Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 04:09:05


Post by: TheSilo


I don't understand the proliferation of massive models and lords of war. I started in 3rd, and at that time you would once in a while get a glimpse in White Dwarf of a custom built titan set up for Games Day or a Thunderhawk as part of a diorama. But nowadays people are trying to field these things in regular 40k battles, not just 30,000 point megabattles. And frankly, I don't get it. Imperial Knights, Wraith Knights, Riptides, Baneblades...these things barely fit onto the table, they don't seem to fit into 40k the game. Is it really fun to carry around one massive tank to the store, put it on the table, roll the die, and then pick it up again having never moved it? There's no strategy in it.

It's the same reason why it's more fun when Rogue Squadron didn't let you play as the Death Star. When Battlefield 1942 didn't let you fly the Enola Gay. When people take these massive point sinks, the game stops being a battle and becomes an arcade game.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 04:43:59


Post by: Da Butcha


I dislike the fact that the LOW now occupy a slot in normal, "default" 40K, but I like the fact that they are in the game. I'm quite enjoyed some of the special scenarios which have featured my stompa, and I loved the megabattle where my opponent revealed a Baneblade.

I don't like them in 'default' 40K because their inclusion (like the inclusion of some other elements, like Flyers and so many huge walkers/monstrous creatures) allows the player, rather than the players as a team, to dictate the nature of the board. Densely packed jungle terrain, or narrow cityfight boards, or claustrophobic Space Hulk boards all don't allow the placement and use of such models (or make it very, very hard). Because those types of models are now 'normal 40K', people have a reasonable expectation of being able to use them, so entire board layouts and styles of play get discouraged because they aren't friendly to superheavies/flyers/big walkers/monsters.

I really wish GW had defined different types of warzones in their rulebook, and made it clear that certain types of units where inappropriate for certain types of warzones. That way, two players could agree on a Warzone, and that agreement would lead to natural restrictions about the types of units fielded. For example, a "Cityfight" warzone would tell you that infantry would be privileged, but that vehicles (particularly large vehicles) might be unable to move freely about the board, and that flyers might be restricted further, while an 'Open Field of Battle" warzone might be fairly large, and relatively sparse on terrain, making vehicles and flyers attractive, and hindering foot-slogging infantry and the like.

I think there's a role for LoW (and a lot of other stuff) but GW puts the cart before the horse, making it 'legal' to choose anything, and then turning one player or the other into a jerk. An organized, sensible system of "Warzones" (or whatever) would do a much better job of setting and communicating expectations for gamers seeking a game.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 04:48:06


Post by: MWHistorian


They have no place in standard games.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 04:49:36


Post by: Swastakowey


I dont use them. I have some but never used them for the reasons above.

Although I dont see what the big deal is of having the option there.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 04:53:08


Post by: Sir Arun


Well this is a double edged sword, really.

Lords of War are cool.

Lords of War are limited to 1, which is also cool.

Being able to take an FOC simply for every HQ and 2 Troops you take (and therefore multiple LoWs) is not cool.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 04:53:10


Post by: ashikenshin


with the nerf of D strength weapons I have no issue with allowing them in normal games. I think it might make some games more fun for some players who want to try them out. Same with stronghold assault rules. I'm currently preparing my imperial strong point for my astra militarum in a 1500 pt game


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 04:59:31


Post by: Sir Arun


Also as Da Butcha implies, there already is a natural balancing factor for LoWs: terrain.

If you bring one to a cityfight board and cant get decent LoS with it for the majority of the game, its your own fault.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 05:00:02


Post by: Kilkrazy


The purpose of Lords of War is to sell big profitable kits.

They seem a fun idea for big games, exactly the sort of excess that 40K is all about. I don't think they "fit" in regular games, though.

I would prefer them to be an add-on option like they were in Apocalypse. The same for stronghold assault, flyers, and a few other things.

The basic structure of the game does not scale well above 2,000 points and units for very large games and tables ought to be in general not taken in standard size games.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 05:09:34


Post by: tyrannosaurus


 MWHistorian wrote:
They have no place in standard games.


Other than in the core rules. You can refuse to play against them of course, just like you can refuse to play against any army or unit, but you'll have to justify why you want to ignore the core rules. Lords of War are now for standard games unless you want to house rule it. Characters are now being placed in the LoW slot too - would you refuse to play against Ghazkull?

There seems to be a lot of unjustified fear around superheavies, mostly from people who have never used them [perhaps they can't afford them so don't want others to use them?]. With the D weapon nerf they're fine.

I think they're a great addition to 40k. I never met anyone who had time to play a game of apocalypse, which meant lots of superheavies were sitting on shelves gathering dust. Also, they really speed up play with less models to move around the table. Finally, they just look so cool on the table.

Lords of War are here in standard games. You can choose to either accept it, or bury your head in the sand and pretend they don't exist, despite the core rules.



Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 05:35:13


Post by: Yonan


I don't think you understand, we've chosen just to stop buying and playing 40k. Th lords of war in basic games is just one of many reasons. Fear? Lack of money? Lack of knowledge? No, we understand it perfectly well - we just don't like it and see it as GW breaking the rules to sell larger models.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 05:45:38


Post by: Vaktathi


Some of them aren't any issue. If you can deal with 3 Leman Russ tanks, a Baneblade won't present any greater threat or challenge. But a Transcendant C'tan? That's another story altogether.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 06:18:31


Post by: spunkybass


I don't mind it either way - it can either be cool, or not cool, depending on the situation. Having a LoW in a regular 40k game can add to it, and like someone mentioned, gives players the chance to use their super-heavies where Apoc games are rare. Most of them are not invincible, despite whatever reputation they may have (my Eldar army blows up Warhounds in 2 turns). But using it in the context of WAAC, just like anything else, becomes not cool. There's a lot of that in 7th (read: Unbound). So what do I do when I think it's an uncool situation? I just nicely let the other player know, and we figure out a way to make it cool. If the other player is not willing to do this, then just politely refuse to play the game.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 09:05:12


Post by: Mumblez


I think lords of war are cool. Then again, I am working on a primary detachment of imperial knights so...

LoW models are awesome and bring a bit of Apoc to regular 40K, which is fine by me. I only ever got to play one Apoc game in 5th edition: it was great fun, but organizing it was a pain. Having the option to field a limited number of these super-heavies in regular games is a great addition in my opinion.

Super-heavies and large monstrous creatures honestly aren't so bad. You can't stall them like you would with other, smaller vehicles, but you can still kill them by glancing them to death or shooting them so many times they'll fail their saves.

7th edition also nerfed destroyer weapons, making them fit into 40K more. They can still remove models from play (stompy stompy stomp!) and the reaper chainsword can still 'crit', but most of the time you'll get to take invulnerable saves.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 09:38:05


Post by: Sigvatr


They belong in Apocalypse, not Standard 40k.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 09:59:05


Post by: MajorWesJanson


 ashikenshin wrote:
with the nerf of D strength weapons I have no issue with allowing them in normal games. I think it might make some games more fun for some players who want to try them out. Same with stronghold assault rules. I'm currently preparing my imperial strong point for my astra militarum in a 1500 pt game


Strength D nerf was much needed. Unfortunately, they forgot to nerf the other weapons on the Transcendant CTan at the same time. He's gotten a lot harder to kill with the Destroyer nerf, while his 6D6 Krak missile power works just fine still


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 10:07:58


Post by: Vertrucio


I'd argue that they should be in standard games, or they shouldn't exist at all. Apocalypse shouldn't really exist either.

I'm glad they're in standard, but GW is probably doing it's typical thing where they have tons of balance issues.

They shouldn't even be using the same stat lines as they use in Apocalypse, not even the same rules at all.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 10:14:26


Post by: Yonan


There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of Lords of War - having a baneblade in your army is awesome (I still plan on getting one), but as you say it's GWs incompetence with balancing and general rule writing that makes them annoying to have on the field.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 10:20:05


Post by: Rautakanki


The idea is good but as ever the point costs of so many are ridiculous in one way or another.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 10:29:44


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Vertrucio wrote:
I'd argue that they should be in standard games, or they shouldn't exist at all. Apocalypse shouldn't really exist either.

I'm glad they're in standard, but GW is probably doing it's typical thing where they have tons of balance issues.

They shouldn't even be using the same stat lines as they use in Apocalypse, not even the same rules at all.


I did not like Apocalypse but while it was a separate book that was not a problem. Someone could just ask if you wanted a game of Apocalypse and you could say no thanks.

The problem now is that rather than choosing to include that sort of thing in a game, you have to talk about excluding it.

I know that some people like Lords of War and so on. More power to them. I don't. The Apocalypse add-on system allowed both of us to have fun in our preferred ways.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 11:00:28


Post by: Wayniac


 Kilkrazy wrote:
The problem now is that rather than choosing to include that sort of thing in a game, you have to talk about excluding it.


I think this about sums up one of the major issues. Usually, you have a standard set of core rules and then have extras that you can pick. 40k has the opposite approach: Include everything and put the burden on you for denying it. It's a known fact that it's often harder to exclude something than include it, because excluding something that already is included puts more emphasis on why that thing should be excluded since the default is to have it included.

Add in things like making Ghazghkull a LoW and it becomes a very slippery slope (if you exclude LoWs, you exclude Ghazghkull, if you allow Ghazghkull then you allow LoW), which I honestly think is done on purpose to further blur the line and get LoWs to be accepted in normal games.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 11:12:39


Post by: barnesy808


We use them. When I show up, I'm prepared to fight anything from titans to superheavy tanks....it's a challenge. Every now and them, I'll throw one in to see how it fills out an army.

The way I see it, fluffwise, none of our armies really knows what to expect when they show up to a battle, and the ENEMY always is trying to win, so come prepared. Sometimes I win, sometimes I don't, no biggie. It's a game, I have fun.

Plus, as stated in a previous post, my superheavies don't have to sit on a shelf waiting for an APOC game, and they look really good on the table.



Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 11:24:48


Post by: Diggory_x


Seeing as I am currently putting together a 1500 point Ork list with a Stompa, guess that makes me TFG. However I am aware it is a controversial topic. I play primarily with a private group of friends who are all mostly OK with it. Dunno what would happen if I tried to play at a local club.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 12:00:16


Post by: Kilkrazy


You are not TFG for wanting to play with a Stompa. GW are TFG for deliberately creating a situation in which two sets of players are forced to clash.

However if you play at a club you will probably find they are happy to come to some compromise. The big problems come at tournaments and pick up games at shops.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 12:16:02


Post by: kronk


Do you play with Lords of War?

No.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 12:24:23


Post by: The Home Nuggeteer


I cant afford a baneblade, if i could i would play it at l larger point games.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 15:27:36


Post by: Overlord Thraka


YES! Sort of... We WOULD play with them, but we are poor and can't afford them. (goes to cry softly in the corner)


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 16:09:06


Post by: The Home Nuggeteer


 Overlord Thraka wrote:
YES! Sort of... We WOULD play with them, but we are poor and can't afford them. (goes to cry softly in the corner)
true, exalted


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 16:54:19


Post by: Mythra


Every time I have faced a LoW I have smashed it. In tournament settings I think they cost too much for their points. In a casual game people may not have the tools to handle it.

My Necron Flyer list smashes them b/c most LoW don't have anti flier.

My GK has 21 monkeys w/ Prescience and a lot of Shriek.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 17:27:48


Post by: Sir Arun


 Vaktathi wrote:
Some of them aren't any issue. If you can deal with 3 Leman Russ tanks, a Baneblade won't present any greater threat or challenge.


Except 3 Leman Russes have 9 HPs while a Baneblade has 12 and better armor. Also, the firepower of 3 non-Pask Russes is less than that of one Baneblade.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 17:33:33


Post by: jasper76


Lords of War are liabilities...so of course I play with them!


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 17:36:06


Post by: ashikenshin


 jasper76 wrote:
Lords of War are liabilities...so of course I play with them!


yup, basically you put all your eggs in a very big basket that will probably blow up given the amount of attention it will get.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 17:37:44


Post by: PhillyT


There is a significant difference between Lord of War and super heavies. They are not one and the same. Most super heavies are Lords of War, but not all Lords of War are super heavies.

Similarly, there isn't a huge difference between a Morkanaut and an Imperial Knight in terms of their size or role.

Ripetides and Landraiders aren't significantly different in terms of size on the table or point value.

I have played since 3rd edition, and it is laziness that fuels groups to disregard the slot entirely or block all super heavies. Not all LOW or supers are equal. They also do not immediately lead to an unbalanced game. You can find more than enough unbalanced game play in regular games. It is about discussing what you are looking for with your group and moving on from there.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 17:46:57


Post by: zephoid


LoW just bring another level of power to a game that is already too strong on the alpha strike. If i take out my lynx i can kill nearly half an army on the first turn with the TL Sonic Lance. Is that fun for me? No, i just fired a hellstorm template. Is it fun for them? No, they lost nearly half their army. Everything that was wrong with taking 5 riptide lists is encompassed by taking a Stormsword (less range and more vulnerable, but MUCH cheaper).

When they were FW rules and you needed permission to use them, it was them asking permission to use it. Few would flat out refuse except when taking obviously OP units. Now that they are part of the game, you have to be the 'bad guy' when you refuse to play against LoWs.

40k is getting more complex as the editions go on. But is that complexity improving the game? Not really. 40k used to be a pretty set game, then you added in FW units if you wanted to spice things up. Now you have allies, multiple FOCs, summoning, detachments, suppliments, LoWs, unbound armies, ect. Does ANY of that improve the game in ways that 4th or 5th edition couldn't already do in friendly games? No. It just makes the game that much more broken for any type of competitive play. Not to say that 40k has ever been balanced, but at least you used to be able to develop tactics to fight x army. Now you can play the game with a half dozen different factions in one 'army'. It can go from horridly bad to broken beyond your wildest dreams. But, as was inevitable, mixing and matching the best of armies turns out to make competitive play incredibly un-fluffy. Not to mention Eldar summoning Slaanesh demons and stupidity like that. It just seems GW has given up even trying to write a balanced ruleset and just said 'feth it, throw it all in and leave it'. Thats my take on 7th.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 17:54:50


Post by: WrentheFaceless


Yes I do, cause they're neat models


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 18:08:31


Post by: Wayniac


 zephoid wrote:
LoW just bring another level of power to a game that is already too strong on the alpha strike. If i take out my lynx i can kill nearly half an army on the first turn with the TL Sonic Lance. Is that fun for me? No, i just fired a hellstorm template. Is it fun for them? No, they lost nearly half their army. Everything that was wrong with taking 5 riptide lists is encompassed by taking a Stormsword (less range and more vulnerable, but MUCH cheaper).

When they were FW rules and you needed permission to use them, it was them asking permission to use it. Few would flat out refuse except when taking obviously OP units. Now that they are part of the game, you have to be the 'bad guy' when you refuse to play against LoWs.

40k is getting more complex as the editions go on. But is that complexity improving the game? Not really. 40k used to be a pretty set game, then you added in FW units if you wanted to spice things up. Now you have allies, multiple FOCs, summoning, detachments, suppliments, LoWs, unbound armies, ect. Does ANY of that improve the game in ways that 4th or 5th edition couldn't already do in friendly games? No. It just makes the game that much more broken for any type of competitive play. Not to say that 40k has ever been balanced, but at least you used to be able to develop tactics to fight x army. Now you can play the game with a half dozen different factions in one 'army'. It can go from horridly bad to broken beyond your wildest dreams. But, as was inevitable, mixing and matching the best of armies turns out to make competitive play incredibly un-fluffy. Not to mention Eldar summoning Slaanesh demons and stupidity like that. It just seems GW has given up even trying to write a balanced ruleset and just said 'feth it, throw it all in and leave it'. Thats my take on 7th.


Exalted. This in a nutshell. If you refuse something that's normally allowed, it makes *YOU* the "bad guy" for refusing something legal; at that rate might as well refuse to play Tau or Daemons or whatever broken thing is out there. Options should have remained just that, options to be used in special scenarios or large battles. They didn't need to be thrown into the main book as something that is okay for regular games.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 18:53:43


Post by: Kangodo


 Sir Arun wrote:
Also as Da Butcha implies, there already is a natural balancing factor for LoWs: terrain.
If you bring one to a cityfight board and cant get decent LoS with it for the majority of the game, its your own fault.

I fully agree with this.
Today I played against a 1500 Ork-army with a Stompa that contained a Big Mek with Da Fixer Uppa and a KFF.

I won because he couldn't target my important units due to LoS, I won on VP's.
But I had nothing that could kill this 12HP model with a 5++ that keeps repairing itself.
The game was all about trying to kill the Stompa while staying away from it.

A game like that can be entertaining if it's one out of ten games, but for me it was the first game in four months.
Perhaps I will field my Tesseract Vault next time to explain why that game wasn't fun for me; maybe he'll understand


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 18:55:54


Post by: tyrannosaurus


WayneTheGame wrote:


If you refuse something that's normally allowed, it makes *YOU* the "bad guy" for refusing something legal; at that rate might as well refuse to play Tau or Daemons or whatever broken thing is out there. Options should have remained just that, options to be used in special scenarios or large battles. They didn't need to be thrown into the main book as something that is okay for regular games.


Good, I'm glad 7th put the onus on the refusing player to justify why. The anti-LoW people in this thread seem to feel that a valid argument is "I don't like it" or "It doesn't fit into my vision of 40k". Personally I expect a stronger argument from someone refusing to play the core rules.

With the D-nerf the vast majority of LoW are perfectly fine for 40k, whether a PUG or pre-arranged [although I've never played against a Transcendent C'tan, but would like to], and are, if anything, a big liability. It may force you to change your list up a little in order to cater for it, but that's part of being a good general. If the LoW dies early, it's pretty certain the controlling player will lose.

Also, before saying that something is overpowered, I suggest getting in a few games against LoWs rather than basing your decision on internet hysteria. If you have played against LoWs in 7th and find them too powerful and game ruining, then fair enough, but lots of people oppose them without even playing them.

If you have a job, wife, and especially kids, apocalypse games just aren't going to happen. I think it's brilliant that I can use my Warhound Titan now, and I don't care if I win or lose [mostly lose] as long as I can put it on the table and see my baby blow something up.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 19:09:19


Post by: MWHistorian


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:


If you refuse something that's normally allowed, it makes *YOU* the "bad guy" for refusing something legal; at that rate might as well refuse to play Tau or Daemons or whatever broken thing is out there. Options should have remained just that, options to be used in special scenarios or large battles. They didn't need to be thrown into the main book as something that is okay for regular games.


Good, I'm glad 7th put the onus on the refusing player to justify why. The anti-LoW people in this thread seem to feel that a valid argument is "I don't like it" or "It doesn't fit into my vision of 40k". Personally I expect a stronger argument from someone refusing to play the core rules.

With the D-nerf the vast majority of LoW are perfectly fine for 40k, whether a PUG or pre-arranged [although I've never played against a Transcendent C'tan, but would like to], and are, if anything, a big liability. It may force you to change your list up a little in order to cater for it, but that's part of being a good general. If the LoW dies early, it's pretty certain the controlling player will lose.

Also, before saying that something is overpowered, I suggest getting in a few games against LoWs rather than basing your decision on internet hysteria. If you have played against LoWs in 7th and find them too powerful and game ruining, then fair enough, but lots of people oppose them without even playing them.

If you have a job, wife, and especially kids, apocalypse games just aren't going to happen. I think it's brilliant that I can use my Warhound Titan now, and I don't care if I win or lose [mostly lose] as long as I can put it on the table and see my baby blow something up.

I don't know, I think for a game made for fun, if you find something un-fun, then you don't have to do it. That's the most valid argument I can find.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 19:35:56


Post by: Jaceevoke


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:


If you refuse something that's normally allowed, it makes *YOU* the "bad guy" for refusing something legal; at that rate might as well refuse to play Tau or Daemons or whatever broken thing is out there. Options should have remained just that, options to be used in special scenarios or large battles. They didn't need to be thrown into the main book as something that is okay for regular games.


Good, I'm glad 7th put the onus on the refusing player to justify why. The anti-LoW people in this thread seem to feel that a valid argument is "I don't like it" or "It doesn't fit into my vision of 40k". Personally I expect a stronger argument from someone refusing to play the core rules.

With the D-nerf the vast majority of LoW are perfectly fine for 40k, whether a PUG or pre-arranged [although I've never played against a Transcendent C'tan, but would like to], and are, if anything, a big liability. It may force you to change your list up a little in order to cater for it, but that's part of being a good general. If the LoW dies early, it's pretty certain the controlling player will lose.

Also, before saying that something is overpowered, I suggest getting in a few games against LoWs rather than basing your decision on internet hysteria. If you have played against LoWs in 7th and find them too powerful and game ruining, then fair enough, but lots of people oppose them without even playing them.

If you have a job, wife, and especially kids, apocalypse games just aren't going to happen. I think it's brilliant that I can use my Warhound Titan now, and I don't care if I win or lose [mostly lose] as long as I can put it on the table and see my baby blow something up.


Why should anyone have to explain themselves to you, or anyone in general, about why they don't want to do something? Thats something I just will never understand, why people think they have the right to force someone to explain themselves. If someone doesn't want to play a game with you, or play it the way you want it to be played they are well within their rights regardless of their reason. I run LoW's a lot in my lists, and when someone says they don't want to play against it I'm fine with it. If they try to explain why, I just tell them I don't care, I have no right to judge them so why should they feel the need to justify themselves?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 19:44:27


Post by: ashikenshin


 Jaceevoke wrote:
 tyrannosaurus wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:


If you refuse something that's normally allowed, it makes *YOU* the "bad guy" for refusing something legal; at that rate might as well refuse to play Tau or Daemons or whatever broken thing is out there. Options should have remained just that, options to be used in special scenarios or large battles. They didn't need to be thrown into the main book as something that is okay for regular games.


Good, I'm glad 7th put the onus on the refusing player to justify why. The anti-LoW people in this thread seem to feel that a valid argument is "I don't like it" or "It doesn't fit into my vision of 40k". Personally I expect a stronger argument from someone refusing to play the core rules.

With the D-nerf the vast majority of LoW are perfectly fine for 40k, whether a PUG or pre-arranged [although I've never played against a Transcendent C'tan, but would like to], and are, if anything, a big liability. It may force you to change your list up a little in order to cater for it, but that's part of being a good general. If the LoW dies early, it's pretty certain the controlling player will lose.

Also, before saying that something is overpowered, I suggest getting in a few games against LoWs rather than basing your decision on internet hysteria. If you have played against LoWs in 7th and find them too powerful and game ruining, then fair enough, but lots of people oppose them without even playing them.

If you have a job, wife, and especially kids, apocalypse games just aren't going to happen. I think it's brilliant that I can use my Warhound Titan now, and I don't care if I win or lose [mostly lose] as long as I can put it on the table and see my baby blow something up.


Why should anyone have to explain themselves to you, or anyone in general, about why they don't want to do something? Thats something I just will never understand, why people think they have the right to force someone to explain themselves. If someone doesn't want to play a game with you, or play it the way you want it to be played they are well within their rights regardless of their reason. I run LoW's a lot in my lists, and when someone says they don't want to play against it I'm fine with it. If they try to explain why, I just tell them I don't care, I have no right to judge them so why should they feel the need to justify themselves?


well, they should explain themselves here since it's a discussion forum. In a store I agree with you (even though there are no stores in my country and all the games I play are with friends)



Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 19:58:10


Post by: Kilkrazy


 MWHistorian wrote:
 tyrannosaurus wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:


If you refuse something that's normally allowed, it makes *YOU* the "bad guy" for refusing something legal; at that rate might as well refuse to play Tau or Daemons or whatever broken thing is out there. Options should have remained just that, options to be used in special scenarios or large battles. They didn't need to be thrown into the main book as something that is okay for regular games.


Good, I'm glad 7th put the onus on the refusing player to justify why. The anti-LoW people in this thread seem to feel that a valid argument is "I don't like it" or "It doesn't fit into my vision of 40k". Personally I expect a stronger argument from someone refusing to play the core rules.

With the D-nerf the vast majority of LoW are perfectly fine for 40k, whether a PUG or pre-arranged [although I've never played against a Transcendent C'tan, but would like to], and are, if anything, a big liability. It may force you to change your list up a little in order to cater for it, but that's part of being a good general. If the LoW dies early, it's pretty certain the controlling player will lose.

Also, before saying that something is overpowered, I suggest getting in a few games against LoWs rather than basing your decision on internet hysteria. If you have played against LoWs in 7th and find them too powerful and game ruining, then fair enough, but lots of people oppose them without even playing them.

If you have a job, wife, and especially kids, apocalypse games just aren't going to happen. I think it's brilliant that I can use my Warhound Titan now, and I don't care if I win or lose [mostly lose] as long as I can put it on the table and see my baby blow something up.

I don't know, I think for a game made for fun, if you find something un-fun, then you don't have to do it. That's the most valid argument I can find.


Well there are logical arguments based on factors such as the size of the game space compared to movement and weapon capability, the variability of possible results with high cost, high capability units, and the difficulty of balancing a game with more opposing principles.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 20:18:37


Post by: Brother Michael


I have a warhound titan. I only use it in friendly games, even though my local escalation league allows taking a LoW. The thing is, so far I've only had moderate success with it. I've never had anyone complain to me about how it was overpowered.

Despite that, I'm against Lords of War being in the basic rules. In friendly games you could usually bring super-heavies anyway, so it doesn't really add anything. On the other hand, allowing them in a competitive scene allows people to abuse the superheavies that are OP.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 20:55:20


Post by: Mumblez


I think LoW are fine. The stompa featured in the new ork codex is dead killy and even 'arder, but it'll take more than half of your points in a 1500 game, so if you want to play using one, you really have to build around it. That and Destroyer weapons seem to be moving towards melee-only, which I am more than fine with!

I think eventually people will be less worried about facing an army that includes a LoW. GW definitely wants them to become more accepted, since they're moving other units to that slot as well. I realize they're most likely doing this to make more money by selling their large kits, but I honestly couldn't care less: I love the idea behind LoW units and I love playing against them too. I just wanna krump one of each, just so I can tell people I've krumped each LoW at least once before. I need them bragging rights!


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 20:59:15


Post by: tyrannosaurus


 Jaceevoke wrote:
Why should anyone have to explain themselves to you, or anyone in general, about why they don't want to do something? Thats something I just will never understand, why people think they have the right to force someone to explain themselves. If someone doesn't want to play a game with you, or play it the way you want it to be played they are well within their rights regardless of their reason. I run LoW's a lot in my lists, and when someone says they don't want to play against it I'm fine with it. If they try to explain why, I just tell them I don't care, I have no right to judge them so why should they feel the need to justify themselves?


It's not that simple, as they are breaking the rules of the game. When someone breaks the rules of the game I feel they need to justify themselves. If you were playing chess and your opponent threw his queen at your king to knock it over, you would probably want an explanation. Similarly, refusing to follow the published FOC is breaking the rules.

I'd also like to ask [and this is directed at all those happy to refuse to play against LoW] If you play other games, do you take the same attitude into those, or is it just 40k where you feel comfortable picking and choosing which rules you follow?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 21:22:57


Post by: Jaceevoke


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
 Jaceevoke wrote:
Why should anyone have to explain themselves to you, or anyone in general, about why they don't want to do something? Thats something I just will never understand, why people think they have the right to force someone to explain themselves. If someone doesn't want to play a game with you, or play it the way you want it to be played they are well within their rights regardless of their reason. I run LoW's a lot in my lists, and when someone says they don't want to play against it I'm fine with it. If they try to explain why, I just tell them I don't care, I have no right to judge them so why should they feel the need to justify themselves?


