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.

 TheSilo wrote:
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.

how can GW add anything to the game past core mechanics then?

lots of people enjoy the things you do not specifically because they do what you say they do.

not saying you are wrong to not like them, and you have the option to play games without that stuff still, just as every single other game gets housruled locally (xwing, WMH, STAW, fantasy, 40k, literally, every single table top game has local players adapt to suit the particular wants of that one game)

this edition has actually really nerfed characters and death stars, as well as LOW's, a good general with a TAC list will wipe the floor with death stars if they play the game right (IE tarpit or outscore the death star instead of trying to beat it at its own game and table it)

 MWHistorian wrote:

 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.

You actually never explained why you dont like them, reading comprehension indeed.

Unless its the old "PUG" games fallback which you're implying that people that play warhammer are incapable of negotiating how to play a game in real life.

 MWHistorian wrote:
"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?

its a negative term, and it doesnt literally mean "someone defending something" it means somone who apologizes for somthing that is inexcusable.

I notice you still have not actually made any relevant points regarding how the "haters" hate on every single change and addition since 2nd edition...

same people complain about SC's about flyers about EVERYTHING... they just want to complain, and sperad their complaining to those of us who actually enjoy the game.

you dont like the game, dont play it, or play it how you DO LIKE IT.. no one is forcing you to include SC"s, flyers, or LOW's if you dont want to play with or against them.

stop pretending that you are being forced to play a game you do not like, and take some personal responsability for yourself and eitehr stop playing the game you dont like, stop complaining about it, or just play it how you want to play it and accept that not everyone wants to play it the way you do.

 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.

No the LoWs are not all the same, but the problems that both MWHistorian and Wayne have said were the reasons for disliking playing with / against LoWs is common to all of them: they have such a huge point cost are such a large portion of the army that playing with / against them turns the game into kill / avoid the LoW and that is boring for them.

So please tell me what intricacies of the rules are they missing that somehow will turn their opinions around?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

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?

Knowing how a single unit will generally operate in a game is completely different from predicting the outcome of the game itself. If you don't understand this simple premise... well...

 easysauce wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
"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?

its a negative term, and it doesnt literally mean "someone defending something" it means somone who apologizes for somthing that is inexcusable.

I notice you still have not actually made any relevant points regarding how the "haters" hate on every single change and addition since 2nd edition...

same people complain about SC's about flyers about EVERYTHING... they just want to complain, and sperad their complaining to those of us who actually enjoy the game.

you dont like the game, dont play it, or play it how you DO LIKE IT.. no one is forcing you to include SC"s, flyers, or LOW's if you dont want to play with or against them.

stop pretending that you are being forced to play a game you do not like, and take some personal responsability for yourself and eitehr stop playing the game you dont like, stop complaining about it, or just play it how you want to play it and accept that not everyone wants to play it the way you do.

a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjist/
noun
noun: apologist; plural noun: apologists

a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
"an enthusiastic apologist for Communism in the 1920s"
synonyms: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent,

 easysauce wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
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.

how can GW add anything to the game past core mechanics then?

lots of people enjoy the things you do not specifically because they do what you say they do.

not saying you are wrong to not like them, and you have the option to play games without that stuff still, just as every single other game gets housruled locally (xwing, WMH, STAW, fantasy, 40k, literally, every single table top game has local players adapt to suit the particular wants of that one game)

this edition has actually really nerfed characters and death stars, as well as LOW's, a good general with a TAC list will wipe the floor with death stars if they play the game right (IE tarpit or outscore the death star instead of trying to beat it at its own game and table it)

My point is more that the rules used to explicitly say "special characters may be used only in games where both players agree to their use" and if they were over 100 points there was usually a restriction to only use them in games over 2,000 points. Whereas now, players will often criticize an IG list that doesn't include Pask or an allied Coteaz.

PhantomViper wrote:

 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.

