Lords of War and Primarchs

[Gryphon]

Hey Everyone,
In my local area of Florida the players are discussing the inclusion of LoW,and how and if they should be included in a game. Now, I am a relatively new player. I started at the very end of 5th, so I am not familiar with everything. However, I've seen on other forums and things that the C'tan and the Revenant Titan are broken. This may or may not be the case I don't know, but when I mention using my Primarch everyone pitches a fit and calls it broken. I don't understand this. Sure the Primarchs are good, but their saves and stats aren't that much better than a chapter master, and their wounds limited. Granted they are tough, and can be difficult to chew threw, but it is only 1 model. My big question is: How can a Primarch be broken if you can bring a C'tan, a Revenant Titan, a Warhound Titan, and a super-heavy with D weapons to tournaments? Can anyone help me with this. I think everyone else is over reaction. A D weapon will still one-shot a primarch, so I don't know what all the fuss is. Thanks.

[Wildcard]

Well, it could be that old claim, that 30k and 40k are not balanced against each other. Units, weapons and rules in 30k books are meant to be used against other armies from those 30k era books, where 40k should have counters to 40k units..

Point worth noting, that i am with you on this one. Haven't seen Primarchs used tho, so i cannot say for sure..

[Charistoph]

People are dumb, panicky, and stupid. That's all the "reason" they feel they need.

Still, I'd feel you'd have to justify fielding one with a codex and not an HH army.

[Mr.Pickelz]

imo, units like the Mortariat and rules like the "Fury of the Legion" on tactical marines give an impression that the HH rule-set should be a stand alone entity, and is not intended to fight against 40k codex counter parts.

[Dalleron]

I think the problem is what is a "lord of War" now. Used to be, in the good old days of 6th ed, that they were superheavies. Nowadays, Lords of War are certain bad arsed characters, in addition to the superheavies. I was talking with the local redshirt about this, and he said the character LoW are there to allow formations to be taken and such and it does make sense. Though GW obviously didn't take superheavies into account while doing this, and should be separate but that's another discussion for another day.

The current C'tan aren't as uber as they used to be, if you're not talking the apoc ascended C'tan. Titans are pretty powerful yes, but take up a rather large chunk of points. If you're worried about coming across one in tournies, ask the organizer if they're allowed or not. If they are you and you don't want to face off against it, save your $$ and don't go. You have the right to enjoy the game as much as your opponent.

And I agree with the poster above. Primarchs are intended to be used against other HH book armies, not really against anything in 40k.

[YorkNecromancer]

IMO, the Primarchs aren't really balanced for standard 40K. Apocalypse? Sure. But in 40K they are absurdly powerful. Just by way of example, Ferrus Manus is literally immune to Bolter fire, and even Melta guns only wound him on a 5+! Then he has a 2+/3++ and FNP! For less than 500 points!

Of course, if someone wanted to use one in a game against me? I'd have no problems with it, because I don't play anything but casual, and frankly I like the stupidly overpowered stuff that's of limited use (unlike Seerstars, Ferrus Manus remains only one bloke, and for all his godlike powers, can only cause so much damage on a 6'x4' board). I'd allow it because it's fun, and I imagine quite a few people would as well, especially if you showed up with a beautifully painted model.

But in pure balance terms, they're a bit too much for regular 40K.

[Gryphon]

Thanks everyone.
Yeah, the 30k is for 30k was thrown at me, and the Primarchs are too powerful. A couple of players actually accused me of cherry picking for a clear win. Aside from the fact that I just want a chance to win, I just wanted to play the $90 dollar model I bought instead of having it sit on the shelf. Ferrus Manus is the only LoW that I own. I still think it's silly though. It seems amongst the vast number of 40k players that it is okay to use their broken models, but someone else wants to use his and they are all up in arms about it. Maybe the point cost for Ferrus is good, but one model faced against a Warhound Titan or Revenant Titan prevents a game from being one sided. I kind a wished they had just left the 30k models out of 40k altogether. I have a lot of fun with 40k, but with the unbalanced rules, non-sensical rules, OP shenanigans, and people yelling you can't do that because it's broken, except their army which is broken, is starting to get wearisome.

Maybe I just don't know how to play the game right. I haven't been playing for 30+years like most, so don't own every codex, don't know all the armies, and have no idea how to make a broken, much less effective, list.

York Necromancer, you are probably one of the few that would be willing to face off against Ferrus, and I thank you for that. Ferrus is a great rules wise, and I believed, a good counter balance to the other shenanigans that others pull, especially at tournaments. I may just have to stay out of them from now on I think.

[The Sovereign]

I also plan to use primarchs in my 40K games when they're available for the armies I own (Wolves and 1K Sons). Luckily, most people I know are like me and don't play 30K but want to find some use for those amazing primarch models.

[Charistoph]

30K is only for 30K is a bunch of bunk. There are no Xenos races nor Daemons in the HH. Even Chaos Marines haven't been brought in yet. That makes it little more than civil war if you only think that these books can play against themselves.

That having been said, their Alliances are internal, nor are the units intended or allowed to be incorporated in to the "modern" codices like the Imperial Armours are (more or less).

