# Lord of skulls



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

So with escalation out I was looking over The Lord of war that both my armies had access to, The Lord of skulls, and had a few questions about its practicality. 

First and foremost would be its ability to get tarpit'd. Since it's classed as a walker, but instead of stomp it thunderblitzes instead, doesn't this mean that blob squads and cultists can tie it up for many turns because of his relatively low attacks? Without stomp, there isn't much it can do to break such a tarpit, or am I missing something huge here?

Second question would be the skullhurlers 'gnaw' rule, which simply says successful armor saves must be rerolled. Does this encompass invulnerable saves as well? And more of a stretch, cover? If it's just armor saves, being ap3, would only terminators have to reroll against it? (Making its price tag pointless?) 

Lastly would be its gigantic price tag itself. Its 888 points before upgrades, as I'm not seeing why. For 12 points more you can have 4D templates, triple the mobility, and a holofield. For half it's cost you can have a baneblade that has more armor, a more impressive weapon, and can sit in the backfield relatively safe (compared to The Lord of skulls having to get close for its secondary weapon and close combat leaving it very vulnerable to meltas and dedicated close combat units). Is IWND and a 5++ really worth 300+ extra points? Or did they forget practicality when determining its price tag and just went with the fluffy approach? 

I'm curious to hear how people have faired with it, in regular or apocalypse games. I still intend to use it because it could be fun, but I just see glaring drawbacks to its design.

Edit: forget the cultist comment, forgot about 'our weapons are useless'.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Ravner298 said:


> First and foremost would be its ability to get tarpit'd. Since it's classed as a walker, but instead of stomp it thunderblitzes instead, doesn't this mean that blob squads and cultists can tie it up for many turns because of his relatively low attacks? Without stomp, there isn't much it can do to break such a tarpit, or am I missing something huge here?


Super-heavies can walk into and out of combat, they cannot be locked in combat with anything except, if I remember, other super-heavies, and even then only Walkers or Gargantuans.



Ravner298 said:


> Second question would be the skullhurlers 'gnaw' rule, which simply says successful armor saves must be rerolled. Does this encompass invulnerable saves as well? And more of a stretch, cover? If it's just armor saves, being ap3, would only terminators have to reroll against it? (Making its price tag pointless?)


No, only armour, so only 2+ armour people have to reroll.



Ravner298 said:


> Lastly would be its gigantic price tag itself. Its 888 points before upgrades, as I'm not seeing why. For 12 points more you can have 4D templates, triple the mobility, and a holofield. For half it's cost you can have a baneblade that has more armor, a more impressive weapon, and can sit in the backfield relatively safe (compared to The Lord of skulls having to get close for its secondary weapon and close combat leaving it very vulnerable to meltas and dedicated close combat units). Is IWND and a 5++ really worth 300+ extra points? Or did they forget practicality when determining its price tag and just went with the fluffy approach?


No, it's not worth 888pts (the same as Ang'grath, because LOL KHORNE LIKES 8). Revenants are an unfair example because they're overpowered as all hell, but the Thunderhawk is around 100pts cheaper and is a Flyer with transport capacity, Strength D guns, and a bunch of other guns.

If a Baneblade is a Leman Russ, the Lord of Skulls is it's Defiler.

Midnight


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

Good analogy. However the rule where walkers can leave combat willingly is absent in apoc2 and by extension escalation. Vehicles still can just like they can in 40k. This was thought to be a balancing act. If anyone is seeing evidence to the contrary I'd love to hear it.


----------



## Mokuren (Mar 29, 2011)

So I wasn't alone in thinking Chaos' super heavy sucks and is horrendously overpriced for what little it does, and is amazingly underpowered in the only thing it's supposed to do well. Like wreck things with its giant axe of murder.

It's really bad when a Stompa both shoots and fights better than a super-heavy dedicated to Khorne.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Lord of Skulls looks like a fun Super Heavy, but not a competitive one. That isn't to say you can't have the former without the latter but it does mean if you're really trying too, there are going to be problems along the way.

Forge World has said their releasing a pdf "in a few days" (said a couple days ago now) that lists more Lords of War so CSM should see a few more options at least if the Lord of Skulls isn't your thing.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

On a slightly different note, as a exclusively Nurgle player with my daemons I would like to be able to nurglyfy the Lord of Skulls. He is far to Khornesk for my tastes.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

humakt said:


> On a slightly different note, as a exclusively Nurgle player with my daemons I would like to be able to nurglyfy the Lord of Skulls. He is far to Khornesk for my tastes.