No the LoWs are not all the same, but the problems that both MWHistorian and Wayne have said were the reasons for disliking playing with / against LoWs is common to all of them: they have such a huge point cost are such a large portion of the army that playing with / against them turns the game into kill / avoid the LoW and that is boring for them.

So please tell me what intricacies of the rules are they missing that somehow will turn their opinions around?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

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?

Knowing how a single unit will generally operate in a game is completely different from predicting the outcome of the game itself. If you don't understand this simple premise... well...

Obviously you dont understand that yourself since you're able to forsee every scenario involving a LOW being in the game.

I'm not here to change opinions, I'm just looking for ones that arent hyperbole sky is falling hypothetical scenarios, yknow actual reasons on why they believe LOW is bad.

If what you said is true that they dont like playing against one giant unit, thats perfectly fine. But to extrapolate into saying the entire idea is bad and thats a fact and you're unable to disagree with that, as I;ve never seen a forum with lines in the sand quite like Dakka gets to drawing those lines in the sand, thats the problem

I'm ok with "I dont like X because of Y", I take issue with "I dont like X because of Y, therefore the entire thing is ruined completly"

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 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.

No the LoWs are not all the same, but the problems that both MWHistorian and Wayne have said were the reasons for disliking playing with / against LoWs is common to all of them: they have such a huge point cost are such a large portion of the army that playing with / against them turns the game into kill / avoid the LoW and that is boring for them.

So please tell me what intricacies of the rules are they missing that somehow will turn their opinions around?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

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?

Knowing how a single unit will generally operate in a game is completely different from predicting the outcome of the game itself. If you don't understand this simple premise... well...

Obviously you dont understand that yourself since you're able to forsee every scenario involving a LOW being in the game.

I'm not here to change opinions, I'm just looking for ones that arent hyperbole sky is falling hypothetical scenarios, yknow actual reasons on why they believe LOW is bad.

If what you said is true that they dont like playing against one giant unit, thats perfectly fine. But to extrapolate into saying the entire idea is bad and thats a fact and you're unable to disagree with that, as I;ve never seen a forum with lines in the sand quite like Dakka gets to drawing those lines in the sand, thats the problem

I'm ok with "I dont like X because of Y", I take issue with "I dont like X because of Y, therefore the entire thing is ruined completly"

I don't like LOW because I think they're too big for the game and I don't find them fun. That's my opinion. It hasn't nothing to do with playtesting every scenario or power levels. It's just a personal preference. If you can't accept that, then I don't know what else to say.

Our beef comes from the idea that something we find unfun is becoming more common in the game, thus lessening our fun.

PhantomViper wrote:
No the LoWs are not all the same, but the problems that both MWHistorian and Wayne have said were the reasons for disliking playing with / against LoWs is common to all of them: they have such a huge point cost are such a large portion of the army that playing with / against them turns the game into kill / avoid the LoW and that is boring for them.

But we understand that!
That's why people tell them to ask their group NOT to play LoWs if they don't like it.
If, at your FLGS, you are really unable to find a person that wants to play without LoW's it means that you are the only one who hates them.
And in that case: Sucks to be you.

At the moment people are acting as if they have a playgroup with 10 people who all hate LoWs and are forced to include them in the army.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Our beef comes from the idea that something we find unfun is becoming more common in the game, thus lessening our fun.

And that becomes an issue if you are saying that GW is deliberately dividing the customers because they aren't letting you have it your way.
Making statements like that makes other people feel as if you think you are a more important customer/player than others.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
If what you said is true that they dont like playing against one giant unit, thats perfectly fine. But to extrapolate into saying the entire idea is bad and thats a fact and you're unable to disagree with that, as I;ve never seen a forum with lines in the sand quite like Dakka gets to drawing those lines in the sand, thats the problem

I'm ok with "I dont like X because of Y", I take issue with "I dont like X because of Y, therefore the entire thing is ruined completly"

I think you're the one doing a bit of extrapolating. I could be wrong, but most of what I've read and what I've written in this thread is not "it is objectively bad" but rather "it is subjectively bad and IMO it is bad".