It's not that simple, as they are breaking the rules of the game. When someone breaks the rules of the game I feel they need to justify themselves. If you were playing chess and your opponent threw his queen at your king to knock it over, you would probably want an explanation. Similarly, refusing to follow the published FOC is breaking the rules.

I'd also like to ask [and this is directed at all those happy to refuse to play against LoW] If you play other games, do you take the same attitude into those, or is it just 40k where you feel comfortable picking and choosing which rules you follow?


On your first point I feel, and this is most likely just my line in the sand, that there is a difference between a house-rule (or whatever term fits best) and cheating/breaking the rules. For instance going along with your chess analogy I would not be happy, to say the least, if my opponent decide mid game to break a rule or cheat. But if they were to ask prior to the game starting if they change a rule like say being able to throw their queen to take out a king, I most likely would go with it at least once just to try it out. And if I found that I didn't hate the rule I would probably play that way again with them if it makes them happy.

To answer your question I don't but I'm fine with others doing just that. For instance if I was playing Warmachine/Hordes and my opponent said they didn't want to play with colossal's/gargantuan's or one of the more powerful casters, I'd go along with it if I could. Personally I don't really feel comfortable changing games rules, because I have no training in game design. But what right do I have to impede on someone else enjoyment of the game, if I can still enjoy the game?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 21:25:59


Post by: Wayniac


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
 Jaceevoke wrote:
Why should anyone have to explain themselves to you, or anyone in general, about why they don't want to do something? Thats something I just will never understand, why people think they have the right to force someone to explain themselves. If someone doesn't want to play a game with you, or play it the way you want it to be played they are well within their rights regardless of their reason. I run LoW's a lot in my lists, and when someone says they don't want to play against it I'm fine with it. If they try to explain why, I just tell them I don't care, I have no right to judge them so why should they feel the need to justify themselves?


It's not that simple, as they are breaking the rules of the game. When someone breaks the rules of the game I feel they need to justify themselves. If you were playing chess and your opponent threw his queen at your king to knock it over, you would probably want an explanation. Similarly, refusing to follow the published FOC is breaking the rules.

I'd also like to ask [and this is directed at all those happy to refuse to play against LoW] If you play other games, do you take the same attitude into those, or is it just 40k where you feel comfortable picking and choosing which rules you follow?


Most other games don't have the huge imbalance that 40k does. If you play someone with a Colossal or Gargantuan in Warmahordes, it's not going to obliterate half your army on the first turn because it's superpowered. 40k needs these kinds of discussions because in most cases dropping a LoW on the table determines the outcome of the game.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 21:28:38


Post by: MWHistorian


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
 Jaceevoke wrote:
Why should anyone have to explain themselves to you, or anyone in general, about why they don't want to do something? Thats something I just will never understand, why people think they have the right to force someone to explain themselves. If someone doesn't want to play a game with you, or play it the way you want it to be played they are well within their rights regardless of their reason. I run LoW's a lot in my lists, and when someone says they don't want to play against it I'm fine with it. If they try to explain why, I just tell them I don't care, I have no right to judge them so why should they feel the need to justify themselves?


It's not that simple, as they are breaking the rules of the game. When someone breaks the rules of the game I feel they need to justify themselves. If you were playing chess and your opponent threw his queen at your king to knock it over, you would probably want an explanation. Similarly, refusing to follow the published FOC is breaking the rules.

I'd also like to ask [and this is directed at all those happy to refuse to play against LoW] If you play other games, do you take the same attitude into those, or is it just 40k where you feel comfortable picking and choosing which rules you follow?

And this is one of the reasons I left 40k with 7th, because things I don't find fun are now a part of the core game.
As for "is it just 40k?" Well, yes. It is. Other games have better rules that can support such things as super heavy. Warmachine has super heavies but I've never heard of anyone refusing to play against them because they're not over powered and you don't have to build a list just to take one out.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 21:43:17


Post by: Frankenberry


Like LoW or super-heavies, include them in games.

Don't like LoW or super-heavies, don't include them in games.

Play in a public setting, be prepared for people not to care about how you don't like the rules.

Don't like the game, don't fething play it.

Not every single post about questionable 40k rules or FoC shenanigans requires a twenty-seven page explanation as to why people quit 40k.

As for the LoW: I'm stoked that I can use my 140 dollar kit I bought a year ago. I don't care that it's possible to deploy it in a 750 point match, because that's what the rules say. Does it suck for people who don't have one, sure. But that's not my problem, that's theirs.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 21:46:38


Post by: TheSilo


My issue is not so much that LoW and larger models are balanced or unbalanced. You could probably design a well balanced 20 wound model, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the game.

There used to be requirements where IG couldn't even field a colonel (T3, W3, Ld9) in battles less than 2,000 points. Dominant named characters had similar restrictions at 1000, 1500, or 2000, because it was important for the scale of the game that you didn't have Marneus Calgar leading a scouting force.

The new large base models and the Lords of War simply don't fit the scale and ruleset of 40k. Most of them are copied from the days of Epic 40k, which had streamlined rules and smaller models. The land raider has always been a larger model, and in game turns it has 4 hull points to a leman russ' 3 hull points. But the baneblade has 12 hull points and is more than four times the size of the leman russ! The wraithknight and riptide are three times the size of a wraithlord! You put those things on the table and they look like a joke, you have to remove entire pieces of terrain (since they all have ignore cover anyways) or else they fall over. The game turns into one player lining up a bubble around the monster and pouring fire into it. That might make for a good movie scene in Godzilla or Pacific Rim, but in gameplay it's just a chore.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 21:49:55


Post by: Frankenberry


 TheSilo wrote:
My issue is not so much that LoW and larger models are balanced or unbalanced. You could probably design a well balanced 20 wound model, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the game.

There used to be requirements where IG couldn't even field a colonel (T3, W3, Ld9) in battles less than 2,000 points. Dominant named characters had similar restrictions at 1000, 1500, or 2000, because it was important for the scale of the game that you didn't have Marneus Calgar leading a scouting force.

The new large base models and the Lords of War simply don't fit the scale and ruleset of 40k. Most of them are copied from the days of Epic 40k, which had streamlined rules and smaller models. The land raider has always been a larger model, and in game turns it has 4 hull points to a leman russ' 3 hull points. But the baneblade has 12 hull points and is more than four times the size of the leman russ! The wraithknight and riptide are three times the size of a wraithlord! You put those things on the table and they look like a joke, you have to remove entire pieces of terrain (since they all have ignore cover anyways) or else they fall over. The game turns into one player lining up a bubble around the monster and pouring fire into it. That might make for a good movie scene in Godzilla or Pacific Rim, but in gameplay it's just a chore.


My previous post aside, I remember those rules, and liked them very much. It certainly made more sense to see a restriction on say, Calgar to a 1500/2k point game rather than "FIELD HIM WHENEVER TO SMITE THE ENEMIES OF THE IMPERIUM AND FORGE A NARRATIVE."


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 22:00:12


Post by: gregor_xenos


If a LoW (even a Tranny C'Tan) takes out half your army in the first turn; then you sir Fail at deployment.

Lets take HIM for example. (assume Initaitive was stolen by crons)
Tranny moves up 18" going over say 1 tank and 2 guys in a unit.... (Im no math hammerer; but they've probably had it.)
During shooting phase he drops flamestorm D on another tank and 7 dudes (tank and @ 5 guys croaked)... then fires the 6D6 shots at a large unit (quite possibly wiping it)...
So that's around 2 tanks and 12 dudes... Is that half your army at 1850? Of course; IF you deploy like a smart player, you'll start in the back of your deployment zone when you see something like a Tranny in a list.

Ive played with the Tranny.... Hell; I played a Tranny AND a VAULT in an 1850 list.... (lost both LoWs 2 out of 3 games *still got 1st*)
They are Expensive in points and cash... rightly so.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 22:03:06


Post by: TheCustomLime


 Sir Arun wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Some of them aren't any issue. If you can deal with 3 Leman Russ tanks, a Baneblade won't present any greater threat or challenge.


Except 3 Leman Russes have 9 HPs while a Baneblade has 12 and better armor. Also, the firepower of 3 non-Pask Russes is less than that of one Baneblade.


Yeah, but Baneblades cost more than three Leman Russ tanks put together and have the problem of all of your eggs being in one basket. If the Baneblade goes down, which it will if your opponent has any sense, that's a lot of points gone. If your Leman Russ dies... who cares? You should have at least 4 more.

That said I'll be definitely be fielding one. I want to field my Baneblade damn it. Big Fat Meanie hasn't seen any action at all and I've had her for half a year.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 22:15:16


Post by: tyrannosaurus


 TheSilo wrote:
My issue is not so much that LoW and larger models are balanced or unbalanced. You could probably design a well balanced 20 wound model, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the game.

There used to be requirements where IG couldn't even field a colonel (T3, W3, Ld9) in battles less than 2,000 points. Dominant named characters had similar restrictions at 1000, 1500, or 2000, because it was important for the scale of the game that you didn't have Marneus Calgar leading a scouting force.


At least the argument has moved beyond "I don't like it so I won't play it" [I, literally, cannot argue with that logic ] 40k/Rogue Trader started off as a skirmish game. It gradually grew bigger and bigger, adding in larger units. Recently they added flyers [which, apparently, were going to break the game], and then superheavies. The game has evolved, and you can either pretend it hasn't [I would suggest playing an earlier edition rather than forcing others to adhere to your idea of the rules] or move with the times.

There's a fallacy being perpetuated on these forums that it's really difficult to have a game of 40k because of the need to establish a contract of which rules to play. If this situation does exist at all, it's only because, for whatever reason [I would suggest the fact that the game has been around so long coupled with the influence of internet forums] some people pick and choose what rules to play. It's really simple to arrange a game, just play the rules in the rule book.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 22:28:05


Post by: Azreal13


It's no fallacy, we've had to take steps at our club in order to to try and maintain some semblance of parity between the younger players with limited experience and model collections and those who are decidedly keen on winning, and have full time incomes and little to spend it on.

Trying to keep the game fun for everyone, to maintain the club and it's long term survival by keeping people interested via not getting kerb stomped every other week and simultaneously trying to allow people the freedom to do their hobby the way they want is a fething nightmare.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 23:50:02


Post by: TheSilo


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
 TheSilo wrote:
My issue is not so much that LoW and larger models are balanced or unbalanced. You could probably design a well balanced 20 wound model, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the game.

There used to be requirements where IG couldn't even field a colonel (T3, W3, Ld9) in battles less than 2,000 points. Dominant named characters had similar restrictions at 1000, 1500, or 2000, because it was important for the scale of the game that you didn't have Marneus Calgar leading a scouting force.


At least the argument has moved beyond "I don't like it so I won't play it" [I, literally, cannot argue with that logic ] 40k/Rogue Trader started off as a skirmish game. It gradually grew bigger and bigger, adding in larger units. Recently they added flyers [which, apparently, were going to break the game], and then superheavies. The game has evolved, and you can either pretend it hasn't [I would suggest playing an earlier edition rather than forcing others to adhere to your idea of the rules] or move with the times.

There's a fallacy being perpetuated on these forums that it's really difficult to have a game of 40k because of the need to establish a contract of which rules to play. If this situation does exist at all, it's only because, for whatever reason [I would suggest the fact that the game has been around so long coupled with the influence of internet forums] some people pick and choose what rules to play. It's really simple to arrange a game, just play the rules in the rule book.


As a separate issue, I've never played a game of 40k that had fewer than three rules disputes, so it's not as simple as "just play the rules in the rule book." Of course you can find a friend and make up your own rules, you could play a real time strategy game with pennies, you could shoot spitballs at the models instead of rolling...you can do anything you want. But we have an agreed upon ruleset precisely because it is meant to enable people to show up and have a good time.

When first introduced, flyers did break the game. They were incredibly awkward to use, flying in during the opponent's shooting phase, getting shot at before starting their strafing run, and flying off to return and do the same in the following enemy turn. You had imperial marauders dropping ten blast templates in a turn. They were goofy. Since then they've basically been turned into specialized skimmers, much more like the original rules before flyers, and work decently well. I think most of the flyers are a little too large on the table, they're unwieldy to move and transport, but overall they're reasonable additions. Superheavies were added at the same time, with the original Imperial Armour book, and they have always been an oddball in the game, introducing very complicated rules for a single model, and never really finding a place on the table. Even if I were interested in buying and fielding flyers or superheavies, I am physically prohibited because I take the subway to my local store (not having a car). Point is, we're at a point where there are models people can't field because they literally don't fit into a bag any more.

My point is not about balance, it's about whether these models contribute to the game. Are they fun? Do they increase the narrative immersion? Do they inhibit casual gamers? Without any restrictions they hurt the 40k experience, and there's plenty of precedent and experience with reasonable restrictions that would improve everyone's overall experience. Just limit the larger models and LoW to battles of 2,500 points or more. It's an easy fix and prevents casual and younger gamers from getting alienated by someone showing up and plopping a warhound titan on the table.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 23:55:15


Post by: Jancoran


 TheSilo wrote:
I don't understand the proliferation of massive models and lords of war. I started in 3rd, and at that time you would once in a while get a glimpse in White Dwarf of a custom built titan set up for Games Day or a Thunderhawk as part of a diorama. But nowadays people are trying to field these things in regular 40k battles, not just 30,000 point megabattles. And frankly, I don't get it. Imperial Knights, Wraith Knights, Riptides, Baneblades...these things barely fit onto the table, they don't seem to fit into 40k the game. Is it really fun to carry around one massive tank to the store, put it on the table, roll the die, and then pick it up again having never moved it? There's no strategy in it.

It's the same reason why it's more fun when Rogue Squadron didn't let you play as the Death Star. When Battlefield 1942 didn't let you fly the Enola Gay. When people take these massive point sinks, the game stops being a battle and becomes an arcade game.


Well I don't see the point myself. Play apocalypse. thats where they belong. It just does. Warhammer 40K is like fighting a conventional war. Once it goes nuclear i mean... Only the Enola Gay matters really as a target.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/08 23:56:41


Post by: Wayniac


 TheSilo wrote:
My point is not about balance, it's about whether these models contribute to the game. Are they fun? Do they increase the narrative immersion? Do they inhibit casual gamers? Without any restrictions they hurt the 40k experience, and there's plenty of precedent and experience with reasonable restrictions that would improve everyone's overall experience. Just limit the larger models and LoW to battles of 2,500 points or more. It's an easy fix and prevents casual and younger gamers from getting alienated by someone showing up and plopping a warhound titan on the table.


Pretty much this. My very first game of 40k, back in 2nd edition circa 1996 or 1997, was against someone playing Space Wolves with a Warhound Titan which in those days weren't even official as they were made by Armorcast; being a newbie I believed the guy I questioned if it was legal and he said something like "Of course it's legal, they give you a datafax". It was not a fun game having my regular Space Marines wiped out by the Vulcan Cannons and whatever else the Warhound could do (to say nothing of the 2nd edition Space Wolf cheese with Assault Cannon + Cyclone Missile Launcher Wolfguard Terminators). It nearly soured me on playing completely; I just never played that guy again. IIRC I told the store owner that I wasn't thinking of playing again (the guy was supposed to be running the store's 40k nights) and when he asked why I basically stated that playing something like that isn't fun or enjoyable.

That was nearly 20 years ago, and is still true today. That crap belongs in Epic and large games, not any old battle just because it has rules.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 00:00:39


Post by: PhillyT


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:


If you refuse something that's normally allowed, it makes *YOU* the "bad guy" for refusing something legal; at that rate might as well refuse to play Tau or Daemons or whatever broken thing is out there. Options should have remained just that, options to be used in special scenarios or large battles. They didn't need to be thrown into the main book as something that is okay for regular games.


Good, I'm glad 7th put the onus on the refusing player to justify why. The anti-LoW people in this thread seem to feel that a valid argument is "I don't like it" or "It doesn't fit into my vision of 40k". Personally I expect a stronger argument from someone refusing to play the core rules.

With the D-nerf the vast majority of LoW are perfectly fine for 40k, whether a PUG or pre-arranged [although I've never played against a Transcendent C'tan, but would like to], and are, if anything, a big liability. It may force you to change your list up a little in order to cater for it, but that's part of being a good general. If the LoW dies early, it's pretty certain the controlling player will lose.

Also, before saying that something is overpowered, I suggest getting in a few games against LoWs rather than basing your decision on internet hysteria. If you have played against LoWs in 7th and find them too powerful and game ruining, then fair enough, but lots of people oppose them without even playing them.

If you have a job, wife, and especially kids, apocalypse games just aren't going to happen. I think it's brilliant that I can use my Warhound Titan now, and I don't care if I win or lose [mostly lose] as long as I can put it on the table and see my baby blow something up.


Exactly.

People whine as a natural rule. I don't want to play a super heavy every game. But if someone has one and wants to play it, whatever, go for it. You bought, assembled, and painted it, enjoy.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 00:02:11


Post by: TheSilo


WayneTheGame wrote:
 TheSilo wrote:
My point is not about balance, it's about whether these models contribute to the game. Are they fun? Do they increase the narrative immersion? Do they inhibit casual gamers? Without any restrictions they hurt the 40k experience, and there's plenty of precedent and experience with reasonable restrictions that would improve everyone's overall experience. Just limit the larger models and LoW to battles of 2,500 points or more. It's an easy fix and prevents casual and younger gamers from getting alienated by someone showing up and plopping a warhound titan on the table.


Pretty much this. My very first game of 40k, back in 2nd edition circa 1996 or 1997, was against someone playing Space Wolves with a Warhound Titan which in those days weren't even official as they were made by Armorcast; being a newbie I believed the guy I questioned if it was legal and he said something like "Of course it's legal, they give you a datafax". It was not a fun game having my regular Space Marines wiped out by the Vulcan Cannons and whatever else the Warhound could do (to say nothing of the 2nd edition Space Wolf cheese with Assault Cannon + Cyclone Missile Launcher Wolfguard Terminators). It nearly soured me on playing completely; I just never played that guy again. IIRC I told the store owner that I wasn't thinking of playing again (the guy was supposed to be running the store's 40k nights) and when he asked why I basically stated that playing something like that isn't fun or enjoyable.

That was nearly 20 years ago, and is still true today. That crap belongs in Epic and large games, not any old battle just because it has rules.


Just the other day I was playing a 750 point mission against the Tau. The guy played a riptide and a Farsight Bomb. Trying to run down his jump-jet riptide with my guardsmen was the opposite of fun.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 00:04:11


Post by: Wayniac


 TheSilo wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
 TheSilo wrote:
My point is not about balance, it's about whether these models contribute to the game. Are they fun? Do they increase the narrative immersion? Do they inhibit casual gamers? Without any restrictions they hurt the 40k experience, and there's plenty of precedent and experience with reasonable restrictions that would improve everyone's overall experience. Just limit the larger models and LoW to battles of 2,500 points or more. It's an easy fix and prevents casual and younger gamers from getting alienated by someone showing up and plopping a warhound titan on the table.


Pretty much this. My very first game of 40k, back in 2nd edition circa 1996 or 1997, was against someone playing Space Wolves with a Warhound Titan which in those days weren't even official as they were made by Armorcast; being a newbie I believed the guy I questioned if it was legal and he said something like "Of course it's legal, they give you a datafax". It was not a fun game having my regular Space Marines wiped out by the Vulcan Cannons and whatever else the Warhound could do (to say nothing of the 2nd edition Space Wolf cheese with Assault Cannon + Cyclone Missile Launcher Wolfguard Terminators). It nearly soured me on playing completely; I just never played that guy again. IIRC I told the store owner that I wasn't thinking of playing again (the guy was supposed to be running the store's 40k nights) and when he asked why I basically stated that playing something like that isn't fun or enjoyable.

That was nearly 20 years ago, and is still true today. That crap belongs in Epic and large games, not any old battle just because it has rules.


Just the other day I was playing a 750 point mission against the Tau. The guy played a riptide and a Farsight Bomb.


Yes, and that shows that GW can't balance worth crap, but has nothing to do with Lords of War. The Riptide is undercosted and OP, and Deathstars in general are garbage. If the game was balanced better they wouldn't be a problem, but they're nothing compared to most LoWs (which are also way OP and unbalanced)


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 00:12:24


Post by: Frankenberry


WayneTheGame wrote:
 TheSilo wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
 TheSilo wrote:
My point is not about balance, it's about whether these models contribute to the game. Are they fun? Do they increase the narrative immersion? Do they inhibit casual gamers? Without any restrictions they hurt the 40k experience, and there's plenty of precedent and experience with reasonable restrictions that would improve everyone's overall experience. Just limit the larger models and LoW to battles of 2,500 points or more. It's an easy fix and prevents casual and younger gamers from getting alienated by someone showing up and plopping a warhound titan on the table.


Pretty much this. My very first game of 40k, back in 2nd edition circa 1996 or 1997, was against someone playing Space Wolves with a Warhound Titan which in those days weren't even official as they were made by Armorcast; being a newbie I believed the guy I questioned if it was legal and he said something like "Of course it's legal, they give you a datafax". It was not a fun game having my regular Space Marines wiped out by the Vulcan Cannons and whatever else the Warhound could do (to say nothing of the 2nd edition Space Wolf cheese with Assault Cannon + Cyclone Missile Launcher Wolfguard Terminators). It nearly soured me on playing completely; I just never played that guy again. IIRC I told the store owner that I wasn't thinking of playing again (the guy was supposed to be running the store's 40k nights) and when he asked why I basically stated that playing something like that isn't fun or enjoyable.

That was nearly 20 years ago, and is still true today. That crap belongs in Epic and large games, not any old battle just because it has rules.


Just the other day I was playing a 750 point mission against the Tau. The guy played a riptide and a Farsight Bomb.


Yes, and that shows that GW can't balance worth crap, but has nothing to do with Lords of War. The Riptide is undercosted and OP, and Deathstars in general are garbage. If the game was balanced better they wouldn't be a problem, but they're nothing compared to most LoWs (which are also way OP and unbalanced)


No LoW is overpowered or unbalanced, their inclusion into normal 40k is debatable but comparing a 600 point single tank to a deathstar is disingenuous. LoW's are supposed to be game changers, that's their whole purpose. Deathstars are the poster children for better balance, no single squad of guys like a Farsight bomb should be that powerful, or that DE/Eldar one that has a rerollable 2++ or some gak.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 01:12:18


Post by: PhillyT


 Jancoran wrote:
 TheSilo wrote:
I don't understand the proliferation of massive models and lords of war. I started in 3rd, and at that time you would once in a while get a glimpse in White Dwarf of a custom built titan set up for Games Day or a Thunderhawk as part of a diorama. But nowadays people are trying to field these things in regular 40k battles, not just 30,000 point megabattles. And frankly, I don't get it. Imperial Knights, Wraith Knights, Riptides, Baneblades...these things barely fit onto the table, they don't seem to fit into 40k the game. Is it really fun to carry around one massive tank to the store, put it on the table, roll the die, and then pick it up again having never moved it? There's no strategy in it.

It's the same reason why it's more fun when Rogue Squadron didn't let you play as the Death Star. When Battlefield 1942 didn't let you fly the Enola Gay. When people take these massive point sinks, the game stops being a battle and becomes an arcade game.


Well I don't see the point myself. Play apocalypse. thats where they belong. It just does. Warhammer 40K is like fighting a conventional war. Once it goes nuclear i mean... Only the Enola Gay matters really as a target.


Who says they don't belong anywhere but apocalypse? Because the rules were in apoc? Well the rules are in the main book now, so they belong there too.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 01:19:25


Post by: TheSilo


WayneTheGame wrote:
 TheSilo wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
 TheSilo wrote:
My point is not about balance, it's about whether these models contribute to the game. Are they fun? Do they increase the narrative immersion? Do they inhibit casual gamers? Without any restrictions they hurt the 40k experience, and there's plenty of precedent and experience with reasonable restrictions that would improve everyone's overall experience. Just limit the larger models and LoW to battles of 2,500 points or more. It's an easy fix and prevents casual and younger gamers from getting alienated by someone showing up and plopping a warhound titan on the table.


Pretty much this. My very first game of 40k, back in 2nd edition circa 1996 or 1997, was against someone playing Space Wolves with a Warhound Titan which in those days weren't even official as they were made by Armorcast; being a newbie I believed the guy I questioned if it was legal and he said something like "Of course it's legal, they give you a datafax". It was not a fun game having my regular Space Marines wiped out by the Vulcan Cannons and whatever else the Warhound could do (to say nothing of the 2nd edition Space Wolf cheese with Assault Cannon + Cyclone Missile Launcher Wolfguard Terminators). It nearly soured me on playing completely; I just never played that guy again. IIRC I told the store owner that I wasn't thinking of playing again (the guy was supposed to be running the store's 40k nights) and when he asked why I basically stated that playing something like that isn't fun or enjoyable.

That was nearly 20 years ago, and is still true today. That crap belongs in Epic and large games, not any old battle just because it has rules.


Just the other day I was playing a 750 point mission against the Tau. The guy played a riptide and a Farsight Bomb.


Yes, and that shows that GW can't balance worth crap, but has nothing to do with Lords of War. The Riptide is undercosted and OP, and Deathstars in general are garbage. If the game was balanced better they wouldn't be a problem, but they're nothing compared to most LoWs (which are also way OP and unbalanced)


In the OP I make clear that I'm talking about large base models (Wraithknights, Riptides, Morkanauts, etc.) and LoW. More generally I'm referring to the fact that there are no restrictions on the use of named characters, large base models, and LoW. I regularly play against a Grey Knights player who fields Draigo and four paladins in 1000 point games. In 3rd edition there undoubtably would have been a restriction saying that you cannot play with Draigo in battles below 2000 points. There would have been a restriction saying that you can only field riptides or wraithknights in battles above 2000 points. There would have been rules against using Farsight in a 750 point battle.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 02:04:10


Post by: kronk


Kronk owns the following super heavies (plus an unpainted Stompa).

Kronk would never play with either outside of an Apoc game, a Planetstrike game, or some specific campaign game.





Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 02:22:49


Post by: gmaleron


From what I have gathered reading this thread is honestly a lot of the same when it comes to FW: We don't like it because it OP, doesn't fit into the game ect. Here is the thing, if you refuse to play someone with a legal list who wants to bring a LoW that he bought, built and painted then YOU are coming off more as TFG then he is. I really do not understand the LoW hate and I am not trying to step on anyones toes here but it seems like the gamers from the older editions are the ones leading the charge. Well guess what, Warhammer like life changes, it evolves and things are added and taken away. You don't have to like it but telling someone "sorry I don't want to play you because you have a LoW and I feel that it ruins the game" does not help your case one bit.

I have played several people with Lords of War and I have YET to lose to one of them. Are they nasty? Yes. Invincible? No. Overhyped and a Psychological Weapon? Yes. They are not that hard to destroy and even though some have better loadouts then regular units can take you still fall under three big restrictions IMO:

1) Points Cost: Yes maybe some are undercosted at around 500pts. Fine, in a 1500 point game that means 500pts. of your army are in a SINGLE model. Eggs in one basket anyone? And with Melta making a combeback in this edition you should have some good anti-armor and if you don't your a bad General. This also relates to how back in the day you could only take certain units at certain point levels. Being such an expensive single unit will dictate when you take a LoW as much as the old point restrictions.

2) You get bonuses if your opponent fields a LoW and you do not, so not only do you have to fight less but you even get bonuses added on to help you out against it. On top of that, be FLEXIBLE with your army list and willing to change it up when the meta or other units come your way, a lot of this complaining to me comes from people unwilling to be flexible in my experience.