Add worms coming out of the skulls, along with dripping green pus like liquid, add pustules (green stuff), texture (stipple liquid greenstuff) and convet the fleshy face with a centeral eye.

Bonus points for damaging the hull (pits, holes(which should leak fluids) and battlescars), and replacing the heads on the tanks on the back with ones that are more Nurgle based (perhaps Nurgle Hounds?), replacing the axe with a scythe or a rusty cleaver and reworking all of the Khorne marks into Nurlge ones (more greenstuff).


----------



## JAMOB (Dec 30, 2010)

Just call it the Lord of Rot or something


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

humakt said:


> He is far to Khorney for my tastes.


Fixed... sorry, I had to.

If you model it, you need to have the obligatory guts hanging out


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

JAMOB said:


> Just call it the Lord of Rot or something


Exactly. The extra attacks? Nurgle's reward as each lost hull point has resulted in burst boils and spreading of the disease and rot. The S-D melee? His attacks are so toxic they hit with the force of a super-weapon. Ect.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

If you google nurgle lord of skulls there is a fantastic conversion with basically everything Zion lists. Looks great with a gigantic scythe. 

And Zion, despite what forgeworld stamps or not, aren't the only '40k legal' lords of war the ones currently present in escalation? 

On a seperate note, I don't see why The Lord of skulls doesn't cost in the neighborhood of 500, not its 'fluffy' 888, before even more expensive weapons. It's still good, but at that price it will always feel like its underperforming unless it somehow is allowed to charge another lord of war (which isn't very likely).


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

The only legal one's are in escalation - however the rumour is that fw are going to add lord of war via faq to a bunch of units.
I've heard that the new imperial armour book has this term in - that'd mean lots of sm vehicles straight off the bat.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

FW is always as legal as an thing else, as their options are just more that alter your army list, just like Escalation does. So unless you've banned it locally it'll be open for use.

And yes, there is a PDF from FW coming this week with more options.


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

Are the Chaos titans any better than the Lord of Skulls?

Looking at the Reaver Titan right now. Good guns, but ugh... 1450 points. Screw that.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

venomlust said:


> Looking at the Reaver Titan right now. Good guns, but ugh... 1450 points. Screw that.


It throws around Strength D large blasts and has Void Shields as well as decent armour.



Zion said:


> FW is always as legal as an thing else, as their options are just more that alter your army list, just like Escalation does. So unless you've banned it locally it'll be open for use.


Forge World isn't standard 40k, so I would argue that unless you've specifically _allowed_ it in your area, you cannot use it.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

MidnightSun said:


> Forge World isn't standard 40k, so I would argue that unless you've specifically _allowed_ it in your area, you cannot use it.


Care to show me where the rulebook defines "standard 40k"?

Hint: it doesn't. It does however tell you that a legal army list is from a codex, is from a codex, but has been altered (something FW, datasheets and codex supplements all do, so if you chuck FW out on this one, out goes the others too because they all operate under the same "permission"), or that you can "use your own system" (homebrew mostly).

That's enough to say "FW is legal" in my book. Anyone who wants to argue some kind of "standard" for 40k is just trying to argue that they don't want to talk to their opponent about the game they're going to play and wants the freedom to assume things.

Good luck in a game that now has D-Weapons.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Forge World rules are not published by Games Workshop, nor are they specifically endorsed by Games Workshop. They're the equivalent of a Fandex.

When I can buy Forge World from Games Workshop, it'll be official.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

MidnightSun said:


> Forge World rules are not published by Games Workshop, nor are they specifically endorsed by Games Workshop. They're the equivalent of a Fandex.
> 
> When I can buy Forge World from Games Workshop, it'll be official.


Bottom of the GW page is a link to FW. On the book is a GW logo, and FW is part of the GW PLC.

Also: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=12100010-gws
FW in the WD Daily blog. It's also in the White Dwarf every month since the new format came out.

Oh, and Jervis Johnson said this in IA2 (the original):









So yeah, FW is a part of GW. It was launched in 1999 to make cool models (mostly tanks), and IA1 was released in 2000 to give those models rules. And it's been a part of them ever since.

