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.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Then don't play against them. Is this a real life situation you're constantly coming in conflict with?

It helps if you follow the context of the posts rather than butt in with an unrelated reply.

 Yonan wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Then don't play against them. Is this a real life situation you're constantly coming in conflict with?

It helps if you follow the context of the posts rather than butt in with an unrelated reply.

Perhaps you should notice I've been posting for most of the thread life.

Threads can have multiple conversations going at once, you missed the context of the one you replied to.

 Yonan wrote:
Threads can have multiple conversations going at once, you missed the context of the one you replied to.

No, I'm quite sure I didnt

text removed.

reds8n

Reported for foul language.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Then don't play against them. Is this a real life situation you're constantly coming in conflict with?

Please try and keep up with the context of the discussion.

We were discussing the why's of people disliking LoW (are they out of scale, are people scared of them, etc) and the end result of LoW being part of the core game (everyone eventually accepting LoW vs LoW fracturing the community).

"Then don't play against them" is a different thread of discussion. When I don't want to play against them, I don't play against them, however we were discussing the why's and consequences of it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Then don't play against them. Is this a real life situation you're constantly coming in conflict with?

Please try and keep up with the context of the discussion.

We were discussing the why's of people disliking LoW (are they out of scale, are people scared of them, etc) and the end result of LoW being part of the core game (everyone eventually accepting LoW vs LoW fracturing the community).

"Then don't play against them" is a different thread of discussion. When I don't want to play against them, I don't play against them, however we were discussing the why's and consequences of it.

People can dislike every unit for any reason, this situation is not unique to just LOW, those items didnt 'break' the community no more than LOW are.

Sorry if I dont jump on the hypothetical doom and gloom train thats trying to be pushed in this thread. Major tourneys here are starting to allow them, they dont seem to think there are issues with LOW. True some types of LOW are weapons are not allowed, but those TO's that send the trend of the rest of the country are saying they're ok. And last I checked BAO sold out, so at least that many seem to be ok with them.

Hyperbole does not an argument make

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Then don't play against them. Is this a real life situation you're constantly coming in conflict with?

Please try and keep up with the context of the discussion.

We were discussing the why's of people disliking LoW (are they out of scale, are people scared of them, etc) and the end result of LoW being part of the core game (everyone eventually accepting LoW vs LoW fracturing the community).

"Then don't play against them" is a different thread of discussion. When I don't want to play against them, I don't play against them, however we were discussing the why's and consequences of it.

People can dislike every unit for any reason, this situation is not unique to just LOW, those items didnt 'break' the community no more than LOW are.

Sorry if I dont jump on the hypothetical doom and gloom train thats trying to be pushed in this thread. Major tourneys here are starting to allow them, they dont seem to think there are issues with LOW. True some types of LOW are weapons are not allowed, but those TO's that send the trend of the rest of the country are saying they're ok. And last I checked BAO sold out, so at least that many seem to be ok with them.

Hyperbole does not an argument make

It's not hypothetical, LOW being included in the game is one of several reasons I left 40k.

 MWHistorian wrote:

It's not hypothetical, LOW being included in the game is one of several reasons I left 40k.

Yes and you've been quite adept at dodging the question I've asked you 4 times in this thread. Which is why I dismiss the relevance of your quitting relating to LOW

The only time I played a LOW was yesterday in a gw. my opponent brought in a baneblade to a 1,000 point game.

I would have killed it turn 2 when my huge ork mob assaulted it, but I forgot boys can use stikk bombs and it survived with two hull points. Ended up glancing and ramming it to death with my battle wagon! Still won though, and now my ork army has an excuse to bring a looted baneblade in the future.


after the game and after the guy left the GW manager looked at me and asked "Who the Hell brings a BANEBLADE to a 1,000 point game?!"

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

It's not hypothetical, LOW being included in the game is one of several reasons I left 40k.

Yes and you've been quite adept at dodging the question I've asked you 4 times in this thread. Which is why I dismiss the relevance of your quitting relating to LOW

Sorry, I've only been checking on and off with my phone. Ask me the question again and I'll do my best to answer it.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

It's not hypothetical, LOW being included in the game is one of several reasons I left 40k.