3) In 40k guess what, these units DO exist, so for you to say "I don't like it" but for it to still be in the games fluff and backstory makes your opinion null and void. It makes PERFECT sense for example, an Iyanden Army to have a few Wraith Constructs. It makes sense a Tau Army has some Riptides to provide Fire Support for the rest of the army. Regardless of your opinion they are in the fluff, people like the models and want to use them (for the look of the model, WAAC, Fluff ect) and will continue to do so.

This to me seems to much like "I don't like it or never fought it before so im going to ban it" which I have heard often in regards to FW. If people would just stop complaining, find ways to deal with the problem and execute a lot of this would go away, the problem I believe stems from a lot of people who are comfortable playing one way and feel they should not have to change up their list or tactics and still expect to win. Again not trying to be harsh but I am definitely tired of people saying they don't want to play against my army (Elysian Drop Troops) for reasons like "I don't like it" or "its OP" when they really are just scared to fight it.



Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 02:44:15


Post by: MWHistorian


 gmaleron wrote:
From what I have gathered reading this thread is honestly a lot of the same when it comes to FW: We don't like it because it OP, doesn't fit into the game ect. Here is the thing, if you refuse to play someone with a legal list who wants to bring a LoW that he bought, built and painted then YOU are coming off more as TFG then he is. I really do not understand the LoW hate and I am not trying to step on anyones toes here but it seems like the gamers from the older editions are the ones leading the charge. Well guess what, Warhammer like life changes, it evolves and things are added and taken away. You don't have to like it but telling someone "sorry I don't want to play you because you have a LoW and I feel that it ruins the game" does not help your case one bit.

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 03:01:24


Post by: ausYenLoWang


 kronk wrote:
Kronk owns the following super heavies (plus an unpainted Stompa).

Kronk would never play with either outside of an Apoc game, a Planetstrike game, or some specific campaign game.
Spoiler:







nice Kronk i have one thats very similar.
Spoiler:


i have this lot and TBH i dont expect to use them in every game but i do expect that if i wanted to i wont face a wall of BS to use them. its not that any are crazy OP they are just decent, the BaneBlade for example is 3 LR in 1. the warhound (Pre 7th) if it had 2 TL Destructors was a tough sell... now though with the new rules for D weapons... its just not as tough...

pics for fun. crazy flash makes the blue waaay more cyan.



Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 03:47:30


Post by: gmaleron


 MWHistorian wrote:
 gmaleron wrote:
From what I have gathered reading this thread is honestly a lot of the same when it comes to FW: We don't like it because it OP, doesn't fit into the game ect. Here is the thing, if you refuse to play someone with a legal list who wants to bring a LoW that he bought, built and painted then YOU are coming off more as TFG then he is. I really do not understand the LoW hate and I am not trying to step on anyones toes here but it seems like the gamers from the older editions are the ones leading the charge. Well guess what, Warhammer like life changes, it evolves and things are added and taken away. You don't have to like it but telling someone "sorry I don't want to play you because you have a LoW and I feel that it ruins the game" does not help your case one bit.

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?


Fun for you or fun for your opponent? Your idea of fun may not necessarily be your opponents idea of fun, everyone is different.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 04:03:36


Post by: MWHistorian


 gmaleron wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
 gmaleron wrote:
From what I have gathered reading this thread is honestly a lot of the same when it comes to FW: We don't like it because it OP, doesn't fit into the game ect. Here is the thing, if you refuse to play someone with a legal list who wants to bring a LoW that he bought, built and painted then YOU are coming off more as TFG then he is. I really do not understand the LoW hate and I am not trying to step on anyones toes here but it seems like the gamers from the older editions are the ones leading the charge. Well guess what, Warhammer like life changes, it evolves and things are added and taken away. You don't have to like it but telling someone "sorry I don't want to play you because you have a LoW and I feel that it ruins the game" does not help your case one bit.

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?


Fun for you or fun for your opponent? Your idea of fun may not necessarily be your opponents idea of fun, everyone is different.

That's exactly my point.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 05:16:58


Post by: tyrannosaurus


 MWHistorian wrote:

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?


Because it's in the rules? The "I don't like it so I'm going to ignore the rules" argument is so flimsy it's laughable. If it was an optional rule then fine, refuse to play against it if you don't like it. LoW are now in the core rules. Ghazkull is now a LoW. Do you refuse to fight against him or are you again going to force people to adhere to your interpretation of the rules and allow him but not others?

Is it fun to play a horde army and sit doing nothing for 30 minutes while your opponent moves all of their models? No, but does that mean I should refuse to play against orks?

You say they don't belong in 40k, I say they do and are a great addition. And I've got the rules on my side.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 05:18:06


Post by: MWHistorian


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?


Because it's in the rules? The "I don't like it so I'm going to ignore the rules" argument is so flimsy it's laughable. If it was an optional rule then fine, refuse to play against it if you don't like it. LoW are now in the core rules. Ghazkull is now a LoW. Do you refuse to fight against him or are you again going to force people to adhere to your interpretation of the rules and allow him but not others?

Is it fun to play a horde army and sit doing nothing for 30 minutes while your opponent moves all of their models? No, but does that mean I should refuse to play against orks?

You say they don't belong in 40k, I say they do and are a great addition. And I've got the rules on my side.

It's not a federal law, it's a game. If it's not fun, you don't have to play.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 08:22:22


Post by: Mumblez


Most LoW are pretty easy to kill actually. Hull points melt away really fast if you keep glancing the vehicle to death every turn. Hell, a squad armed with melta weapons and melta bombs could even kill a LoW like the the stompa in a single turn.

I think people refusing to play against armies that include a LoW is fine, as long as it's an agreement between you and your regular opponents. Pick-up games are a different story. If you walk into a store/club and ask for a game, you best be ready to face the fluffiest of fluffbunny lists or the nastiest cheddar cheesefest that you can imagine. The latter may include a LoW.

I can understand why you'd be against lords of war, but give them a chance. People at my store were scared of knights before I started playing there and all of my opponents so far have been pleasantly surprised that they are not in fact indestructible nor can they manhandle all of their army at once. 12 hull points for as many points as the usual LoW costs honestly isn't that much.

Obviously if you and your friends in your local scene don't like 'em, don't use them. Though I got a feeling that the moment most imperial armies have access to lords of war, they'll change their opinions about the restricion.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 09:15:48


Post by: Skullhammer


Yes and no i sometimes use a lord of war in games as i like the models, there is only one low i wont use outside of apoc and thats a trans ctan hes just to tough. Who would complain against a lord of skulls at around a 1k points it naff or a baneblade at 500-600 thats a lot of points in one big target even my nids arnt worried by them, in the end its in the rules and they can be a major risk/theat but thems tge breaks.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 10:43:06


Post by: BoomWolf


 Mumblez wrote:

I think people refusing to play against armies that include a LoW is fine, as long as it's an agreement between you and your regular opponents. Pick-up games are a different story. If you walk into a store/club and ask for a game, you best be ready to face the fluffiest of fluffbunny lists or the nastiest cheddar cheesefest that you can imagine. The latter may include a LoW.


You are horribly wrong, the latter will not include many LoW, the former will.

Most LoW are so underwhelming, borderline WEAK that only a fluffy list or a "timmy" players ("I want it because its big and cool, who cares its inefficient") will want most of them to appear on their lists.

I'm not afraid of nearly any LoW under the new 7th edition rules that nerfed the D. the only one that I am fawning on is the C'tan, as he's freaking unkillable when the game is too small and the WoW power is insanely good, but I'd play even him at a large game ("large" is 1500 or more in my book) where there is a decent chance to take him out.


I am willing to be most anti-LoW guys never even played against one. Its freaking FUN, especially when they got one and you don't. you get a chance to do a "bigger they are" routine there and have an epic scene of a bunch of guys working at a team to take down a colossal opponent.
And before the blame comes, as it always do every time I stand for LoW being cool-I do not own any. I do not plan to own any. and I would not a taken one to the field even if I could borrow one because I don't like being the big guy.
Same way I don't own, plan to own, or borrow any fortifications, they don't match my style. but I still do want my opponent to field some from time to time, it makes the game more versatile and interesting the more options are out there, the more diverse and concept-shaking the better.

Seriously, its the same thing as happened in 6th with "oh no fliers. I am not going to play against them, yada yada yada..." if anyone would come up with something like that people will laugh at him for being a slow. same will happen with LoW soon enough, and people will learn to accept them as an integral and meaningful part of the game. (nope, not using fliers either...though I might at some point)

I bet there was something that was introduced in 5th too that caused people to throw a fit. the community here seems to love throwing fits. after a while nobody care and the "change resistance" guys pretend that they always thought the new thing is good and were never against it.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 11:01:04


Post by: Kilkrazy


Well there wasn't.

There were the usual complaints about pricing and balance, but there was not a whole new section of rules that caused hissy fits.

The reason being that the big new chunks like Apocalypse, that were unpopular with quite a lot of players, were kept as optional add-ons rather than spooged into the main game.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 12:31:44


Post by: gmaleron


 MWHistorian wrote:
 tyrannosaurus wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?


Because it's in the rules? The "I don't like it so I'm going to ignore the rules" argument is so flimsy it's laughable. If it was an optional rule then fine, refuse to play against it if you don't like it. LoW are now in the core rules. Ghazkull is now a LoW. Do you refuse to fight against him or are you again going to force people to adhere to your interpretation of the rules and allow him but not others?

Is it fun to play a horde army and sit doing nothing for 30 minutes while your opponent moves all of their models? No, but does that mean I should refuse to play against orks?

You say they don't belong in 40k, I say they do and are a great addition. And I've got the rules on my side.

It's not a federal law, it's a game. If it's not fun, you don't have to play.


Then don't play the game if this bothers you so much, Tyrannosaurs is right when he says they are in the core rules and just because you don't like it you really don't have a leg to stand on when you tell people that you dont want to play it. Also if you are ever entering a tournament or even a game store, and you need to be prepared to potentially fight this because it is in the core rules, I respect your opinion, just realize that it may adversely affect you more often than not as you may come off as TFG if you give the argument of "they don't belong in standard 40k games". Instead of just saying that, adapt to the New World Edition off the game and learn to beat it because it's not going away.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 12:44:49


Post by: Ravenous D


 MWHistorian wrote:
 gmaleron wrote:
From what I have gathered reading this thread is honestly a lot of the same when it comes to FW: We don't like it because it OP, doesn't fit into the game ect. Here is the thing, if you refuse to play someone with a legal list who wants to bring a LoW that he bought, built and painted then YOU are coming off more as TFG then he is. I really do not understand the LoW hate and I am not trying to step on anyones toes here but it seems like the gamers from the older editions are the ones leading the charge. Well guess what, Warhammer like life changes, it evolves and things are added and taken away. You don't have to like it but telling someone "sorry I don't want to play you because you have a LoW and I feel that it ruins the game" does not help your case one bit.

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?


Bingo, that is the problem entirely.

Ive been at this hobby for a long time now and every game Ive seen with super heavies outside of apoc go like this:
1) The super heavy murders everything while the other guy shakes his head at why he bothered to play against it
2) The super heavy blows up turn 1 or 2 and the game is over in 45 minutes leaving both players wondering why they bothered to play with/against it.


That hasn't changed. All the stupid rules (allies, formations, multiple detachments) in 40k really need to be in an optional category or in 3000pts+. The game is already suffering from people sick to death of having games go south from factors they have no control of, super heavies just strain that even more especially now that GW is forcing them on you like it should be accepted, and moving other normal units into the LoW slots to normalize it. They aren't fun, I don't find them fun, they provide no challenge or they are completely over bearing.

For you people defending it, you got to see it as a cash grab, and you must see that people are leaving the hobby in droves. Its your willful ignorance why the hobby is continuing the go that the way it is, you're the sycophants that just take it tell GW they are doing a great job.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 13:24:04


Post by: Wayniac


 gmaleron wrote:
Then don't play the game if this bothers you so much, Tyrannosaurs is right when he says they are in the core rules and just because you don't like it you really don't have a leg to stand on when you tell people that you dont want to play it. Also if you are ever entering a tournament or even a game store, and you need to be prepared to potentially fight this because it is in the core rules, I respect your opinion, just realize that it may adversely affect you more often than not as you may come off as TFG if you give the argument of "they don't belong in standard 40k games". Instead of just saying that, adapt to the New World Edition off the game and learn to beat it because it's not going away.


While your argument is technically valid, you are basically demonstrating why it's a bad thing and why GW was fething stupid to ever put it in the core rules to begin with. It was done deliberately to "force" acceptance of LoWs in standard games of 40k, for exactly the reason you're so vehemently arguing.

Your argument isn't helping your cause, despite being factually correct.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 13:39:04


Post by: kronk


Since I moved away from my gaming group, I've had to resort to pick up games. The few times I had them, the conversation went something like this.

Want to play a game?
How many points?
Book missions or something else?
Tournament-Competitive, fluffy, something else?
Forge World ok?
Escalation or Stronghold assault?
Cool, let's play.

For this addition, I'd add "No Lords of War, ok?" My answer will be "No thanks". If I miss out on some games because of it, no loss.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 13:52:45


Post by: ClassicCarraway


 Rautakanki wrote:
The idea is good but as ever the point costs of so many are ridiculous in one way or another.


Agreed. Most of the LoW were priced when they were exclusive to Apocalypse, and points didn't really matter so much. Now, you have some pretty bad point discrepancies. Since GW had to know that they were going to be including them in regular 40K, you would have thought they would have put more thought into the points cost.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 13:57:05


Post by: Kilkrazy


Apocalypse came out in 2007 though. It was still 4th edition. I doubt GW knew back then they were going to include those units in 7th edition in 2014.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 14:29:37


Post by: MWHistorian


 gmaleron wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
 tyrannosaurus wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?


Because it's in the rules? The "I don't like it so I'm going to ignore the rules" argument is so flimsy it's laughable. If it was an optional rule then fine, refuse to play against it if you don't like it. LoW are now in the core rules. Ghazkull is now a LoW. Do you refuse to fight against him or are you again going to force people to adhere to your interpretation of the rules and allow him but not others?

Is it fun to play a horde army and sit doing nothing for 30 minutes while your opponent moves all of their models? No, but does that mean I should refuse to play against orks?

You say they don't belong in 40k, I say they do and are a great addition. And I've got the rules on my side.

It's not a federal law, it's a game. If it's not fun, you don't have to play.


Then don't play the game if this bothers you so much, Tyrannosaurs is right when he says they are in the core rules and just because you don't like it you really don't have a leg to stand on when you tell people that you dont want to play it. Also if you are ever entering a tournament or even a game store, and you need to be prepared to potentially fight this because it is in the core rules, I respect your opinion, just realize that it may adversely affect you more often than not as you may come off as TFG if you give the argument of "they don't belong in standard 40k games". Instead of just saying that, adapt to the New World Edition off the game and learn to beat it because it's not going away.

You're right. I did stop playing the game because I didn't like the direction 40k was going in. I rely on pick-up games and LOW included in the main rule book was one of the reasons I left.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 14:43:07


Post by: Tycho


The group at my LGS uses them from time to time. Those wanting to try one in a game typically bring two lists - one WITH the LoW and one without. That way we can all have fun. I've played against a few IG super-heavy tanks as well as the Khorne Lord of Skulls. I wouldn't want to do it every game, but it was kind of fun trying to strategize around those things without having any LoW of my own. We're all still trying to figure out the new edition so who knows how it will end up, but for now they don't seem to be that big of a deal.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 15:11:00


Post by: ClassicCarraway


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Apocalypse came out in 2007 though. It was still 4th edition. I doubt GW knew back then they were going to include those units in 7th edition in 2014.


It was redone for 6th edition right before Escalation. Also, the Forge World Apoc book was redone in 2013 as well, even listing the super heavies as Lords of War. Heck, even the units in Escalation suffer from wonky pricing (mainly because they were cut and pastes from Apocalypse) and that's what started the whole Super Heavies in regular 40K craze to begin with.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 15:39:01


Post by: PhillyT


I have 3 stompa, a killbursta tank, a baneblade, a storm blade, and 3 knights.

I love all of them and have most painted. I am careful though about when I use them. I always let my opponents know when I want to use them and we negotiate whether they feel like playing them or not.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 16:02:37


Post by: krodarklorr


I have a Transcendant C'tan and an Obelisk, but I try to only use them if both players want to play with them, or we're doing a special scenario.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 19:41:02


Post by: tyrannosaurus


 kronk wrote:
Since I moved away from my gaming group, I've had to resort to pick up games. The few times I had them, the conversation went something like this.

Want to play a game?
How many points?
Book missions or something else?
Tournament-Competitive, fluffy, something else?
Forge World ok?
Escalation or Stronghold assault?
Cool, let's play.

For this addition, I'd add "No Lords of War, ok?" My answer will be "No thanks". If I miss out on some games because of it, no loss.


How about you both just follow the rules in the rulebook? Surely for PUGs the best thing to do is follow the rules as published?

Beyond the first two questions you're moving into house rule territory which suits regular gaming groups much better than PUGs, and the Forge World and Escalation questions are meaningless as they're part of standard 40k.

I also wanted to address the argument put forward that LoWs have been banned to help protect new entrants to the game. Surely house ruling against LoW and refuding to allow the player to follow the published rules is going to cause more disillusionment than allowing the new player to have a go at taking down a titan? Also, what if the new player has bought, built and painted their own LoW and then turns up excited to find out they can't use it? Finally, having to play against some of the more broken 'normal' units is going to be more frustrating for the new player than playing against the very killable Low?









Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 19:47:06


Post by: Kilkrazy


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
 kronk wrote:
Since I moved away from my gaming group, I've had to resort to pick up games. The few times I had them, the conversation went something like this.

Want to play a game?
How many points?
Book missions or something else?
Tournament-Competitive, fluffy, something else?
Forge World ok?
Escalation or Stronghold assault?
Cool, let's play.

For this addition, I'd add "No Lords of War, ok?" My answer will be "No thanks". If I miss out on some games because of it, no loss.


How about you both just follow the rules in the rulebook? Surely for PUGs the best thing to do is follow the rules as published?

Beyond the first two questions you're moving into house rule territory which suits regular gaming groups much better than PUGs, and the Forge World and Escalation questions are meaningless as they're part of standard 40k.

I also wanted to address the argument put forward that LoWs have been banned to help protect new entrants to the game. Surely house ruling against LoW and refuding to allow the player to follow the published rules is going to cause more disillusionment than allowing the new player to have a go at taking down a titan? Also, what if the new player has bought, built and painted their own LoW and then turns up excited to find out they can't use it? Finally, having to play against some of the more broken 'normal' units is going to be more frustrating for the new player than playing against the very killable Low?









The whole point of GW's approach to providing pic'n'mix rules for forging a narrative is to be able to take whatever bits you want and weave them into your game.

Thus it's fine to reject LoW if you don't like them.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 20:00:13


Post by: tyrannosaurus


 Kilkrazy wrote:

The whole point of GW's approach to providing pic'n'mix rules for forging a narrative is to be able to take whatever bits you want and weave them into your game.

Thus it's fine to reject LoW if you don't like them.


Where does it talk about 'pick & mix' rules in the rulebook? There are two options with creating a list. Battleforged following the FoC [which includes LoW] or Unbound. Where's the permission to pick & choose rules? Where's the permission to refuse to play against units you don't like? Again, obviously no-one can force you to play a game, but expecting others to disregard the rules in order to fit in with your vision of 40k surely requires a stronger argument than "I don't like it"?

I find this attitude towards the rules very strange. For some reason 40k players have assumed the right to choose which rules to follow. However when playing other games it seems the rules are sacrosanct. All of the issues surrounding PUGs have been artificially created by those who, for whatever reason, refuse to adhere to the rules.

Follow the rules. No problems.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 20:02:39


Post by: Thud


Nope.

LoWs are not a part of the game I fell in love with many moons ago, and they're not a part of the game I want to play.

Well... I say LoWs, but if an Ork player wants to use Maggie, I'm not about to say no.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 20:04:06


Post by: Desubot


Personally as long as it is kepted toned down i think super heavies like baneblades is fine.

What i absolutely will not play however is that dumb c'tan with double withering wave nonsense. just no bloody way.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 20:11:53


Post by: Wayniac


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
I find this attitude towards the rules very strange. For some reason 40k players have assumed the right to choose which rules to follow. However when playing other games it seems the rules are sacrosanct. All of the issues surrounding PUGs have been artificially created by those who, for whatever reason, refuse to adhere to the rules.

Follow the rules. No problems.


Maybe if 40k's rules were balanced. Other games, in case you haven't noticed, don't have gross imbalances between units so that if you take a LOW you can smash half an enemy's army because the LOW is that powerful. 40k is the only game where the rules are so bloated, so broken and so unbalanced that if you play it as written you open the floodgates to anything and everything and can have a fun game or 4 hours of garbage.

The reason other games have rules that are "sacrosanct" is because those games are balanced, so you don't need to ban things or modify the rules to make things fair.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 20:52:11


Post by: tyrannosaurus


WayneTheGame wrote:


Maybe if 40k's rules were balanced. Other games, in case you haven't noticed, don't have gross imbalances between units so that if you take a LOW you can smash half an enemy's army because the LOW is that powerful. 40k is the only game where the rules are so bloated, so broken and so unbalanced that if you play it as written you open the floodgates to anything and everything and can have a fun game or 4 hours of garbage.

The reason other games have rules that are "sacrosanct" is because those games are balanced, so you don't need to ban things or modify the rules to make things fair.


Based upon your response I'm pretty sure you haven't played against a LoW in 7th, Plus, the grossest imbalances are definitely not from LoW, but instead from 'standard' units.

'Fun' is very subjective, but I I think the games I have had most fun with are those I played with my Warhound Titan. They were fairly quick [maybe 15 minutes to complete my turn?], had lots of explosions, and looked amazing on the table.

If you dislike the game so much you feel you have to ban and modify rules, is it really the game for you? Especially if you're forcing your opponent to follow your vision of what 40k should be.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 20:52:16


Post by: Melevolence


I think just like with other things, players need to communicate. Playing big models IS fun, but only if both parties agree to said models being used. One of my last games was a waste of time for me because he was fielding a Knight, and I wasn't informed, so my list was no prepared for such an inclusion. Had I known, I would have built things to counter it. It was a slaughter, and in the end, I had no fun whatsoever.

Now, of course, he was annoyed that I was annoyed. His excuse was 'Well, I payed for it, I'm going to play it'. And thats not a totally irrational thought. But when you are ruining the experience for the other players, for you're own selfish reasons, then...well...I don't know what to say too you. At least inform your opponent "I plan on using a LoW/Super Heavy'. You don't have to tell me WHICH, but set the expectation I'll be seeing one hit the field.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 20:54:08


Post by: Gangrel767


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
 kronk wrote:
Since I moved away from my gaming group, I've had to resort to pick up games. The few times I had them, the conversation went something like this.

Want to play a game?
How many points?
Book missions or something else?
Tournament-Competitive, fluffy, something else?
Forge World ok?
Escalation or Stronghold assault?
Cool, let's play.

For this addition, I'd add "No Lords of War, ok?" My answer will be "No thanks". If I miss out on some games because of it, no loss.


How about you both just follow the rules in the rulebook? Surely for PUGs the best thing to do is follow the rules as published?

Beyond the first two questions you're moving into house rule territory which suits regular gaming groups much better than PUGs, and the Forge World and Escalation questions are meaningless as they're part of standard 40k.

I also wanted to address the argument put forward that LoWs have been banned to help protect new entrants to the game. Surely house ruling against LoW and refuding to allow the player to follow the published rules is going to cause more disillusionment than allowing the new player to have a go at taking down a titan? Also, what if the new player has bought, built and painted their own LoW and then turns up excited to find out they can't use it? Finally, having to play against some of the more broken 'normal' units is going to be more frustrating for the new player than playing against the very killable Low?


I don't recall seeing anything in the 7th rulebook about Forgeworld. Can you guide me to that page?

As far as the OP - I'm very torn. The old grognard in me says "NO!" but honestly, I haven't played in a REAL game with any so IDK.

I am very much a "play the rules as is" kind of guy, so our group hasn't modified the maelstrom missions or really modified anything in 7th yet. We are of the stand-point of trying to give the game 6 months or a year of raw (not the acronym) play. In other words, let's see how "broken" the rules actually are before we start to house rule every single little thing. Honestly, so far, I'm loving the game, right out of the box.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 20:55:26


Post by: BrianDavion


 Thud wrote:
Nope.

LoWs are not a part of the game I fell in love with many moons ago, and they're not a part of the game I want to play.

Well... I say LoWs, but if an Ork player wants to use Maggie, I'm not about to say no.



and there's the rub. we can run around saying "no lords of war" but the fact is that as 7th edition continues to roll out we're going to see more Independant HQ characters to become Lords of war. eventually objecting to LoWs is going to be outright rediculas.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 21:06:28


Post by: Kangodo


BrianDavion wrote:
and there's the rub. we can run around saying "no lords of war" but the fact is that as 7th edition continues to roll out we're going to see more Independant HQ characters to become Lords of war. eventually objecting to LoWs is going to be outright rediculas.

We all know what GW is doing.
"If you don't object to Thrakka, you probably won't object to play against a Stompa!"

But I'm smart, I see through that.
I played against a proxied Stompa, I won the game by VP's and I did not really like/enjoy that game.
I am perfectly fine with LoW's if they are special, sometimes I like to take on a machine that is 60% of your points.
But most games I don't feel like having the entire game based around one Superheavy, hoping to be out of LoS for most of the game.

Maybe it's because I play Blood Angels? I am already feeling punished if I want an enjoyable list.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 21:13:52


Post by: Azreal13


 tyrannosaurus wrote:

How about you both just follow the rules in the rulebook? Surely for PUGs the best thing to do is follow the rules as published?



Because if you do that currently, the whole psychic phase clutches it's chest and falls over.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 23:23:31


Post by: gmaleron


WayneTheGame wrote:
 gmaleron wrote:
Then don't play the game if this bothers you so much, Tyrannosaurs is right when he says they are in the core rules and just because you don't like it you really don't have a leg to stand on when you tell people that you dont want to play it. Also if you are ever entering a tournament or even a game store, and you need to be prepared to potentially fight this because it is in the core rules, I respect your opinion, just realize that it may adversely affect you more often than not as you may come off as TFG if you give the argument of "they don't belong in standard 40k games". Instead of just saying that, adapt to the New World Edition off the game and learn to beat it because it's not going away.


While your argument is technically valid, you are basically demonstrating why it's a bad thing and why GW was fething stupid to ever put it in the core rules to begin with. It was done deliberately to "force" acceptance of LoWs in standard games of 40k, for exactly the reason you're so vehemently arguing.

Your argument isn't helping your cause, despite being factually correct.


So I am wrong for following the rules of the game despite peoples personal feelings on the matter? I do not see this as a bad thing at all and it is not "forcing" anyone to play with Low's because you still have a right to choose wether to play or not so stating I am saying whats "wrong" with this does not make any sense whatsoever. All I am saying is guess what its not going away, and you can refuse it if you want but saying "I don't like it so I should not have to play it" is not a valid argument. As I already stated, instead of complaining about it adapt your strategy to be able to confront if you happen to play it.

 Ravenous D wrote:


For you people defending it, you got to see it as a cash grab, and you must see that people are leaving the hobby in droves. Its your willful ignorance why the hobby is continuing the go that the way it is, you're the sycophants that just take it tell GW they are doing a great job.


