missiles) you can outgun it with remoras, a unit that is considered sup-par on its own.

The Tigershark and the Harridan are both fucking pieces of shit. The Harridan has better firepower, for what that's worth, but the Tiger Shark never crashes into the ground because some derp pointed a flashlight at it.

The whole "oh but Seizing and the warlord table" stuff is pretty much irrelevant. Hey, I allied Coteaz into my army, your bonuses (and chance of DSing Meltaguns anywhere near me) just vanished, congratulations.

"Hey, I allied Coteaz into my army, your bonuses (and chance of DSing Meltaguns anywhere near me) just vanished, congratulations. "

Absolutely. If you need to protect a baneblade from deepstrikers, you can protect a baneblade from deepstrikers.

id like to see anyone take down a revenant with farseer buffs (invis or 4++) whether the enemy has a super heavy or no. the rev will destroy any opponent super heavy in one turn easily after that it obliterate the enemy army with relative ease.

Coteaz has to be within 12" of and have LOS to the deep strikers; simply dropping on the other side of the Baneblade will protect you from his effect.

Bubble wrap both flanks, Coteaz out front. Pretty much any Army can bring enough bubble wrap to block off 6-9" from something that critical, and most can manage a 12" buffer if they need to, one way or another.

I think you'd probably want to put Coteaz around the back, actually; the armour is marginally weaker there, you'd want to make it hardest to drop in back there. Also, you protect him from getting blown up before he can put his effect to use if you're not going first or get seized against.

I would love to see Hasbro buy 40k. MtG is fantastic and D&D Next is going to be the best edition yet.

if gw os doing the same rules of lord of war from forgeworld you can only take one with games over 2000 pts

They aren't. The Escalation book does not mention any points limit, percentage-wise or other, that would prevent you from taking a Lords of War choice. The only restrictions are that it has to correspond to your primary detachment and you have to have a legal primary detachment (i.e. two troops and an HQ minimum).

On top of that, Sisters and Inq are not provided with any Lords of War choices at all. Sorry, kids, can't play in the big league.

you mean chaos gets its CC POS, single faction of 4-5 toy to use….forgive me if I don't throw my hands in the air….well at least its affordable.

Whilst this probably won't actually affect normal games much due to the price barrier , vassal games just got a whole lot more interesting.

Definitely not saying that they will not have an effect, because even the threat of d weapons and superheavies will change up tactics. However, in the majority of games, I wouldn't expect to see many superheavies.

Most of the discussion here centres around tournament-style play, and terrain is almost invariably set up before gamers arrive.

Which is fair, but the statement "does GW just expect people to remove terrain from half of the table to put theirs down now?" is still nonsense; what GW expects people to do is follow the terrain placement rules they included in their rulebook. Tournaments are completely free to ignore those rules, obviously, but then they hardly have standing to complain when the fortifications are built to work with the actual rules, not their made-up fan-rules.

This always irritates me, because it's only ONE of the potential options for terrain setup in the book. The other is "narrative terrain" which is effectively what most tournaments have.

So yeah, it's like setting up terrain for your buddy at the game store, then having to take half of it off so he can put down a defense network.

Narrative terrain is still supposed to be deployed by both players and after fortifications according to the rulebook though.

The reason I stopped playing Apocalypse is because it boils right down to "Who brought the most D-Weapons?" with any other type of unit near-irrelevant. I ran a Mechanised Eldar list last edition as a part of an Apoc game, and two D-Weapons reduced 5 Serpents and 3 Falcons to smoking ruin on turn 1, leaving me with roughly 50 T3 4+ save infantry to play the rest of the 5-hour game with. Hoo-bloody-ray. That was fun for me.

So apologies, random opponent I just met today, but if you bring a Superheavy with a D-Weapon I'm simply going to tell you to fuck off, and play someone else, because I can't even be bothered deploying against that crap.

should have played dark eldar. Their two formations (pretty sure they only had the two), splinter raid force & titan killer formation were fantastic & basically made up 100% of the units you use as a dark eldar player anyways. When your army arrives as flyers T1 & your ravagers are twin linked against superheavies you can really make a mess of things (In apocalypse)

this is so goddamn stupid. if someone rolls up with a super heavy in a regular game im just going to refuse to play them. no amount of argument will get me to change my mind on this: D-weapons and the things they are stuck to are absolutely no fun to play against.

What if they just turn up with a regular super heavy? No strength D etc.

As far as I care – im thinking that drop pod wolves with meltaguns just got better.

I don't mind non-Strength D superheavies overmuch because they're just bigger, more vulnerable tanks with an equivalent amount of guns that could be bought for the same points or cheaper on other units. It's the removal of all saves, of any kind that is broken to hell against anything that isn't Green Tide or masses of Gants. Even against basic Tac marines a 450pt superheavy will get it's points back in two hits (yes, I know it's not an ideal benchmark of power). Against something like Paladins, T5, Tanks etc…

I agree. D weapons as S10/ap1/re-roll saves would have been reasonable. D weapons as "remove from play" are not.