There's nothing psychic about saying a game where a large portion of the points are consumed by 1 or 2 models will be a game that either revolves around that model/s or revolves around avoiding that model/s.

It is then simply the opinion of me and obviously several other people that this is not good for us. It might be good for some people, I don't think it's been suggested otherwise... which is why I think the rules should be written such that there is a clear and basic core and then modular blocks for allies, LoW, fliers, etc so people can build up to the game they want rather than being a convoluted mess of everything where players have to trim away to get down to the game they want to play.

I also think it would be of benefit to you to just assume what you read is opinion rather than fact unless it is stated as such. Most of what I write is opinion rather than fact, sometimes I forget to say that but I think it's typically obvious when something is opinion rather than fact and thus I usually don't bother fixing it... I'd suggest many posters are the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
No the LoWs are not all the same, but the problems that both MWHistorian and Wayne have said were the reasons for disliking playing with / against LoWs is common to all of them: they have such a huge point cost are such a large portion of the army that playing with / against them turns the game into kill / avoid the LoW and that is boring for them.

But we understand that!
That's why people tell them to ask their group NOT to play LoWs if they don't like it.
If, at your FLGS, you are really unable to find a person that wants to play without LoW's it means that you are the only one who hates them.
And in that case: Sucks to be you.

At the moment people are acting as if they have a playgroup with 10 people who all hate LoWs and are forced to include them in the army.

At the end of the day different groups make 40k in to the game they want it to be up until they can no longer do that and they quit. This is nothing exceptional.

What we (or at least I) am discussing is having it such that the core rules are better written to support different modes of play (rather than the player having to take the initiative and ban/house rule things) so that more people can enjoy the game for longer.

I'd like to see 40k become a much more modular ruleset, rather than being "one rules to rule them all". The gamers MAKE the game modular, no doubt, but I'd like to see it actually written in a more modular sense so the gamers can get on with playing instead of arguing/banning/house ruling things that should be better laid out in the uber-expensive rules we buy.

Well then we'd get in the situation where people would comlain they have to keep even more sets of rules around if everything was broken into optional supplements.

And then the same arguments of "I want to use my Flyer supplement, I want to use my LOW supplement, I want to use my Monstrous Creature Supplement" etc, would pop up if everything was modular and there were very basic core rules.

I still feel having everything in one source is the better way to go.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Well then we'd get in the situation where people would comlain they have to keep even more sets of rules around if everything was broken into optional supplements.

And then the same arguments of "I want to use my Flyer supplement, I want to use my LOW supplement, I want to use my Monstrous Creature Supplement" etc, would pop up if everything was modular and there were very basic core rules.

I still feel having everything in one source is the better way to go.

I disagree; I find it better overall to ask to use Flyers, LoW etc, than to have them included by default and have to have someone ask to not use them.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Well then we'd get in the situation where people would comlain they have to keep even more sets of rules around if everything was broken into optional supplements.

I never said they had to be separate supplements. I'd be happy enough if they were part of the main rulebook. Or even if they were separate books, GW could stand to actually write some proper rulebooks that aren't half fluff for the purpose of gaming so people don't have to worry about carrying multiple books because the books aren't epic tomes of stuff completely useless to the game.

And then the same arguments of "I want to use my Flyer supplement, I want to use my LOW supplement, I want to use my Monstrous Creature Supplement" etc, would pop up if everything was modular and there were very basic core rules.

I know, but IMO it would still be a better way to go then having a convoluted core rules and people arguing over what part of the core rules they want to cut out.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Well then we'd get in the situation where people would comlain they have to keep even more sets of rules around if everything was broken into optional supplements.

And then the same arguments of "I want to use my Flyer supplement, I want to use my LOW supplement, I want to use my Monstrous Creature Supplement" etc, would pop up if everything was modular and there were very basic core rules.