So everyone who has a different opinion on the matter is ignorant and your response to it is to label everyone who has one with an ignorant statement...bravo.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 23:38:12


Post by: Sir Arun


Its funny how you cant go by the "if it's not in the codex, I wont be playing against it" either.

Sure, while the rules for Baneblades and Warhounds are in Escalation, the rules for the 800 point stompa are in the new Ork codex...and by that logic you will also deny an Ork player a game if he wants to just play with a looted wagon. Clever, GW


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/09 23:45:34


Post by: Wayniac


 Sir Arun wrote:
Its funny how you cant go by the "if it's not in the codex, I wont be playing against it" either.

Sure, while the rules for Baneblades and Warhounds are in Escalation, the rules for the 800 point stompa are in the new Ork codex...and by that logic you will also deny an Ork player a game if he wants to just play with a looted wagon. Clever, GW


That's mostly why I don't like LoWs, they've played it so that some LoWs are decent, and some are OP, but the line between them is blurred so the person who doesn't want to play against a Stompa or a Titan looks like TFG for banning LoW because it screws over the guy doing a fluffy Goff army with Ghazghkull


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 02:17:49


Post by: ausYenLoWang


 Ravenous D wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
 gmaleron wrote:
From what I have gathered reading this thread is honestly a lot of the same when it comes to FW: We don't like it because it OP, doesn't fit into the game ect. Here is the thing, if you refuse to play someone with a legal list who wants to bring a LoW that he bought, built and painted then YOU are coming off more as TFG then he is. I really do not understand the LoW hate and I am not trying to step on anyones toes here but it seems like the gamers from the older editions are the ones leading the charge. Well guess what, Warhammer like life changes, it evolves and things are added and taken away. You don't have to like it but telling someone "sorry I don't want to play you because you have a LoW and I feel that it ruins the game" does not help your case one bit.

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?


Bingo, that is the problem entirely.

Ive been at this hobby for a long time now and every game Ive seen with super heavies outside of apoc go like this:
1) The super heavy murders everything while the other guy shakes his head at why he bothered to play against it
2) The super heavy blows up turn 1 or 2 and the game is over in 45 minutes leaving both players wondering why they bothered to play with/against it.


That hasn't changed. All the stupid rules (allies, formations, multiple detachments) in 40k really need to be in an optional category or in 3000pts+. The game is already suffering from people sick to death of having games go south from factors they have no control of, super heavies just strain that even more especially now that GW is forcing them on you like it should be accepted, and moving other normal units into the LoW slots to normalize it. They aren't fun, I don't find them fun, they provide no challenge or they are completely over bearing.

For you people defending it, you got to see it as a cash grab, and you must see that people are leaving the hobby in droves. Its your willful ignorance why the hobby is continuing the go that the way it is, you're the sycophants that just take it tell GW they are doing a great job.


this sounds like 5th/6th ed apoc where D weapons were really nasty, 7th wrecked that pretty badly to be honest


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gangrel767 wrote:
 tyrannosaurus wrote:
 kronk wrote:
Since I moved away from my gaming group, I've had to resort to pick up games. The few times I had them, the conversation went something like this.

Want to play a game?
How many points?
Book missions or something else?
Tournament-Competitive, fluffy, something else?
Forge World ok?
Escalation or Stronghold assault?
Cool, let's play.

For this addition, I'd add "No Lords of War, ok?" My answer will be "No thanks". If I miss out on some games because of it, no loss.


How about you both just follow the rules in the rulebook? Surely for PUGs the best thing to do is follow the rules as published?

Beyond the first two questions you're moving into house rule territory which suits regular gaming groups much better than PUGs, and the Forge World and Escalation questions are meaningless as they're part of standard 40k.

I also wanted to address the argument put forward that LoWs have been banned to help protect new entrants to the game. Surely house ruling against LoW and refuding to allow the player to follow the published rules is going to cause more disillusionment than allowing the new player to have a go at taking down a titan? Also, what if the new player has bought, built and painted their own LoW and then turns up excited to find out they can't use it? Finally, having to play against some of the more broken 'normal' units is going to be more frustrating for the new player than playing against the very killable Low?


I don't recall seeing anything in the 7th rulebook about Forgeworld. Can you guide me to that page?

As far as the OP - I'm very torn. The old grognard in me says "NO!" but honestly, I haven't played in a REAL game with any so IDK.

I am very much a "play the rules as is" kind of guy, so our group hasn't modified the maelstrom missions or really modified anything in 7th yet. We are of the stand-point of trying to give the game 6 months or a year of raw (not the acronym) play. In other words, let's see how "broken" the rules actually are before we start to house rule every single little thing. Honestly, so far, I'm loving the game, right out of the box.


sure for FW being allowed go to the army selection page and it tells you to go to ANY book published by GW.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 02:34:48


Post by: Zomnivore


I'd play against one, and after that specific instance I'd either figure out if I can build an army that can face that specific sorta one, and be fun...or not, and make a decision after that.

No reason to put myself into a corner.

Also...Ghazghkull is one I want to play...and I doubt anyone's going to feel nice about me getting one, and saying no to them gettin one.

That and maybe the new books will have 'playable' LoW that aren't army-balance breaking.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 02:44:05


Post by: Kilkrazy


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:

The whole point of GW's approach to providing pic'n'mix rules for forging a narrative is to be able to take whatever bits you want and weave them into your game.

Thus it's fine to reject LoW if you don't like them.


Where does it talk about 'pick & mix' rules in the rulebook? ... ...

Follow the rules. No problems.


It doesn't talk about pic'n'mix in 40K but that clearly is in the spirit of the game. Wargamers have always fiddled with the rules of games if they thought it improved things.

I have no problem with rejecting certain sections of rules. The game still "works" if you simply delete for example Flyers.

Equally I have no problem with modifying or replacing sections. The turn sequence is the most obvious candidate for replacement with a more interesting version. ATM I am thinking about card activation as a possible enhancement.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 04:28:03


Post by: cnpopo


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?


Because it's in the rules? The "I don't like it so I'm going to ignore the rules" argument is so flimsy it's laughable. If it was an optional rule then fine, refuse to play against it if you don't like it. LoW are now in the core rules. Ghazkull is now a LoW. Do you refuse to fight against him or are you again going to force people to adhere to your interpretation of the rules and allow him but not others?

Is it fun to play a horde army and sit doing nothing for 30 minutes while your opponent moves all of their models? No, but does that mean I should refuse to play against orks?

You say they don't belong in 40k, I say they do and are a great addition. And I've got the rules on my side.


Since you "have the rules on your side", refer to page 116 where in black bold writing it says "players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

If a player chooses not to play LoW or a super heavy, then they have the rules on their side.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 05:15:45


Post by: tyrannosaurus


cnpopo wrote:


Since you "have the rules on your side", refer to page 116 where in black bold writing it says "players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

If a player chooses not to play LoW or a super heavy, then they have the rules on their side.


It then goes on to say the two main ways of selecting armies are Battle-forged and Unbound, and provides rules for using those. If you're not allowing LoW, then you're house ruling, because you're not using either of the two main ways which have rules provided. Battle-forged without LoW is not Battle-forged, it is something else.

Of course players can choose to select armies in another way, or create their own missions, or introduce house rules, but that approach doesn't suit PUGs. I've arranged a number of 'narrative' games, [although always using the FOC to avoid disagreements] with special victory conditions, but these took a lot of negotiation and discussion. I wouldn't turn up to a game with a list of my own house rules, or a narrative mission, and expect my opponent to just agree to them. That would be unreasonable, just like refusing LoW is unreasonable.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 07:02:40


Post by: Malik_Raynor


Only if both teams have one and they around around the same value


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 07:33:49


Post by: Kangodo


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
It then goes on to say the two main ways of selecting armies are Battle-forged and Unbound, and provides rules for using those. If you're not allowing LoW, then you're house ruling, because you're not using either of the two main ways which have rules provided. Battle-forged without LoW is not Battle-forged, it is something else.

Of course players can choose to select armies in another way, or create their own missions, or introduce house rules, but that approach doesn't suit PUGs. I've arranged a number of 'narrative' games, [although always using the FOC to avoid disagreements] with special victory conditions, but these took a lot of negotiation and discussion. I wouldn't turn up to a game with a list of my own house rules, or a narrative mission, and expect my opponent to just agree to them. That would be unreasonable, just like refusing LoW is unreasonable.
Dude..
"players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
Are you just ignoring that line?

There is nothing unreasonable to refusing LoW: If you don't enjoy them, you can ask people not to play them.
It's a freaking game, you cannot force people to play against something they don't like.
Or do you force people to go to concerts and films they don't like?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 09:44:05


Post by: BrianDavion


Kangodo wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
and there's the rub. we can run around saying "no lords of war" but the fact is that as 7th edition continues to roll out we're going to see more Independant HQ characters to become Lords of war. eventually objecting to LoWs is going to be outright rediculas.

We all know what GW is doing.
"If you don't object to Thrakka, you probably won't object to play against a Stompa!"

But I'm smart, I see through that.
I played against a proxied Stompa, I won the game by VP's and I did not really like/enjoy that game.
I am perfectly fine with LoW's if they are special, sometimes I like to take on a machine that is 60% of your points.
But most games I don't feel like having the entire game based around one Superheavy, hoping to be out of LoS for most of the game.

Maybe it's because I play Blood Angels? I am already feeling punished if I want an enjoyable list.


in fairness though isn't a big part of the game taking a list to suit your stragety and how you want to play? what if they other guy enjoys having a single giant unit as the lynchpin of his stragety (as someone who runs an Imperial Knight, it's a risky stragety BTW as if it dies early you're NOT recovering)?

Honestly with the power creep we're seeing in 40k, dreadknights, wraithknights, etc...out there, does a LOW mean THAT much?

Now I agree some of the 700+ points lords of war are honestly a bit clunky, I'm hoping we'll see more thinks like Knights. ~400 point minis seems like a good area to focus on for LOWs


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 09:45:35


Post by: nosferatu1001


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
cnpopo wrote:


Since you "have the rules on your side", refer to page 116 where in black bold writing it says "players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

If a player chooses not to play LoW or a super heavy, then they have the rules on their side.


It then goes on to say the two main ways of selecting armies are Battle-forged and Unbound, and provides rules for using those. If you're not allowing LoW, then you're house ruling, because you're not using either of the two main ways which have rules provided. Battle-forged without LoW is not Battle-forged, it is something else.

Of course players can choose to select armies in another way, or create their own missions, or introduce house rules, but that approach doesn't suit PUGs. I've arranged a number of 'narrative' games, [although always using the FOC to avoid disagreements] with special victory conditions, but these took a lot of negotiation and discussion. I wouldn't turn up to a game with a list of my own house rules, or a narrative mission, and expect my opponent to just agree to them. That would be unreasonable, just like refusing LoW is unreasonable.

No, given you are allowed to apply any restrictions, using a GW rule to apply these restrictions is not a "house rule"

Battle-forged simply requires you to adhere to detachments. NOthing more, nothing less. You can have an entirely BF army with no LOW slot, doesnt mean it isnt BF (Inquisition, from memory, knight detachments, etc)


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 11:28:57


Post by: Wayniac


40k is meant to be a "social game" that you agree beforehand with your opponent what type of game you want and what you want to use, so saying "It's in the rules" really doesn't mean much because GW's rules are, more than any other game out there right now barring perhaps some of the more abstract historical rules, basically just a set of guidelines. Otherwise, some rules don't even work or make sense (see psychic powers) so you have to clarify things. 40k is unique among games as you're basically required to talk with your opponent before the game to make sure you both have the same expectations and that the game isn't going to be one-sided where one or more person doesn't have any fun.

Are LoW in legal books? Yes. Should you play one "Just because" without letting your opponent know? Likely not. Is your opponent TFG for refusing to play with you because you did the above? Maybe. Are *you* TFG for trying to bully them into accepting a Lord of War just because "it's in the rules"? Yes.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 13:38:41


Post by: Gangrel767


 ausYenLoWang wrote:
sure for FW being allowed go to the army selection page and it tells you to go to ANY book published by GW.


Thank you. I was looking for specific verbiage about "Forgeworld", like in previous BRBs, but this will suffice. Thanks again!


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 16:42:45


Post by: MWHistorian


So it's play LOW or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it.

That's not very healthy for the hobby.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 18:07:25


Post by: Mumblez


 MWHistorian wrote:
So it's play LOW or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it.

That's not very healthy for the hobby.


I thought we've established a few pages ago that you definitely have to discuss the inclusion of LoW units with your local store/club. I could be mistaken.

Basically, it comes down to what you prefer: if you go to a store in search of a PUG, you should most likely accept the existence of LoW units and move on. Alternatively, you could ask your opponent to not field a LoW and maybe play a lower points value - if he is bringing a LoW-specific list, he's obviously gonna be 'a few' points short of the game you were looking to play without the big beastie.

If you play with a specific group of friends, sit down with 'em for a meal or something and discuss what they think of LoW units in general. If most of you don't find facing lords of war fun, just agree to 'ban' them. If it's a closed group you're part of it won't matter much for new players and even if new folks end up joining you guys, you could always explain to them that the group agrees that LoW units aren't great fun. I don't think that doing this makes you TFG or something!

If your group feels LoW units are fun to use and face, give 'em a chance yourself. You might find that in the new ruleset with the changes to Destroyer weapons and whatnot they aren't nearly as bad as before. And if it turns out you still hate 'em, at least no one can blame you for not trying! Giving LoW units a chance and still disliking them still doesn't make you TFG.

40K like any other game has rules, but in the end it's your local scene that determines things. After all, there's no point to running lords of war if not everyone is having fun with/againt 'em.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 21:28:18


Post by: Engine of War


I would love too.

I already have 7 Baneblades, 3 Macharius, and several malcadors waiting for war.

I've had 1 or 2 battles with my heavy weights onces with a Baneblade, once with a Shadowsword (before the New D stuff). While they did do a lot of damage, they were not "all powerful". But I don't have battles to often anyways.

Other players at my store still refuse to fight things like that. especially this one Tau-dar guy who never loses. I think he's afraid he would lose to the firepower a Baneblade-grade war machine would bring to the table, might hurt his precious riptides....


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 21:49:26


Post by: Peregrine


 MWHistorian wrote:
So it's play LOW or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it.

That's not very healthy for the hobby.


So it's play tactical squads or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it?

That's not very healthy for the hobby.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 21:51:50


Post by: jhe90


 Engine of War wrote:
I would love too.

I already have 7 Baneblades, 3 Macharius, and several malcadors waiting for war.

I've had 1 or 2 battles with my heavy weights onces with a Baneblade, once with a Shadowsword (before the New D stuff). While they did do a lot of damage, they were not "all powerful". But I don't have battles to often anyways.

Other players at my store still refuse to fight things like that. especially this one Tau-dar guy who never loses. I think he's afraid he would lose to the firepower a Baneblade-grade war machine would bring to the table, might hurt his precious riptides....


That's what I call a armoured company, 10+ super hevey battle tanks.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 22:00:53


Post by: Azreal13


 Peregrine wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
So it's play LOW or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it.

That's not very healthy for the hobby.


So it's play tactical squads or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it?

That's not very healthy for the hobby.


Yep.

Refusing to play someone for fielding Tactical Squads is every bit as legitimate, just likely a damn sight more minority viewpoint.

The fact that this discussion is happening at all isn't healthy for Games Workshop

The hobby doesn't give a feth.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 22:01:33


Post by: Engine of War


jhe90 wrote:
 Engine of War wrote:
I would love too.

I already have 7 Baneblades, 3 Macharius, and 4 malcadors waiting for war.

I've had 1 or 2 battles with my heavy weights onces with a Baneblade, once with a Shadowsword (before the New D stuff). While they did do a lot of damage, they were not "all powerful". But I don't have battles to often anyways.

Other players at my store still refuse to fight things like that. especially this one Tau-dar guy who never loses. I think he's afraid he would lose to the firepower a Baneblade-grade war machine would bring to the table, might hurt his precious riptides....


That's what I call a armoured company, 10+ super heavy battle tanks.


I forgot to mention a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT, brand new Knight (scratch built and custom), and plenty of the little Leman Russ tanks of every kind, alongside artillery and lighter armored units like Chimeras. Its not an armored company. Its an Armored Nightmare for anyone in the way.
If I remember right.

3 Baneblades, 2 Shadowsword, 1 Stormblade, 1 Banehammer. 1 Macharius (battle cannons), 1 Vulcan Macharius, 1 Vanquisher Macharious, 1 Malcador Defender, 2 Malcador infernus (One is a Pyro, Other is Cryo hehehe), 1 Malcador Annihilator.

I already have 3 Baneblade grade machines ready for construction. hope to have a Stormsword and another Shadowsword ready. the 3rd might become a Banesword.

Now if only peeps would let me play.... some fear me so much they don't want apoc. They fear being crushed by the sheer weight of armor and firepower. but im happy to build them and collect them. its fun!


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 22:01:49


Post by: MWHistorian


 Peregrine wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
So it's play LOW or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it.

That's not very healthy for the hobby.


So it's play tactical squads or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it?

That's not very healthy for the hobby.

I was addressing the guy that said I didn't have a right to refuse a game with LOW because it's in the rules. I never said "tactical squads or get out." I never told anyone to leave. The other guy did. But don't let facts get in the way of a uselessly snarky post, right?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/10 22:29:24


Post by: tyrannosaurus


nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, given you are allowed to apply any restrictions, using a GW rule to apply these restrictions is not a "house rule"

Battle-forged simply requires you to adhere to detachments. NOthing more, nothing less. You can have an entirely BF army with no LOW slot, doesnt mean it isnt BF (Inquisition, from memory, knight detachments, etc)


My detachment [Sisters of Battle] allows me to use LoW. The two examples you've given don't have LoW slots, so can't use them. What's your point?

Also, if you're not allowing LoW, then you are not following the Battle-forged method, so it is a house rule. There are no rules laid out for detachments without LoW, so you have to make them up. Of course you can house rule it however you want after long discussion with your opponent, but for PUGs surely just following the main types listed in the rulebook is a much better idea?

The rule book even says that you don't necessarily have to have the same points limits. Would you insist on having twice the points of your opponent? It says you can in the book. You won't though because it's unreasonable. Just like blanket refusing to play against LoW is unreasonable.

Peregrine wrote:

So it's play tactical squads or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it?

That's not very healthy for the hobby.


Exactly. Where does this picking and choosing of the rules stop? Personally I think ATSKNF is stupid. Why should marines get a free hit & run for failing in combat? However I can imagine the response I would get if I refused to allow that rule in the games I play. I don't understand why certain rules are considered untouchable, whereas refusing to allow FW & LoW, both specifically allowed in standard games, seems to many to be acceptable.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 02:52:26


Post by: ausYenLoWang


you have as much right to turn a game down that has a warhound as you do because they have space marine tacticals. Both are the same allowance now.
though cos i can be a bit of a cad, i would if someone refused to play my BaneBlade, i would say ok write a list that doesnt include one, then when they pull their army out refuse the game because of their troop option, and when they get annoyed point out their refusal to allow the use of another unit thats BRB allowed, and then ask them if they would like to reconsider their refusal.
i mean for the cost of a BB i can run trip Drakes and have change... there is worse shenanigans available than most of these superheavies...


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 04:40:55


Post by: Kangodo


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Exactly. Where does this picking and choosing of the rules stop? Personally I think ATSKNF is stupid. Why should marines get a free hit & run for failing in combat? However I can imagine the response I would get if I refused to allow that rule in the games I play. I don't understand why certain rules are considered untouchable, whereas refusing to allow FW & LoW, both specifically allowed in standard games, seems to many to be acceptable.

Because people can make snarky comments and troll all they want, but Tactical Marines aren't ruining the game for anyone.
So you think ATSKNF isn't fun.
Do you hate it enough that you'd rather NOT play then play against Marines?
Are you rather going to sit home instead of playing against those Marines?

You want to know where people draw the line?
It's between the point where do I enjoy the game and where I don't enjoy the game.
"Ooh, but that is stupid!"
Call it whatever you want, but I am not going to spend hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours on a game that I don't enjoy.

And if you want to take the RAW-route: The BRB tells you to agree with your opponent on what to play with.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 05:08:12


Post by: tyrannosaurus


Kangodo wrote:

Because people can make snarky comments and troll all they want, but Tactical Marines aren't ruining the game for anyone.
So you think ATSKNF isn't fun.
Do you hate it enough that you'd rather NOT play then play against Marines?
Are you rather going to sit home instead of playing against those Marines?

You want to know where people draw the line?
It's between the point where do I enjoy the game and where I don't enjoy the game.
"Ooh, but that is stupid!"
Call it whatever you want, but I am not going to spend hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours on a game that I don't enjoy.

And if you want to take the RAW-route: The BRB tells you to agree with your opponent on what to play with.


Personally I wouldn't impose any restrictions on my opponent, or refuse to play them because of a particular unit they are taking, because I think it's childish. Who am I to tell someone what they should and should include in their perfectly legal list? The ATSKNF comment was to show how silly the "I don't like it so I won't allow it" argument is. LoW are just as legal as tactical marines, however lots of people seem to think they have the right to refuse to play against one but scoff at the notion when applied to a different unit. What about Screamerstar and Seerstar in 6th? Not particularly fun to play against re-rollable 2++ saves, but again perfectly legal lists. Is it reasonable to refuse to play against these?

If you don't enjoy the game with LoW, despite them being perfectly legal, perhaps this game [or this edition] isn't for you. There are lots of other games where you wouldn't have to pick and choose which rules to follow and impose your opinion of what constitutes fun on others.





Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 05:42:53


Post by: MWHistorian


 ausYenLoWang wrote:
you have as much right to turn a game down that has a warhound as you do because they have space marine tacticals. Both are the same allowance now.
though cos i can be a bit of a cad, i would if someone refused to play my BaneBlade, i would say ok write a list that doesnt include one, then when they pull their army out refuse the game because of their troop option, and when they get annoyed point out their refusal to allow the use of another unit thats BRB allowed, and then ask them if they would like to reconsider their refusal.
i mean for the cost of a BB i can run trip Drakes and have change... there is worse shenanigans available than most of these superheavies...

And this is why the pre-game negotiation before a pick up game has killed it for me. No one's wrong, but when you have two people with wildly different ideas about what's fun, there's going to be a problem. (Because the game is losing its structure and balance.)


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 08:48:05


Post by: ausYenLoWang


 MWHistorian wrote:
 ausYenLoWang wrote:
you have as much right to turn a game down that has a warhound as you do because they have space marine tacticals. Both are the same allowance now.
though cos i can be a bit of a cad, i would if someone refused to play my BaneBlade, i would say ok write a list that doesnt include one, then when they pull their army out refuse the game because of their troop option, and when they get annoyed point out their refusal to allow the use of another unit thats BRB allowed, and then ask them if they would like to reconsider their refusal.
i mean for the cost of a BB i can run trip Drakes and have change... there is worse shenanigans available than most of these superheavies...

And this is why the pre-game negotiation before a pick up game has killed it for me. No one's wrong, but when you have two people with wildly different ideas about what's fun, there's going to be a problem. (Because the game is losing its structure and balance.)


its not that i totally disagree with you.

but and there had to be a but. the basic idea of negotiation should be buried for a PUG. dont negotiate, just go in and use the full rulebook and expect the same.

how many players out there are actually dropping superheavies. the proportion would have to be small, except for 1 example iv seen of it being abused (2x trans Ctan in a small list) its just not that big a deal.
and the most common ones are stompas, baneblades and the like its not that big a thing. all you need to look out for is those that want to abuse it (presumabley those that ran screamerstar etc) and will now abuse the next legal option.

most players are bringing mid and low level SHV/LOW and to be honest i dont think they need to be avoided, its the chumps who abuse it that need to be avoided..

and my previous example is basically how i would deal with someone who complained so hard about my cultist driven BB or whatever. the cool toys are cool, but if i want to abuse the lists well i can do much better (3x Helldrake, 9x wyverns etc etc) and they are cheaper than the SH tanks..


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 08:53:20


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Engine of War wrote:
I would love too.

I already have 7 Baneblades, 3 Macharius, and several malcadors waiting for war.

I've had 1 or 2 battles with my heavy weights onces with a Baneblade, once with a Shadowsword (before the New D stuff). While they did do a lot of damage, they were not "all powerful". But I don't have battles to often anyways.

Other players at my store still refuse to fight things like that. especially this one Tau-dar guy who never loses. I think he's afraid he would lose to the firepower a Baneblade-grade war machine would bring to the table, might hurt his precious riptides....


If you put all those tanks on a table there wouldn't be much room left for anything else!



Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 09:48:30


Post by: nosferatu1001


Tyrannosaurus - again, youre missing the point, and have some incorrect asumptions about the "battleforged method"

If you are battleforged, it means all your units fit into detachments. It lays no requirement that every slot was available to be picked from, so it is perfectly valid to say "battleforged, no LOW" - tyhat is STILL battleforged; every unit will fit into a detachment.

GW have stated you should agree any restrictions on units the opponent brings. If you then restrict units, using a written rule, that si NOT, by utter definition of the word, a houserule.

Explain how using a GW written rule is a houserule.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 10:17:17


Post by: Peregrine


nosferatu1001 wrote:
It lays no requirement that every slot was available to be picked from, so it is perfectly valid to say "battleforged, no LOW" - tyhat is STILL battleforged; every unit will fit into a detachment.


Yes, for your own list. You are of course free to not take a LOW in your own army, just like you are free to not take any heavy support choices. But if you try to ban your opponent from taking a LOW unit then you aren't playing with the battle-forged army construction rules provided by GW, just like you wouldn't be if you said "no elites" or "no tactical squads".


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 10:42:30


Post by: nosferatu1001


Yes you would, as you are using the rules provided for army construction to apply restrictions to the units available to be selected.

The point is that this is not, by definition, a houserule, as it is a literal rule published in the rulebook.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 15:06:24


Post by: brother marcus


I use a lord of war in my 2k HH imperial fists (a typhon if you wanted to know) and I love using it, not only does it soak up ALOT of fire power it can also kill whole units in a turn.

Do I consider this unfair? No I always give prior warning that I am using it. And if my opponent has a LOW then my typhon targets that.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 15:21:58


Post by: Azreal13


brother marcus wrote:
I use a lord of war in my 2k HH imperial fists (a typhon if you wanted to know) and I love using it, not only does it soak up ALOT of fire power it can also kill whole units in a turn.

Do I consider this unfair? No I always give prior warning that I am using it. And if my opponent has a LOW then my typhon targets that.


That's cool, but the topic at hand is more "what would you do if you gave prior warning about your LoW and your opponent said 'actually, I'd rather not play using LoW units'"


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 15:28:03


Post by: brother marcus


I would take two more fire raptors in its place making 3 in total and make the moaning sob deal with that


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 15:32:06


Post by: Azreal13


I get that you're joking, but it does highlight the fact that there are plenty of non-LoW units which are just as fethed as LoW.

While a T-C'Tan is ludicrous, is it any more ludicrous to face than the equivalent points of Waveserpents or Riptides?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 15:36:24


Post by: brother marcus


I agree, lords of war are most of the time greatly over feared especially my typhon, it can make its points back easily but not much else.

In all seriousness though I do give prior warning and I've never had anyone say no to me using it, I guess if they said I couldn't use them I would be alittle annoyed and show them the eye watering price and it's stats. If they still refused then I would just replace it with something, I don't really have 3 fire raptors that would be beardy of me


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 15:54:31


Post by: Azreal13


And once again a conversation about 40K circles around to balance.