Yes and you've been quite adept at dodging the question I've asked you 4 times in this thread. Which is why I dismiss the relevance of your quitting relating to LOW

Sorry, I've only been checking on and off with my phone. Ask me the question again and I'll do my best to answer it.

Have you played against a LOW in 7th?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
People can dislike every unit for any reason, this situation is not unique to just LOW, those items didnt 'break' the community no more than LOW are.

No singular event has broken the community, but I'd suggest the community is greatly eroded from what it was back when I started playing and I think LOW being standard will serve to further erode it.

Hyperbole does not an argument make

It's not really hyperbole, just stating what I think may happen. FWIW I don't think it's going to be some giant event where a battle breaks out in the community... THAT would be hyperbole, I simply think it's yet another reason the community will get divided and yet another reason more people will leave 40k. Most people I know don't like big games (anecdotal, I know) where LoW aren't a great addition IMO. I know several people who have cited for leaving the reason that the game is getting too "big", encouraging larger games with larger models. One of the reasons I have stuck with 40k over the years is I like the scale of games you get around 1000-1500pts where LoW aren't well suited, personal opinion I know, but I don't have any opinion other than my own to offer.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

It's not hypothetical, LOW being included in the game is one of several reasons I left 40k.

Yes and you've been quite adept at dodging the question I've asked you 4 times in this thread. Which is why I dismiss the relevance of your quitting relating to LOW

Sorry, I've only been checking on and off with my phone. Ask me the question again and I'll do my best to answer it.

Have you played against a LOW in 7th?

No. I didn't like them in 6th (not due to power levels, that's a problem that's across the board.) and now they're more accepted. When I saw that something I didn't like becoming more common (like Knight armies) I realized that the game was becoming something I didn't want to play. Some people would love it, and that's fine. I think its a polarizing move on GW's part but you're not right or wrong for liking LOW.
They're fun once in a while for special occasions, but I rely on pickup games and I don't find fighting them to be my idea of a fun game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Most people I know don't like big games (anecdotal, I know) where LoW aren't a great addition IMO. I know several people who have cited for leaving the reason that the game is getting too "big", encouraging larger games with larger models. One of the reasons I have stuck with 40k over the years is I like the scale of games you get around 1000-1500pts where LoW aren't well suited, personal opinion I know, but I don't have any opinion other than my own to offer.

Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make!

Most people you know prefer 1k-1.5k games without LoWs.
In that case it shouldn't be so hard to create a LoW-less game at 1000 points, right?

The games I play is either 1.5k with 1 vs 1 or a team-battle with 1000 points per player. They still work as good as before.
The difference is that it's now possible to go bigger. But having the option to go all-out doesn't mean you HAVE to do it.

FW's HH limits LoW to a max 25% of the army, it's a shame the main studio didn't carry that across.

and people left 40k when special characters became "CORE" parts of the game too...

people left when FW became a core part of the game,

same with flyers,

same with ___________ unit.

people left because of landraiders too...


what is your point?

that EVERY single new thing makes a certain # of people rage quit?

while an accurate point, its a bit obvious, some peopel just do not like change and are not mature enough to realise that they dont have to play with rules they dont like... that is the whole point of 40k, play it how you want to play it.

tournaments cater to their player base, and there are ones for LOW and ones without, take your pick.

there is nothing new about LOW being phased in gradually over the years....

I for one, am happy we now get the rules for this stuff for free, and that it has been balanced for smaller games.

if someone doesnt want to play me if I ever bring a LOW army, great, Ill mod my list, or let them play someone else, its no different then not wanting to play against a horde list, a list with special characters, or not wanting to play against a wraith spam list or WS spam list.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

It's not hypothetical, LOW being included in the game is one of several reasons I left 40k.

Yes and you've been quite adept at dodging the question I've asked you 4 times in this thread. Which is why I dismiss the relevance of your quitting relating to LOW

Sorry, I've only been checking on and off with my phone. Ask me the question again and I'll do my best to answer it.