In the current Apoc book, D weapons have changed. They're not "remove from play". Yes they ignore cover and invunerable saves. Against Non vehicle models you roll and 1 = no effect 2-5 = D3+1 wounds 6= D6+6 wounds.

Vs vehicles 1 = pentrating hit, 2+ = explodes (superheavies lose D3+1 HP instead) 6 = As above except D6+6 HP.

I don't like the idea of D weapons or superheavies in regular 40K at all, but I don't thnk they're as powerful as people are saying (seems most people are refering to the older D weapon rules)

The new D weapons are actually _worse_ than the old ones in that regard- whereas before you could rely on Eternal Warrior and invulnerable saves to at least help some, that is no longer true. Also, previously Str D merely inflicted an automatic penetrating hit on the tank- not it Explodes it on a 2+ (and even in a worst case still pens it.)

Str D has not gotten less powerful, it has gotten more powerful.

I don't particularly give a shit about some of them – if someone wants to bring a Tiger Shark I'll want to be drawn against them thank you very much, but yeah, Revenants are a no-no.

im sorry we dont feel the same way about having to remove a good chunk of my army in the first turn from one shooting attack

only from the revenant, all the others only have 1 shot d's… so 1 large blast that could scatter?
heck you can get 9 voidsheilds if you are worried about being alpha struck:)

that one blast could still just remove the important parts of my army. its on a super-heavy, its unlikely that it can be destroyed in my first turn, so its going to get at least 2 goes at shooting.

and no, i will not take god knows how many points of stupid new stuff to counteract another bunch of stupid new stuff

yeah, no. i dont want to spend 300pts on some boring terrain to counter the D-weapons. i want to spend that 300pts on the models ive spent ages converting & painting

Sorry scuzgob, but saying that you don't want to play with certain models is not a defense. It's like when people say that they don't want to play with allies, then moan about armies/units being overpowered.

but mono-builds can play effectively against allied army combos, if you know what youre doing. in the case with d-weapons, you lose if you dont take the void shields. there are no other ways to defend against them.
if the d-weapon goes first, you lose to it
if you go first, you cant kill the d-weapon before it gets to fire, then you lose to it

that is how 40K works now without D weapons…. Remember guard alpha strike? The premise was I shoot you in the face so hard T1 that you concede because I've dismantled your army before you've fired a shot. Any of the 2+ rerollable IV hammers that exist right now? Same concept – I go first, get my spells up & now you basically can't kill me no matter how hard you try. My point? when 40K is min-maxed to the extreme, mixing codexes & supplements to find the hardest ARMYLIST possible the game ends up being less fun for people actually interested in playing the game (however I guess this is offset by how much fun the folks who want nothing but to compare their ability to roll 6's with the "mathematically perfect" armylist and call themselves amazing strategists / generals)

"Any of the 2+ rerollable IV hammers that exist right now? Same concept – I go first, get my spells up & now you basically can't kill me no matter how hard you try."

Seer Council is a CC unit that is not as efficient in CC compared to dedicated CC units that have AP2 weapons (or a good amount of Rending attacks). Heavy infantry will generally beat it, and other light cavalry style units with Rending will generally beat it or do a good deal of damage to it. Both it and Screamerstar have serious problems with Rune Priests.

The only thing that they're really strong against is full shooting armies, which happen to be very popular at tournaments. In a way, these two lists introduce variety in the game as they make assault specialists more useful to take.

D weapons do not introduce variety, because the kind of units you took to kill the Superheavies are generally the kind of units you took to kill vehicles anyhow. So their existence doesn't really make a less popular unit have a purpose. Meanwhile, their existence limits variety, because players will rarely take expensive vehicles or squads when there is the likelihood that the expensive models disapper as easily as 5-6p cheap infantry. And it limits variety because Be'Lakor will be the default HQ for CSM, if not for Daemons. Guaranteed Puppet Master vs Superheavies trumps all of the other Chaos HQs, if there are Superheavies likely to appear in a tournament.

Deathstar units introduce variety in units and tactics as you have to use new plans to deal with them. D class weapons only remove options, because they make some units undesirable while not really making any desirable (except for Be'Lakor, who conversely becomes such a must-take that other Chaos HQs disappear).

i didnt mind alpha guard strike because it was made using just stuff from its basic codex, even if they could be combined in overpowered ways. d-weapons are literally pay to win: you buy the model, you put it on the table, you remove chunks of the opponents army. at least alpha guard strike had to roll to wound/pen your things, and you got some amount of saving throws against it.

I honestly quite like it. It gives me more options, and lets me use more of the models that I have bought. It also gives me more of a tactical challenge both when I design a list and when I am playing.