Don't confuse a brand, or a different website URL for being a different company. This is the same company that sells their paints and models under the "Citadel" brand after all.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

My local GW stocks a limited supply of FW books.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Zion said:


> Bottom of the GW page is a link to FW. On the book is a GW logo, and FW is part of the GW PLC.


I am aware that it, like Black Library, is part of the GW PLC. They are not, however, part of the branch of the GW PLC that publishes the rules for 40k.



Zion said:


> Oh, and Jervis Johnson said this in IA2 (the original):


In my 2nd edition Codex: Ultramarines, it says I need to ask my opponent's permission to use special characters.

If GW means it to be a simple add-on to normal 40k, no questions asked, then surely they would allow it in their tournaments.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I forgot one: some of the Escalation models are from Forge World, ditto the Apoc models.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Guess you're ignoring what I said and the link to WD daily then?

Specifically this bit: _"All the units include a full set of rules, updated for the current edition of Warhammer 40,000, enabling you to use them in your battles."

_And before you take the tourny line, in the offical GW tournies they also ban proxies, unpainted or three color minis and require the prior say so for conversions. You taking that line as well?


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Pretty sure that Dawn of War II was announced on White Dwarf Daily, doesn't mean it's valid in 40k.

Also, last time I checked, there was still a paragraph at the start of all Forge World books to the effect of 'While these rules can be considered official, you should check to see if your opponent is happy with Forge World rules first as they may be unfamiliar with them'. With regard to the unpainted models bit of your reply, that's not related to the rules of the game, it's how the models are presented. Like saying 'You may only wear a suit to the tournament'.

However, I can see myself turning into a bit of a twat, so I'll just say that I personally like Forge World and use it in games, and leave it there. No offence caused, I hope.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

MidnightSun said:


> Pretty sure that Dawn of War II was announced on White Dwarf Daily, doesn't mean it's valid in 40k.


It also doesn't have models or supply rules for models. Not quite the same thing.



MidnightSun said:


> Also, last time I checked, there was still a paragraph at the start of all Forge World books to the effect of 'While these rules can be considered official, you should check to see if your opponent is happy with Forge World rules first as they may be unfamiliar with them'. With regard to the unpainted models bit of your reply, that's not related to the rules of the game, it's how the models are presented. Like saying 'You may only wear a suit to the tournament'.


Note that the statement doesn't say you need your opponent's _permission_ to use them. It's about not being a dick with them and throwing them on the table against people who haven't played against them before. It's more in keeping with the Spirit of the Game and being a good sport who intends to make the experiance enjoyable for both sides of the table.

You know, that sort of thing people forget about when they bring their Quadtide armies against Dark Eldar.

Tournaments operate on a number of house rules to function by the way. Rounds, prizes, brackets, preset terrain, and more, are things that aren't in the rulebook but appear at tournaments. Likewise, GW doesn't permit homebrew in their tournaments, which we've already shown the rules say is legal, and they have banned/restricted allies in the past, despite the rulebook's statements on those.

Just because a tournament, even one held at Warhammer World, does something, it doesn't mean the game needs to be played that way, or that the way it's done at a tournament is the "official" way to play.

This is a ruleset that permits homebrew and says the rules are a framework to build upon. To claim the rules ban a perfectly compatible and valid means of play, namely the FW stuff, because it's not in the codex, or sold on the main site is asinine and really just needs to stop being said. The game isn't meant to be fettered like this, and the claims that is somehow should show me people who don't really want to let others enjoy themselves and are just trying to shove the game in a little box of what _they_ think it should be, instead of letting it be what it actually is and letting others enjoy it in the ways they see fit.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

So what happens when your opponent says they're not happy to play against it? 

I'll rephrase what I said earlier: when I can go to my FLGS and use Forge World without anyone batting an eyelid, I'll consider Forge World to be official.


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

That will probably never happen; FW models are expensive so there aren't many people that buy them, meaning that there aren't many people who played with/against them either.


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

I can walk into the local games club/gw and use forge world without anyone batting an eyelid.

In the flesh, I don't know a single gamer who doesn't have something from forgeworld - from 1 lonely khorne lord (zhufor) to whole 30k armies to thunderhawks.

If we're concerned about prices, we're already in the wrong hobby.

Without FW, what can compete with the baneblades and lords of skulls that escalation is going to ensure you meet on the table?