I still feel having everything in one source is the better way to go.

I disagree; I find it better overall to ask to use Flyers, LoW etc, than to have them included by default and have to have someone ask to not use them.

I would prefer to play with like-minded people than having others have arbitrary control over what I find fun.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I never said they had to be separate supplements. I'd be happy enough if they were part of the main rulebook. Or even if they were separate books, GW could stand to actually write some proper rulebooks that aren't half fluff for the purpose of gaming so people don't have to worry about carrying multiple books because the books aren't epic tomes of stuff completely useless to the game.

So you want a core rule book, with all the options to play the game in it, but the only one small part of it is mandatory. Something like a chart of things to take that are optional, but only say....1 HQ and 2 units of troops are actually required to play a game?

Let's calm down the apologist/hater rhetoric. It's perfectly fine to dislike a game, and even trash talk it. It's also perfectly fine to love a game and build it up. Just because someone is attacking a game that you like doesn't mean that they're attacking you; I have friends that love certain games that I dislike, but we simply don't play those games.

Deep breaths, folks. It's OK!

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So you want a core rule book, with all the options to play the game in it, but the only one small part of it is mandatory. Something like a chart of things to take that are optional, but only say....1 HQ and 2 units of troops are actually required to play a game?

Oh are we back on this 1 HQ and 2 troops thing again? Great... coz that was such a productive topic.

What I want is a book that has a big section labelled "core rules" that includes all the basic rules to play the game and then "advanced rules" the first sentence of which is something like "These are additional rules you can use to expand your game, discuss which sections of the advanced rules you would like to use with your opponent" which include fortifications, allies, fliers, LoW and possibly other things that aren't coming to mind right now.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So you want a core rule book, with all the options to play the game in it, but the only one small part of it is mandatory. Something like a chart of things to take that are optional, but only say....1 HQ and 2 units of troops are actually required to play a game?

Oh are we back on this 1 HQ and 2 troops thing again? Great... coz that was such a productive topic.

What I want is a book that has a big section labelled "core rules" that includes all the basic rules to play the game and then "advanced rules" the first sentence of which is something like "These are additional rules you can use to expand your game, discuss which sections of the advanced rules you would like to use with your opponent" which include fortifications, allies, fliers, LoW and possibly other things that aren't coming to mind right now.

Well before this paragraph here, you were pretty much describing the 7th ed BRB. But this clarifies what you actually want immensly

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

I would prefer to play with like-minded people than having others have arbitrary control over what I find fun.

So does EVERYONE in this thread. That isn't unique to your position.

We all have different ideas about what's fun.

 kronk wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

I would prefer to play with like-minded people than having others have arbitrary control over what I find fun.

So does EVERYONE in this thread. That isn't unique to your position.

We all have different ideas about what's fun.

True, but at what point is it ok for one persons idea of 'fun' to trump another person's idea of 'fun'. Or are people incapable of negotiating something both would find 'fun'?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

I would prefer to play with like-minded people than having others have arbitrary control over what I find fun.

So does EVERYONE in this thread. That isn't unique to your position.

We all have different ideas about what's fun.

True, but at what point is it ok for one persons idea of 'fun' to trump another person's idea of 'fun'. Or are people incapable of negotiating something both would find 'fun'?

Negotiating is part of the issue IMO; no other wargame requires the level of negotiation that 40k does. Most games you just set a point limit and know that whatever you do is going to be likely balanced. 40k though, you have Flyers, LoWs, Fortifications, casual or competitive, etc. all these extra things that you need to agree on to make sure you have a fun game. It seems like you'd need a checklist to give to prospective opponents:

1) Do you want to play casually or competitive? [ ] Casual [ ] Competitive
2) Do you want to play with Lords of War/Escalation? [ ] Yes [ ] No
3) Do you want to play with Flyers? [ ] Yes [ ] No

and so on to make sure that you or your opponent are playing games that are mutually agreeable.