I have no philosophical objection to a big, scary unit in a 40K list.

Personally, I don't have an issue with many of them, certainly I'd happily take a crack at most of the Guard and Legion Superheavies, but when you consider the LoW slot also comprises such a litany of broken OPness as the aforementioned Transcendent C'Tan, Revenant Titan etc, which I just don't think would be any fun to play with my real world collection of models (unlike the hypothetical model collection we have on the Internet where the right unit for any given situation magically pops into being, painted and based, when the conversation demands it.)

So then you're confronted with a choice, do you draw a very convoluted, squiggly line around which units are acceptable to you, and which aren't, and then hand your opponent a shopping list of what you will and won't play (which frankly would come across as more of a douche move than outright exclusion to me) or simply say no LoW?

40K is a lurching, wheezing mess of a game, but it isn't irredeemable, as long as everyone is pulling in the same direction. What it doesn't need is people beating other players around the head with the rulebook in order to make other people have "fun" the "right" way.

It sucks that it has to be this way, but the only way the game works is with serious player modification, that's simply how it is, and giant man children plaintively wailing "but...the ruuuuules" don't help anyone. If an opponent isn't keen, then either accept it, or find another way to make it work. If it's appropriate, why not offer to lend it to them to field against you? If they're more familiar with it, maybe they won't object to using it in future games. Because if it's there because you love the model, you're still seeing it on the table. Of course, if you're just trying to shoehorn in a disproportionate advantage, perhaps you'll be less keen.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 16:26:01


Post by: TheSilo


 azreal13 wrote:
And once again a conversation about 40K circles around to balance.

I have no philosophical objection to a big, scary unit in a 40K list.

Personally, I don't have an issue with many of them, certainly I'd happily take a crack at most of the Guard and Legion Superheavies, but when you consider the LoW slot also comprises such a litany of broken OPness as the aforementioned Transcendent C'Tan, Revenant Titan etc, which I just don't think would be any fun to play with my real world collection of models (unlike the hypothetical model collection we have on the Internet where the right unit for any given situation magically pops into being, painted and based, when the conversation demands it.)

So then you're confronted with a choice, do you draw a very convoluted, squiggly line around which units are acceptable to you, and which aren't, and then hand your opponent a shopping list of what you will and won't play (which frankly would come across as more of a douche move than outright exclusion to me) or simply say no LoW?

40K is a lurching, wheezing mess of a game, but it isn't irredeemable, as long as everyone is pulling in the same direction. What it doesn't need is people beating other players around the head with the rulebook in order to make other people have "fun" the "right" way.

It sucks that it has to be this way, but the only way the game works is with serious player modification, that's simply how it is, and giant man children plaintively wailing "but...the ruuuuules" don't help anyone. If an opponent isn't keen, then either accept it, or find another way to make it work. If it's appropriate, why not offer to lend it to them to field against you? If they're more familiar with it, maybe they won't object to using it in future games. Because if it's there because you love the model, you're still seeing it on the table. Of course, if you're just trying to shoehorn in a disproportionate advantage, perhaps you'll be less keen.


Well said.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 16:40:12


Post by: kronk


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Kangodo wrote:

Because people can make snarky comments and troll all they want, but Tactical Marines aren't ruining the game for anyone.
So you think ATSKNF isn't fun.
Do you hate it enough that you'd rather NOT play then play against Marines?
Are you rather going to sit home instead of playing against those Marines?

You want to know where people draw the line?
It's between the point where do I enjoy the game and where I don't enjoy the game.
"Ooh, but that is stupid!"
Call it whatever you want, but I am not going to spend hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours on a game that I don't enjoy.

And if you want to take the RAW-route: The BRB tells you to agree with your opponent on what to play with.


Personally I wouldn't impose any restrictions on my opponent, or refuse to play them because of a particular unit they are taking, because I think it's childish. There are lots of other games where you wouldn't have to pick and choose which rules to follow and impose your opinion of what constitutes fun on others.


Childish? Really?

What I enjoy and what you enjoy are different. But because my fun is different from yours, I'm the child? You're the one resorting to name calling, here.

Also, how am I imposing anything on anyone. If I don't agree with your idea of a game, how am I imposing anything by saying "No thanks"? You're just as free to find another opponent as I am.

Check your privilege, sir.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 16:42:58


Post by: TheSilo


This game is based on the consent of both players, not the wishes of one player.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 16:45:16


Post by: kronk


 TheSilo wrote:
This game is based on the consent of both players, not the wishes of one player.


Exactly.

I have extremely limited gaming time, and I'm not going to spend it playing a game I won't enjoy. You're just as free to find someone that wants to play with LoW as I am to find FOC only games.



Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 17:08:41


Post by: Wayniac


 TheSilo wrote:
This game is based on the consent of both players, not the wishes of one player.


Exactly this. It doesn't matter what "the rules" say if you're being a donkey cave about it; your opponent isn't obligated to play with what you field. As azrael13 said this ultimately circles back to the fact in 40k not all choices are balanced (ergo someone doesn't want to waste time playing a lopsided game) and 40k alone requires you to have these kinds of discussions with your opponent due to the chance of having a lopsided game being no fun for either party.

People seem to wonder why every 40k discussion ultimately ends with GW hatred and/or a discussion on balance; this is why. Everything ultimately stems from the fact that balance isn't paid any attention in 40k, and as a result you need to sit down and talk with your opponent about the kind of game you want to determine if anything you field might lessen the enjoyment either of you have, all of which ultimately lies on GW's shoulders. Whenever you wonder why there seems to be so much GW hatred and why people always "hijack" threads to talk about balance, look to this thread as the reason why.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 17:46:00


Post by: Kilkrazy


 azreal13 wrote:
And once again a conversation about 40K circles around to balance.

I have no philosophical objection to a big, scary unit in a 40K list.

Personally, I don't have an issue with many of them, certainly I'd happily take a crack at most of the Guard and Legion Superheavies, but when you consider the LoW slot also comprises such a litany of broken OPness as the aforementioned Transcendent C'Tan, Revenant Titan etc, which I just don't think would be any fun to play with my real world collection of models (unlike the hypothetical model collection we have on the Internet where the right unit for any given situation magically pops into being, painted and based, when the conversation demands it.)

So then you're confronted with a choice, do you draw a very convoluted, squiggly line around which units are acceptable to you, and which aren't, and then hand your opponent a shopping list of what you will and won't play (which frankly would come across as more of a douche move than outright exclusion to me) or simply say no LoW?

40K is a lurching, wheezing mess of a game, but it isn't irredeemable, as long as everyone is pulling in the same direction. What it doesn't need is people beating other players around the head with the rulebook in order to make other people have "fun" the "right" way.

It sucks that it has to be this way, but the only way the game works is with serious player modification, that's simply how it is, and giant man children plaintively wailing "but...the ruuuuules" don't help anyone. If an opponent isn't keen, then either accept it, or find another way to make it work. If it's appropriate, why not offer to lend it to them to field against you? If they're more familiar with it, maybe they won't object to using it in future games. Because if it's there because you love the model, you're still seeing it on the table. Of course, if you're just trying to shoehorn in a disproportionate advantage, perhaps you'll be less keen.


Yes, I agree with this.

Part of the point of 40K is to be able to play with behemoth war machines. Everyone likes to play the occasional mega game. That is why Apocalypse was produced. But that shouldn't happen every day, they don't really fit in the game.

It is just a pity that GW had to screw it up by spoogeing everything into the core rules.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 18:03:30


Post by: Kangodo


 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Personally I wouldn't impose any restrictions on my opponent, or refuse to play them because of a particular unit they are taking, because I think it's childish. Who am I to tell someone what they should and should include in their perfectly legal list? The ATSKNF comment was to show how silly the "I don't like it so I won't allow it" argument is. LoW are just as legal as tactical marines, however lots of people seem to think they have the right to refuse to play against one but scoff at the notion when applied to a different unit. What about Screamerstar and Seerstar in 6th? Not particularly fun to play against re-rollable 2++ saves, but again perfectly legal lists. Is it reasonable to refuse to play against these?

If you don't enjoy the game with LoW, despite them being perfectly legal, perhaps this game [or this edition] isn't for you. There are lots of other games where you wouldn't have to pick and choose which rules to follow and impose your opinion of what constitutes fun on others.
A few points:
1. So I am childish for seeing WH40k as a hobby that I use for my enjoyment?
2. Who am I to tell others what to play? I am their opponent, the player that is playing a game with them. Without me: No game.
3. Why is it silly? You always decide on restrictions. You decide the points, you often decide a mission and you decide about a lot of things.
4. Can we drop the word "legal"? The BRB tells us to agree on what units we play. Banning a LoW is just as legal as NOT banning them.
5. Yes, it is perfectly reasonable to refuse to play against those lists. That's because the BRB tells you to agree on what can be used.
6. Why is this not the game for me? I love a game that has a rule that says we have to agree on the usage of certain units.

TL;DR: The BRB tells us to agree on what to play with.
Telling me that I am forced to accept units like Stompa's or the T-C'tan is a house rule.
Stop acting as if you have the rules on your side.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 18:15:06


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 azreal13 wrote:
And once again a conversation about 40K circles around to balance.

I have no philosophical objection to a big, scary unit in a 40K list.

Personally, I don't have an issue with many of them, certainly I'd happily take a crack at most of the Guard and Legion Superheavies, but when you consider the LoW slot also comprises such a litany of broken OPness as the aforementioned Transcendent C'Tan, Revenant Titan etc, which I just don't think would be any fun to play with my real world collection of models (unlike the hypothetical model collection we have on the Internet where the right unit for any given situation magically pops into being, painted and based, when the conversation demands it.)

So then you're confronted with a choice, do you draw a very convoluted, squiggly line around which units are acceptable to you, and which aren't, and then hand your opponent a shopping list of what you will and won't play (which frankly would come across as more of a douche move than outright exclusion to me) or simply say no LoW?

40K is a lurching, wheezing mess of a game, but it isn't irredeemable, as long as everyone is pulling in the same direction. What it doesn't need is people beating other players around the head with the rulebook in order to make other people have "fun" the "right" way.

It sucks that it has to be this way, but the only way the game works is with serious player modification, that's simply how it is, and giant man children plaintively wailing "but...the ruuuuules" don't help anyone. If an opponent isn't keen, then either accept it, or find another way to make it work. If it's appropriate, why not offer to lend it to them to field against you? If they're more familiar with it, maybe they won't object to using it in future games. Because if it's there because you love the model, you're still seeing it on the table. Of course, if you're just trying to shoehorn in a disproportionate advantage, perhaps you'll be less keen.


This, right here


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 18:19:06


Post by: Arbiter_Shade


Here is my problem with LOW, I primarily play Tyranids, I love setting up my little swarm on the table. If I see someone plop down a LOW all I can do is just shrug and say, GG, UNLESS I build a very specific list to deal with that LOW and even then I have very little chance of being able to deal with it.

Any kind of D weapon is going to wreck Tyranids and that to me isn't fun. It may be fun for my opponent but I am not about to spend three hours getting wrecked by an opponent for their enjoyment while I may as well not be there, they can go masturbate to math hammer if that is all they want.

IF, and this is a HUGE IF, 40k was in any way balanced and options across all armies were in relative power levels then I wouldn't mind a LOW here or there, but the only times I have played against LOW are when my father pulls out his Baneblades or Knights and if I am playing my Tyranids the game is effectively over already.

Would I mind playing against a LOW with my SM Drop Pod list? Not at all! Infact, I would suggest my opponent not bring it cause there is a very good chance I could alpha it off the board with Sternguard.

On the topic of Ghaz...I don't play him as a LOW, I play him as a FOC free HQ! So go have fun Ork players! Have up to four HQs against me all you want! I refuse to take the bonuses for my opponent taking a LOW when it is Ghaz, he is NOT a LOW he is an HQ. Forcing him into the LOW slot just to shoe horn these new rules in was a mistake in a long, long, long list of mistakes made by GW.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 18:27:13


Post by: Grimtuff


 azreal13 wrote:
And once again a conversation about 40K circles around to balance.

I have no philosophical objection to a big, scary unit in a 40K list.

Personally, I don't have an issue with many of them, certainly I'd happily take a crack at most of the Guard and Legion Superheavies, but when you consider the LoW slot also comprises such a litany of broken OPness as the aforementioned Transcendent C'Tan, Revenant Titan etc, which I just don't think would be any fun to play with my real world collection of models (unlike the hypothetical model collection we have on the Internet where the right unit for any given situation magically pops into being, painted and based, when the conversation demands it.)

So then you're confronted with a choice, do you draw a very convoluted, squiggly line around which units are acceptable to you, and which aren't, and then hand your opponent a shopping list of what you will and won't play (which frankly would come across as more of a douche move than outright exclusion to me) or simply say no LoW?

40K is a lurching, wheezing mess of a game, but it isn't irredeemable, as long as everyone is pulling in the same direction. What it doesn't need is people beating other players around the head with the rulebook in order to make other people have "fun" the "right" way.

It sucks that it has to be this way, but the only way the game works is with serious player modification, that's simply how it is, and giant man children plaintively wailing "but...the ruuuuules" don't help anyone. If an opponent isn't keen, then either accept it, or find another way to make it work. If it's appropriate, why not offer to lend it to them to field against you? If they're more familiar with it, maybe they won't object to using it in future games. Because if it's there because you love the model, you're still seeing it on the table. Of course, if you're just trying to shoehorn in a disproportionate advantage, perhaps you'll be less keen.


Az, please stop. My neck is sore from agreeing with you so much.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 18:29:49


Post by: Azreal13


I'll expect the personal injury claim shortly shall I?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 19:21:36


Post by: foto69man


I play a hobby game of plastic models(some with resin). So I try to have fun.

Not every opponent can buy large pieces of plastic/resin crack...so to have fun, which I believe is the key concept of this hobby, we make compromises which is cool cause we are all grown enough to do so.

If I am playing and the guy/girl across from me isn't having a good time, I generally am not either.

P.S. For the record I own a Tigershark AX-1-0 who is a nice bookend lol...only for large games in my opinion.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 20:14:26


Post by: MWHistorian


I'm book marking this thread so whenever someone says pre-game negotiation at a pick up game should take a few seconds, I'll just point them here as to why it's not really that easy.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 20:38:27


Post by: Multimoog


Making a Council of Waaagh! unit should probably count as a LoW, honestly, because goddamn. That unit will wreck anything it comes up against in a turn of CC.

Also, wait, what:

Check your privilege, sir.


do... do you know what "privilege" means, especially in the context you're using it

hahahahaha


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 20:52:06


Post by: haroon


Agree that low is part of the game. Though you can refuse to play LOW of course, I know people who refuse to play tau and eldar.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/11 23:20:56


Post by: Peregrine


Kangodo wrote:
4. Can we drop the word "legal"? The BRB tells us to agree on what units we play. Banning a LoW is just as legal as NOT banning them.


Just like banning tactical squads is just as legal as not banning them. The issue here isn't the argument that you're allowed to refuse to play against anything you don't want to play against, it's the claim that LOW are somehow special and require more permission/agreement/whatever than any other units. It's blatant hypocrisy if you ban LOW but then act like you're entitled to play whatever codex list you want without your opponent vetoing your choices.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/12 01:32:13


Post by: ausYenLoWang


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 azreal13 wrote:
And once again a conversation about 40K circles around to balance.

I have no philosophical objection to a big, scary unit in a 40K list.

Personally, I don't have an issue with many of them, certainly I'd happily take a crack at most of the Guard and Legion Superheavies, but when you consider the LoW slot also comprises such a litany of broken OPness as the aforementioned Transcendent C'Tan, Revenant Titan etc, which I just don't think would be any fun to play with my real world collection of models (unlike the hypothetical model collection we have on the Internet where the right unit for any given situation magically pops into being, painted and based, when the conversation demands it.)

So then you're confronted with a choice, do you draw a very convoluted, squiggly line around which units are acceptable to you, and which aren't, and then hand your opponent a shopping list of what you will and won't play (which frankly would come across as more of a douche move than outright exclusion to me) or simply say no LoW?

40K is a lurching, wheezing mess of a game, but it isn't irredeemable, as long as everyone is pulling in the same direction. What it doesn't need is people beating other players around the head with the rulebook in order to make other people have "fun" the "right" way.

It sucks that it has to be this way, but the only way the game works is with serious player modification, that's simply how it is, and giant man children plaintively wailing "but...the ruuuuules" don't help anyone. If an opponent isn't keen, then either accept it, or find another way to make it work. If it's appropriate, why not offer to lend it to them to field against you? If they're more familiar with it, maybe they won't object to using it in future games. Because if it's there because you love the model, you're still seeing it on the table. Of course, if you're just trying to shoehorn in a disproportionate advantage, perhaps you'll be less keen.


Yes, I agree with this.

Part of the point of 40K is to be able to play with behemoth war machines. Everyone likes to play the occasional mega game. That is why Apocalypse was produced. But that shouldn't happen every day, they don't really fit in the game.

It is just a pity that GW had to screw it up by spoogeing everything into the core rules.


how often in real world pug games are people REALLY coming up against the broken LOW? i imagine its pretty damn rare tbh


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
4. Can we drop the word "legal"? The BRB tells us to agree on what units we play. Banning a LoW is just as legal as NOT banning them.


Just like banning tactical squads is just as legal as not banning them. The issue here isn't the argument that you're allowed to refuse to play against anything you don't want to play against, it's the claim that LOW are somehow special and require more permission/agreement/whatever than any other units. It's blatant hypocrisy if you ban LOW but then act like you're entitled to play whatever codex list you want without your opponent vetoing your choices.


and i agree with peregrines sentiments riiight here.

for some reason LOW get special treatment when it comes to vetoing, where as any other broken combo is codex based and sacrosanct.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/12 01:53:20


Post by: Azreal13


 ausYenLoWang wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 azreal13 wrote:
And once again a conversation about 40K circles around to balance.

I have no philosophical objection to a big, scary unit in a 40K list.

Personally, I don't have an issue with many of them, certainly I'd happily take a crack at most of the Guard and Legion Superheavies, but when you consider the LoW slot also comprises such a litany of broken OPness as the aforementioned Transcendent C'Tan, Revenant Titan etc, which I just don't think would be any fun to play with my real world collection of models (unlike the hypothetical model collection we have on the Internet where the right unit for any given situation magically pops into being, painted and based, when the conversation demands it.)

So then you're confronted with a choice, do you draw a very convoluted, squiggly line around which units are acceptable to you, and which aren't, and then hand your opponent a shopping list of what you will and won't play (which frankly would come across as more of a douche move than outright exclusion to me) or simply say no LoW?

40K is a lurching, wheezing mess of a game, but it isn't irredeemable, as long as everyone is pulling in the same direction. What it doesn't need is people beating other players around the head with the rulebook in order to make other people have "fun" the "right" way.

It sucks that it has to be this way, but the only way the game works is with serious player modification, that's simply how it is, and giant man children plaintively wailing "but...the ruuuuules" don't help anyone. If an opponent isn't keen, then either accept it, or find another way to make it work. If it's appropriate, why not offer to lend it to them to field against you? If they're more familiar with it, maybe they won't object to using it in future games. Because if it's there because you love the model, you're still seeing it on the table. Of course, if you're just trying to shoehorn in a disproportionate advantage, perhaps you'll be less keen.


Yes, I agree with this.

Part of the point of 40K is to be able to play with behemoth war machines. Everyone likes to play the occasional mega game. That is why Apocalypse was produced. But that shouldn't happen every day, they don't really fit in the game.

It is just a pity that GW had to screw it up by spoogeing everything into the core rules.


how often in real world pug games are people REALLY coming up against the broken LOW? i imagine its pretty damn rare tbh



Without wanting to be over emotive.

Statistically, the odds of someone being run over by a drunk driver are very small. If it happens to me, it will still suck.

It doesn't mean that the community as a whole shouldn't take steps to try and make sure it never happens to anyone.

The fact that GW have total control over their "universe" in the sense of the 40K ruleset, and they're apparently content to allow it to persist in the state where anyone can be mown down at any time, even though they could stop the problem incredibly easily says what about their attitude to their product and their customers?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/12 05:41:50


Post by: Kangodo


It's not about being broken! I have played against a LoW and I won.
It was just the most freaking boring game of WH40k I have ever played in my entire life.
All of that caused by a LoW that took up over 50% of his points.

 Peregrine wrote:
Just like banning tactical squads is just as legal as not banning them. The issue here isn't the argument that you're allowed to refuse to play against anything you don't want to play against, it's the claim that LOW are somehow special and require more permission/agreement/whatever than any other units. It's blatant hypocrisy if you ban LOW but then act like you're entitled to play whatever codex list you want without your opponent vetoing your choices.

They don't require any more permission.
They require the same amount of permission as any other unit.
And no permission = no permission.

PS. Thank you for explaining what others are arguing.. I'm sure it's totally not about the legality even though he used the word 'legal' more often than a lawbook.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/12 05:52:15


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


"Legal" in the context of 40k is becoming an increasingly meaningless term. Each game kind of needs to be an agreement on what you're going to do vs what is actually legal. For many people, LOW are on the "do not want" side of the agreement, for various reasons.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/12 06:03:41


Post by: tyrannosaurus


 azreal13 wrote:


So then you're confronted with a choice, do you draw a very convoluted, squiggly line around which units are acceptable to you, and which aren't, and then hand your opponent a shopping list of what you will and won't play (which frankly would come across as more of a douche move than outright exclusion to me) or simply say no LoW?

40K is a lurching, wheezing mess of a game, but it isn't irredeemable, as long as everyone is pulling in the same direction. What it doesn't need is people beating other players around the head with the rulebook in order to make other people have "fun" the "right" way.

It sucks that it has to be this way, but the only way the game works is with serious player modification, that's simply how it is, and giant man children plaintively wailing "but...the ruuuuules" don't help anyone. If an opponent isn't keen, then either accept it, or find another way to make it work. If it's appropriate, why not offer to lend it to them to field against you? If they're more familiar with it, maybe they won't object to using it in future games. Because if it's there because you love the model, you're still seeing it on the table. Of course, if you're just trying to shoehorn in a disproportionate advantage, perhaps you'll be less keen.


Nonsense. The game works perfectly fine without player modification. Again, this internet fallacy that the game requires huge amounts of negotiation before playing and that PUGs are impossible. The only games I've played so far have been straight out of the rulebook [including LoW] and I've experienced no issues at all. Imposing restrictions and house rules upon others [seemingly before even trying it out first] because you don't like the direction the game is headed and want to force people to play it the way you want it to be played does not mean it is broken.

The biggest disagreements I've experienced have been when negotiating restrictions and house rules because everyone has their own views on what the rules should be. The problems are created by people playing games developer. Of course players can invent their own way of choosing armies. If they want, instead of dice, they can use paper scissors stone, or read chicken entrails. However the easiest way to avoid disagreement is to use the rules as published.

Again, the two main ways for choosing armies are Battle-forged [including LoW] and Unbound, and have pages dedicated to how to use them [as well as pages dedicated to how to use superheavies]. And you're suggesting it's unreasonable for me to want to use these rules? I am imposing on you? If you think it's unreasonable for me to want to use superheavies, and the pages of rules have no significance, how do you think someone new to the hobby would approach building their army? My money is on them using either Battle-forged or Unbound. With LoW.As Peregrine already stated, LoW are just as valid as tactical squads. However there's the hypocrisy that it's okay to refuse to play against one, but completely unreasonable to refuse to play against the other.

Also, your assumption that those who take LoW do it in order to curb stomp their opponent. Reading the pro-LoW posts, the majority of the reasons for taking them are fluffy or aesthetic. 95% of the time you're actually gimping yourself by taking a LoW. And yes, I would have no problem at all letting someone use my Warhound [as long as they don't drop it], and even offered to jointly fund my Guard playing friend buying a Baneblade


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/12 07:03:56


Post by: Angrypuffin


In a tournament, there are clear rules posted about what games will be played. By signing up for that tournament, you are tacitly subscribing and submitting to those rules. That's your social contract. It's necessary for the tournament to work.

But a pickup game of 40k isn't like that. It's just for the fun of the moment- of the game itself. If the game isn't going to be fun, then it's a failure. And if you think it's a success because you had fun (though the opponent didn't), then you're being selfish. And most people are- but can't we at least aspire to something better?

I don't own any LOWs, and I don't think I'd put my foot down and refuse them either. I'll wait and see. But it'd be nonsensical for me to condemn someone for not wanting to play against them. I don't need the game, and neither do they. We can go our separate ways as adults and see what else is available.

Why on earth would someone try to enforce some sort of uniformity? Are they trying to "purify" 40k? Are they trying to colonize it with "their kind" of players? "I have chosen to embrace the changing style of the game, and I have chosen that you shall also! Previous styles of enjoying the game are no longer allowed!"

As for the correct usage of "check your privilege": I think Kronk's point was that before you dismiss claims of offense, you need consider the offended, not the offender.. If I regularly clear the board with my LoWs, I might naturally see no problem with it, because I always have fun. But the other person, who has to endure hours of futility? His is the more valuable perspective.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/14 06:17:04


Post by: Jancoran


Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.

My only beef is with things not being included in the darn codex. Put it in there if they want to include it but geez. Otherwise...


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/14 06:29:56


Post by: Peregrine


 Jancoran wrote:
Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.


So orks can take a superheavy but nobody else can, simply because GW didn't put the rules in the book that you want them to? How exactly is that fair to anyone who isn't an ork player?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/14 06:46:25


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Jancoran wrote:
Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.

My only beef is with things not being included in the darn codex. Put it in there if they want to include it but geez. Otherwise...

So in other words you've allowed Ghaz and the Stompa?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/14 07:03:11


Post by: SharkoutofWata


 Jancoran wrote:
Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.

My only beef is with things not being included in the darn codex. Put it in there if they want to include it but geez. Otherwise...


Another flawed way of looking at things, if I am understanding your intention correctly. Even Forge World has a list of units that can be included as LoW now and have had it apparently since 6th. Restricting the codex means anyone without a 7th release, everyone but Orks, is now out in the street. Escalation is half of a system as well with the options in there being, frankly, awful. GW has a range of books outside of 'Codex: Army X' that all have legal rules bound by the same restrictions as anything else. If it's in the rules, allow it. Be sure that the people signing up understand that LoW are allowed in all of their forms and if they have no way of handling that, they can back out of the tournament.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Again, the two main ways for choosing armies are Battle-forged [including LoW] and Unbound, and have pages dedicated to how to use them [as well as pages dedicated to how to use superheavies]. And you're suggesting it's unreasonable for me to want to use these rules? I am imposing on you? If you think it's unreasonable for me to want to use superheavies, and the pages of rules have no significance, how do you think someone new to the hobby would approach building their army? My money is on them using either Battle-forged or Unbound. With LoW.As Peregrine already stated, LoW are just as valid as tactical squads. However there's the hypocrisy that it's okay to refuse to play against one, but completely unreasonable to refuse to play against the other.