As for whether it ruins 'competitive' play, I don't think that it does. For me, competitive play is whenever two players are trying their best to win, with their best list, whatever the ruleset. Other people link competitiveness with fairness, but personally if I wanted a perfectly fair game I wouldn't play one with dice. I want a game where I can play hard, but with a myriad of challenges, which at least in some aspect emulates real warfare, and has awesome fluff to go with it. Warhammer still does that, and has actually made it better for me to do so, as there are even more challenges when I am planning a list ( how do I deal with superheavies and d weapons ), and during (How do I implement this strategy? )

At the moment, you are having to deal with "ok, I can afford to spend 300 pounds on one model that fires multiple Large Blasts that obliterate everything under it and can barely be scratched by anythign else in the game".

I agree, it is something I will have to deal with. I'll have to try spreading out, alpha striking, and hiding in fliers ( I think the revenant d weapons are all blast? Not sure ), as well as bringing my own d weapons.

That's all great advice… as long as you're an Imperial army.

Want to 'spread out'? Hope you weren't playing horde Ork or Nid lists; you know, the way they're 'meant' to be played, fluff wise? Same goes for alpha striking an AV12 walker with a holo-field save that negates a third of all hits straight off, and half once it moves, and 9 hull points, that's completely immune to shaken, stunned, weapon destroyed and immobilized. Even Tau, hailed as kings of the shooting phase, could find themselves having a pretty hard time dealing with that much well-protected highly-armoured wargear in one turn, and it would have to be one turn, because as soon as the titan gets to fire Tau will lose most of the units that can actually hurt that thing. And 'hiding in flyers' isn't even an option for most races; Orks, Nids, Tau, Dark Eldar, Chaos, Sisters, DA, even other Eldar, none of them have any flying transports.

I'm not saying that every army can do all of those things, and obviously some armies will suffer more than others, but there are other reasons for that, such as simply being an old ( orks ), or seemingly being despised by GW ( sisters ). However, most if not all armies at least have some options for dealing with it.
If orks and nids are playing such a horde army list then 4 large blasts won't actually hurt them that much.

Not 100% sure on titan rules, can they be exploded ? Presumably not, in which case it is three serpents, difficult, but not impossible by any means for some armies.

With allies and formations, only nids and dark eldar can't get at least some troops in flyers. Obviously the strategy is more viable for some ( anyone who can ally Necrons really, and maybe IG ), but it is at least useful to most.

Again, I'm not saying that It is fair, but that I don;t think it ruins competitive warhammer ( in my sense of the word ), and in some ways improves it.

The Revenant is the best example of the problem. An Eldar (or Dark Eldar) player that is willing to spend the huge amount of money on it has something that is disturbingly close to an I-Win button.

Pay to Win….

The Revenant Titan is 800+ points and will fold like a wet napkin if you just shoot the damn thing… Yes, it can absorb a lot of fire thanks to its void shields and structure points, but it is eight-hundred-plus points(!), how much firepower can you fit into your list with 800 points? That's easily five Leman Russ Vanquishers or Predator Annihilators, four Land Raiders, or a pair of tricked out Baneblades. Got a Shadowsword? An Aquila Macrocannon? A Fortress of Redemption (or three?)

Everyone keeps reacting to the Escalation book as if only one of the two players gets to use it AND doesn't have to pay any points for the model. Sheesh.

Thing is, all of those things are good at doing one thing. (Also, in two cases, illegal in escaltion – can't have 2 Baneblades or three Fortresses).

The Revanant is multipurpose enough that you might actually see it.

Are 5 Vanquishers? The Shadowsword, maybe, but in that case, it comes down to "Does the Shadowsword get the first shot, and does ti get past the Holo Fields". If not, the Shadowsword is dead next turn.

Then what?

The Revanant can only reliably be taken down by D-weapons, and has the only working defence against D-weapons.

You hit it with a Heavy Weapon team with missile launchers or lascannons (and a Bring It Down order), followed by a squadron of Leman Russ Battle Tanks. Between the battle cannons, the hull-mounted lascannons, and the HWT's shooting the void shields are down. Now you follow up with shooting from a squadron of Vanquishers and/or Shadowsword. The enemy titan is either dead or down quite a few Hull Points… hell, maybe you've destroyed its weapons but left it alive. At that point, really, you can just ignore the damn thing as it isn't much of a threat with its guns gone.

I've done this many, many times over the years… Although I generally prefer to use a squadron of Destroyer Tank Hunters in lieu of a Shadowsword (because I OWN those models and not the superheavy.)

Just about every army in the game can handle a Revenant Titan, you just have to remember to act like an army and not a collection of independent units.

ISh, it might help if your "Stupid people, it's easy" advice actually had any relevance to the model being discussed. It doesn't have void shields, for example, it has holo fields.

And you cannot destroy it's weapons. Ever, because it's a Super Heavy. Have you played Apocalypse 6th?

It also must be pointed out, AGAIN, that that requires you to go first.

If you do not, or that barrage does not kill the Revenant, your Shadowsword and probably your command squad are dead. No ifs or buts.

No, it just requires having those units (or an effective substitute) survives the Revenant's shooting shoudl the Eldar player get the first turn. Redundancy in army list design, I know its a radical concept, but I'm not a competitive player.