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

Gret79 said:


> I can walk into the local games club/gw and use forge world without anyone batting an eyelid.
> 
> In the flesh, I don't know a single gamer who doesn't have something from forgeworld - from 1 lonely khorne lord (zhufor) to whole 30k armies to thunderhawks.
> 
> ...


Granted I was less shocked when I saw FW's prices than I was when I first got into the hobby a couple of years ago but they're still pretty expensive.

As for what can compete with the Baneblades and Lords of Skulls? How about a brain? You're not going to win a shooting contest against a Baneblade just as much as you're not going to win an arm wrestling contest against a Lord of Skulls. Like the Orks say; Shoot teh choppy and chop teh shooty!:grin:


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

Ryu_Niimura said:


> As for what can compete with the Baneblades and Lords of Skulls? How about a brain? You're not going to win a shooting contest against a Baneblade just as much as you're not going to win an arm wrestling contest against a Lord of Skulls. Like the Orks say; Shoot teh choppy and chop teh shooty!:grin:


Thats expecting a bit much isn't it? I play play 40k AND have to use my brain?! 
I only play 40k to have an excuse to go on forums and moan about 40k. Isn't that what the internets for? :laugh:


But without forgeworld, how do you stop a Lord of Skulls in a chaos demons list who uses divination to cast forewarning and uses the grimoire to give the Lord a 2++ without resorting to blind luck?


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

Gret79 said:


> Thats expecting a bit much isn't it? I play play 40k AND have to use my brain?!
> I only play 40k to have an excuse to go on forums and moan about 40k. Isn't that what the internets for? :laugh:
> 
> 
> But without forgeworld, how do you stop a Lord of Skulls in a chaos demons list who uses divination to cast forewarning and uses the grimoire to give the Lord a 2++ without resorting to blind luck?


Simple; You don't. It's firepower is decent but not all that impressive so you try to outrun it and focus down Kairos. With Kairos out of the way the Grimoire becomes significantly less effective. Besides if your opponent has a superheavy and you don't that means you're going to have more models on the table than he does.

Edit: Also everybody seems to blatantly miss the Warlord table in the Escalation book which offers some nice bonusses for fighting superheavies.


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

If you take the Skull Hurler on the Lord of Skulls, it's got a 60" range, str 9, ap3, 10" blast template that makes you re-roll successful saves... Thats hard to run from


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

True that thing is just.. Well absurd really:grin: But think with me for a second; Kairos is 300PTS, the Lord of Skulls + Skullhurler costs 948PTS that's 1,248PTS for only 2 models and I didn't even get to the 2 troop choices minimum and the Herald carrying the Grimoire. Just think of how much models you could put on the table for those points. Sure the Lord of Skulls will kill anything it so much as even looks at but why would you even care? There are still plenty of models on your side of the table and if you can manage to wipe out all of his besides maybe his Lord of Skulls there's simply no way he could ever win.


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

It'd be a horrible game - can I wipe his troops before he ruins my list? :grin:

If FW give Lord of War status to much more then it won't be a problem - you could counter it with your own d-weapons.


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

As Zion already said that will most likely be the case. This n3rdrage over Escalation is the same as with the introduction of Flyers, people are intimidated by the display of power and are unable to think straight. Eventually people will find ways to deal with it just as they do with Flyers.

The reason why I love the Lord of Skulls so much is because it wasn't designed as an I-win button but as a firemagnet. Seriously why would you want this thing to have a 2++? Don't you want it to be battered with gaping holes in it when it reaches your opponents lines and drives through them like a knife through butter?:grin:


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

It depends if I'm the one with chaos or not :grin:


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

Hahaha in the end this game is all just a matter of perspective:wink:


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

MidnightSun said:


> So what happens when your opponent says they're not happy to play against it?


Then you don't play them. Just like you don't play them if they don't want to play against Quaddrakes, or Triptides. Your opponent's happiness does not make something more or less legal or official, it's just a matter of sportsmanship in not surprising people with something they're not familiar with. In short, FW is just saying "don't be a dick".


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I'd be tempted to get a lord of skulls to convert, just so I can make it look less like a vicious armored rabbit


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

You realize that the skullhurler doesn't ignore cover saves? And the gnaw rule only works on regular armor saves not cover/invuln? Even guardsman assuming t1 nightfight in cover have a 2++. 

You'll only see things start to vanish when it's hell storm template gets in range. But then so are your meltaguns and dedicated close combat units (who don't give 2 shits about a 2++ cover save).


