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.

col_impact wrote:
There are a few bad apples in the ranks of the LOW. If you want people to broadly accept LOW what's the solution to the bad apples?

I think you and I don't have the same opinions on Lord of War - every game I've played against one I've crushed it. This includes a Warhound Titan, a Revenant Titan, and a TC'tan (the supposed bad-apples).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

col_impact wrote:
There are a few bad apples in the ranks of the LOW. If you want people to broadly accept LOW what's the solution to the bad apples?

I think you and I don't have the same opinions on Lord of War - every game I've played against one I've crushed it. This includes a Warhound Titan, a Revenant Titan, and a TC'tan (the supposed bad-apples).

Sounds like you are only speaking narrowly of your experience with your army. Are all armies capable of handling the bad apples?

Haha, yes.
Even my Blood Angels (BLOOD ANGELS!!!) managed to win from a Stompa.

But Col, the solution is quite simple: Talk to your opponent!
I play 40k to have fun, and so do my opponents, so before the game we take 5 minutes to discuss what we expect from it.

 Ashiraya wrote:
But that is just shifting the burden, it does not mean someone is more/less nice for wanting or not wanting to play with a Baneblade.

You're right, it is shifting the burden, and that's the whole point. The burden of refusing a game should be on the person who cares strongly about banning something, not on the person who just wants to use the rules GW publishes.

And no, it doesn't have anything to do with more/less nice, I was answering your question about why playing with a Baneblade before 7th edition wasn't an option.

It all seems like deception to me, people thinking a unit suddenly is fun to play against because GW tells you to.

But most people making the "no Baneblade" decision weren't doing it because of whether or not it was fun to play against. Most of them had probably never even seen a Baneblade, they just knew that it was from an "optional" expansion and "optional" expansions are banned. Now, instead of people who have no preference banning Baneblades along with people who actually don't find them fun to play against, we have only the people who really hate Baneblades refusing to play against them and the people with no strong preference default to including them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
But that is just shifting the burden, it does not mean someone is more/less nice for wanting or not wanting to play with a Baneblade.

You're right, it is shifting the burden, and that's the whole point. The burden of refusing a game should be on the person who cares strongly about banning something, not on the person who just wants to use the rules GW publishes.

And no, it doesn't have anything to do with more/less nice, I was answering your question about why playing with a Baneblade before 7th edition wasn't an option.

It all seems like deception to me, people thinking a unit suddenly is fun to play against because GW tells you to.

But most people making the "no Baneblade" decision weren't doing it because of whether or not it was fun to play against. Most of them had probably never even seen a Baneblade, they just knew that it was from an "optional" expansion and "optional" expansions are banned. Now, instead of people who have no preference banning Baneblades along with people who actually don't find them fun to play against, we have only the people who really hate Baneblades refusing to play against them and the people with no strong preference default to including them.

Baneblades and Stompas aren't the problem. Say hello to my Tranny C'tan.

col_impact wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
But that is just shifting the burden, it does not mean someone is more/less nice for wanting or not wanting to play with a Baneblade.

You're right, it is shifting the burden, and that's the whole point. The burden of refusing a game should be on the person who cares strongly about banning something, not on the person who just wants to use the rules GW publishes.

And no, it doesn't have anything to do with more/less nice, I was answering your question about why playing with a Baneblade before 7th edition wasn't an option.

It all seems like deception to me, people thinking a unit suddenly is fun to play against because GW tells you to.

But most people making the "no Baneblade" decision weren't doing it because of whether or not it was fun to play against. Most of them had probably never even seen a Baneblade, they just knew that it was from an "optional" expansion and "optional" expansions are banned. Now, instead of people who have no preference banning Baneblades along with people who actually don't find them fun to play against, we have only the people who really hate Baneblades refusing to play against them and the people with no strong preference default to including them.

Baneblades and Stompas aren't the problem. Say hello to my Tranny C'tan.

It's the style of game that LOW create that I don't like. My SOB had plenty of melta coming from different directions to deal with LOW.

col_impact wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

col_impact wrote:
There are a few bad apples in the ranks of the LOW. If you want people to broadly accept LOW what's the solution to the bad apples?

I think you and I don't have the same opinions on Lord of War - every game I've played against one I've crushed it. This includes a Warhound Titan, a Revenant Titan, and a TC'tan (the supposed bad-apples).

Sounds like you are only speaking narrowly of your experience with your army. Are all armies capable of handling the bad apples?