Have you played against a LOW in 7th?

No. I didn't like them in 6th (not due to power levels, that's a problem that's across the board.) and now they're more accepted. When I saw that something I didn't like becoming more common (like Knight armies) I realized that the game was becoming something I didn't want to play. Some people would love it, and that's fine. I think its a polarizing move on GW's part but you're not right or wrong for liking LOW.
They're fun once in a while for special occasions, but I rely on pickup games and I don't find fighting them to be my idea of a fun game.

Ah ha! You've played right into his trap! Now your argument is dismissed because you haven't played against one, so you cannot say that it's a bad thing to have in the game, ergo your argument is dismissed since you can't back it up with facts. That's the normal comeback.

(insert Yu-gi-oh "You've activated my trap card!" meme)

 easysauce wrote:
and people left 40k when special characters became "CORE" parts of the game too...

people left when FW became a core part of the game,

same with flyers,

same with ___________ unit.

people left because of landraiders too...


what is your point?

that EVERY single new thing makes a certain # of people rage quit?

while an accurate point, its a bit obvious, some peopel just do not like change and are not mature enough to realise that they dont have to play with rules they dont like... that is the whole point of 40k, play it how you want to play it.

tournaments cater to their player base, and there are ones for LOW and ones without, take your pick.

there is nothing new about LOW being phased in gradually over the years....

I for one, am happy we now get the rules for this stuff for free, and that it has been balanced for smaller games.

if someone doesnt want to play me if I ever bring a LOW army, great, Ill mod my list, or let them play someone else, its no different then not wanting to play against a horde list, a list with special characters, or not wanting to play against a wraith spam list or WS spam list.

Typical GW apologist, resorts to name calling. This is my shocked face :I


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

It's not hypothetical, LOW being included in the game is one of several reasons I left 40k.

Yes and you've been quite adept at dodging the question I've asked you 4 times in this thread. Which is why I dismiss the relevance of your quitting relating to LOW

Sorry, I've only been checking on and off with my phone. Ask me the question again and I'll do my best to answer it.

Have you played against a LOW in 7th?

No. I didn't like them in 6th (not due to power levels, that's a problem that's across the board.) and now they're more accepted. When I saw that something I didn't like becoming more common (like Knight armies) I realized that the game was becoming something I didn't want to play. Some people would love it, and that's fine. I think its a polarizing move on GW's part but you're not right or wrong for liking LOW.
They're fun once in a while for special occasions, but I rely on pickup games and I don't find fighting them to be my idea of a fun game.

Ah ha! You've played right into his trap! Now your argument is dismissed because you haven't played against one, so you cannot say that it's a bad thing to have in the game, ergo your argument is dismissed since you can't back it up with facts. That's the normal comeback.

(insert Yu-gi-oh "You've activated my trap card!" meme)

I'm aware that that was what he was looking for, but it doesn't matter. LOW aren't suddenly more super fun to play than 6th. "But, but but D weapons were nerfed!" Wow. That's not the point.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

It's not hypothetical, LOW being included in the game is one of several reasons I left 40k.

Yes and you've been quite adept at dodging the question I've asked you 4 times in this thread. Which is why I dismiss the relevance of your quitting relating to LOW

Sorry, I've only been checking on and off with my phone. Ask me the question again and I'll do my best to answer it.

Have you played against a LOW in 7th?

No. I didn't like them in 6th (not due to power levels, that's a problem that's across the board.) and now they're more accepted. When I saw that something I didn't like becoming more common (like Knight armies) I realized that the game was becoming something I didn't want to play. Some people would love it, and that's fine. I think its a polarizing move on GW's part but you're not right or wrong for liking LOW.
They're fun once in a while for special occasions, but I rely on pickup games and I don't find fighting them to be my idea of a fun game.

Ah ha! You've played right into his trap! Now your argument is dismissed because you haven't played against one, so you cannot say that it's a bad thing to have in the game, ergo your argument is dismissed since you can't back it up with facts. That's the normal comeback.