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Ravner298 said:


> You realize that the skullhurler doesn't ignore cover saves? And the gnaw rule only works on regular armor saves not cover/invuln? Even guardsman assuming t1 nightfight in cover have a 2++.


Gnaw just says "reroll successful saving throws" in the Escalation book. That'd mean armor, cover and invuls (but not FnP because that's not a save). And it's AP3 so if it didn't work on invuls and cover it'd be a _lot_ less useful.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

Zion said:


> Gnaw just says "reroll successful saving throws" in the Escalation book. That'd mean armor, cover and invuls (but not FnP because that's not a save). And it's AP3 so if it didn't work on invuls and cover it'd be a _lot_ less useful.



I stand corrected. Even still, a 2++ rerollable won't net many if any kills. In the era of ADL and shrouded everywhere, cover ignoring blasts like the one baneblade weapon are a lot scarier than gnaw.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

@Zion

I was going to write up more stuff with an example from 3++, but on further reading I see a statement from Aaron Dembski-Bowden that Forge World is perfectly legal.

The problem is that GW won't actually say _what is the standard stuff_. This is from Aaron Dembski-Bowden, who presumably knows more about GW practices than we do:



> you have to bear in mind that GW is specifically not aiming to tell any players how they can use their toy soldiers. That's vastly against their policy. So they don't make clear, outright statements like that. They release rules, and let people follow them or ignore them as people choose.





> If the fans want to argue over whether them, they're free to use the rules however they like. [Games Workshop] are not in the business of stamping their feet and telling people how to have fun - which is an ethos they've kept since the company's founding - and one the designers are all passionate about, no matter what the weekly online mudslinging in GW's direction might be.





> Tournament play isn't considered at all in design (it's not, as far as I've been told, and as far as every employee publically says) and Games Workshop has made its stance on Forge World as clear as it is likely to make it


GW just won't commit and say whether Forge World is hard-and-fast legal or not; they just throw up their hands and say 'Here's a bunch of rules, you work out what you're going to play with'. They freely admit on page 8 of the BRB:



> It's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable experience... Your job isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.


The big problem with having guidelines instead of hard-and-fast rules is that everyone interprets the guidelines differently. According to the above quote, not using Forge World rules is just as valid as using them (and yes, inversely, using Forge World rules is just as valid as not using them).

It's a confusing mess. We could argue this until doomsday but the bottom line is that it's all down to personal preference and what you agree with your gaming group. There is no right or wrong interpretation, which is frustrating and liberating in equal measures.

Peace, brother Heretic.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Midnight, it's pretty clear to me for a while that based on the information I've read from the rulebook, the Spirit of the Game, and ADB's comments that _everything_ is legal. It's just up to you if you want to use it. I've been arguing this for a while: the game isn't as strictly defined as people like to claim. The standard is everything, and the players deviate from it as they wish.

It's why I have that whole "Bigger than a Breadbox" article in my sig.


----------



## JAMOB (Dec 30, 2010)

Zion said:


> Midnight, it's pretty clear to me for a while that based on the information I've read from the rulebook, the Spirit of the Game, and ADB's comments that _everything_ is legal. It's just up to you if you want to use it. I've been arguing this for a while: the game isn't as strictly defined as people like to claim. The standard is everything, and the players deviate from it as they wish.
> 
> It's why I have that whole "Bigger than a Breadbox" article in my sig.


I get that, I'm just saying that, when playing competitively, it needs to be better defined. For casual play, it's a wonderfully diverse and crazy game


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Zion said:


> Midnight, it's pretty clear to me for a while that based on the information I've read from the rulebook, the Spirit of the Game, and ADB's comments that _everything_ is legal. It's just up to you if you want to use it. I've been arguing this for a while: the game isn't as strictly defined as people like to claim. The standard is everything, and the players deviate from it as they wish.
> 
> It's why I have that whole "Bigger than a Breadbox" article in my sig.


Firstly; yeah, 40k is very open ended and that's something fun for games with a couple of friends. It's frustrating, however, for those of us who have to go to public venues for games, since you have no ideas who will be using which supplements or Forge World or list or whatever. It's also a bitch for organised events; you have to just make your ban list and hope that it's agreed with, because GW sure aren't going to help you with it. Indeed, Feast of Blades at the very least are putting some major restrictions on wargear and units, which I think is good for both the competitive scene and the fun factor of the game. It's simply not enjoyable to spend a couple of hours pulling Marines off the board because my opponent brought a bunch of Heldrakes, and it's even less enjoyable to move four Flyers around the board, pointing at units and saying 'remove those' until you win.