I'm throwing ideas out from the hip here, guys. I'm brainstorming… and as pointed out, have confused the rules the model has. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, on that front. But the general point I am trying to make is simply that everything in the game has counters… and a single model which costs over 800 points is going to have to be countered by an equal expenditure of resources by the opponent. If you are playing at the level where a Revenant becomes a viable option, then you need to have /something/ in your list that can handle it…

Figuring out how to kill a Revenant with IG is the easiest thing in the world; no other army in the entire game has as much easy access to scoring heavy weapons as the Imperial Guard.

And the fact that super-heavies are immune to shaken, stunned, weapon destroyed and immobilized is immensely relevant, because it means that until you kill it, it functions at a hundred percent capability. Did you kill the titan in your first shooting phase with IG? Better hope so, because if not, you're about to lose that squadron of Leman Russ battle tanks, and probably the squadron of Vanquishers, too (remember, super-heavies can fire all their weapons at separate targets, and the Revenant's guns are heavy 4 Strength D large blast).

And really, what are Orks supposed to do to that thing? Or Nids?Quick, what's the Sisters' answer to it? Or Chaos Daemons? Y'know, before it obliterates half the army trying to close on the unit with a 120" gun and a 36" jump move?

IT does have counters. But you know what happens then?

Scenario one;- You do not have counters to the Revenant. You lose.
Scenario two:- You DO have counters to the Revenant, and get the first turn. You win on turn 1.
Scenario three:- You DO have counters to the Revenant and get the second turn. Your counters are dead on turn 1.

Sure, that may be BALANCED, but where is the fun?

You need to keep in mind a revenant will outrange just about everything you have mention at 60" & can move 36". So good luck bringing enough firepower to bear on it to kill it in 1 turn & pray that you get first turn. Also does it get a stomp attack? Because if so that means you can't get close to it either (close being move + charge at 48" total).

> That's easily five Leman Russ Vanquishers or Predator Annihilators, four Land Raiders, or a pair of tricked out Baneblades. Got a Shadowsword

5 vanquishers- 2.5 hits, 2.5 penetrations, 1.25 failed Holofields, ~1.5 HP removed on average (assuming it does not have Invis/Forewarning.)

Then the Revenant shoots back and probably kills four out of the five of them or more. Seems pretty fair to me.

If you are going first then the eldar player is going to deploy out of range of as much of that firepower as possible too.

its not even a huge amount of cash, a revenant is about 250 AUS, that's a pair of riptides and some toys.

The point remains that everyone claiming these things are too expensive to ever be seen is ignoring the fact that the point/£ ratio is better than riptides and wraithknights and not so far from waveserpents etc. These things will get used.

Saying toys are too expensive for warhams to buy them is ridiculous, yes.

Saying that they are too expensive, on the other hand, is entirely subjective.

look, lets not pretend that being able to spend between 700 & 1500 points on a couple of D weapons is really that big a deal. Sure D weapons suck when they hit & remove an entire squad but hey, riptides markerlighted up hurt in the same way. So does getting stuck in combat with screamers or a seer council that rolled up the powers it wanted…. A warhound titan, which is only able to fire a D weapon at a single target per turn, clocks in at 760pts & has the survivability of (3) lemon russ battle tanks… not the end of the world.

There's a world of difference between a markerlit shot from a Riptide, and a Strength D blast.

Strength D ignores ALL saves, including invulnerable, and special saves-but-not-a-save like FnP and RP.

And non-superheavy vehicle touched by a S:D shot explodes 11/12ths of the time. No possible saves, no exceptions.

Eternal Warrior is not safe, as S:D weapons do not inflict instant death, they inflict multiple wounds. A squad of grots dies the same as a squad of TH/SS terminators.

Not like a riptide.

Yeah, I wish the Riptide was as reliable as these D-weapon-toting monsters. Riptides can ignore armour, and with some help, cover. But they can't ignore FNP on T5+ models, or Reanimation Protocols, or any invulnerable saves at all. It's about as hard for a Riptide to kill a unit of TH/SS Terminators as it is for a unit of Fire Warriors to kill regular Tactical Marines. Plus, they have Gets Hot to deal with, too. Now, does that sound anything at all like a Revenant, with its two four-shot large blast D-weapons, that can each fire at separate units?

Correction on the Revenant. Its 2x two shot weapons (4x blasts total). So the revanant can hit 2 units per turn with D weapons.

Also it costs 900 points (several people here are talking about 800)


750 points to fire a D weapon once per turn with the survivability of (3) Lemon Russes. If you're playing in a community that accepts everything then yes, you may need to buy some additional heavy weapons to punch through AV14 but it is hardly the end of the world.

GW is doing a pretty good job of highlighting their policy that the game is meant for casual & consensual gaming rather than tight competitive play.

>A warhound titan, which is only able to fire a D weapon at a single target per turn,

Ha ha no. You're just flat-out wrong here. Not only can it shoot at multiple targets, it can fire multiple Str D shots at multiple targets.