Yes. With the caveat that they may need to adapt their list and/or tactics.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Epic handled aircraft better than 40k does IMO. Also if you like aircraft, a game like Aeronautica Imperialis is awesome. As for 40k, I think aircraft that aren't just close support gunships should instead be represented by sudden quick pass strikes called in at key times of the battle, not dancing around a battlefield the size of a football field.

To be fair most 40k aircraft shouldn't have difficulty "dancing" around a battlefield the size of a football field. An A10 Thunderbolt 2 can make a complete 360 degree turn inside an American football field. Also given that average Apoc games rarely qualify as even battalion level operations, they shouldn't be seen in Apoc by your reasoning. 40k is played at platoon/company level operations. In the U.S. military those level of operations often have dedicated air support flying halo over head for the duration of the operation.

Yes, most small military aircraft for the past 90 years can make a turn in a pretty small area if they're flying slowly enough... but they don't dance around in such a small area making attacks like that. They fly over and past the battlefield, making an attack as they go, then climb and turn around and then make another pass. Dancing over the battlefield like 40k aircraft do would mean the pilot isn't giving himself the space to actually line up targets and floating around such a small area like that would get you blown out of the sky by any enemy AA or aircraft.

The US military I'm sure does have dedicated air support flying halo... however I doubt those aircraft are trying to float around within small arms range at low speed. I'm guessing they're flying at significantly higher altitude, further from the battlefield where they can quickly respond and make a pass when needed or just use stand off weapons.

The only aircraft floating around like that would be close support hovering/helicopter type aircraft. And those aircraft would be easy pickings for any actual fighter aircraft around (where 40k seems to be the opposite, close support gunships are often the best air superiority craft you can get).

I'm not opposed to fliers in 40k, I just think the rules for them suck.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

col_impact wrote:
There are a few bad apples in the ranks of the LOW. If you want people to broadly accept LOW what's the solution to the bad apples?

I think you and I don't have the same opinions on Lord of War - every game I've played against one I've crushed it. This includes a Warhound Titan, a Revenant Titan, and a TC'tan (the supposed bad-apples).

Sounds like you are only speaking narrowly of your experience with your army. Are all armies capable of handling the bad apples?

Yes. With the caveat that they may need to adapt their list and/or tactics.

Show me lists that can handle a Tranny and that are still TAC lists.

Yeah, I have a T-C'tan, but I think I've only used it 3-4 times total, and only when it's agreed upon beforehand. Heck, I challenged my girlfriend to see if she could kill it using a special game scenario out of the Escalation book, where her stuff came back on the board every turn and she was only fighting my one C'Tan. Still failed to kill it after 7 turns, much less would she be able to in a regular game.

I've come to like the idea of big, bad Named Characters becoming Lords of War. Heck, the name Lord of War just fits them. It's when you have T-Ctans and Revenant Titans in the same category, and they are by no means similar in power level.

 krodarklorr wrote:
I've come to like the idea of big, bad Named Characters becoming Lords of War. Heck, the name Lord of War just fits them. It's when you have T-Ctans and Revenant Titans in the same category, and they are by no means similar in power level.

Yeah, oddly enough, GW make a game that handles this better. WHFB has Heroes and Lords separately.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
I've come to like the idea of big, bad Named Characters becoming Lords of War. Heck, the name Lord of War just fits them. It's when you have T-Ctans and Revenant Titans in the same category, and they are by no means similar in power level.

Yeah, oddly enough, GW make a game that handles this better. WHFB has Heroes and Lords separately.

One of my many points, and why I've come to enjoy Fantasy quite a bit. Rules make more sense most of the time in Fantasy. Plus, I think the percentage based lists building would've solved a lot of problems, including bringing 700+ points in one model in a 1500 point game.....

col_impact wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

col_impact wrote:
There are a few bad apples in the ranks of the LOW. If you want people to broadly accept LOW what's the solution to the bad apples?

I think you and I don't have the same opinions on Lord of War - every game I've played against one I've crushed it. This includes a Warhound Titan, a Revenant Titan, and a TC'tan (the supposed bad-apples).

Sounds like you are only speaking narrowly of your experience with your army. Are all armies capable of handling the bad apples?

Yes. With the caveat that they may need to adapt their list and/or tactics.

Show me lists that can handle a Tranny and that are still TAC lists.