Secondly; while there's some good stuff in the 'Bigger than a Breadbox' article, I disagree with the paragraph on 'You need to play X!'. If you want to play competitive CSM, you bring Heldrakes. I'm afraid that it's boring, unfun, and unchallenging, but it's the best option for winning games with. Spawn, Bikes, Raptors and Warp Talons are all more interesting, tactically challenging, and have pretty models, and while a good player with Spawn and Bikes can beat a shitty player with Heldrakes, it's unnecessarily challenging yourself. Yes, you can win with sub-optimal units, but you can win with really good units; the only difference being that once you start coming across other people who are just as good as you, the guy with better units is probably going to do better. The simple fact is that you need objectives to win, and Heldrakes are the single best unit in the Codex, and probably the game, for removing MEQ from objectives. MEQ are the most common army, so you bring Heldrakes to have the best chance against the most targets. Imagine Chess, but one side replaces all of it's pawns with rooks. Yeah, the other guy can win, and if the rook player is a compete novice and the pawn player is a grandmaster then the pawn player is at a distinct advantage, but if they're both grandmasters, the guy who brought rooks is going to win.

Or something. If you want competitive Tau, you bring Riptides. You want competitive Eldar, you bring Wave Serpents. You want competitive Daemons, you abuse the Grimoire. Rooks vs pawns.

EDIT: God damnit, that sounds really bad. It's a good article, I just disagree with some of it. But that's another debate


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

I think we are getting a little sidetracked here so allow me to bring it back on topic:grin:

I have a question; Can the Lord of Skulls get stuck in combat? I know someone said they can't earlyer in this topic because they can't be locked in combat with anything less than other superheavies. But I've read somewhere else that this was the case in an older version of Apocalypse and that they can now be tarpitted.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Playing competitively is fine, but there is a lot of people pushing people to play those combos outside of competitive play and tournaments. 

Plus sometimes finding your own way to win can be more rewarding even if it doesn't fit the Internet's way to win. One of the best ways to beat the meta has often been to do things outside of the meta, to choose things it doesn't expect or plan for.

I'm not say if you want to play Triptide you're wrong, or that it's a bad way to play, but that when you aren't playing a competitive game to take a step back, go a little softer or even go nuts and try that combo you'd never use in a tournament. Experiment, adapt, cut loose and just do something and see what happens.

Not only is it good for you by keeping you from setting yourself into this rut on how the game should be played, but it also gives you more tools to use competively, even with a game that really isn't that awesomely balanced for competition.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Oh, yes, certainly. I don't believe you should run tri-Drake all day every day, because you lose sight of anything else like 'fun' and get bored of the game. I'm saying that in a competitive environment, you need to optimise your list. It's not often I'll reply to a thread called, I dunno, 'Fluffy Thousand Sons list' with 'Take Noise Marines like a sane person would'. However, I do respond in that manner to threads such as, for example, '2000pts competitive chaos list' consisting of Warp Talons and Berzerkers.

I don't think for a moment that nobody should ever play anything but some super-optimised, standard-codex-only 40k. I think it's brilliant that we have the option to use Forge World and Stronghold Assault and, even if it's an absolute abortion in it's execution, Escalation. I just don't think that it has any place in tournament 40k, or indeed in pick up games. In games with people in your gaming group that you know, or even with a complete stranger that you've talked to in advance over which of the four different printings of the Contemptor rules you're using, then I fully support supplements and Forge World.

Back on track, if super-heavy walkers can be locked in combat then it opens up some interesting options, to be sure.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

"Super-heavies can walk into and out of combat, they cannot be locked in combat with anything except, if I remember, other super-heavies, and even then only Walkers or Gargantuans."

Care to tell us all the page number where that rule is in the current Apocalypse and/or Escalation Rulebooks.
I'd really like to see it.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

That rule is from the first version of apocalypse an is not present in the current apoc book and escalation. Super heavy walkers have stomp for tarpits, vehicles can thunderblitz infantry and leave combat willingly.....The Lord of skulls is a super heavy walker without stomp. Meaning it can thunderblitz but can't leave combt willingly like a vehicle. So both disadvantages with none of the perks.


