I have yet to play a single battle but I would like to ask this question in hopes of generating some discussion.

How many of your battles end by the loss of a Warlord and how many by the capture of 3 planets?

I would venture to say that the removal of a Warlord is 'easier' than capturing 3 planets... but I don't know yet due to no gaming experience.

Thanks!

Can't link right now but there's already more than one thread on this.

I've yet to lose due to Warlord dead.

There are a couple of other threads on this topic sprinkled through the general and strategy sections.

Consensus seems to be that, in the "Core only" environment, it is just too easy for a player with any defensive leaning to keep his warlord out of danger if he wants to (e.g., retreat the warlord as the first combat turn of any battle), so you really need both players to be playing aggressively and be willing to leave their warlords in danger for a Warlord death to occur. There is also virtually no motivation to keep 3 of the 7 warlords we have (Tau, Eldar, and DE) at a planet after a battle starts.

So the vast majority of people currently report winning by planet capture. Warlord death seems to occur most often when it's a "do or die" situation and the game is going to end by the time the current battle is over, either by planet capture or by warlord death.

There is a lot of speculation that this will change once the new Battle Packs come out because it looks like there will be more incentive to keep warlords at planets, less opportunity for warlords to retreat immediately (because they exhaust in the Deploy phase, for example), and more effects that reward the "search and destroy" strategy.

In my own experience, just about every game ends with a dead warlord. However, I have to add that it almost always happens in one the "do or die" situations that ktom is referring to. Most always, when fighting for a planet that will win the game for your opponent. Some people don't consider this a warlord death, per say, because it comes "in extremis".

I wonder how people play the warlord retreat part, in general. I'm one of those that is loath to lose a turn, specially when I have initiative, to retreat a warlord. I usually will try retreating him at the end of the round, when you can do so for any units without losing a turn. Of course, if I'm caught in a bad situation, or my opponent happens to have a heavy hitter ready, discretion is the better part of valor.

i think it also heavily depends on the faction being played... Chaos, for instance, has numerous creatures that can "1-shot" the opposing general, as well as a good amount of AoE and direct damage actions... there have been a couple of times where my opponent has taken the initiative to try to single out one of my heavy hitters (usually possessed) deployed at an upcoming crucial-planet... Either they instantly retreat the warlord and let my possessed murder their strongest unit (which usually means that the battle will swing my way, and defeats the purpose of sending the general there), or they try to alpha strike the possessed before they can attack...a shield or two later they are looking down 9 damage on their warlord... which is quite hard to mitigate, even for the 7-butts.

Alternatively, if you have the initiative and deploy zerathul at a planet that his flamers are at, they can quickly do 6 damage (3 from attacking, and then 3 from their sac action prior to the opponents exhaust options... this can quickly tack on damage and get the opposing general in the danger zone (or take out the weaker ones if they were planning on tanking a hit then retreating..)

On the other hand Dark Eldar or Tau need to combine a couple of attacks (and hope for no shields) to first bloody and then assassinate, which is much less viable.

Additionally some factions are better than others at mitigating that tactic... both space marines and AM have actions that completely eliminate a single damage output, when combined with smaller shielding cards they can pick and choose the most effective way to mitigate your attacks.

As stated before, most warlords are quite pedestrian in their damage output and are used primarily for their abilities, with any combat turns as a bonus. So once they become bloodied, they tend to stay out of the main fights and try to pick off smaller contested planets than charge into the fray (until you get down to the inevitable planet that will win the game).

Most of my games have either been a planet victory or warlord death on the last planet I need for victory (which I count as kind of a 1/2 and 1/2 warlord death/planet victory).

I think I've only participated in or seen a couple of instances where the Warlord died in a situation other than "do or die". As ktom has suggested, it seems like "proper" Warlord death may become a thing as expansions are released.

I haven't kept detailed stats, but I would guess maybe only 4 or 5 games have ended in Warlord death, of maybe 50 games I've played so far. And in several of those cases, the Warlord died on the turn that I would have captured my winning planet anyway. The opponent is forced into defending that last planet (maybe they had a trick up their sleeve to save the day, or just want to play it out to see how it all shakes out), and their warlord goes down in the ensuing combat.

Alternatively, if you have the initiative and deploy zerathul at a planet that his flamers are at, they can quickly do 6 damage (3 from attacking, and then 3 from their sac action prior to the opponents exhaust options... this can quickly tack on damage and get the opposing general in the danger zone (or take out the weaker ones if they were planning on tanking a hit then retreating..)

I thought that you couldn't use Flamers on Warlords - for the very same reason?

From what I've seen of friends playing, it has been Warlord deaths every single time.

Often at the last planet needed in order to win.

Alternatively, if you have the initiative and deploy zerathul at a planet that his flamers are at, they can quickly do 6 damage (3 from attacking, and then 3 from their sac action prior to the opponents exhaust options... this can quickly tack on damage and get the opposing general in the danger zone (or take out the weaker ones if they were planning on tanking a hit then retreating..)

I thought that you couldn't use Flamers on Warlords - for the very same reason?

From what I've seen of friends playing, it has been Warlord deaths every single time.

Often at the last planet needed in order to win.

Quite right, the Flamers specify non-warlord when you use their sacrifice ability. Nothing to stop you attacking the Warlord and then exploding at another unit, but you certainly can't snipe Warlords in this fashion.

eep, reading is hard... i think i owe my usual opponent an apology!

Preemptive Barrage kills warlords dead. You can make all three ranged attacks on their warlord before their warlord has a chance to retreat. It's brutal. Markis and Cadian Mortar squad can often do the same thing, especially if Straken is at the planet. Cadian fires, then Markis sacrifices a guardsman to ready them, and they attack a second time. With any help at all this will bring down the opposing warlord during the Ranged skirmish.

Preemptive Barrage kills warlords dead. You can make all three ranged attacks on their warlord before their warlord has a chance to retreat. It's brutal. Markis and Cadian Mortar squad can often do the same thing, especially if Straken is at the planet. Cadian fires, then Markis sacrifices a guardsman to ready them, and they attack a second time. With any help at all this will bring down the opposing warlord during the Ranged skirmish.

Wow. (!!!)

So pretty much all of the races have powerful tools in this game.

(hopefully none are too broken)