(insert Yu-gi-oh "You've activated my trap card!" meme)

I know right, I forgot this is the internet, where you dont have to know what you're talking about as long as others agree with you

Though it did confirm that the statement was due to a hypothetical than actual experience with said unit(s) in question.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I know right, I forgot this is the internet, where you dont have to know what you're talking about as long as others agree with you

Though it did confirm that the statement was due to a hypothetical than actual experience with said unit(s) in question.

You can't read the rules or look at them and know that you don't like it? Must have experience?

WayneTheGame wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
I know right, I forgot this is the internet, where you dont have to know what you're talking about as long as others agree with you

Though it did confirm that the statement was due to a hypothetical than actual experience with said unit(s) in question.

You can't read the rules or look at them and know that you don't like it? Must have experience?

Because reading the rules is the same as actually putting the rules into effect in a real life situation right?

I believe its "Judging a book by its cover"

 easysauce wrote:
and people left 40k when special characters became "CORE" parts of the game too...

people left when FW became a core part of the game,

same with flyers,

same with ___________ unit.

people left because of landraiders too...


what is your point?

that EVERY single new thing makes a certain # of people rage quit?

while an accurate point, its a bit obvious, some peopel just do not like change and are not mature enough to realise that they dont have to play with rules they dont like... that is the whole point of 40k, play it how you want to play it.

tournaments cater to their player base, and there are ones for LOW and ones without, take your pick.

there is nothing new about LOW being phased in gradually over the years....

I for one, am happy we now get the rules for this stuff for free, and that it has been balanced for smaller games.

if someone doesnt want to play me if I ever bring a LOW army, great, Ill mod my list, or let them play someone else, its no different then not wanting to play against a horde list, a list with special characters, or not wanting to play against a wraith spam list or WS spam list.

I don't think the integration of special characters has been good for the game. It's tough to post an army list these days without the first few recommendations to add special characters. Special characters were originally to throw a unique flavor into a game by adding some new element. Now they're just ways to circumvent core rules or augment death stars.

Flyers still don't fit well. They feel detached from the game, not getting taken out but also not usually earning their points.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Because reading the rules is the same as actually putting the rules into effect in a real life situation right?

I believe its "Judging a book by its cover"

Are you actually implying that the rules for LoWs are so intricate and subtle that people can't possibly fathom how they are going to play without actually playing it? Because if you are, then you would be wrong.

40k's rules are written with 13 year old kids in mind, nothing about them even suggests that an adult of average intelligence that has prior experience with the game will have any problem extrapolating how a LoW will work in the table top by simply reading the rules for it...

PhantomViper wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Because reading the rules is the same as actually putting the rules into effect in a real life situation right?

I believe its "Judging a book by its cover"

Are you actually implying that the rules for LoWs are so intricate and subtle that people can't possibly fathom how they are going to play without actually playing it? Because if you are, then you would be wrong.

40k's rules are written with 13 year old kids in mind, nothing about them even suggests that an adult of average intelligence that has prior experience with the game will have any problem extrapolating how a LoW will work in the table top by simply reading the rules for it...

He also forgets the part where I have played against them. They really haven't changed since 6th. (except the previously mentioned D-weapons nerf.)

 MWHistorian wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
and people left 40k when special characters became "CORE" parts of the game too...

people left when FW became a core part of the game,

same with flyers,

same with ___________ unit.

people left because of landraiders too...


what is your point?

that EVERY single new thing makes a certain # of people rage quit?

while an accurate point, its a bit obvious, some peopel just do not like change and are not mature enough to realise that they dont have to play with rules they dont like... that is the whole point of 40k, play it how you want to play it.

tournaments cater to their player base, and there are ones for LOW and ones without, take your pick.

there is nothing new about LOW being phased in gradually over the years....

I for one, am happy we now get the rules for this stuff for free, and that it has been balanced for smaller games.

if someone doesnt want to play me if I ever bring a LOW army, great, Ill mod my list, or let them play someone else, its no different then not wanting to play against a horde list, a list with special characters, or not wanting to play against a wraith spam list or WS spam list.