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

Meaning the simplest way to deal with it to throw blobs of infrantry in front of it. Nevertheless it still looks badass and I'm still cramming one into my 2,000PTS list:grin:

Edit: Also thanks for clearing that up!^^


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

Ravner298 said:


> That rule is from the first version of apocalypse an is not present in the current apoc book and escalation. Super heavy walkers have stomp for tarpits, vehicles can thunderblitz infantry and leave combat willingly.....The Lord of skulls is a super heavy walker without stomp. Meaning it can thunderblitz but can't leave combt willingly like a vehicle. So both disadvantages with none of the perks.


Yes, I know that, hence why I challenged the statement.
My point is that many people at the moment are throwing glaring inaccuracies or outright rubbish around with regards to recent releases and people with either little or no experience of those rulesets are taking those inaccuracies and rubbish and believing them to be gospel and forming opinions based on them.

Next thing is the sky is falling...

(It's not, by the way)


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

Pssyche said:


> Yes, I know that, hence why I challenged the statement.
> My point is that many people at the moment are throwing glaring inaccuracies or outright rubbish around with regards to recent releases and people with either little or no experience of those rulesets are taking those inaccuracies and rubbish and believing them to be gospel and forming opinions based on them.
> 
> Next thing is the sky is falling...
> ...


That's the exact reason why I double checked because the Escalation book doesn't mention it, atleast not literally.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

"That's the exact reason why I double checked...”

I wish more people had the same attitude as you Ryu, I really do.
It's unbelievable the amount of rubbish being touted as fact on every Forum at present concerning these releases by people who haven't read any of them.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Can I have a quick clarification? As Escalation is an add on to standard 40k, the rules in Apoc should be irrelevant, or am I missing something. I certainly wont have the Apoc rule set to use.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

The Eldar Revenant Datasheet, and the Super Heavy/Gargantuan Creature Rules are the same in both Apocalypse and Escalation.
I haven't compared the other factions Lords of War, but would be surprised if they differed, either.


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

humakt said:


> Can I have a quick clarification? As Escalation is an add on to standard 40k, the rules in Apoc should be irrelevant, or am I missing something. I certainly wont have the Apoc rule set to use.


Just as Pssyche said the rules are pretty much the same, I couldn't find the explanation I was looking for in the Escalation book so I asked around. If it clearly stated in the Apocalypse rules that a superheavy-walker can't be locked in combat then it should be the same in Escalation and vice versa.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Ryu_Niimura said:


> Just as Pssyche said the rules are pretty much the same, I couldn't find the explanation I was looking for in the Escalation book so I asked around. If it clearly stated in the Apocalypse rules that a superheavy-walker can't be locked in combat then it should be the same in Escalation and vice versa.


Not necessarily. It may obviously be an omission form the escalation book, but it may also be that they afre happy for super heavies to get lock to reduce their power. Also do you need Apoc to play escalation? That would seem pointless in producing the escalation book in the first place.


----------



## Ryu_Niimura (May 1, 2013)

No you don't need it, heck if you're a Daemon player like myself you don't even need the CSM codex as the special rules for the Lord of Skulls are described underneath so you don't have to cross reference anything.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

I don't believe it is an omission.

In First Edition Apocalypse on page 91, there are two particular paragraphs of note on the right hand side of the page. 
The first is the last paragraph of the Assault Phase Rules.
That SPECIFICALLY says (my emphasis, not shouting) that at the end of an Assault enemy models that are not Super Heavy or Gargantuan must make a Consolidate Move in order to move at least 1" away from the Gargantuan Creature/Super Heavy.

There is no corresponding Rule in the current Apocalypse Edition or indeed Escalation, which for the most part is a cut and paste of Apocalypse.


The second paragraph of note on page 91 of First Edition Apocalypse is the second one under Special Rules. 
This SPECIFICALLY states that Gargantuan Creatures are NOT (again, my emphasis not shouting) affected by Psychic Powers either Friendly or Enemy unless it has a Strength Value. 
The equivalent Vehicle one is to be found on page 93.

Neither of these paragraphs regarding Psychic Powers can be found in the current edition of Apocalypse/Escalation.


Edit: No, you don't need Apocalypse in order to use Escalation and yes I do think that it is a way to lock Super Heavy Walkers and Gargantuan Creatures in Combat, thus denying their Shooting.


----------