I'm not going to show you every single list ever, but basically:

Any list that includes a pair of Vanquishers with Beast Hunter Shells (which can be every Imperial list) or a Warhound Titan (which can be every Imperial list). I'm generally unfamiliar with xenos lists, but I know they have access to their own D-weapons

Two vanquishers with beast hunter shells is not going to get the job done. The Transcendant C'tan is T9 and has a 4++.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Not "because of GW" but because we don't find it fun. Answer my original question: do you want us to play games we don't find to be fun? If so, why bother playing it?
Edit: Also, Tyrano, if you were really interested in the success of 40k, you wouldn't be chasing players like me away, you'd be trying to find a way for everyone to have fun. People like you are why I'll never go back to 40k.

Stop trying to take the moral high ground. Blanket refusal to play LOW is just as unreasonable as forcing others to play against them. Personally I would suggest that someone who is reluctant to play against LOW give it a go, then perhaps try a game without. Games with LOW are a lot quicker so getting in two games shouldn't be a problem. Surely this is more in the spirit of 40k harmony than "that gak shouldn't be in 40k, ditch it or find another opponent, and shame on you for even bringing that OP gak".

The issue I have is with the hypocrisy of the arguments put forward. Arguments about scale are clearly invalidated by other large kits and flyers. Also players who refuse to play against LOW but happily play against Knight Titans, LOW in all but name. Then there's fact that list abuse takes place all the time without LOW being a factor (including deathstar lists which mean the game is concentrated on one unit one of the arguments put up against LOW), but this is considered okay, whereas LOW is considered a dirty word. Finally the fact that many opponents of LOW seemingly have no or very limited experience of playing against them. A number of people that do play against them regularly and don't find them a problem have posted, and there's still a refusal to accept that they aren't that bad.

You keep directing your posts against me for some reason. Apologies if I've touched a nerve. You do realise that despite very vocally quitting 40k, amd having a default negative attitude towards anything GW releases, you spends a significant part of your time in 40k general discussion? Interesting approach to take, and perhaps the reason you find yourself getting offended to often?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
At the end of the day:

When it comes to the reality of the game, whether you like GW or dislike GW I think you have to admit the rules aren't written brilliantly and different people like different things so you have to accept you'll be negotiating games with people.

When it comes to wishlisting for 40k rules, I want to see GW come out with a tiered system of rules. Obviously still have the "you can play however you like if you want to go off script", but include different army construction rules for different play styles. They could even include different play styles as supplements like they did with Apoc with things like smaller scale games. Even thinking back to Epic 40k rules, maybe I'm just suffering from nostalgia but I seem to recall having a much wider array of mission options and a greater emphasis on the different ways the game can be played.

Other people might disagree with me on that, I just think 40k is best off not trying to be all-encompassing, not everyone likes the same things and I think the best way for that to flourish is if the rules reflect that.

Of course I doubt GW would get on board with that.

That is the sort of system I would like to see. A core game more like 4th/5th used to be, with optional expansion rules for LoW, Flyers and so on. I am actually rather surprised that GW went the route of including these extra rules in the main rulebook. I should have thought they would like to sell separate books. They must thought they would make more money by including the extra stuff in the core rulebook.

Tekron wrote:
Two vanquishers with beast hunter shells is not going to get the job done. The Transcendant C'tan is T9 and has a 4++.

They've done it for me before. Not by themselves, of course, but they've done most of the work.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
They've done it for me before. Not by themselves, of course, but they've done most of the work.

I don't see how when GCs are immune to instant death. You're better off spamming lascannons at it instead of a single 200+ point vanquisher shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
Baneblades and Stompas aren't the problem. Say hello to my Tranny C'tan.

Then why do we need a blanket ban on LOW? This is like arguing that because psyker spam armies are too powerful we need to remove the entire psychic phase.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
They've done it for me before. Not by themselves, of course, but they've done most of the work.

I don't see how when GCs are immune to instant death. You're better off spamming lascannons at it instead of a single 200+ point vanquisher shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
Baneblades and Stompas aren't the problem. Say hello to my Tranny C'tan.

Then why do we need a blanket ban on LOW? This is like arguing that because psyker spam armies are too powerful we need to remove the entire psychic phase.

I am not saying we need a blanket ban on LOW. I am saying we need an elegant solution to the LOW bad apples. Otherwise the elegant solution is to simply not allow LOW.

I don't think we should ban the bad apples, since that would put some armies in the awkward position of not having any viable LOW. I think instead we should allow armies that don't take LOW the ability to take cover saves vs hellstorm.

Also, I don't think LOW should be standard. They can be the occasional inclusion, but not the general standard. They have far too great a stunting effect on diversity to be a general standard.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

col_impact wrote:
There are a few bad apples in the ranks of the LOW. If you want people to broadly accept LOW what's the solution to the bad apples?