Also, your assumption that those who take LoW do it in order to curb stomp their opponent. Reading the pro-LoW posts, the majority of the reasons for taking them are fluffy or aesthetic. 95% of the time you're actually gimping yourself by taking a LoW. And yes, I would have no problem at all letting someone use my Warhound [as long as they don't drop it], and even offered to jointly fund my Guard playing friend buying a Baneblade


I am one of those players jumping into 7th almost brand new. I'm building a brand new Eldar army alongside friends of mine that are just getting into it and all of my models I currently have are from 3rd Edition. So starting from scratch, LoW are in my 1500pt list and even larger LoW are in my 2000. Because I can look at it with fresh eyes and learn an army thinking about LoW and not have to crowbar in the slot to my existing armies, maybe that's why I don't mind it. I don't like LoW, but I'm also okay with them being fielded and I expect myself to have an answer to them when I get to the points costs where they appear at. That's part of the game that I'm jumping back into and just another bit for me to learn. I didn't complain about fliers and I'm not complaining about Titans.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/18 10:16:27


Post by: l_uk3y


I've only fielded my hierophant once in a 2000 point 2 v 1. Fun game. They knew in advance that it was being used. In a small game with no prior warning it's a silly idea. We have a thing that it will only come out for special occasions or if someone gets too cocky with the banter


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/18 10:18:22


Post by: Sigvatr


 Jancoran wrote:
Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.

My only beef is with things not being included in the darn codex. Put it in there if they want to include it but geez. Otherwise...


Hint: GW explicitely allowed every 40k-legal LoW to be fielded in their publications.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/18 22:16:58


Post by: Klerych


I like LOWs. I don't play them at low points unless both I and the opponent agree on it, but I love to occasionally field my baneblade or add a Knight detachment to my army for some fun.

If you hate them - it's okay - they're tought nuts and can ruin your day if you didn't prepare for facing them, but they're very cool and can look fantastic with properly painted army and the cool factor is most important in my local meta. Nobody's spamming the cheese, there was no taudar here, our only Daemons player doesn't like the idea of daemon factory - I play in perfect environment.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/18 23:05:03


Post by: gregor_xenos


 Sigvatr wrote:
 Jancoran wrote:
Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.

My only beef is with things not being included in the darn codex. Put it in there if they want to include it but geez. Otherwise...


Hint: GW explicitely allowed every 40k-legal LoW to be fielded in their publications.


Actually, they gave you permission to play ANY model you have. (Unbound)


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/18 23:28:36


Post by: 40k Wargamer


How do Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, Baneblades, and Riptides barely fit on the table?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/18 23:41:54


Post by: gregor_xenos


 40k Wargamer wrote:
How do Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, Baneblades, and Riptides barely fit on the table?


Small table?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/18 23:52:34


Post by: BrianDavion


 Jancoran wrote:
Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.

My only beef is with things not being included in the darn codex. Put it in there if they want to include it but geez. Otherwise...


right now Orks are the ONLY faction with a 7th edition Codex. this'll change over time but there are no shortage iof Lords of war to be found in Escalation. which I suspect will still be a worthwhile source as even if they released a new guard codex, I can't see them putting the Baneblades VARIENTS in (thats a lot of pages)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 40k Wargamer wrote:
How do Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, Baneblades, and Riptides barely fit on the table?


good question, especially in light that of those 4 things named the land raider actually takes up more table space then 3 of them


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/19 02:12:31


Post by: Rpant


I love the lords of war, I play the armored battle group and they fit rite in. I feel that for a pick up game a simple hey I am bringing a LOW can you handle that, do you need to adjust your army for it? if we cant come to an agreement then we both move on, if I cant scare up another game then I drop the lord of war and play him as such. the idea is to have fun playing for both players in this situation and a simple heads up should be given.

a tournament well if the LOW are allowed prepare for them I do not owe you a heads up nor do I expect one. I still want a fun game for both players nothing sucks more than facing the guy who rubs your face in it as his screamer star just mows through your army while you can do nothing about it. its the luck of the draw that I faced that army but at least try and make the atmosphere fun to be there. we spend far to much money, time on this hobby to not enjoy it.

you want to spend 1500 points on a titan in a 2k tourney well good luck to you I can still win by killing the rest of your army and claiming only a couple objectives I don't think it can kill my whole army in the game time allowed maybe im wrong but we will see. at the same time people look at me bringing 9 lemuns as un fun at times and that can be just as bad as a titan at times. in a pick up I am looking for a fun game and will turn down a game if I feel that it will not be a fun time due to match up, or the player as I do not like playing against certain people because of there attitude.

LOW are part of the game and should be but when they are on the table in a fun game common sense has got to be part of the match up as well. taking on a new player with limited models and experience with no chance of dealing with one back out, offer to prop up his army with extras what have you. common sense and courtesy are just as much a part of the game as the battle.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/19 02:20:04


Post by: NecronLord3


The transcendent C'tan is no more broken than a lot of combinations already allowed in 40k without LoW. Like Beaststar! Drop pod assault and Imperial knights.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/21 05:58:01


Post by: jreilly89


And here's where I'd put my Lord of War...if I had one!


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/21 07:28:50


Post by: pax_imperialis


I really liked the lord of skulls, put it into a battle versus a knight and it got dealt to in cc. I've been rather disenchanted since then.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/21 12:36:46


Post by: ForeverARookie


In my experience (with a Baneblade), players are hindering themselves if they field a LoW in smaller point games (< 3000pts), because that's most of your firepower shooting from one location, making it easier for the opponents to get cover saves from everything. Also the opponent is able to spread out enough that even the Apocalyptic Blast doesn't do as much as it would in bigger games.

So I fully agree with jasper76, that at least most Lords of War are liabilities.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/21 22:38:24


Post by: ClassicCarraway


Shew, I must say, I consider myself very lucky to have the gaming group I have. Its not large, but we are always open to try new things just to see, and if its seriously broken, we don't use it again.

The biggest problem with Lords of War is they are not all created equal. For example, the Chaos unique super heavies (ie, the ones where there are no loyalist equivalent) are typically overpriced by a fair bit, with a surprising lack of ranged Destroyer weapons. Eldar super heavies, on the other hand, are generally under-priced and loaded to the gills with ranged Destroyer weapons. Even with the 7th edition nerf to D weapons, those things still make a mockery of vehicles and non-character models.

Personally, I don't mind if somebody brings a Super Heavy, as long as they don't mind that I update my list to either A) bring one myself, or B) add units to potentially deal with it. I do have one caveat, don't bring a Super Heavy to a game less than 1500. Some of the more common Super Heavies such as Baneblades and Stompas can prove to be very difficult to have even a small chance against at lower points costs.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/21 22:43:14


Post by: pax_imperialis


Exactly. The lord of skulls is not worth 888pts (plus the pts for the good guns). Giving it "khorne's sacred number for points cost to emphasize how KHORNE it is" is fun for about five minutes. How much are revenants? I was fortunate to ally with an eldar player in an apoc game and it tore s**t up, nothing could hit it and it was dropping 4 d plates a turn. I figure it must be at least 1000pts?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/21 23:09:33


Post by: ClassicCarraway


pax_imperialis wrote:
Exactly. The lord of skulls is not worth 888pts (plus the pts for the good guns). Giving it "khorne's sacred number for points cost to emphasize how KHORNE it is" is fun for about five minutes. How much are revenants? I was fortunate to ally with an eldar player in an apoc game and it tore s**t up, nothing could hit it and it was dropping 4 d plates a turn. I figure it must be at least 1000pts?


I think the Revenant is around 900 and some change. Eldar have several cheaper options that are pretty obnoxious in their own right, and most of them are armed with the same (or similar) D weapons and titan holofield the Revenant has.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/21 23:12:59


Post by: Fezman


Personally, I don't think LOW belong in the standard rules. They should have been in a separate book IMO, but then I suppose less would be sold. It's just that I feel like as Ravenous D posted earlier, the LOW is either destroyed before it can make a difference or the other player is not prepared for it, at which point it dominates.

As for discussing it before the game, well, I think that in real life that's a recipe for friction. Let's say one player wants to use their LOW and their opponent thinks it won't be fun. If the LOW user gets their way, the anti-LOW player is going into the game with their mood soured, and maybe they're going to lose and consider it a waste of their time. If the anti-LOW player gets their way, the person who handed over a wad of cash for the thing and spent time painting it is understandably unhappy. My problem is with the way that GW have put these contentious units into the main rules, but then (upon realising that some people just won't want to use LOW) effectively thrown up their hands and said "We don't know how to handle this, sort it out for yourselves!" If they had been in a separate Apocalypse-esque book, or were restricted to certain sizes of game, there would at least have been some more concrete guidelines. Or, failing that, why didn't they just come out and write something like "LOW are legal in all games, like it or lump it?" That at least would have been better than leaving it to you to deal with.

I'm not inclined to protest about something that's in the main rulebook. Looking at some big superheavy and saying "but the game won't be fun for me" would sound hollow even to my own ears, and even when it's true. So I just accept them. But "if you can't beat them, join them" is one maxim I definitely won't be applying


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/21 23:48:20


Post by: Kangodo


That's why I use the idea of "Fine, I will play them. But not every single game."

Another way to get rid of them is to simply beat their ass every time and explain them how they could've won if they didn't spend so many points on one single model


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/21 23:57:57


Post by: Peregrine


 Fezman wrote:
Or, failing that, why didn't they just come out and write something like "LOW are legal in all games, like it or lump it?" That at least would have been better than leaving it to you to deal with.


That's exactly what they did. LOW are explicitly included in the core rulebook and legal in all games. The fact that certain players want them to require special permission doesn't mean that what GW said is in any way unclear.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 00:00:23


Post by: BunkerBob


I never leave home without the D, I always bring at least one .


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 09:18:35


Post by: Fezman


 Peregrine wrote:
 Fezman wrote:
Or, failing that, why didn't they just come out and write something like "LOW are legal in all games, like it or lump it?" That at least would have been better than leaving it to you to deal with.


That's exactly what they did. LOW are explicitly included in the core rulebook and legal in all games. The fact that certain players want them to require special permission doesn't mean that what GW said is in any way unclear.


I go on the rule that everything in the core book is legal. I think if superheavies are in there and you start banning them there's technically nothing to stop me, for instance, agreeing to play against Space Marines as long as the opponent promises not to use ATSKNF. I'd be stuck if I didn't treat everything in the book as legal as I've often in the past had to flip through the book to point out some rule that an opponent has forgotten exists.

However, I haven't got the core book for this edition yet, and the way this thread reads to me is as though there's a special paragraph that makes it mandatory to get opponent's permission before using superheavies. If no such section exists, then I'd be of the opinion that I can ask for them not to be used...but tough luck if the other player says no. I certainly wouldn't refuse a game with someone who insisted on using them (mind you, that could be because these days I'm just happy to actually get a game).

I still don't feel like they "deserve" to be in regular games. But they are, so I just go with it.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 09:22:29


Post by: Peregrine


 Fezman wrote:
However, I haven't got the core book for this edition yet, and the way this thread reads to me is as though there's a special paragraph that makes it mandatory to get opponent's permission before using superheavies.


There is no such paragraph in the rules as published by GW. Certain players just want there to be a rule like that and expect veto power over their opponent's LoW choices. The closest thing to "permission" in the rules is that you have to agree on everything about the game, including "obvious" things like both players using the same point total for their army. So technically both players have to agree to include a superheavy, but both players also have to agree to include a tactical squad, there's nothing special about LoW choices that requires additional permission.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 09:58:18


Post by: Kilkrazy


Superheavies were an optional extra for some years and a lot of players disliked them and refused to play with them.

While Games Workshop has now force fed them into the core rules, I think it was a bad idea and has led to this bickering about what it is reasonable to allow or not.

It is obvious that lots of players still don't want to play with LoW (or Imperial Armour, etc). It is equally obvious that lots of players do want to play with these things and are upset that the other players are refusing to play.

People cannot be forced to play games they don't like, so I don't know what these rules changes have achieved other than to splinter the player base, cause discontent and possibly to drive people away from the game.

This is all GW's fault.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 11:45:56


Post by: Kangodo


How is it GW's fault? Perhaps for making Superheavies in the first place?

Superheavies have been in the game for a long time.
Now that GW makes them legal for 40k instead of relying on houserules they are suddenly "splintering the playerbase"?
But when they were banned everything was fine..
This sounds a lot like: "GW is at fault because they did something I disagree with."

 Fezman wrote:
the way this thread reads to me is as though there's a special paragraph that makes it mandatory to get opponent's permission before using superheavies.

There is a special paragraph making it mandatory to get permission before using *anything*.
That means a Lord of War is just as legal as a unit Ork Boyz.





Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 12:09:44


Post by: Kilkrazy


For making them "mandatory" in the core rulebook.

Everyone was happy when they were in Apocalypse. People who wanted to play with them bought Apocalypse and played Apocalypse games. People who didn't want to play with them didn't.

I disagree with the new system because I think it is a bad policy of game design, not just for toeraggery.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 12:22:16


Post by: Wayniac


 Kilkrazy wrote:
For making them "mandatory" in the core rulebook.

Everyone was happy when they were in Apocalypse. People who wanted to play with them bought Apocalypse and played Apocalypse games. People who didn't want to play with them didn't.

I disagree with the new system because I think it is a bad policy of game design, not just for toeraggery.


This. The problem isn't superheavies, it's making superheavies anything but optional "opponent's permission" (and I liked when special characters were permission only, too) because of what this thread has illustrated: It makes it harder to get rid of them, when they unbalance the game. Couple that with bullgak like making some special characters LoW and you blur the line even more, to where now you can't just say ban LoW because what if somebody has a fluffy Goff army with Ghazghkull? Okay so you allow Ghaz but not titans, that makes you biased.

I really think that decisions such as making some characters LoW was a deliberate atempt to ingrain the idea that LoW are allowed for regular games, because of what I said above. It's now much harder to justify banning them as either you ban them outright or ban some but not others and once you get to that line, what's to stop you from saying no Riptides? No Wraithlords? No flyers? No Space Marines or Eldar or Tau?

That was just what GW wanted; to make people who want to ban overpowered, unbalanced things from the game appear to be the bad guy. Before, it was reasonable to agree no flyers or superheavies, because they unbalanced the game. Now both of those things are in the core rules, so it's about as reasonable as saying that you hate Dark Eldar so you won't play against them, or ATSKNF is broken so you won't play against Marines. Just another example of GW's kitchen sink and "Anything you buy you should be able to use in a game" mentality.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 12:48:54


Post by: ausYenLoWang


how the hell were you "reasonably" allowed to ban flyers at any point? When did this happen? i must have missed a whole section of 6th ed?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 12:55:36


Post by: kronk


 Kilkrazy wrote:
For making them "mandatory" in the core rulebook.

Everyone was happy when they were in Apocalypse. People who wanted to play with them bought Apocalypse and played Apocalypse games. People who didn't want to play with them didn't.

I disagree with the new system because I think it is a bad policy of game design, not just for toeraggery.


I don't know what toeraggery means, but the rest of this post sums up my feelings perfectly.

I Lurve them in Apoc games. I loathe them in "normal" 40k games.

Also, a caveat to the most important rule (Have Fun!) is: I don't have to like what you like, donkey-cave.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 12:57:01


Post by: Wayniac


 ausYenLoWang wrote:
how the hell were you "reasonably" allowed to ban flyers at any point? When did this happen? i must have missed a whole section of 6th ed?


Before 6th edition IIRC they were optional in a supplement, just like Escalation/LoW was.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 13:01:50


Post by: Kilkrazy


Yes, I don't like flyers either, or fortifications. OTOH I do like FIBUA.

They all used to be optional expansions.

IDK if FIBUA has been put into 7th edition.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 14:04:41


Post by: ausYenLoWang


WayneTheGame wrote:
 ausYenLoWang wrote:
how the hell were you "reasonably" allowed to ban flyers at any point? When did this happen? i must have missed a whole section of 6th ed?


Before 6th edition IIRC they were optional in a supplement, just like Escalation/LoW was.


FW and APOC models... the rest were fast skimmers that in 6th were made flyers


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 14:30:56


Post by: MWHistorian


Kangodo wrote:
How is it GW's fault? Perhaps for making Superheavies in the first place?

Superheavies have been in the game for a long time.
Now that GW makes them legal for 40k instead of relying on houserules they are suddenly "splintering the playerbase"?
But when they were banned everything was fine..
This sounds a lot like: "GW is at fault because they did something I disagree with."

 Fezman wrote:
the way this thread reads to me is as though there's a special paragraph that makes it mandatory to get opponent's permission before using superheavies.

There is a special paragraph making it mandatory to get permission before using *anything*.
That means a Lord of War is just as legal as a unit Ork Boyz.


LOW weren't popular for several reasons, one of them being that many players didn't like playing with or against them. But they were always optional before. Now that they're in the core books and as optional as tac squads, it means an aspect of the game that many players don't find fun is a larger part of the game, so the game itself becomes unfun. You have three choices.
1. You can play anyways at a diminished level of enjoyment.
2. Refuse to play against LOW and look like TFG.
3. Stop playing 40k and find a game that fits better with what you find enjoyable.

I'm not the only one to choose option 3 and GW really needs to take a long look at that.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 14:47:13


Post by: Wayniac


 MWHistorian wrote:
LOW weren't popular for several reasons, one of them being that many players didn't like playing with or against them. But they were always optional before. Now that they're in the core books and as optional as tac squads, it means an aspect of the game that many players don't find fun is a larger part of the game, so the game itself becomes unfun. You have three choices.
1. You can play anyways at a diminished level of enjoyment.
2. Refuse to play against LOW and look like TFG.
3. Stop playing 40k and find a game that fits better with what you find enjoyable.

I'm not the only one to choose option 3 and GW really needs to take a long look at that.


Exalted. This is exactly it. You can do #1 and "deal with it", or do #2 and look like the jerk for refusing to play with a "core" part of the game; as I said this whole LoW are core thing is I think deliberate to blur the line and make it harder to ban things, because if you ban one core thing you can ban any core thing, and that can get silly e.g. saying "I don't think superheavies belong in standard games of 40k" is now just as stupid as saying "I don't like Tau and refuse to play them". People who didn't think that superheavies belong in the scale of a typical 40k game (i.e. NOT 28mm Epic) can now be told to suck it up, because GW says that superheavies *do* belong in any size game.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 15:54:54


Post by: WrentheFaceless


Seems more like a case of "Stop liking what I dont like" to me rather than GW doing anything.

Heaven forbid people get to play with the fancy models they bought.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 15:57:37


Post by: MWHistorian


 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Seems more like a case of "Stop liking what I dont like" to me rather than GW doing anything.

Heaven forbid people get to play with the fancy models they bought.

Then you clearly didn't understand a word of what was being said.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 16:08:22


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 MWHistorian wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Seems more like a case of "Stop liking what I dont like" to me rather than GW doing anything.

Heaven forbid people get to play with the fancy models they bought.

Then you clearly didn't understand a word of what was being said.


I understand it completely, I disagree with your rationalization, trying to make your decision the 'moraly superior' one then blaming GW for finally letting people use those expensive models they bought.

As eloquently as you put it or whatever reasons you try to shoe-horn, its simply a case of "Stop liking what I dont like"

You dont like LOW, you dont want people to use them. People like LOW, they want to use them, and per the rules they can now.



Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 16:22:58


Post by: MWHistorian


 WrentheFaceless wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Seems more like a case of "Stop liking what I dont like" to me rather than GW doing anything.

Heaven forbid people get to play with the fancy models they bought.

Then you clearly didn't understand a word of what was being said.


I understand it completely, I disagree with your rationalization, trying to make your decision the 'moraly superior' one then blaming GW for finally letting people use those expensive models they bought.

As eloquently as you put it or whatever reasons you try to shoe-horn, its simply a case of "Stop liking what I dont like"

You dont like LOW, you dont want people to use them. People like LOW, they want to use them, and per the rules they can now.


No one said anything about not using them, we just don't find them fun in our games. You can go play whatever you want. If I don't find it fun, why should I play?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 16:29:14


Post by: WrentheFaceless


Then dont play them, but trying to rationalize your way of thinking as the right way is just "sour grapes"


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 16:43:33


Post by: MWHistorian


 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Then dont play them, but trying to rationalize your way of thinking as the right way is just "sour grapes"

Again, you're not understanding.
I'm not rationalizing that playing without LOW is "the right way." (show me a quote where I said that.) All I'm saying is that I don't find it fun for me. You may find it fun and that's fine, but I don't like playing with or against them. Now that they are no longer optional, the game is less fun for me. (See previous post about what my three options were.) I chose #3 and left the game because the elements I find unfun were becoming a larger portion of the game. You can continue to play as you see fit. Neither of us is right or wrong, but I am saying that GW is wrong because LOW isn't very popular and the move does nothing to gain new players but only pushes some current players away.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 16:57:07


Post by: WrentheFaceless


Havent you quit a while ago anyways? How does this recent development affect you?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 16:59:15


Post by: MWHistorian


 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Havent you quit a while ago anyways? How does this recent development affect you?

Because it's part of the reason I quit.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 17:08:25


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


I think for the people like me who don't like superheavies in smaller games, we don't want them REMOVED, what we want is a tight, solid core game and then have things like superheavies, fliers, allies tacked on as optional extras. NOT the other way around where you have a convoluted core game that includes a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't make a lot of sense and then have to trim away at it to get back to a solid core game.

It's not that we don't want people to have fun in a way that's different to the way we want to have fun, it's that we want better structured rules that are modular and consistent for different play styles without making anyone feel like they're being ostracised for wanting or not wanting certain things in their games.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 17:28:41


Post by: Kangodo


 MWHistorian wrote:
LOW weren't popular for several reasons, one of them being that many players didn't like playing with or against them. But they were always optional before. Now that they're in the core books and as optional as tac squads, it means an aspect of the game that many players don't find fun is a larger part of the game, so the game itself becomes unfun. You have three choices.
1. You can play anyways at a diminished level of enjoyment.
2. Refuse to play against LOW and look like TFG.
3. Stop playing 40k and find a game that fits better with what you find enjoyable.

I'm not the only one to choose option 3 and GW really needs to take a long look at that.

But they were popular. Lots of people had Superheavies and many felt bad for not being able to take them in normal games.
Now I can sometimes decide to use them in a game of WH40k without having to wait for our biennial Apocalypse.

Could your three options please be any more biased?
I absolutely hated playing against Imperial Guard, I would rather fight Imperial Knights than the IG.
But they were in the rules, so I had to deal with it and I couldn't ask people to NOT play them since they didn't have another army.
Luckily I can always ask my opponent to take a step back with LoW's and contrary to your statement that will not make me a 'TFG'.

But it seems you don't like to play against them.
Perfect solution: Don't play them! It's that easy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For making them "mandatory" in the core rulebook.
Everyone was happy when they were in Apocalypse. People who wanted to play with them bought Apocalypse and played Apocalypse games. People who didn't want to play with them didn't.
I disagree with the new system because I think it is a bad policy of game design, not just for toeraggery.

So you are here to tell me that everyone was happy?
Well, I was quite happy with my 150 euro model that I only fielded once every 18 months. There are no words to express that awesome feeling of buying a model and than never playing with it.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 17:33:25


Post by: MWHistorian


Kangodo wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
LOW weren't popular for several reasons, one of them being that many players didn't like playing with or against them. But they were always optional before. Now that they're in the core books and as optional as tac squads, it means an aspect of the game that many players don't find fun is a larger part of the game, so the game itself becomes unfun. You have three choices.
1. You can play anyways at a diminished level of enjoyment.
2. Refuse to play against LOW and look like TFG.
3. Stop playing 40k and find a game that fits better with what you find enjoyable.

I'm not the only one to choose option 3 and GW really needs to take a long look at that.

But they were popular. Lots of people had Superheavies and many felt bad for not being able to take them in normal games.
Now I can sometimes decide to use them in a game of WH40k without having to wait for our biennial Apocalypse.

Could your three options please be any more biased?
I absolutely hated playing against Imperial Guard, I would rather fight Imperial Knights than the IG.
But they were in the rules, so I had to deal with it and I couldn't ask people to NOT play them since they didn't have another army.
Luckily I can always ask my opponent to take a step back with LoW's and contrary to your statement that will not make me a 'TFG'.

But it seems you don't like to play against them.
Perfect solution: Don't play them! It's that easy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For making them "mandatory" in the core rulebook.
Everyone was happy when they were in Apocalypse. People who wanted to play with them bought Apocalypse and played Apocalypse games. People who didn't want to play with them didn't.
I disagree with the new system because I think it is a bad policy of game design, not just for toeraggery.

So you are here to tell me that everyone was happy?
Well, I was quite happy with my 150 euro model that I only fielded once every 18 months. There are no words to express that awesome feeling of buying a model and than never playing with it.

No, we're here to tell you that it's GW fault for making a problematic game. If they were better at making rules, they'd make LOW fun so that everyone would want to play with and against them. Instead they create a sharp divide in the already fractured player base.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 17:41:03


Post by: Azreal13


After my last game, I'm more likely to refuse to play yet another cookie cutter Waveserpent spam + Wraithknights and as many Psykers as possible to give as many rerolls as possible list than I am some interesting unit I probably haven't seen before or very rarely, regardless of it's relative power level.

Perhaps if someone who plays one of these lists can explain to me where the fun lies in playing when your response to almost literally everything is "measure threat range of unit, place Waveserpent outside of threat range if possible, shoot unit until dead, repeat?"

Sure, some LoW are very strong, a handful are possibly broken, but when there's gak like this in the game, arguing about their inclusion is fiddling while Rome burns somewhat.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 17:42:10


Post by: WrentheFaceless


The divide is only being caused by those who are unwilling to compromise, who thinks their 'fun' trumps everyone elses fun by giving biased choices.

The only divide is the one that is being made by the players, GW simply put all cards on the table, its the players who are saying some cards are valid and some arent .

How can GW be 'fracturing the player base' by giving more options how to play? They're saying everything is fair game, and leaving the 'dividing' to the players unwilling to compromise


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 17:48:58


Post by: Kangodo


 MWHistorian wrote:
No, we're here to tell you that it's GW fault for making a problematic game. If they were better at making rules, they'd make LOW fun so that everyone would want to play with and against them. Instead they create a sharp divide in the already fractured player base.
How could they make them more fun by changing the rules?
You either like big models with a gigantic point-cost or you don't.
I dislike playing against IG, no amount of rules could ever change that unless they change the core idea behind the army.

But to try and get an end to this thread: LoW are now a legal and official part of regular 40k.
You can either play them or you can not play (against) them, your choice.
No amount of complaining about their addition is going to get them removed.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 17:56:54


Post by: Kilkrazy


 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The divide is only being caused by those who are unwilling to compromise, who thinks their 'fun' trumps everyone elses fun by giving biased choices.

The only divide is the one that is being made by the players, GW simply put all cards on the table, its the players who are saying some cards are valid and some arent .

How can GW be 'fracturing the player base' by giving more options how to play? They're saying everything is fair game, and leaving the 'dividing' to the players unwilling to compromise


They are not giving more options for how to play, they are giving fewer.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 17:57:21


Post by: slowthar


 WrentheFaceless wrote:
How can GW be 'fracturing the player base' buy giving more options how to play? They're saying everything is fair game, and leaving the 'dividing' to the players unwilling to compromise


It has nothing to do with how many options there are -- most people would generally say more options means for more possibilities which means more potential fun.

The issue is that by attaching a points-value to each, it implies a level of effectiveness proportionate to that value. When the effectiveness of a unit is out of whack compared to its points cost, it can potentially ruin the game by making it unbalanced.

Not that I think LOW are necessarily unbalanced. In fact, I'd be happy to try playing against one if my friend had it. If it absolutely destroyed me, I'd probably either ask that he didn't play it anymore or we'd have to enter lengthy negotiations on how to make it balanced. Of course, this could be true with anything -- riptides, wave serpents, etc.