So seeing Roboute Guillaman leading an army with Marneus Calgar would do more than raise an eyebrow without a least a good discussion before hand.

[Darren Richardson]

me, personally, as long as your characters in your army are ALL from the same period armylist, then I would have no problem playing against your army, but mixing characters from different sources IS cherrypicking as Charistoph states, and I would be more hesitant to play against someone in that case.

So if your army is all 30K and mine is all 40K I would still play, it would be a fun game :D

[Gryphon]

Darren, Doesn‘t everyone cherry pick to some extent anyway? Out of all the available options in the codices, players are going to pick those options/units that will win them the game. I originally started this thread because I couldn't understand my meta's damnation of using a Primarch when they have no issues with c‘tans, revenant titans, and warhound titans. Now granted, I don't have all the rules for my primarch, just what I found on BoLS. I didn't think him anymore powerful than the other aformentioned op models. I wasnt trying to cherrypick per se, but just be able to compete in a tourney. I just wanted a chance to win, and felt that I couldn‘t compete if I didn't have a LoW on the table as well. In the few short years I have been playing I've found that one really op model, or combination, can practically win the game for you. Being tabled 30-0 consistently in this manner is no fun. Plus, I bought the model, not only because he's an awsome looking model, but I wanted to use him. I can‘t even use him in regular games because of the meta.
On the flip side, a conversation I had with a veteran gamer assures me a Primarch could wipe out an entire army by himself. He also explained some of the other rules Primarchs have, so I better understanding of everyone's consern. I am no longer upset over what I perceived as discrimanatory exclusion. The rest of the meta couldn‘t (wouldn't?) adequately explain their fear of the primarch. Interestingly enough, the next tournement coming up in September will exclude C'tans, Revenant Titans, Warhound Titans, and ranged D weapons.
Thanks for replying to the thread. I appreciate the thoughts, and opinoins. All of them help me understand the game better.

[Brother Talion]

The 30k for 30k excuse is really not accurate. I have played my 30k army vs. 40k armies many times and here is my experience. At 2000 pts and lower, 30k marines are a bit weaker then 40k armies. 3+ armor just is not what it used to be and 30k marines do not have ATSKNF so they suffer morale checks. I even use a Spartan assault tank for a blob tactical squad but it is not that great at 300pts. The tank that is good is the Sicaran w/Accelerator cannons (you do not get jink saves vs. them) but it is still pretty much a predator and is accurately pointed. Once you go over 2000 pts. the balance starts to shift to 30k armies. I play Blood Angels and do not have my primarch yet. I have a Sons of Horus army and Horus but have not played him. I have played with Angron a couple of times and Fulgrim once. Primarchs can be killed, and your opponent will generally lay everything on them. Angron is a beast in CC but getting him there is tricky and they can be tied up with blobs. With the new psychic phase I am sort of afraid that Magnus is going to be very powerful (too much for games 2k or less). You may offer to swap armies for a rematch if they are willing to let you play a game with your primarch. Once they play against it and then with it against you they will learn that FW/30K really isn't broken. I would just use the formula that a Primarch can not use more then 25% of your army's points. 500pt primarch would require 2000k min army size. Horus in a 1500 pt army would be pretty insane.

[DarkLink]

Both the Spartan Assault Tank and the Sicarian are brutally good. They're basically just plain better than the Land Raider/Predator, respectively, for a minimal increase in cost. Both are perfectly legal for regular 40k, though.

[Gryphon]

Thanks for the reply guys. I'm not surprised about your assessment. Isn't 30k more of a general hordes, melee type warfare as opposed to 40k shoot everything to death theme?

[Pssyche]

The only problem I would have is that, as you have just stated, you don't have the Rules, just what you've picked up on BoLS.
That's not really good enough.

[Charistoph]

Darren, Doesn‘t everyone cherry pick to some extent anyway? Out of all the available options in the codices, players are going to pick those options/units that will win them the game.

Totally different concept. Darren was talking about taking key units out of books and playing them without cohesion, not just taking the best units/Detachments out of a codex. While it's legal to do that Unbound, it's just not possible with a Battle-Forged list.


I originally started this thread because I couldn't understand my meta's damnation of using a Primarch when they have no issues with c‘tans, revenant titans, and warhound titans. Now granted, I don't have all the rules for my primarch, just what I found on BoLS. I didn't think him anymore powerful than the other aformentioned op models.

Well, I can agree with you there. While a Primarch is powerful, more powerful than most HQs and Characters being made LoW, he's still not on the level of a Gargaunt or Super-Heavy. Closer to a really good Unique Monstrous Creature, and while they ARE scary, the 40K game has had those for a long time. Not nearly as scary as the Eldar Titan in Escalation.



On the flip side, a conversation I had with a veteran gamer assures me a Primarch could wipe out an entire army by himself. He also explained some of the other rules Primarchs have, so I better understanding of everyone's consern. I am no longer upset over what I perceived as discrimanatory exclusion. The rest of the meta couldn‘t (wouldn't?) adequately explain their fear of the primarch.

Hyperbole goes a long way. And while a Primarch could defeat a good chunk of most armies with little difficulty once they were in close combat, and would defeat a whole army in the fluff, we all know how the game isn't as forgiving to Assaults as it used to be.