I think you and I don't have the same opinions on Lord of War - every game I've played against one I've crushed it. This includes a Warhound Titan, a Revenant Titan, and a TC'tan (the supposed bad-apples).

Did you know on beforehand a LoW would be brought, did you cater your list to reflect that, did you bring your own and what army did you bring? If your build naturally is anti Heavy its quite irrelevant to the discussion since your already running a Heavy counter.

I have no problems with LoW. I have a problem with Super Heavy Vehicles and Gargantuan Creatures. Why? When I joined the game like many people up until Escalation was introduced 9 months ago IIRC? Those units were Apocalypse ONLY.

The rules and even their theme is designed for Apocalypse! They are bigger than normal vehicles and creatures! Bigger stuff for bigger games. They are designed so that they are MC or Vehicle x3. They have no place in regular 40K, its not where they belong. Flyers were originally Apoc only but before the Stormraven and Jetwing Razorfighter most flyers were large enough to be superheavies like the Thunderhawk and Ork Fighta-Bomma. Stormravens and Talons and Dakkajets and Crimson Hunters and Doom Scythes and all the standard flyers are appropriately sized for 40K.

The only superheavies I tolerate are Knights and even then I'm not happy about it. But if someone runs 3 Knights as their army I won't say no, I'd say yes begrudgingly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Tekron wrote:
Two vanquishers with beast hunter shells is not going to get the job done. The Transcendant C'tan is T9 and has a 4++.

They've done it for me before. Not by themselves, of course, but they've done most of the work.

You must have had some hot dice then. Even with ID they should do about 1 wound per five shots on average.

Knights are stuck in the middle because a) they are a super-heavy and b) they have their own codex. And they are also not a lord of war either (unless you use the FW lancer...) so it creates confusion etc

This is the hypocritical bit, sure the majority of the low's are apoc units (or were...) so a general ban, except for special arrangements for me is "ok". Banning Knights as an army in their own right is "acceptable" however you can take three as allies etc. But its somehow heresy to allow one to be taken just because its a SH so by extension its a LOW, therefore its OP. Totally ignoring the regular use of riptides etc which are far worse and codex units (oh and knights are a codex unit...) somehow makes things "better balanced" !?

Cloud cuckoo land if you ask me, its why i haven't played 40k in quite a bit and pulled out of a campaign because of this stupid bias. And Knight or not i could predict the most likely winner of the campaign and he is using 4 Riptides (far worse than one knight).

Its not as if i was "power-gaming" I personally thought using a knight would have added a stronger "narrative" to the campaign. But obviously it fell on deaf ears.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

cnpopo wrote:

I have more then opinion on my side. Page 116 clearly says in bold "players must agree on how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use". So I have rules on my side.

The point I was making is everyone can choose to play or not to play. If you don't like playing against grav centurians, or tactical squads or pink grots then that is your choice. Claiming you have the rules on your side has no merit however, as the above quote says games must be agreed upon which was my original point.

Great, can you also point me to the page where it shows the FOC for "no Lords of War, except maybe baneblades because they're only tanks, and Ghazz is probably ok too, oh yeah, and Knight Titans are pretty cool even though they have D weapons (but it's ok because they're only close combat D weapons) so I'll allow them too, but you can't use your Warhound because in my opinion titans shouldn't be in 40k"?

Of course you can introduce any house rules you want, but that requires an established group, and a lot of back and forth to find something everyone is happy with. For narrative games people often change up the FOC, or introduce additional rules, which is also fine. For pick up games and non-narrative games it's generally accepted that the standard FOC is used. And the standard FOC as printed in the rules has Lords of War.

I take it if you're so flexible with the printed FOC you wouldn't mind if I turned up with 10 Heavy Support units? Or would you instead be showing me the page in the rule book which says I can't?

Melevolence wrote:
But the people who plug their ears and simply repeat "Rules say I can!" like a 5 year old really bug me. Maybe other people's game groups are either so large they can afford to alienate players left and right. Our group is fairly small, roughly 20 of us. But we are all on good terms, like each other, and do what we can to have an enjoyable game eacgh and every time we put models on the table. Just because the rules say I can do this or that, doesn't mean I need to be a jack off and do it despite knowing it will ruin the experience for the other players.

Do you take a loose attitude to the rules in all the games you play or just 40k? For most people the rules are pretty important (maybe it's different in your group). Also, how about looking at it from the other point of view, and realising you might be spoiling my experience and being a 'jack off' by refusing to play against my titan just because you might not have fun or because you believe that Lords of War shouldn't be in 40k?