Typical GW apologist, resorts to name calling. This is my shocked face :I

.

typical hater behavior.

finds name calling in a post where there is NONE, calls bringing up VALID critisims of players unwillingness to accept new things "being an apologist",

then immediatly hand waives away anything that challenges your "GW is evil" world view and resorts immediatly to name calling (apologist) after chastising someone for the eact same thing...

I dont have to apologise for GW including special characters, flyers, and everything since edition 2 basically, and neither does GW,

people who over react to every change since version 2 are the ones who should apologise.

 easysauce wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
and people left 40k when special characters became "CORE" parts of the game too...

people left when FW became a core part of the game,

same with flyers,

same with ___________ unit.

people left because of landraiders too...


what is your point?

that EVERY single new thing makes a certain # of people rage quit?

while an accurate point, its a bit obvious, some peopel just do not like change and are not mature enough to realise that they dont have to play with rules they dont like... that is the whole point of 40k, play it how you want to play it.

tournaments cater to their player base, and there are ones for LOW and ones without, take your pick.

there is nothing new about LOW being phased in gradually over the years....

I for one, am happy we now get the rules for this stuff for free, and that it has been balanced for smaller games.

if someone doesnt want to play me if I ever bring a LOW army, great, Ill mod my list, or let them play someone else, its no different then not wanting to play against a horde list, a list with special characters, or not wanting to play against a wraith spam list or WS spam list.

Typical GW apologist, resorts to name calling. This is my shocked face :I

.

typical hater behavior.

finds name calling in a post where there is NONE, calls bringing up VALID critisims of players unwillingness to accept new things "being an apologist",

then immediatly hand waives away anything that challenges your "GW is evil" world view and resorts immediatly to name calling (apologist) after chastising someone for the eact same thing...

I dont have to apologise for GW including special characters, flyers, and everything since edition 2 basically, and neither does GW,

people who over react to every change since version 2 are the ones who should apologise.

"Apologist" isn't a negative term, it's just a technical term for "someone defending something." If there's another word that fits better, let me know. And being called immature isn't an insult? Is that a compliment where you come from?

PhantomViper wrote:

Are you actually implying that the rules for LoWs are so intricate and subtle that people can't possibly fathom how they are going to play without actually playing it? Because if you are, then you would be wrong.

40k's rules are written with 13 year old kids in mind, nothing about them even suggests that an adult of average intelligence that has prior experience with the game will have any problem extrapolating how a LoW will work in the table top by simply reading the rules for it...

Yes beause all LOW are the same so a blanket statement covers each in everyone in each and every situation one may ever be used.

Since your implied mastery of visualizing scenarios is so great, I'm sure you always know the outcome of every game you could potentially play without having to play it right?

 MWHistorian wrote:

He also forgets the part where I have played against them. They really haven't changed since 6th. (except the previously mentioned D-weapons nerf.)

In an Escalation game I'm guessing? With escalation rules? Which type of superheavy? Not all are equal. Not all are balanced, much like the rest of 40k.

Sorry if blanket statements dont fly with me

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Are you actually implying that the rules for LoWs are so intricate and subtle that people can't possibly fathom how they are going to play without actually playing it? Because if you are, then you would be wrong.

40k's rules are written with 13 year old kids in mind, nothing about them even suggests that an adult of average intelligence that has prior experience with the game will have any problem extrapolating how a LoW will work in the table top by simply reading the rules for it...

Yes beause all LOW are the same so a blanket statement covers each in everyone in each and every situation one may ever be used.

Since your implied mastery of visualizing scenarios is so great, I'm sure you always know the outcome of every game you could potentially play without having to play it right?

 MWHistorian wrote:

He also forgets the part where I have played against them. They really haven't changed since 6th. (except the previously mentioned D-weapons nerf.)

In an Escalation game I'm guessing? With escalation rules? Which type of superheavy? Not all are equal. Not all are balanced, much like the rest of 40k.

Sorry if blanket statements dont fly with me

Either does reading comprehension. I said quite clearly that it wasn't about power levels.