What people are saying is GW's fault is that things aren't more balanced out of the box. It would appear that with a little more effort, they could be better balanced, but GW doesn't seem interested or compelled to act.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 17:58:22


Post by: Musashi363


Which is one of the reasons GW is hemorrhaging customers.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:04:45


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The divide is only being caused by those who are unwilling to compromise, who thinks their 'fun' trumps everyone elses fun by giving biased choices.

The only divide is the one that is being made by the players, GW simply put all cards on the table, its the players who are saying some cards are valid and some arent .

How can GW be 'fracturing the player base' by giving more options how to play? They're saying everything is fair game, and leaving the 'dividing' to the players unwilling to compromise


They are not giving more options for how to play, they are giving fewer.


Really, by putting more items in the FOC, and making Unbound which is use whatever you want, is less options now? You're going to have to explain to me how more = less.

 slowthar wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
How can GW be 'fracturing the player base' buy giving more options how to play? They're saying everything is fair game, and leaving the 'dividing' to the players unwilling to compromise


It has nothing to do with how many options there are -- most people would generally say more options means for more possibilities which means more potential fun.

The issue is that by attaching a points-value to each, it implies a level of effectiveness proportionate to that value. When the effectiveness of a unit is out of whack compared to its points cost, it can potentially ruin the game by making it unbalanced.

Not that I think LOW are necessarily unbalanced. In fact, I'd be happy to try playing against one if my friend had it. If it absolutely destroyed me, I'd probably either ask that he didn't play it anymore or we'd have to enter lengthy negotiations on how to make it balanced. Of course, this could be true with anything -- riptides, wave serpents, etc.

What people are saying is GW's fault is that things aren't more balanced out of the box. It would appear that with a little more effort, they could be better balanced, but GW doesn't seem interested or compelled to act.


See thats fine, and I agree with that, some LOW are undercosted for what they do, some are over; but thats true for everything in this game, and balance is a whole nother can of worms

But issuing blanket statements such as LOW are bad because X is undercosted for what it does, is a bit silly


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:11:37


Post by: Mumblez


I seriously don't get the LoW hate. Just because the rules are included in the rulebook doesn't mean you suddenly have to play with them. If you really, really hate fighting them for whatever reason, just tell your opponent. It's not that hard. Most people I know would be nice enough to remove it from their list.

If you dislike lords of war because of the 6th edition rules I would seriously advise giving them another shot. Destroyer weapons have been nerfed by now. They're still good, but they're no longer OMGWTFBBQ good. Give 'em a chance and see if you like them more now. If you don't, hey, at least you tried! And if it turns out you actually don't mind them so much after all, you now have more variety in your games!

People really need to stop freaking out.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:14:32


Post by: Xerics


 MWHistorian wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
LOW weren't popular for several reasons, one of them being that many players didn't like playing with or against them. But they were always optional before. Now that they're in the core books and as optional as tac squads, it means an aspect of the game that many players don't find fun is a larger part of the game, so the game itself becomes unfun. You have three choices.
1. You can play anyways at a diminished level of enjoyment.
2. Refuse to play against LOW and look like TFG.
3. Stop playing 40k and find a game that fits better with what you find enjoyable.

I'm not the only one to choose option 3 and GW really needs to take a long look at that.

But they were popular. Lots of people had Superheavies and many felt bad for not being able to take them in normal games.
Now I can sometimes decide to use them in a game of WH40k without having to wait for our biennial Apocalypse.

Could your three options please be any more biased?
I absolutely hated playing against Imperial Guard, I would rather fight Imperial Knights than the IG.
But they were in the rules, so I had to deal with it and I couldn't ask people to NOT play them since they didn't have another army.
Luckily I can always ask my opponent to take a step back with LoW's and contrary to your statement that will not make me a 'TFG'.

But it seems you don't like to play against them.
Perfect solution: Don't play them! It's that easy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For making them "mandatory" in the core rulebook.
Everyone was happy when they were in Apocalypse. People who wanted to play with them bought Apocalypse and played Apocalypse games. People who didn't want to play with them didn't.
I disagree with the new system because I think it is a bad policy of game design, not just for toeraggery.

So you are here to tell me that everyone was happy?
Well, I was quite happy with my 150 euro model that I only fielded once every 18 months. There are no words to express that awesome feeling of buying a model and than never playing with it.

No, we're here to tell you that it's GW fault for making a problematic game. If they were better at making rules, they'd make LOW fun so that everyone would want to play with and against them. Instead they create a sharp divide in the already fractured player base.


Have you played against a titan in 7th? They are actually much more balanced and every time i put my revenant on the field I lose because of the amount of hull points they strip from it. Now that you can take invulnerable saves and cover saves against them most armies shouldn't have a problem adapting to using cover unless you are like a crap ton of players out there who just want clear line of sight to everything on the board. Then you deserve to get stomped for not using terrain.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:16:19


Post by: MWHistorian


 Mumblez wrote:
I seriously don't get the LoW hate. Just because the rules are included in the rulebook doesn't mean you suddenly have to play with them. If you really, really hate fighting them for whatever reason, just tell your opponent. It's not that hard. Most people I know would be nice enough to remove it from their list.

If you dislike lords of war because of the 6th edition rules I would seriously advise giving them another shot. Destroyer weapons have been nerfed by now. They're still good, but they're no longer OMGWTFBBQ good. Give 'em a chance and see if you like them more now. If you don't, hey, at least you tried! And if it turns out you actually don't mind them so much after all, you now have more variety in your games!

People really need to stop freaking out.

No one's freaking out.
Also, have you even read this thread? There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:18:53


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 MWHistorian wrote:
 Mumblez wrote:
I seriously don't get the LoW hate. Just because the rules are included in the rulebook doesn't mean you suddenly have to play with them. If you really, really hate fighting them for whatever reason, just tell your opponent. It's not that hard. Most people I know would be nice enough to remove it from their list.

If you dislike lords of war because of the 6th edition rules I would seriously advise giving them another shot. Destroyer weapons have been nerfed by now. They're still good, but they're no longer OMGWTFBBQ good. Give 'em a chance and see if you like them more now. If you don't, hey, at least you tried! And if it turns out you actually don't mind them so much after all, you now have more variety in your games!

People really need to stop freaking out.

No one's freaking out.
Also, have you even read this thread? There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.


If you dont think people arent freaking out, then you havent read the thread yourself.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:20:30


Post by: slowthar


 MWHistorian wrote:
There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.


Well, maybe it is. I mean, if you just blanket refuse to play LOW without even a discussion, maybe you are TFG.

I'd like to think from the history of your posts that you're a little more open-minded than that and, in real life, would be open to the idea.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:24:57


Post by: Xerics


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Superheavies were an optional extra for some years and a lot of players disliked them and refused to play with them.

While Games Workshop has now force fed them into the core rules, I think it was a bad idea and has led to this bickering about what it is reasonable to allow or not.

It is obvious that lots of players still don't want to play with LoW (or Imperial Armour, etc). It is equally obvious that lots of players do want to play with these things and are upset that the other players are refusing to play.

People cannot be forced to play games they don't like, so I don't know what these rules changes have achieved other than to splinter the player base, cause discontent and possibly to drive people away from the game.

This is all GW's fault.


Its not GW's fault. Its the player bases fault for not adapting. Human beings in general are very adaptable but the inability to adapt to a rules change that allows new units on the field is amazing. This is the way the game is going. The game is fresh again and with 7th the D weapons got a little bit more balanced.

It seems to me like people wanted to keep the "Special Permission" required to play superheavies and now that the "Special Permission" is no longer required there is a huge outcry. If people still want to ban superheavies I say ban things like Demonology and Fateweaver and Riptides and wraithknights and flyers in general. Nothing with higher armor then 10 on any side. Nothing with re-rollable saves or invulnerable saves. cant have armor save better then 3+. Now build your army. How limited are you with the restrictions I just mentioned. Nor more fateweaver with demonology? good bye chaos demons. no more vehicles? good bye pretty much all armies. The minute you start limiting options by banning them is the moment you stagnate the game.

All I can say at this point is adapt or get out. The game will be much better without all this biggotry over superheavies.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:25:32


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 WrentheFaceless wrote:
If you dont think people arent freaking out, then you havent read the thread yourself.
The problem with assuming people are freaking out is that you are assuming a tone that may not be present.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:26:14


Post by: MWHistorian


 slowthar wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.


Well, maybe it is. I mean, if you just blanket refuse to play LOW without even a discussion, maybe you are TFG.

I'd like to think from the history of your posts that you're a little more open-minded than that and, in real life, would be open to the idea.

Yes, I'm TFG because I don't want to play a game that I don't find to be fun.
I've played them before and games with LOW isn't the kind of game I like to play. I'm not right or wrong in this opinion. But to be called TFG for not wanting to play something that isn't fun for me is what's wrong with 40k. (One of several things.)


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:28:00


Post by: WrentheFaceless


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
If you dont think people arent freaking out, then you havent read the thread yourself.
The problem with assuming people are freaking out is that you are assuming a tone that may not be present.


Or that tone cant be conveyed across text as easily as spoken word, you're assuming that the tone isnt there, when it actually is.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Yes, I'm TFG because I don't want to play a game that I don't find to be fun.
I've played them before and games with LOW isn't the kind of game I like to play. I'm not right or wrong in this opinion. But to be called TFG for not wanting to play something that isn't fun for me is what's wrong with 40k. (One of several things.)


Have you played against one in 7th? Thats not a c'tan? Since the real issue is the c'tan


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:28:01


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Xerics wrote:
All I can say at this point is adapt or get out. The game will be much better without all this biggotry over superheavies.
Do you even comprehend why people don't want superheavies in typical (<2000pt games) and/or why people don't want to play huge games where they'd find superheavies more acceptable?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:29:06


Post by: Mumblez


 MWHistorian wrote:
 Mumblez wrote:
I seriously don't get the LoW hate. Just because the rules are included in the rulebook doesn't mean you suddenly have to play with them. If you really, really hate fighting them for whatever reason, just tell your opponent. It's not that hard. Most people I know would be nice enough to remove it from their list.

If you dislike lords of war because of the 6th edition rules I would seriously advise giving them another shot. Destroyer weapons have been nerfed by now. They're still good, but they're no longer OMGWTFBBQ good. Give 'em a chance and see if you like them more now. If you don't, hey, at least you tried! And if it turns out you actually don't mind them so much after all, you now have more variety in your games!

People really need to stop freaking out.

No one's freaking out.
Also, have you even read this thread? There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.


I genuinely think you're freaking out and in denial about it.

Why do you even care about the whole TFG nonsense? If that stuff gets to you this much, you're even more insecure than me and that is no small feat. Besides, I just read a page ago that you quit 40K recently. You quit the game because it was no longer enjoyable for you, why care whether or not in a hypothetical situation involving a LoW you'd be considered TFG if it's never going to happen?

Yes, I've read the thread from the beginning. I've posted before in it as well. People are losing their minds because rules from escalation were moved to the main rulebook and updated so they weren't so ridiculous. I don't see anything wrong with that myself.

 MWHistorian wrote:
 slowthar wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.


Well, maybe it is. I mean, if you just blanket refuse to play LOW without even a discussion, maybe you are TFG.

I'd like to think from the history of your posts that you're a little more open-minded than that and, in real life, would be open to the idea.

Yes, I'm TFG because I don't want to play a game that I don't find to be fun.
I've played them before and games with LOW isn't the kind of game I like to play. I'm not right or wrong in this opinion. But to be called TFG for not wanting to play something that isn't fun for me is what's wrong with 40k. (One of several things.)


You do realize the only time anyone has called you TFG in this whole thread was on this page as a joke? You're referring to yourself as TFG. Jeez, man.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:31:40


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 WrentheFaceless wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
If you dont think people arent freaking out, then you havent read the thread yourself.
The problem with assuming people are freaking out is that you are assuming a tone that may not be present.


Or that tone cant be conveyed across text as easily as spoken word, you're assuming that the tone isnt there, when it actually is.

Erm, no, I assumed nothing about tone. Note how I said "may not be present". I didn't use an absolute term like "is not present". You saying "when it actually is" are the person assuming there is a tone.

People might be freaking out, I tend to think they're probably not. Unless you can point me to something that conclusively shows people freaking out, you should stop assuming tone where there's a good chance no such tone exists.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:33:56


Post by: Xerics


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Xerics wrote:
All I can say at this point is adapt or get out. The game will be much better without all this biggotry over superheavies.
Do you even comprehend why people don't want superheavies in typical (<2000pt games) and/or why people don't want to play huge games where they'd find superheavies more acceptable?


So far from what I have seen they are apparently overpowered and unkillable. But they arent either of those. Everytime i bring my revenant titan to the board i lose the game in VP's. Learn to use cover (now that 7th changed the D-weapons) and find soneone who has superheavies so you can practice againt them rather then crying about it. They aren't unkillable roflstomping machines.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:35:36


Post by: MWHistorian


 Mumblez wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
 Mumblez wrote:
I seriously don't get the LoW hate. Just because the rules are included in the rulebook doesn't mean you suddenly have to play with them. If you really, really hate fighting them for whatever reason, just tell your opponent. It's not that hard. Most people I know would be nice enough to remove it from their list.

If you dislike lords of war because of the 6th edition rules I would seriously advise giving them another shot. Destroyer weapons have been nerfed by now. They're still good, but they're no longer OMGWTFBBQ good. Give 'em a chance and see if you like them more now. If you don't, hey, at least you tried! And if it turns out you actually don't mind them so much after all, you now have more variety in your games!

People really need to stop freaking out.

No one's freaking out.
Also, have you even read this thread? There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.


I genuinely think you're freaking out and in denial about it.

Why do you even care about the whole TFG nonsense? If that stuff gets to you this much, you're even more insecure than me and that is no small feat. Besides, I just read a page ago that you quit 40K recently. You quit the game because it was no longer enjoyable for you, why care whether or not in a hypothetical situation involving a LoW you'd be considered TFG if it's never going to happen?

Yes, I've read the thread from the beginning. I've posted before in it as well. People are losing their minds because rules from escalation were moved to the main rulebook and updated so they weren't so ridiculous. I don't see anything wrong with that myself.

 MWHistorian wrote:
 slowthar wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.


Well, maybe it is. I mean, if you just blanket refuse to play LOW without even a discussion, maybe you are TFG.

I'd like to think from the history of your posts that you're a little more open-minded than that and, in real life, would be open to the idea.

Yes, I'm TFG because I don't want to play a game that I don't find to be fun.
I've played them before and games with LOW isn't the kind of game I like to play. I'm not right or wrong in this opinion. But to be called TFG for not wanting to play something that isn't fun for me is what's wrong with 40k. (One of several things.)


You do realize the only time anyone has called you TFG in this whole thread was on this page as a joke? You're referring to yourself as TFG. Jeez, man.

You're making a whole lot of incorrect assumptions there. I'm in this conversation because I offer a viewpoint that you're apparently unfamiliar with. As someone who's left the game over this issue (among others) I think I have something to add that's important.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:37:18


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Xerics wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Xerics wrote:
All I can say at this point is adapt or get out. The game will be much better without all this biggotry over superheavies.
Do you even comprehend why people don't want superheavies in typical (<2000pt games) and/or why people don't want to play huge games where they'd find superheavies more acceptable?


So far from what I have seen they are apparently overpowered and unkillable.
No, that's not the reason many people don't like them. It's not the reason I don't like them. It might be the reason some people don't like them, but most knowledgeable people don't think like that at all.

The reason I don't like them is they don't fit well in to the size of game I like to play. Placing a huge chunk of your points in to a single model I find leads to boring games. It might be entertaining on rare occasions to play a game of "bring down the behemoth" (or "try to ignore the behemoth" as the case may be), but as a regular thing, no, I don't like it.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:39:30


Post by: Xerics


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Xerics wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Xerics wrote:
All I can say at this point is adapt or get out. The game will be much better without all this biggotry over superheavies.
Do you even comprehend why people don't want superheavies in typical (<2000pt games) and/or why people don't want to play huge games where they'd find superheavies more acceptable?


So far from what I have seen they are apparently overpowered and unkillable.
No, that's not the reason many people don't like them. It's not the reason I don't like them. It might be the reason some people don't like them, but most knowledgeable people don't think like that at all.

The reason I don't like them is they don't fit well in to the size of game I like to play. Placing a huge chunk of your points in to a single model I find leads to boring games. It might be entertaining on rare occasions to play a game of "bring down the behemoth", but as a regular thing, no, I don't like it.


And yet Imperial Knights are perfectly acceptable right? Because there is an actual Codex for them? By not allowing superheavies into a game you are stagnating the growth of the game by limiting options available to players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if you are going to quote me please quote everything not just pick and choose that which suits your argument.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:40:11


Post by: ashikenshin


Or wraith knights or riptides or mork/gorkanauts or land raiders or ...


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:42:21


Post by: Xerics


 ashikenshin wrote:
Or wraith knights or riptides or mork/gorkanauts or land raiders or ...


Why not just ban every model and codex except for vanilla tactical marines with no options available to them and make the game perfectly balanced and boring.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:48:16


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Xerics wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Xerics wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Xerics wrote:
All I can say at this point is adapt or get out. The game will be much better without all this biggotry over superheavies.
Do you even comprehend why people don't want superheavies in typical (<2000pt games) and/or why people don't want to play huge games where they'd find superheavies more acceptable?


So far from what I have seen they are apparently overpowered and unkillable.
No, that's not the reason many people don't like them. It's not the reason I don't like them. It might be the reason some people don't like them, but most knowledgeable people don't think like that at all.

The reason I don't like them is they don't fit well in to the size of game I like to play. Placing a huge chunk of your points in to a single model I find leads to boring games. It might be entertaining on rare occasions to play a game of "bring down the behemoth", but as a regular thing, no, I don't like it.


And yet Imperial Knights are perfectly acceptable right? Because there is an actual Codex for them? By not allowing superheavies into a game you are stagnating the growth of the game by limiting options available to players.
I never said anything one way or another about Imperial Knights. FWIW, I don't like deathstars units either. But no, I don't have as much problem with Imperial Knights as I have problem with, say, a Stompa. Though I still don't particularly want to see it in small games.

"stagnating growth", I disagree that superheavies grow the game at all... unless you mean grow the amount of points that are suitable for playing the game, in which case, yeah, I want that type of growth stagnated.


Also if you are going to quote me please quote everything not just pick and choose that which suits your argument.
Is there something else you wanted me to address? The rest of your post was simply elaborating on the premise you gave in your first sentence. Since it was that premise that I disagreed with, the rest of your post seemed superfluous and thus I removed it. I directly stated that being overpowered was not the reason I (and many others) disliked superheavies... once I stated that, what relevance did the rest of your post have that you would liked me to have responded to it?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:49:33


Post by: MWHistorian


 Xerics wrote:
 ashikenshin wrote:
Or wraith knights or riptides or mork/gorkanauts or land raiders or ...


Why not just ban every model and codex except for vanilla tactical marines with no options available to them and make the game perfectly balanced and boring.

If GW balanced those units, far fewer people would have an issue with them at all. The lack of balance is a big problem. Balancing the game would bring more options to the table because the units you don't see as often, either for being too weak or too powerful, would see play time and you'd have a greater variety of army lists and play styles.

Example: Warmachine has large models, but no one gripes about them as being OP or refusing to play against them. They fit the scale, aren't OP or over costed. They're a fun addition to the game like LOW is supposed to be.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 18:51:28


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 MWHistorian wrote:
 Xerics wrote:
 ashikenshin wrote:
Or wraith knights or riptides or mork/gorkanauts or land raiders or ...


Why not just ban every model and codex except for vanilla tactical marines with no options available to them and make the game perfectly balanced and boring.

If GW balanced those units, far fewer people would have an issue with them at all. The lack of balance is a big problem. Balancing the game would bring more options to the table because the units you don't see as often, either for being too weak or too powerful, would see play time and you'd have a greater variety of army lists and play styles.

Example: Warmachine has large models, but no one gripes about them as being OP or refusing to play against them. They fit the scale, aren't OP or over costed. They're a fun addition to the game like LOW is supposed to be.


Have you actually played against a LOW in 7th?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 19:09:52


Post by: foto69man


Wasn't there something last edition about 1499 and below no LoW so you had to play 1500+...? Or am I misremembering? And is that now gone?


Where I play, not everyone can afford a LoW...so yeah we just talk about it before hand and usually don't bring them except big games. Seems easiest that way and no one seems bothered


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 19:25:38


Post by: Kangodo


I've actually played against a LoW and they are not as strong as people think, I fought against a Stompa with a Big Mek that had a KFF.
I can honestly say that he could have won the game if he had another unit.
It was too easy to dodge the big Stompa due to terrain and so I won by Victory Points.

Did I like it? Not sure. Mostly it just felt different.
And even though I would play against them, I wouldn't want every game to include a big unit like that.
 MWHistorian wrote:
No one's freaking out.
Also, have you even read this thread? There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.
So?
An important thing to remember for people that visit the internet is to learn not to care what people on the internet think about you.
What matters is how your friends and playgroup feels about it.




Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 19:57:34


Post by: Kilkrazy


 slowthar wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
How can GW be 'fracturing the player base' buy giving more options how to play? They're saying everything is fair game, and leaving the 'dividing' to the players unwilling to compromise


It has nothing to do with how many options there are -- most people would generally say more options means for more possibilities which means more potential fun.

The issue is that by attaching a points-value to each, it implies a level of effectiveness proportionate to that value. When the effectiveness of a unit is out of whack compared to its points cost, it can potentially ruin the game by making it unbalanced.

Not that I think LOW are necessarily unbalanced. In fact, I'd be happy to try playing against one if my friend had it. If it absolutely destroyed me, I'd probably either ask that he didn't play it anymore or we'd have to enter lengthy negotiations on how to make it balanced. Of course, this could be true with anything -- riptides, wave serpents, etc.

What people are saying is GW's fault is that things aren't more balanced out of the box. It would appear that with a little more effort, they could be better balanced, but GW doesn't seem interested or compelled to act.


It is to do with the number of options.

Options are options.

If there are options you are not interested in you can ignore them regardless of how well balanced or not they might be.

Things that are compulsory are not options. You cannot ignore compulsory things regardless of how well balanced or not they might be.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 20:07:06


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 slowthar wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
How can GW be 'fracturing the player base' buy giving more options how to play? They're saying everything is fair game, and leaving the 'dividing' to the players unwilling to compromise


It has nothing to do with how many options there are -- most people would generally say more options means for more possibilities which means more potential fun.

The issue is that by attaching a points-value to each, it implies a level of effectiveness proportionate to that value. When the effectiveness of a unit is out of whack compared to its points cost, it can potentially ruin the game by making it unbalanced.

Not that I think LOW are necessarily unbalanced. In fact, I'd be happy to try playing against one if my friend had it. If it absolutely destroyed me, I'd probably either ask that he didn't play it anymore or we'd have to enter lengthy negotiations on how to make it balanced. Of course, this could be true with anything -- riptides, wave serpents, etc.

What people are saying is GW's fault is that things aren't more balanced out of the box. It would appear that with a little more effort, they could be better balanced, but GW doesn't seem interested or compelled to act.


It is to do with the number of options.

Options are options.

If there are options you are not interested in you can ignore them regardless of how well balanced or not they might be.

Things that are compulsory are not options. You cannot ignore compulsory things regardless of how well balanced or not they might be.


And how is this a LOW specific problem? I dont like waveserpent spam, its much worse than a LOW IMO

Ignoring options is your choice, the lack of options if of your own doing, not GW's


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 20:12:25


Post by: Kilkrazy


It isn't a LOW specific problem, though frankly Waverserpent spam was in the game in 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th editions so if you didn't like it you probably should have folded your tents many years ago.

Also the fact is not an LOW problem does not excuse LOW being added to the pile of problems.

I reiterate again for the third (?) time that GW have not added options, they have taken them away. How is that a good thing?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 20:13:31


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 Kilkrazy wrote:
It isn't a LOW specific problem, though frankly Waverserpent spam was in the game in 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th editions so if you didn't like it you probably should have folded your tents many years ago.

Also the fact is not an LOW problem does not excuse LOW being added to the pile of problems.

I reiterate again for the third (?) time that GW have not added options, they have taken them away. How is that a good thing?


GW didnt take any options away, you not liking the options and not using them does not mean they're not there. They're adding more options, people dont like them, and they're taking the options away themselves.

Explain how you choosing not to like something means that GW is taking your options away?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 20:14:49


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Also the fact is not an LOW problem does not excuse LOW being added to the pile of problems.
Exactly, this is a thread specifically about LOW so we are talking about LOW.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 21:10:34


Post by: Kilkrazy


Yes, and LOW used to be an option and now they aren't.

How many times does this need to be pointed out for people to comprehend?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is there a lack of basic English comprehension?

Options are things that can be accesses or not as people wish.

Things that are automatically included are not options.

LOW (and flyers, etc) used to be options. They are now included as standard rules. They are not options any more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is very, very simple.

If you like LOW they are a great option.

If you don't like LOW they are a great option you can ignore them.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 21:19:06


Post by: WrentheFaceless


They're still optional force org slot items, you're only FORCED to bring 1 HQ and two troops.

Them just adding more optional items to the Force Org chart is adding more options to army building, its not taking any options away.

And yes It does appear to be a lack of basic English comprehension.

Or are you being forced to play only lists with LOW now?

Anything outside the compulsory 1 HQ and 2 Troops is optional, just as it had been


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 21:21:25


Post by: Kilkrazy


Yes I am being forced to play lists that potentially include FOW which didn't use to happen.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 21:24:09


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes I am being forced to play lists that potentially include FOW which didn't use to happen.


Oh if we're going off hypothetical and potential situations, why play at all? There's the potential to always play against something you don't like if we're going based off of that.

I guess I should quit then since one day I may potentially go against something in 9th edition I dont like.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 21:25:46


Post by: MaxT


 WrentheFaceless wrote:
They're still optional force org slot items, you're only FORCED to bring 1 HQ and two troops.

Them just adding more optional items to the Force Org chart is adding more options to army building, its not taking any options away.

And yes It does appear to be a lack of basic English comprehension.

Or are you being forced to play only lists with LOW now?

Anything outside the compulsory 1 HQ and 2 Troops is optional, just as it had been


Anything at all is optional, unbound is a thing.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 21:26:38


Post by: Kilkrazy


I don't play any more because GW have fethed up the game to such a degree and made it so expensive that it is not worth it.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 21:31:03


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't play any more because GW have fethed up the game to such a degree and made it so expensive that it is not worth it.


Ok?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 21:38:42


Post by: Grimtuff


 WrentheFaceless wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't play any more because GW have fethed up the game to such a degree and made it so expensive that it is not worth it.


Ok?


I know where this will go next; so I'll pre-empt you...

Just because people like KK and myself no longer play does not make our opinions on the complete and utter fustercluck this game has become any less valid. Most companies would be incredibly interested to know why people have left their product.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 21:44:10


Post by: nosferatu1001


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes I am being forced to play lists that potentially include FOW which didn't use to happen.

So you're ignoring the rules stating you must agree on what models etch you will play with?

You are now more forced to play an optional game than you were before 7th.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 21:50:08


Post by: Azreal13


 Grimtuff wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't play any more because GW have fethed up the game to such a degree and made it so expensive that it is not worth it.


Ok?


I know where this will go next; so I'll pre-empt you...

Just because people like KK and myself no longer play does not make our opinions on the complete and utter fustercluck this game has become any less valid. Most companies would be incredibly interested to know why people have left their product.


You are absolutely entitled to an opinion, you are completely correct that the reasons you are no longer a player, and therefore a customer, should be incredibly important and of great interest to GW.

