The Combat Lord vs. The Support Lord

There has been a lot of examples of kitted out Lords on youtube, isn't there? From the Beastmen Great Bray Shaman to the Wood Elf Highborn, everyone has their own opinions about Lords and Lord level characters. However, what is undoubted is that there are pretty much two kinds of Lords. Combat Lords and Support Lords. While this doesn't necessarily correlate with their occupation, you don't generally see a Wizard fulfilling the role as a Combat Lord and visa-versa. However, the question is which is the superior Lord. The Combat Lord, or the Support Lords? Let's look a little bit at each one and then compare the two. Keep in mind, I will try to keep this study as generic as possible, but for certain armies this logic may not necessarily work.
First off, we have the Combat Lord. You've seen him, every book has him. He's the General of the Empire, the Saurus Oldblood, the Dark Elf Dreadlord, the Orc Warboss, etc. He's generally a 3 wound character with a stat line that is much higher than the rest of his race who reside in the other sections of the books. He can usually takes about 100 points worth of gear and generally has all the weapon and mount access options the book has to offer. Because these characters have higher WS and S values, the first thing many people think of to do is to kit these guys out for maximum damage output. This can lead to some pretty scary builds in the form of the Blender Vampire Lord, the HKB Bretonnian Lord, and if you're crazy enough, Malorian's patented "Superorc." There are definite advantages to making Lords like this, but in the age of artillery and Death Magic, some times spending 300+ points on one model seems like a waste if it gets killed off because of some damned Ironblaster or Caress of Laniph. This prompts a lot of people to spend the points to give their Lords a Ward Save, but then problem becomes one of point distribution. If a 4+ Ward Save costs 45 points, how to you make up for the lost damage output? A lot of people choose to mount their Lords on  to compensate for the lost attack power. A good choice for both aesthetic and tactical reasons. Provided you mount your Lord with a Ward Save, I see only two reasons to not do this. First, mounting is expensive, meaning whatever your spending on the mount is going to have to come out of your point expenditure somewhere else. Second, it can lead to outpacing your General from the rest of your forces. While the maneuverability and speed of a Combat Lord when mounted on a Dragon/Carnosaur/Whatever else can be a huge threat, it also can backfire on armies like Skaven and Orcs and Goblins, who rely heavily on Leadership bonuses when the combats begin to not go as planned. Another way to make up for the lost attack output is to throw said Lord in a block of infantry (or mount him on a horse and put him in a unit of cavalry). This represents a HUGE threat to your opponent, and can be a big detractor from getting into combat with said unit. It also plays safe with your coveted Lord, providing him shelter from artillery and offensive magic. Some armies like Dwarfs, Tomb Kings, and Vampire Counts can get away with being a little less cautious with their Combat Lords, due to the fact that their armies are pretty hard to break, so it's not unusual to see the Dwarf Lord with the Rune combination of I'm-a-gonna-rape-you-bitch! or a Vampire Lord with the really nasty perks like Red Fury and such. For combat oriented armies, Combat Lords are just fine. They provide the leadership bonus and offensive potential to break through almost anything that can be fielded against you.
On the other hand, we have the Support Lord. Most of the time he takes the form of a Level 3 or 4 Wizard, but some armies can field Lords who can double down as both Combat and Support Lords (Warriors of Chaos, Vampire Counts), but this is not very common. They can act as your General if you decide not to take a Combat Lords, but for most armies, the Support Lords tend to have slightly lower leadership values than their Combat counter-parts. You've been warned. However, Support Lords have a much more essential role in the army. While the damage output and the offensive potential of Combat Lords can be negated when one replaces him with a horde of infantry that can crank out more and take much more punishment for pretty much the same price, the same cannot be said with Support Lords. In this edition, and probably the next, a Level 4 caster is essential for a competitive army. That is fact, and any attempt to argue that simply has their Warriors of Chaos all Khorne army wiped off by a Level 4 on Metal or Shadow. I would not go so far to say it doesn't matter what Lore your level 4 takes, but there are only a few choice I could honestly say don't make that much sense. Magic is the great equalizer in Fantasy, it's what allows an army with pretty much universal T3 to be one of the most dominant on the tabletop. The Support Lord tends to have a stat line slightly inferior to that of a Combat Lord, but they cost more due to the fact that they can use magic. Most start off with a Magic Level of 3, always boost it to 4. +4 to dispel and cast are a whole hell of a lot better than +3, trust me on this one! They also tend to have no armor (except the above mentioned exceptions) and very few attacks. This really shouldn't be a concern unless you're really dead-set on getting your Level 4 into combat. Why you would ever want to do this, I will never know. They also tend to come with some kind of Ward Save, but find some way to get them to at least a 3+ Ward if the points allow it. Loosing your Level 4 can be worse than loosing your BSB and/or General. Provided they have said Ward Save, I again see no reason to not mount them, provided the points allow and you don't get stuck in combat. You generally want your mage to be speedy and maneuverable, not necessarily on the biggest, meanest monster you can find. Good examples come in the form of Pegasi (I think that's the plural of pegasus). Something that doesn't cost too much, but can still Fly around. Augment, Hex, Magical Vortex, whatever. Deliver it where and when you need it. They usually can take 100 points worth of magical items, the only thing I would demand of you besides finding a way to boost their Ward Save is if you're not running another caster (level 1 or 2) , take a Dispel Scroll. It's almost as necessary as a Level 4 itself. That's just about all there is, so let's compare the two.
Combat Lord versus Support Lord, that is the question. Whether tis better to weather the storm of Magic Missiles and artillery shots or to lay thy hopes upon a master of the arcane. Okay, enough of me ruining Shakespeare, let's get to the point. Here are the army builds where a Combat Lord would be more useful that a Support Lord. Gun Lines, whether you're using Dwarven Artillery or Tomb King Arrows/Catapults, Combat Lords will ALWAYS be your friend. Basically, for a list like that, he's an expensive, effective, pray-to-every-deity-you-know that it works chaff. Mounted or unmounted in a horde of infantry, take your pick. Build him to be as offensive or defensive as you want, just know that his job is to die and hold up your enemy's troops as long as he can. Combat Lords are also effective in combat-oriented armies. Need I say anymore than Malorian's Superorc and 3 hordes of greenskins? It's very easy to build a unit designed to nothing more than kill and it's also SO satisfying to see that unit just lay waste to hordes of enemies. Priceless. Other than that, there are just too many other things to spend the points on rather than a Combat Lord. Chiefly amongst those is a Level 4 caster. Yeah, you knew it was coming, but look at the facts! When a mounted fully kitted out Combat Lords can cost as much and do less than a horde of elite infantry from the Special or even Rare sections, sometimes you have to ask yourself, what's the point in doing that? A Combat Lords can be replaced by a horde of troops, but a Level 4 cannot in any circumstance be replaced by any unit in the game (all you Dark Elf players with your Warlock Riders shut the hell up, you know they're still no replacement for a Level 4). You do take a minor loss in Leadership, given that the generic Lord is always going to be your general, unless you play special characters which means you probably have no friends, so I can understand more cautious players taking a naked Combat Lord if there are any points left over in the Lord section. Plus, apart from 1500 or lower games, what list isn't a Level 4 effective in? Gun Lines, MSU, Horde, doesn't matter, they can be made to work well in any situation. So overall, if you're trying to decide which one to take, know that's it's never a mistake to take a Support Lord, but Combat Lords can be okay depending on the situation. I always go for the Support Lord, but if you want to, make yourself a Combat Lord and never look back. It's your army, so go do whatever you want! Comment below if you have any additions, corrections, or concerns about my post. Thank you so much for reading!