I also think it's much more childish to decide not to play against Lords of War without even trying it, which from your post it seems your group are doing, and the attitude a lot of anti-LOW people here seem to take.

Our group plays them, and that's fine. I have no issue with it, but it isn't something I would play against every day because it gets boring. And I'm being a 'jack off' for following the rules when they state that players should neogitate terms for a game? You're again just plugging your ears and throwing rules around when I also have rules on my side. I'm not mandated to play with you. Feel sorry for yourself if you want. I truely don't care. I have every right to tell you "No, I don't wish to face that today". if you're butthurt over that...sorry. You can wave the rulebook in my face, but the rules don't say I'm required to accept a game with an entitled player.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Not "because of GW" but because we don't find it fun. Answer my original question: do you want us to play games we don't find to be fun? If so, why bother playing it?
Edit: Also, Tyrano, if you were really interested in the success of 40k, you wouldn't be chasing players like me away, you'd be trying to find a way for everyone to have fun. People like you are why I'll never go back to 40k.

Stop trying to take the moral high ground. Blanket refusal to play LOW is just as unreasonable as forcing others to play against them. Personally I would suggest that someone who is reluctant to play against LOW give it a go, then perhaps try a game without. Games with LOW are a lot quicker so getting in two games shouldn't be a problem. Surely this is more in the spirit of 40k harmony than "that gak shouldn't be in 40k, ditch it or find another opponent, and shame on you for even bringing that OP gak".

The issue I have is with the hypocrisy of the arguments put forward. Arguments about scale are clearly invalidated by other large kits and flyers. Also players who refuse to play against LOW but happily play against Knight Titans, LOW in all but name. Then there's fact that list abuse takes place all the time without LOW being a factor (including deathstar lists which mean the game is concentrated on one unit one of the arguments put up against LOW), but this is considered okay, whereas LOW is considered a dirty word. Finally the fact that many opponents of LOW seemingly have no or very limited experience of playing against them. A number of people that do play against them regularly and don't find them a problem have posted, and there's still a refusal to accept that they aren't that bad.

You keep directing your posts against me for some reason. Apologies if I've touched a nerve. You do realise that despite very vocally quitting 40k, amd having a default negative attitude towards anything GW releases, you spends a significant part of your time in 40k general discussion? Interesting approach to take, and perhaps the reason you find yourself getting offended to often?

I'm not offended, I just think your approach of "play it my way or get out" is one of the reasons I left 40k so I want to point it out so others don't make the same mistake. (Also, again you've mischaracterized my position. I never said anything about OP gak. In fact, I said my army could have taken super heavies with little problem. If you don't even take the time to understand my position, you can't really argue against it effectively.)
All that talking and you still didn't answer my question.
Would you have people like me play a game they find to be unfun even when the rulebook says both players have to agree?

Melevolence wrote:

Our group plays them, and that's fine. I have no issue with it, but it isn't something I would play against every day because it gets boring. And I'm being a 'jack off' for following the rules when they state that players should neogitate terms for a game? You're again just plugging your ears and throwing rules around when I also have rules on my side. I'm not mandated to play with you. Feel sorry for yourself if you want. I truely don't care. I have every right to tell you "No, I don't wish to face that today". if you're butthurt over that...sorry. You can wave the rulebook in my face, but the rules don't say I'm required to accept a game with an entitled player.

You're post suggested otherwise (IIRC you were talking about wanting to use your stompa but your group don't like it so you have to wait for an apoc game). You're also ignoring the fact that clearly 7th edition has intended for LOW to be standard. They weren't in the FOC for 6th, but are in 7th. Knights are everywhere, and the Battleforged FOC is referred to as the main way of choosing an army (along with unbound) and has pages dedicated to explainin how to use it. House rule as much as you want, your prerogative, but onus is on you now to explain why you don't want to play a legal list (as it would be if you refused to play against grots). If "I don't want to play it because" is good enough for you and the people you play, more power to you. Doesn't seem like a great argument to me, but at least you now have to justify refusal rather than me having to justify inclusion. LOW is standard now, bury your head in the sand and hope it goes away if you want.

MWHistorian wrote:
I'm not offended, I just think your approach of "play it my way or get out" is one of the reasons I left 40k so I want to point it out so others don't make the same mistake. (Also, again you've mischaracterized my position. I never said anything about OP gak. In fact, I said my army could have taken super heavies with little problem. If you don't even take the time to understand my position, you can't really argue against it effectively.)
All that talking and you still didn't answer my question.
Would you have people like me play a game they find to be unfun even when the rulebook says both players have to agree?