Also, keep in mind that unlike other vehicles, superheavies ignore all damage results except Explodes (and only take d3 from that), so you can't shoot off their main gun, can't slow them down, can't suppress them, and can't get lucky and one-shot them. In short, they ignore all of the vulnerabilities of a normal vehicle.

I like the ability to take the superheavies but Tourneys should probably rule out d weapons as its who shoots first/has most money that wins and nobody would enjoy that. Otherwise it seems alright

I am a little disappointed that GW didn't put some langauage in there, somewhere* that openned up The Lord of War slot to the full range of superheavy vehicles that are actually out there… if players insist on limiting themselves to just the options in this book, then Escalation is a horribly imbalanced book. Yes. I said it. Me. Ish the superheavy fanboy.

If players have the ability to bring many of the other choices Forgeworld has made over the years, then suddenly the toolbox for taking out that 800-point Revenant Titan gets a lot more versitile. Space Marines have the Fellblade or Caestus Assault Ram, for example… both are capable Titan-killers (if used right) and cost far less points/dollars than the Thunderhawk.

* Caveat: I haven't actually gotten a chance to read the book yet. This language might be in there, but based on the panic sweeping the internet, I don't think it is.

The Caestus might be able to take out a super heavy eventually, but it will take several turn since the caestus first has to come in from reserve (earlist turn 2) and then weather it down with the magnamelta. Then there's the difficulty in getting it to hit it more than two turns in a row and by now you're looking at a turn 5 drop at the latest. By now the titan has laid waste to the rest of your army. Sure, you have other things to shoot at it, but these diminish greatly the longer the titan is on the board. We haven't even started to factor in the rest of the eldar force. Sorry, I don't think the caestus is the answer. And as far as the fellblade is concerned, unless it has strength D (I'm familiar with the rules for it), it's probably not going to get the job done either.

You assume the Caestus is operating only as an attack craft, which is rather silly given that the bloody thing is a transport! It opens up on the enemy superheavy with its magnamelta and then it releases the kraken… or rather a hold full of Assault Terminators. Baneblades react poorly to thunderhammers and chainfists. ^_^

But the earliest that will happen is turn 3, that's 2 (3 if I'm going second) turns of fire I have to weather first. Not to mention that the Caestus + payload is more than 500 points in and of itself. And while this may have a chance against the revenant, it's not exactly a fantastic unit.

To be honest, it's not superheavies that I have a problem with, it's stength D. D weapons were designed to speed up apocalypse games. They simply were not designed for use in normal 40k.

It isn't, unless I missed it. You are restricted to the units in the book. ( 9 Baneblades, Thunderhawk, Revanant, Stompas, Lord of Skulls, Tesseract/C'tan, Harridan, Silly Flier).

That's just… disappointing. I mean, I still maintain that Imperial Armour is intended by Games Workshop as a standard part of the WH40k gameline, but Iknow that plenty of people disagree with me on that front (and let's not reopen that can of worms here). Escalation seems like the perfect way to bridge the gap between the "Only Citadel Miniatures" and "Forgeworld Too!" camps of our community.

I mean, I don't see how anyone could make a really convincing argument that a Thunderhawk is kosher as a Lord of War choice, but maintain that a Fellblade was not… O_o

No, I'm assuming that Games Workshop wwould want players to cross that divide, as it is i theiir best interests to get as many people to buy their products — Citadel and Forgeworld both — as they possibly can.

It is also in their best interests, however, to maintain the health of their game. Actions that drive players away don't help that any.

I'm not sure that doing what they're doing is driving any less players away than doing what Ish is suggesting. That said, I don't think gw is interested in bridging any gap. I think they're interested in "buy this fucking book, and these fucking miniatures, now say fucking thank you"

Well, I don't agree with a lot of the things Ish says, so there's that. He and I have very different perceptions of what is good for the game.

Alright, Ish, here's our pledge- before either of us dies, we go down to the LHC (or whatever version they have in 50+ years), get them to load us into it, and study the greatest energetic reaction mankind has ever seen.

How would adding more models and more rule types be driving players away? Where does it say in any codex or rule book that what has been added must ALWAYS be used? I see i can play apocalypse, as an example, but i am not forced to play it.

The only legitimate complaint that i have heard that i can see players getting upset with, would be something like what happened to Black Templars being rolled into the SM codex and losing a lot of their flare because of it. That type of action can drive players away.

Adding more models and more modes to the game? If you are worried about how it will effect competitive game play don't. Every game out there has made up rules and regulations about the games they play.

Look at Team Fortress 2. That game comes out with new weapons and items on the daily, yet the competitive community thrives just fine. Sure, some weapons are banned, as are some class combos (only having certain # of classes allowed on one team), but they don't have any problems being a competitive game to play in.

So to will these new rules and models go the same route of every other competitive game. For most players it'll be a new way to play, for everyone else it'll just be something to look into, and ban if it upsets the competitive community.

