Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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...

 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.

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.

 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.)

 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..

 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!

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.

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".

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.

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.

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'"

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

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?

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

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.

 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.

 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.

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

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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

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.

 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.

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

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.

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.

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