However, lacking first hand experience of the product as it is right now does somewhat undermine the authority of your opinion.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 21:54:21


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 azreal13 wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't play any more because GW have fethed up the game to such a degree and made it so expensive that it is not worth it.


Ok?


I know where this will go next; so I'll pre-empt you...

Just because people like KK and myself no longer play does not make our opinions on the complete and utter fustercluck this game has become any less valid. Most companies would be incredibly interested to know why people have left their product.


You are absolutely entitled to an opinion, you are completely correct that the reasons you are no longer a player, and therefore a customer, should be incredibly important and of great interest to GW.

However, lacking first hand experience of the product as it is right now does somewhat undermine the authority of your opinion.


Couldnt have said it better myself.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:06:26


Post by: MWHistorian


Because after twenty plus years I couldn't possibly know bad rules when I see them.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:08:11


Post by: Sigvatr


nosferatu1001 wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes I am being forced to play lists that potentially include FOW which didn't use to happen.

So you're ignoring the rules stating you must agree on what models etch you will play with?


* You don't have a choice if you want to participate in a tournament that allows them.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:14:44


Post by: ashikenshin


you have a choice of not participate in said tournament. I'm sure you know this since you run tournaments.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:17:31


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 MWHistorian wrote:
Because after twenty plus years I couldn't possibly know bad rules when I see them.


Things are usually not the exact same after 20 years. Nor what was relevant 20 years ago necessary relevant now.

It might give you insight on how it used to be, but it may not be relevant to how it is now.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:19:07


Post by: MWHistorian


I was still playing up to a few months ago.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:19:15


Post by: Azreal13


 MWHistorian wrote:
Because after twenty plus years I couldn't possibly know bad rules when I see them.


Frankly, no.

Not in the same way that someone who's played those rules will.

Just like I can respect someone's opinion on music, videogames, movies, whatever, but in the final analysis I'm going to pay more attention to the person who has heard, played or viewed the thing in question than someone who, irrespective of their experience in the area, or that their criticisms appear to be well founded, hasn't.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:28:08


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 MWHistorian wrote:
I was still playing up to a few months ago.


Again, have you played against a LOW in 7th yet?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:36:17


Post by: Peregrine


 Kilkrazy wrote:
LOW (and flyers, etc) used to be options. They are now included as standard rules. They are not options any more.


Except they didn't used to be options, they used to not exist at all. All of those "optional" rules that required special permission from your opponent were generally considered "not real 40k" and permission was rarely granted. Putting them in the standard rules makes them options in the sense that you can finally choose to include them in your army if you want. The only "option" that was denied was the ability to veto your opponent's army choices, and that's not something that should exist at all.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:37:26


Post by: gregor_xenos


The butthurt is strong with this thread....
Don't worry, all those who are quitting 40k. I am willing, and able, to pick up ALOT of your slack. There are many more like me. You will not be missed.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:38:50


Post by: Peregrine


 gregor_xenos wrote:
The butthurt is strong with this thread....
Don't worry, all those who are quitting 40k. I am willing, and able, to pick up ALOT of your slack. There are many more like me. You will not be missed.


Actually, according to GW's own financial reports, there aren't many more like you. GW is busy losing sales volume and market share, which means that people like you are not making up for all the people who are leaving GW games.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:40:07


Post by: Kangodo


 Sigvatr wrote:
* You don't have a choice if you want to participate in a tournament that allows them.

Likewise before Seventh I did not have the choice to participate in a tournament that DID allow them. Because they weren't legal in 40k.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Just because people like KK and myself no longer play does not make our opinions on the complete and utter fustercluck this game has become any less valid. Most companies would be incredibly interested to know why people have left their product.

1. Your opinion is not any less valid.
2. I lied, it is less valid because you don't have any experience with the current rules.
3. "complete and utter fustercluck" is an opinion. One without any basis because you don't play anymore.
4. Why? Why would they be interested? It might be a nice trivia to know for them, but nothing is going to change. They are not going to change the entire rulebook within a year because you don't like their product anymore.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, and LOW used to be an option and now they aren't.
Yes, they are.

Before they weren't an option.
The BRB gave no permission to play them, so you can't play them.
Now the BRB gives you permission, so you can play them.
That means it IS an option now.

The BRB allows me to field a LoW.
The BRB allows you to ban a LoW.
You should be happy.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:40:53


Post by: gregor_xenos


 Peregrine wrote:
 gregor_xenos wrote:
The butthurt is strong with this thread....
Don't worry, all those who are quitting 40k. I am willing, and able, to pick up ALOT of your slack. There are many more like me. You will not be missed.


Actually, according to GW's own financial reports, there aren't many more like you. GW is busy losing sales volume and market share, which means that people like you are not making up for all the people who are leaving GW games.


Time will tell... But please, continue to sell your armies cheap. I will strip them, paint them, and turn a nice profit.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:50:32


Post by: Callarthis


The thing is nobody has to play against LoW if they don't want to, for whatever reason. Everybody has the right to refuse to play against anyone for any reason, whether that person feels it's justified or not. Hell you don't even have to give a reason if you don't want to. That person can judge you based on that, which is entirely within their rights too.

LoW, Serpent Spam, Flyer Spam, Daemon Factory, Factions you don't like the look of, Opponent is from Birmingham, You once slept with their sibling - you can refuse any game for any reason and if you give an explanation and you believe it's reasonable and your opponent takes it badly then you're probably better off not playing with them anyway.

I'm going to make the assumption that we all play this game for fun and if you don't think a certain game is going to be fun it's a waste of your time and possibly theirs. You may have played against a LoW previously, you may have looked at the rules and extrapolated, you may think it only works at higher point levels or you just might think the model looks stupid. Whatever the case it's your choice and the world will not end if you don't play against it.

Obviously amongst those you know well and friends there will probably be a more detailed interaction, but then you have a greater likelihood of reaching an acceptable common ground or compromise.

As far as people suggesting that those who dislike playing against LoWs should find another game, just remember that next time you complain about anything that you consider OP or you find yourself up against a "WAAC" player, just because something is in the rules doesn't mean someone has to like it or play against it.



Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:53:46


Post by: Peregrine


 gregor_xenos wrote:
Time will tell... But please, continue to sell your armies cheap. I will strip them, paint them, and turn a nice profit.


Who said anything about selling? My armies aren't going anywhere after all the work I've put into them. And your desire and ability to make a profit from GW's decline doesn't mean that they're a successful business.

Kangodo wrote:
3. "complete and utter fustercluck" is an opinion.


No, it's fact. 40k is an example of spectacularly bad game design, the kind of thing 101 classes use as a warning for their students. Listing everything that is objectively wrong with the game would require writing an entire textbook, which I'm tempted to do just so people like you have to stop saying "it's just an opinion".

4. Why? Why would they be interested? It might be a nice trivia to know for them, but nothing is going to change. They are not going to change the entire rulebook within a year because you don't like their product anymore.


They should be interested because it isn't just one player leaving. When the overall trend is a declining number of players any sensible company should be concerned about the fact that quite a few of those lost customers are leaving because they are unhappy with the rules.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 22:58:22


Post by: Sigvatr


 Sigvatr wrote:

* You don't have a choice if you want to participate in a tournament that allows them.


 ashikenshin wrote:
you have a choice of not participate in said tournament. I'm sure you know this since you run tournaments.


If you want to take part in a tournament, not taking part isn't really an option


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote:

Likewise before Seventh I did not have the choice to participate in a tournament that DID allow them. Because they weren't legal in 40k.


I'm confused...O_o


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 23:02:16


Post by: ashikenshin


hehe well you have the option to man up?

Also the option to not participate is there. You may want to do something but wanting and doing are two different things.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 23:04:10


Post by: Azreal13


 Peregrine wrote:


Kangodo wrote:
3. "complete and utter fustercluck" is an opinion.


No, it's fact. 40k is an example of spectacularly bad game design, the kind of thing 101 classes use as a warning for their students. Listing everything that is objectively wrong with the game would require writing an entire textbook, which I'm tempted to do just so people like you have to stop saying "it's just an opinion".


But even that list would be just your list of stuff you don't like in the main.

I've seen you criticise people for using hyperbole within minutes of posting something along the lines of "a baby could write better rules by smearing it's own faeces on some paper" or words very similar, and this is somewhere up there with that.

There are some functional issues in the game, potentially serious ones if you play someone as apparently unreasonable as you are/pretend to be. But I bet you'd run out of legitimate gameplay issues by the end of the first section and fill the rest of the textbook with your particular brand of impotent rage-based ranty goodness.






Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 23:09:21


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 Peregrine wrote:

No, it's fact. 40k is an example of spectacularly bad game design, the kind of thing 101 classes use as a warning for their students. Listing everything that is objectively wrong with the game would require writing an entire textbook, which I'm tempted to do just so people like you have to stop saying "it's just an opinion".


Perhaps you should, to make it actually a fact as defined in the dictionary

Unbiased actual evidence, no anecdotes, no opinions, just the facts

If you're actually going to call that a fact Because until you prove that factually, what he said is true, it is just an opinion

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 23:12:35


Post by: Kangodo


 Sigvatr wrote:
I'm confused...O_o

Yeah, let's rephrase that: Before 7th edition I had to live with the fact that I couldn't bring a LoW to a tournament.
Now he has to live with the fact that other people can bring a LoW to a tournament.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it's fact. 40k is an example of spectacularly bad game design, the kind of thing 101 classes use as a warning for their students. Listing everything that is objectively wrong with the game would require writing an entire textbook, which I'm tempted to do just so people like you have to stop saying "it's just an opinion".
It's not great.
Though it's not as bad as people make it out to be.

There are a lot of faults with GW, their testing is bad and they often write unclear rules.
But stuff like LoW's if not one of the "utter fusterclucks".
They should be interested because it isn't just one player leaving. When the overall trend is a declining number of players any sensible company should be concerned about the fact that quite a few of those lost customers are leaving because they are unhappy with the rules.

But they are not all leaving because of the rules.
I would dare to claim that most people are leaving due to the price-increase.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 23:13:55


Post by: Peregrine


 azreal13 wrote:
But even that list would be just your list of stuff you don't like in the main.


No, it would be a list of things that are wrong according to pretty much anyone who understands how game design works. For example, 40k is full of rules with conflicting objectives, where the game is pulled in opposite directions and the end result doesn't accomplish either objective very well. Consider the rules for special characters/challenges/etc that were added in 6th edition: it's very clearly an attempt to make characters matter and tell the story of these glorious heroes. But then the same edition also added rules for barrage sniping, allowing a Basilisk to be the ultimate sniper rifle and kill these very important characters from across the table. And GW even recognized the problem and added the LOS rule to "fix" it by declaring that characters are special and you can't really snipe them after all. The only conclusion here is that GW doesn't have any kind of guiding principles for new rules, and just threw in a bunch of stuff that sounded cool at the time without bothering to think about the consequences.

And the sad thing is that's just one example of one kind of flaw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote:
Though it's not as bad as people make it out to be.


You're right. It's actually worse than most people make it out to be. The conventional opinion is that the rules are bad, but only in ways that are fairly easy to fix (nerf Riptides, clear up a few YMDC questions, etc) and the game itself is pretty good. In reality the entire game is broken, from the fundamental turn structure all the way up to the bloated mess of special rules, and fixing it means deleting everything and starting over.

But stuff like LoW's if not one of the "utter fusterclucks".


Oh, it really is a disaster. LoW balance is terrible, you have a full range from "only take it if you want to go easy on a newbie" units like the Malcador to "why do I even bother deploying my army" titans. It's just slightly less terrible than the situation where LoW exist, but you have to beg your opponent to let you use them and the answer is almost always no.

But they are not all leaving because of the rules.


Not all of them, but a lot are.

I would dare to claim that most people are leaving due to the price-increase.


But that's the same thing really. Very few people who quit over price increases can't afford the new prices, what really happens is that they don't feel that the quality of the game justifies the high prices. And that depends greatly on the rules.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/22 23:39:06


Post by: Kangodo


In that case, please do us all a favour and go play another game if you think it can only be fixed by "deleting everything and starting over".
My only issue with 40k are the fluffy written rules that often cause a confusion and their lack of consequential use of certain words.

Have you played against a Titan in 7th edition?
And do you have any data on why people quit with GW?
Because the only data I have is from my friends, whom all stopped because they thought it was too expensive for a simple hobby.
And no, it's not the same. Because even with perfect rules it wouldn't be worth the 50% price-increase all over their product-line.

But please, we get it. You hate the game.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 00:11:27


Post by: BrianDavion


 Kilkrazy wrote:


Everyone was happy when they were in Apocalypse.



except the people who paid over a hundred bucks for a bane blade and rarely got a chance to use it because most people didn't play apocylpse, not because of the super heavies but not a lotta people had huge sized armies. now there is an option to use it in a regular 40k game.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 00:26:16


Post by: Yonan


Kangodo wrote:
In that case, please do us all a favour and go play another game if you think it can only be fixed by "deleting everything and starting over".
"If you don't like it then geeeet oouuut" is never a good argument.

And do you have any data on why people quit with GW?
This 8 page thread on "Why I left GW and what I went to instead" is a pretty good start.

BrianDavion wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone was happy when they were in Apocalypse.
except the people who paid over a hundred bucks for a bane blade and rarely got a chance to use it because most people didn't play apocylpse, not because of the super heavies but not a lotta people had huge sized armies. now there is an option to use it in a regular 40k game.
About as good a reason for unbound as "well some people bought 6 riptides for apocalypse so why can't they play them in normal games".


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 00:42:13


Post by: Peregrine


 Yonan wrote:
About as good a reason for unbound as "well some people bought 6 riptides for apocalypse so why can't they play them in normal games".


Actually it is. One of the few good things 7th edition did is remove the idea of having armies be legal in one kind of game but banned in another. Unbound fixes this problem and removes the need to get your opponent to agree to play the special kind of game where your chosen army is legal.

The problem with the 6-Riptide army isn't the unbound rules, it's the fact that the Riptide is so blatantly overpowered that it needs a limit on how many you can take. If GW did a better job of unit balance this wouldn't be a problem, and unbound Riptide spam armies would be no scarier than a battle-forged list with six tactical squads. And don't forget that you could take five Riptides (one of them a powerful IC) in a normal 6th edition list already, and few people did. Adding another Riptide is one of those things that is kind of scary on paper, but doesn't really matter in a real game.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 01:15:04


Post by: Yonan


Yeah sadly everything has to be taken in the current context of ridiculous balance so any balance problems are just exacerbated by unbound, multiple detachments etc. much like allying yourself did in 6th for those 5 riptides you mentioned. It's the same reason (I find) LoWs objectable despite loving baneblades and the general idea of a single large unit like that, there's just too many imbalances in gameplay due to the basic mechanics of the game through to specific unit imbalances due to obviously broken units.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 01:29:05


Post by: NecronLord3


If LoW aren't allowed, it's deathstar 40k or don't bother to play.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 01:31:41


Post by: Yonan


Replacing one big bad with another big bad does not a fun game make sadly. This is part of why a number of us are adamant that the game is fundamentally broken at a basic rules design level and needs to be completely redone.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 04:20:22


Post by: foto69man


BrianDavion wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:


Everyone was happy when they were in Apocalypse.



except the people who paid over a hundred bucks for a bane blade and rarely got a chance to use it because most people didn't play apocylpse, not because of the super heavies but not a lotta people had huge sized armies. now there is an option to use it in a regular 40k game.




See...................not everyone pays hundreds of bucks for a big tank or what not. If the pro-LoW crowd wants to use them so bad, teach people they aren't bad, let them borrow yours to show them, etc. This is a GAME and is supposed to be FUN for BOTH people. Man o man...Plastic and resin toy soldiers people. Talk toy our opponent and have a fun game not a shouting match over who can or can't bring their biggest hunk or resin/plastic...


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 05:25:08


Post by: NecronLord3


 Yonan wrote:
Replacing one big bad with another big bad does not a fun game make sadly. This is part of why a number of us are adamant that the game is fundamentally broken at a basic rules design level and needs to be completely redone.


Fear of one discourages the bringing of the other. LoW>deathstar>msu>LoW. This is the only balance you can have, have had or will ever have in Warhammer 40k, only instead of it being codexes trumping each other, we now have a more level playing field where several, if not all factions have a similarly equal chance of competing in a competitive environment.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 11:39:33


Post by: nosferatu1001


 Sigvatr wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes I am being forced to play lists that potentially include FOW which didn't use to happen.

So you're ignoring the rules stating you must agree on what models etch you will play with?


* You don't have a choice if you want to participate in a tournament that allows them.

Yes you do. You refuse to play that game. Noone can force you to play a game against them, no matter if it is atournament.

Or, you accept that JUST as you may face deathstar armies, or flyer spam crons, or whatever, that you have already agreed to play them, before the game even happens.

Again: this has increased the number of options available, not reduced them. That is factual. Now it is a different question if the meta will end up with fewer viable armies, and thus less chosen options, but that is a different thing entirely.

You absolutely, 100% have greater options now than previously.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 12:00:34


Post by: Sigvatr


 ashikenshin wrote:
hehe well you have the option to man up?

Also the option to not participate is there. You may want to do something but wanting and doing are two different things.


nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yes you do. You refuse to play that game. Noone can force you to play a game against them, no matter if it is atournament.


If you decide to not participate in the tournament, then you no longer want to do so either...

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Again: this has increased the number of options available, not reduced them. That is factual. Now it is a different question if the meta will end up with fewer viable armies, and thus less chosen options, but that is a different thing entirely.

You absolutely, 100% have greater options now than previously.


I hear this pretty often on internet forums, but I just don't get why. Why are there more options than before? Tournaments will always have special rules, it's been like this forever, and no BRB has a saying here. And, at least in out experience, pickup games haven't been different either in the past. I mean...if I played someone and I saw that he fields a lame no-fun list, I refused the match, nicely (!) saying that I don't think it's something I would like to play with / against.

I'm genuinely (!) interested in knowing why some people keep saying that there are more options.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 12:24:23


Post by: nosferatu1001


Previoulsy if you played a game of 40k, BRB, you couldnt include:

Lords of war

Prior to 6th, you couldnt have
foritfications, allies

Just have a look at the basic "FOC" now - noticed the extra options that you did not have before?

Not participating in that game does not mean you are not participating in the tournament. You may have, however, reduced your chances of winning if you decline a game.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 12:27:37


Post by: Kangodo


text removed.

Reds8n


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 12:36:12


Post by: Sigvatr


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Previoulsy if you played a game of 40k, BRB, you couldnt include:

Lords of war


But Escalation already allowed the use of LoW in 6th as far as I can see? Isn't 7th basically using the same Force Org chart with added double CAD?

/e: Ah, you mentioned only the BRB. I referred to the game as a whole. I don't think just using the BRB is sufficient as you would also exclude FW.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 12:42:37


Post by: Kangodo


 Sigvatr wrote:
But Escalation already allowed the use of LoW in 6th as far as I can see? Isn't 7th basically using the same Force Org chart with added double CAD?

/e: Ah, you mentioned only the BRB. I referred to the game as a whole. I don't think just using the BRB is sufficient as you would also exclude FW.

But Escalation only allowed it if we played by the Escalation-rules, which is more like a special Mission.
The new rulings allow it whenever we want, with a maximum of one.

We are talking about a normal game of WH40k, without special missions and such like Escalation, Planetstrike, Zone Mortalis or Apocalypse.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 12:46:27


Post by: Sigvatr


So basically, the *option* to play Escalation has already been there in 6th


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 13:07:35


Post by: Wayniac


An option means something that is not allowed by default. LoW are no longer an "option" because other than the fact that you don't have to play anyone for any reason in a 2-player game, they are now "included by default" and not an option.

For myself and a lot of people, it's not even necessarily the idea that LOW are overpowered (although some are), it's the fact that LOW represent the shift of 40k to something we don't like. I remember when 40k was a platoon/company level game, and Titans had no place except MAYBE for some huge Games Day-esque mega battle (I recall one WD had a picture of a scratch-built Warlord Titan for some Heresy type of mega battle). Now, those of us who prefer 40k to be a company-level game are told to shut up and deal with the guy who goes and buys a titan and then wants to use it.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 13:13:32


Post by: Baragash


In principle I'm in favour of fliers, LoW, fortifications and probably whatever else wants to be thrown in.

For me the problem is that 40k at it's core is a skirmish game trying to pretend it's a battle game. Not only that, it's a skirmish game built on rules that never conceived of units of this scale at their inception. Consequently, trying to fit these "epic" units into the game effectively means dropping in a load of units turned up to 11 in a game that only runs to 10 ("D" is basically a S>10 concept).

If GW built rules appropriate to the scale of game* they want us to buy models for, I suspect there would be less resistance to these units amongst the player base.

*Personally I think instead of 40k and Apocalypse they should have gone for two separate rulesets, a 2nd Ed skirmish-style ruleset and a ruleset somewhere between 5th ed and Epic. *shrugs*


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 13:17:40


Post by: Kangodo


 Sigvatr wrote:
So basically, the *option* to play Escalation has already been there in 6th

Yes, by not playing an Eternal War game and buying a book that is only six months old and was clearly a step-up to Lords of War being included in 7th Edition.
That's like saying I could always play Superheavies, I just needed to play Apocalypse.

Or are you telling me that I could've always house-ruled them into 40k?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 13:31:36


Post by: Wayniac


 Baragash wrote:
In principle I'm in favour of fliers, LoW, fortifications and probably whatever else wants to be thrown in.

For me the problem is that 40k at it's core is a skirmish game trying to pretend it's a battle game. Not only that, it's a skirmish game built on rules that never conceived of units of this scale at their inception. Consequently, trying to fit these "epic" units into the game effectively means dropping in a load of units turned up to 11 in a game that only runs to 10 ("D" is basically a S>10 concept).

If GW built rules appropriate to the scale of game* they want us to buy models for, I suspect there would be less resistance to these units amongst the player base.

*Personally I think instead of 40k and Apocalypse they should have gone for two separate rulesets, a 2nd Ed skirmish-style ruleset and a ruleset somewhere between 5th ed and Epic. *shrugs*


Exactly this. A large-scale game doesn't need the level of minutiae that 40k has, while a skirmish/company level game does. 40k has basically shoehorned large battles into a rulesset that isn't designed for them, and wonder why there's an issue.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 13:57:33


Post by: nosferatu1001


WayneTheGame wrote:
An option means something that is not allowed by default. LoW are no longer an "option" because other than the fact that you don't have to play anyone for any reason in a 2-player game, they are now "included by default" and not an option.

No, an option is anything not mandated. LOS are optional, by definition.

Your definition has nothing to do with reality. For example look at cars - the "options list" are a lot of things not avaialble by default.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 14:26:23


Post by: Dunklezahn


I like Lords of War, They can be a bit good in casual play for their points (though if your opponent has said he is/wants to field one you can always go a little heavier on the AT) but for tighter play where the lists are stronger I think they add a nice extreme element to have to take into account when list building.
What if my opponent is rocking a Baneblade, how would I deal? What if it's a formation of Imperial Knights?

It adds even more diversity to an already diverse potential set of opponents.



Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 14:57:40


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


nosferatu1001 wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
An option means something that is not allowed by default. LoW are no longer an "option" because other than the fact that you don't have to play anyone for any reason in a 2-player game, they are now "included by default" and not an option.

No, an option is anything not mandated. LOS are optional, by definition.

Your definition has nothing to do with reality. For example look at cars - the "options list" are a lot of things not avaialble by default.
Oh yay, another awesome(ly fail) car analogy. Things that are options on cars are called options because the manufacturer gives them as options.

LOW are optional the same way door skins are optional on a car. The car is sold with them, but you are welcome to remove them if you so desire.

Of course, it's a terrible analogy because cars are big mechanical objects and removing things takes physical effort compared to a wargame which is just a bunch of written rules.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 15:33:06


Post by: ashikenshin


Seems there is a difference of opinion on what the word "options" means. Let's see what the opposite of optional is: required, compulsory, forced.

Going with that, are LoWs and Fortifications required in normal games? not really, you can play games without removing rules with people who don't have lists with neither of those options.

Can you play a game of normal 40k with LoWs? yes because it's an option now. Can you play a normal game of 40k without LoWs? yup, if neither you nor your opponent brought a LoW you would, in fact, be playing without LoWs.

So, are LoWs optional?


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 15:40:27


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 ashikenshin wrote:
So, are LoWs optional?
It's optional in the same way playing with/against tactical marines is optional.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 15:43:59


Post by: PhantomViper


 ashikenshin wrote:
Seems there is a difference of opinion on what the word "options" means. Let's see what the opposite of optional is: required, compulsory, forced.

Going with that, are LoWs and Fortifications required in normal games? not really, you can play games without removing rules with people who don't have lists with neither of those options.


Yes, they are.

If you opponent brought one of those and you wan't to play a game of 40k, then you have to play with them or not play the game at all.


 ashikenshin wrote:

Can you play a game of normal 40k with LoWs? yes because it's an option now. Can you play a normal game of 40k without LoWs? yup, if neither you nor your opponent brought a LoW you would, in fact, be playing without LoWs.

So, are LoWs optional?


No, they aren't optional. They are one of the options of your army so you can use them in your army or not, but since a game requires two people to play and you can't control your opponents army (other than deciding not to play), that makes them mandatory instead of optional.

Previously you had options. People that liked to play with LoWs could play them in Escalation or Apocalypse. People that didn't like to play with LoWs played using just the core 40k rules. That option was removed for the people that didn't like to play with LoWs in 7th edition, hence those people have fewer options now.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 15:50:38


Post by: ashikenshin


PhantomViper wrote:
 ashikenshin wrote:
Seems there is a difference of opinion on what the word "options" means. Let's see what the opposite of optional is: required, compulsory, forced.

Going with that, are LoWs and Fortifications required in normal games? not really, you can play games without removing rules with people who don't have lists with neither of those options.


Yes, they are.

If you opponent brought one of those and you wan't to play a game of 40k, then you have to play with them or not play the game at all.


you listed two options there, play the game or not play. But, there is another option: tell your opponent you don't want to play against him if he uses a LoW.




 ashikenshin wrote:

Can you play a game of normal 40k with LoWs? yes because it's an option now. Can you play a normal game of 40k without LoWs? yup, if neither you nor your opponent brought a LoW you would, in fact, be playing without LoWs.

So, are LoWs optional?


No, they aren't optional. They are one of the options of your army so you can use them in your army or not, but since a game requires two people to play and you can't control your opponents army (other than deciding not to play), that makes them mandatory instead of optional.

Previously you had options. People that liked to play with LoWs could play them in Escalation or Apocalypse. People that didn't like to play with LoWs played using just the core 40k rules. That option was removed for the people that didn't like to play with LoWs in 7th edition, hence those people have fewer options now.


but they are optional, HQ and Troops are mandatory in battle forged lists. Not everybody has to have a LoW in order to play.

Seems the meaning of optional and mandatory are really not understood here.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 15:54:16


Post by: Sigvatr


Kangodo wrote:

That's like saying I could always play Superheavies, I just needed to play Apocalypse.


Nope, it's not. Apocalypse was clearly seperated from Standard 40k whereas Escalation was designed to be an add-on to the game.


Do you play with Lords of War? @ 2014/07/23 15:56:08


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 ashikenshin wrote:

Seems the meaning of optional and mandatory are really not understood here.


Thats what I'm getting here too

The only Mandatory part of the Force Org is 1 HQ and 2 Troops, or if unbound, nothing.

Hence anything you add on to that list, is an option.