You all have to realize that the game is going to keep changing and evolving. New things will be added, new game modes, new models, it's going to happen. The game cannot hope to stay propserous if changes are not made. You may not agree with every change, and that's fine. GW themselves say you can just not play against those players same as how i'm sure some players refuse to play against Tau, or any army they perceive to be "too good". For competitive play, it will go through the paces and be allowed or not allowed.

Anything that is new to the game, should come as a good sign that GW is still trying to keep it interesting, and that maintains the health of the game. Arguing that adding new things to the game is detrimental to that health doesn't even make sense.

Especially coming from a competitive point of view. Where rules outside of the official rules are ALWAYS made for competitive games. MetaKnight banned in SSBB. Secret characters banned in Super Turbo Street Fighter (Akuma). Team Fortress 2 and weapon bans.

How would adding more models and more rule types be driving players away? Where does it say in any codex or rule book that what has been added must ALWAYS be used? I see i can play apocalypse, as an example, but i am not forced to play it.

The only legitimate complaint that i have heard that i can see players getting upset with, would be something like what happened to Black Templars being rolled into the SM codex and losing a lot of their flare because of it. That type of action can drive players away.

Adding more models and more modes to the game? If you are worried about how it will effect competitive game play don't. Every game out there has made up rules and regulations about the games they play.

Look at Team Fortress 2. That game comes out with new weapons and items on the daily, yet the competitive community thrives just fine. Sure, some weapons are banned, as are some class combos (only having certain # of classes allowed on one team), but they don't have any problems being a competitive game to play in.

So to will these new rules and models go the same route of every other competitive game. For most players it'll be a new way to play, for everyone else it'll just be something to look into, and ban if it upsets the competitive community.

You all have to realize that the game is going to keep changing and evolving. New things will be added, new game modes, new models, it's going to happen. The game cannot hope to stay propserous if changes are not made. You may not agree with every change, and that's fine. GW themselves say you can just not play against those players same as how i'm sure some players refuse to play against Tau, or any army they perceive to be "too good". For competitive play, it will go through the paces and be allowed or not allowed.

Anything that is new to the game, should come as a good sign that GW is still trying to keep it interesting, and that maintains the health of the game. Arguing that adding new things to the game is detrimental to that health doesn't even make sense.

Especially coming from a competitive point of view. Where rules outside of the official rules are ALWAYS made for competitive games. MetaKnight banned in SSBB. Secret characters banned in Super Turbo Street Fighter (Akuma). Team Fortress 2 and weapon bans.

How would adding more models and rules be driving players away?

I know! I mean MAgic the Gathering never bothered to limit the number of cards at their most popular tournaments!

Oh. Wait. They did. Because the more options you have, the more balance becomes exponetially harder to reach.

You are trying to compare Apocalypse – a variant – to a primary ruleset. That doesn't work. You are not forced to play Apocalypse, no. But if your opponent shows up with a Thunderhawk or a Revanant, your choices are 'deal with it' or 'leave'.

>How would adding more models and more rule types be driving players away?

Alright, imagine for a second they add a model that is 10pts, has a Terminator statline (with Storm Shield, of course) and carries a 48" range Meltagun as well as a Power Sword. Oh, and it's a Troop model for its army.

Do you think playing against those is going to be fun? Of course it won't. You're gonna see nothing but armies dropping 60+ of them on you at every single event and players are gonna get frustrated and stop playing. No one likes a game that is clearly unbalanced, because the presumption is that, at the start of the game, both players have roughly even chances of winning.

Problem is tournaments are trying to do the same thing your Team Fortress is doing & people are freaking out like it's the end of the world.

If GW wanted to get as many people as possible to buy their products they should work on an engaging skirmish-level version of the game for 1-2 squads that can get people hooked on the plastic crack.
THAT would help expand the hobby rather than saying 'You can take $350+ dollar models in standard games'.

bring your titan, ill bring my 3 13" tall void shield generators and block you los to my half of the table. good game yo.

That's actually a good strategy. Take IG, bring 2 Manticores and 3 Griffons, and some scoring units in Vendettas, and fill the area behind the shield generators with bodies so nobody can jump over. Rain artillery over the wall on the enemy, then bring in the air units to take objectives. Most Superheavies with blast weapons don't even have much with which to bring down Flyers, so the Vendettas are just going to shoot at the Titan until it drops. Well, them and the Manticores.

I have trouble imaging a setup that protects you from LOS from every possible 36" move while simultaneously not having any infantry close enough to the artillery pieces that one of the blasts can't tag them.

Wait, are we being serious now? Cause I thought this was a silly "what if we made some huge walls that were 13" high and hid our entire army behind them" portion of the posts. Getting serious on this topic feels kind of cheating :p

It doesn't help that the latest version of apoc seems to have missed the rule which says the revenant can either jump or shoot, not both.

I agree with Ish. The selection of superheavies is nowhere near balanced.