This is a non-argument because you've quit 40k, but I'll humour you. I mischaracterised your position because you didn't state it. In answer to your question, if you absolutely refuse to play LOW under any condition, I would suggest that you play a different edition without LOW (some of my gaming group play 6th pre-escalation/ SA), or a different game. Clearly 40k is headed in a direction you don't like, so time for something new (which you have already done, which leaves me a little baffled as to why we're having this discussion). Of course I can't force you to play me, but as I've stated above, onus on you to explain why you won't play my legal list. If you come to me for a game of 7th, expect to possibly face my LOW.

Which explains why so many people are leaving 40K.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Melevolence wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:
I'm not offended, I just think your approach of "play it my way or get out" is one of the reasons I left 40k so I want to point it out so others don't make the same mistake. (Also, again you've mischaracterized my position. I never said anything about OP gak. In fact, I said my army could have taken super heavies with little problem. If you don't even take the time to understand my position, you can't really argue against it effectively.)
All that talking and you still didn't answer my question.
Would you have people like me play a game they find to be unfun even when the rulebook says both players have to agree?

This is a non-argument because you've quit 40k, but I'll humour you. I mischaracterised your position because you didn't state it. In answer to your question, if you absolutely refuse to play LOW under any condition, I would suggest that you play a different edition without LOW (some of my gaming group play 6th pre-escalation/ SA), or a different game. Clearly 40k is headed in a direction you don't like, so time for something new (which you have already done, which leaves me a little baffled as to why we're having this discussion). Of course I can't force you to play me, but as I've stated above, onus on you to explain why you won't play my legal list. If you come to me for a game of 7th, expect to possibly face my LOW.

Just for the record, I did state my position, in the first post I wrote in this thread.

I was a fluffy player that didn't like them because they imbalanced the game and made it into something I didn't enjoy playing. My SOB army had plenty of meltas to take them out, that wasn't the problem. It was the style of game they created that I didn't like.

MWHistorian wrote:

Just for the record, I did state my position, in the first post I wrote in this thread. ]I was a fluffy player that didn't like them because they imbalanced the game and made it into something I didn't enjoy playing. My SOB army had plenty of meltas to take them out, that wasn't the problem. It was the style of game they created that I didn't like.

Apologies if I missed it. This is actually an argument I can get behind. You're essentially saying "Listen, I've tried LOW and just didn't find it fun because the game was all about whether or not I could take down the LOW. If I did, I won, if I didn't, I lost. They're not all overpowered, and I could build an anti-LOW list if I wanted, but I prefer a more tactical game, would you mind if we skipped the LOW?" Perfectly reasonable, as long as you let me use LOW on occasion.

Does it trouble me that you've quit 40k? Definitely. I love this game, it's been a big part of my life since I was a kid, and I want to see it healthy. Your thread on what people quit 40k for made for very sad reading. Personally I love the freedom 7th brings, but I do understand that not everyone feels this way.

Blanket bans (not just of LOW but of anything) really annoy me, even more so when people haven't even given it a go. I'm a big fan of narrative games, and have come up against people who won't even consider it. Not even try it once. I find this ignorant, and frustrating, especially as 90% of the time I play their type of game.

I might want to give my titan the odd run out (not every game, I'm a big fan of variety). What's wrong with that? Lots of people on this thread wouldn't even consider it, despite a clear shift towards this becoming standard, and the arguments against being hypocritical and full of holes (essentially "it doesn't fit my vision"). Much of the anti-LOW sentiment also seemingly comes from bitter former fanboys or super competitive players, neither of whom I have much time for. I've even been accused of being TFG WAAC for even suggesting using LOW (laughable as I'm probably one of the most fluff orientated, anything goes, play for fun 40k player you could come across).

40k is about compromise as many have said. The vast majority of the time I play non-narrative non-LOW games to keep other people happy (despite rules being on my side). Surely I should get to play 40k my way too on occasion?

 MWHistorian wrote:
It's the style of game that LOW create that I don't like. My SOB had plenty of melta coming from different directions to deal with LOW.

Right on.

I would have no issues with Big Damn High-Point Models if they were as interesting to play against as regular armies. But they seem decrease the amount of dynamism and decision-making, resulting in a less interesting game overall.

(That line of logic also applies to things like Riptides and Wraithknights, which I also think have made the game less interesting to play).