I would really like GW or Forgeworld to maintain some sort of official webpage which listed units and the name of the book with their current rules in it. It wouldn't have to be anything much more elaborate than a list, really… But it is gorram annoying to have to remember which of four Imperial Armour books has the rules for the Contemptor Mortis Dreadnought, for example.

The superheavy selection becomes a bit more balanced if you look to books beyond Escalation. Yes, this also opens up Reaver and Phantom Titans, but it also opens up Necron Pylons, Marauder Bombers, Fellblades, Sicarians, Spartans, and *gasp* *shock* *horror* Tau and Chaos choices that don't suck.

Tyranids are still kinda left out in the cold, but I suspect they'll be getting some really shiny new toys in a few months.

More than anything, that first point is why Forge World just galls me; is it really so much to ask to have a coherent list of what books have the rules for which models, and which is the most immediately relevant? Just put a little tag in on the page for the models themselves, "The current rule set for Unit X can be found in Forge World Publication Y." If someone's using the previous edition's codex, I know immediately; if someone rolls up with a previous version of a unit in an earlier book from Forge World where it's better, I have basically no hope of figuring out if he's trying to slip something by me.

Not quite true. For example, Imperial Armour Vol 2. (First Edition) came out in 2004, the Second Edition of that book goes on sale sometime next year… The vast majority of the units both books have in common have not changed since the first book was written. In that same ten year span, we have seen had _four_ Codex: Space Marines ('98, '05, '08, and '13) as well as three editions of the core game ('04, '08, and '12).

Not only did the basic rules of the game change, often dramatically, the vanilla codex saw some major shifts.

the rules for the caestus assault ram are in the badab war book, imperial armor apocalypse second edition, aeronatutica, and now IA2 second edition. All published within the past 3 years or so, and there's no where to go to tell you which rules to use (because some of them are different).

They don't need it; GW doesn't publish the rules for models in multiple places outside of very, very rare situations (for instance, both Death from the Skies and Codex: Space Marines now contain the rules for Storm Talons), and it's always obvious what the most current codex is, because it's the one that's currently on sale.

Not the same. C:I contains the rules for taking allied Inquisitors, henchmen, Valkyries, Chimeras, Razorbacks and Land Raiders. Even if Codex: Grey Knights changes its rules, the C:I rules would remain relevant because they're their own things.

Whereas the rules for, say, the Tau Barracuda or Tiger Shark can be found in about a half-dozen books at this point, and they're all, always supposed to be the same unit from the same book, not a distinct unit separate from copies that exist in other books.

While D weapons are mildly ridiculous, I think the revenant is the only option added by escalation with the potential to make the game seriously unfun (transcendent ctan is weird too, gargantuan creature that isn't actually that big? I kind of want to try it). And the revenant can still be neutered by loading up on void shield generators and long range anti tank. Which is the problem really, who wants to play such a heavily match up dependent game (leaving aside snipes about choosing to play 40k in the first place).

I actually think the void shield generators might turn out to be the biggest constraint on which lists are competitive and end up driving the game to more and more extreme builds. Or, perhaps more likely, all this stuff ends up de facto banned. Pity about the stompa and baneblade, but I doubt they would have got much use in competitive games anyway.

The Thunderhawk is a bear, as it is a superheavy AND a flyer AND packs a Str D weapon (yes, its an upgrade, but I've never seen on feilded without it) AND a transport. Which makes it very hard to hurt, lets it put out some serious firepower, and it can drop a small army of (potentially scoring) units on top of an objective with ease. Really the only thing that limits its usefulness is the $650 USD price tag and the difficulty in transporting it to the FLGS…

Have you swapped to arguing these things are too good now? πŸ˜›

At any rate I'm generally of the opinion that anything that costs ~700 points and doesn't start on the table is a dubious prospect. Plus I don't really see what a thunderhawk does that 3 stormravens wouldn't (aside from scaring some gimmicky daemon build).

Word on the street is GW would like to sell you skyshield so you can start your Thunderhawk on the table.

Sanity is for the weak.

I had not noticed the skyshield allowed that. I think I will insist that people try and fit the thunderhawk onto it if they do that (solely for amusement value).

According to Forgeworld's own site the "Thunderhawk Gunship measures 19 inches/480mm long and 17 inches/440mm wide." but the landing gear actually sits a couple of inches back from the nose or tail… The Skyshield Landing Pad is, what, 12" x 12" or something pretty close…

You might just be able to get that sucker to fit. If someonewants to loan me $800, I will be more than happy to report back to you on this. πŸ™‚

a huge consideration when compared to the revenants modest 250 Aud and easy portability (slightly larger wraithknight.

lol nine hit points no jink, 12 12 10 armour, my crimson hunters/vendetta's/stormtalons/tesla destructors/stormravens want a word with you:) and it can't fight in the air… for around 850 points with d. I'll take three storm ravens for 690 with hurricane blotters thanks:P

Yeah, the Thunderhawk isn't awful, since it's got Str D and all, but there are tons of things out there tat can give it a pretty bad time.

Pretty sure it's 12/12/12, it seems weird that it would be less well armoured than a Stormraven. I think it has a couple of Lascannons in the wings for anti-air, which while unimpressive for 775pts, are better than nothing.

nope it's rear armour ten, and it can still only fire two missiles a turn. it could get interceptored off the board by tau or forge world sabres pretty easy

GW wants to sell you as many models as possible, the pricier the better, and they don't really care how you use them afterwards. Tournaments will have to work around the new addition of Escalation, as they have many other things in 6th – it doesn't make for a very cohesive tournament scene, but it may keep the games fairer.

Escalation will make almost no difference as far as I'm concerned – there's a Stompa and a couple of Baneblades in my gaming group, but that's about it, and it'll actually be nice for the guys who have them to be able to use them in a few more games without doing something silly like Apocolypse. I'm kind of glad I only play Infinity competitively though.

Enter text right here!The simple answer to all of this would have been to declare that in WH40k Strength D is treated as S10 AP1 and give a X% discount accross the board for Superheavies (25% or what ever). Problem solved; people can include them but they are not going to be horribly OP in their power vs. what's already there but why take a decent route when you can take a bad one, eh GW?

I was hoping for "2plusplus is the new 3plusplus " for a while but yours has a much nicer ring to it


I whould suggest:
S 10 AP 1 , 1d3 pen rolls/ wounds per hit , ignore cover, invulnerable must be rerolled
Anyway, fliers are still immune to blasts, right??

BTW, if we count also FW, we need a 7th edition .
It seems d&d 3rd edition at its peak- a funny mess, unbalanced as hell.
So 3.5 was a welecome necessity. The same should be done here, making order on some hot issues, and keep the game the same.

However, in my opinion the best solution to lords of war is: play at 1500. If you spend 800 points in a non – scoring unit, 100 on a below average HQ, you're short for troops.

Wow…so you’re shocked that something that is called a “Titan Killer” is able to kill a super heavy without sD easy? Seriously?! That’s like me saying I’m surprised that a SM Stormraven with TL Multi, TL Lascannon, and 4 concussive s8 ap2 missiles is able to kill a GK Raven that is equipped with heavy bolters and hurricane bolters…
C’mon, you guys know that some things are DESIGNED to kill other things and don’t complain about those(Wraithknight vs Daemon Prince anyone?), yet with something is called a “Titan Killer” and is described in the books as being amongst the most powerful weaponry in the galaxy you’re shocked that it kills a Soul Grinder…
It never ceases to amaze me how people are surprised at what sD does…it’s a Titan Killer…If it can kill a Titan it can kill anything…
Keep calm people gheez

Warhammer World have declared that Escalation, Dataslates, Codex: Inquisition, and Codex: Adepta Sororitas will all be in use for the Throne Of Skulls and all other events after January 1st.

Isn't Throne of Skulls a 1,500 point tourney? You'd be hard pressed to fit anything mounting a Strength D weapon into a viable list at that level… IIRC, the Shadowsword is the lowest cost option and it clocks in at 450-plus-upgrades.

This would certainly be my preferred way of dealing with Escalation, if I decided to include it; you're welcome to bring whatever you want… but the tournaments will be in the 1500 point range, so budget very, very carefully.

Doing a 2K or 2500 tournament with them just makes it too easy for those few armies that got good Escalation units to throw in enough cheap scoring and blocking units to make up for the hole the superheavy would otherwise leave in their orders of battle.

The release of the Forge World Lord's of War update does help rectify the imbalance a little bit… Chaos Space Marines pick up the Thunderhawk, Brass Scorpion, and a pair of Titans; Daemons get the Brass Scorpion and a quartet of badass Special Characters; `Nids get both Hierodules and their Bio-Titan; Eldar get some things that aren't quite as NECKBEARD RAEG inducing as the Revenant; and Orks just get all sorts of fun stuff… Tau get, um, well…

Hell, even the Sisters of Battle get in on the act! I really, really want to see someone convert a Marauder into a Sororitas unit. So. Much. Bling.

Yes, they are… if you know what to do with them. But as with most superheavies and titans, the amount of firepower and durability you could get with "conventional" units, like Russes or Land Raiders, is usually a lot greater than the 800+ or 1200+ points of a Warhound or Reaver.

One the one hand, both can carry Strength D weapons or some truly disgusting amount of non-Strength D daka and have a large number of hull points, great armour, etc. On the other hand, both are giant fire magnets for anything your opponent can throw at it… (The Warhound, especially, doesn't react well to titankiller weapons. It's a scout, not a frontliner.)

I’m in nerd love with the war hound now, esp since GW went “surer everything’s legal for normal games now!!”. So I tweaked my 1850 white scar successor with space wolf allies to be able to fit the 750pt tax of having a war hound πŸ™‚

Now just gotta get past the like $500 pricetag

Really? Which ones do you find so troublesome? Because they're pretty much all arranged by army book or codex, and there's only one book for each army for sale at any given time.