WayneTheGame:

I said something very similar earlier in the thread linky

You absolutely need to have that discussion before the game. If the two players can't agree, time for both to just move on.

However, I was told to STFU and play!

Perhaps its my local area thats spoiling me, but I've never had to get into legal style game negotiations myself.

Does this actually happen in this detail?

A member of our group came up with a check list for pickup games:

1. How many points?
2. Unbound armies or battleforged only?
3. Will we allow multiple primary detachments?
4. Will we allow multiple allied detachments?
5. Are data slates legal?
6. If so, which ones- formations? Characters? Tetrain?
7. Lords of war?
8. If so, which ones?
9. Allies- will we allow come the apocalypse to ally?
10. Psychic phase- will we comp war charges or powers? If so which ones and how?
11. What set of faqs will we follow?
12. Terrain- will we still use area terrain?
13. Strong point assault- yes or no?
14. Which fortifications and pieces of terrain from strong point assault are legal if so?
15. Which set of supplemental terrain rules from strong point assault will we use?
16. Then finally are you willing to play X army?
17. Random mission out of the book?
18. Are you willing to play maelstrom missions?

Read more: http://warhammer40knwi.hyperboards.com/action/view_topic/topic_id/1774#ixzz38Vc8Bab6

 NecronLord3 wrote:
A member of our group came up with a check list for pickup games:

1. How many points?
2. Unbound armies or battleforged only?
3. Will we allow multiple primary detachments?
4. Will we allow multiple allied detachments?
5. Are data slates legal?
6. If so, which ones- formations? Characters? Tetrain?
7. Lords of war?
8. If so, which ones?
9. Allies- will we allow come the apocalypse to ally?
10. Psychic phase- will we comp war charges or powers? If so which ones and how?
11. What set of faqs will we follow?
12. Terrain- will we still use area terrain?
13. Strong point assault- yes or no?
14. Which fortifications and pieces of terrain from strong point assault are legal if so?
15. Which set of supplemental terrain rules from strong point assault will we use?
16. Then finally are you willing to play X army?
17. Random mission out of the book?
18. Are you willing to play maelstrom missions?

Read more: http://warhammer40knwi.hyperboards.com/action/view_topic/topic_id/1774#ixzz38Vc8Bab6

And IMO the fact 40k is the only "wargame" that needs such a thing is the most distressing thing of all.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I disagree; I find it better overall to ask to use Flyers, LoW etc, than to have them included by default and have to have someone ask to not use them.

In my opinion, and experience, it's much easier to house-rule something out the game than to house-rule something INTO the game.

If I ask permission to do something special, people unconsciously think that I ask this for some WAAC cheesy thing and automatically say "No."
When I ask people to remove something, they assume I dislike it and they actually think about it.

It's also harder to add things to a game, because you are adding the unknown. People don't know what is going to happen, people are scared of the consequences and thus are more likely to deny the request.
Removing things usually isn't a big deal unless they were planning to use the rule themselves.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
At the end of the day different groups make 40k in to the game they want it to be up until they can no longer do that and they quit. This is nothing exceptional.

What we (or at least I) am discussing is having it such that the core rules are better written to support different modes of play (rather than the player having to take the initiative and ban/house rule things) so that more people can enjoy the game for longer.

I'd like to see 40k become a much more modular ruleset, rather than being "one rules to rule them all". The gamers MAKE the game modular, no doubt, but I'd like to see it actually written in a more modular sense so the gamers can get on with playing instead of arguing/banning/house ruling things that should be better laid out in the uber-expensive rules we buy.

Yup, it's what entire society is going towards.
"Pick and choose" is becoming a very popular concept, and especially games like WH40k could benefit from that.

The problem with a core and modulars is that it's too easy to say you only want to play the core.
It's what happened with Forgeworld for years. People didn't know it, they didn't own it and so they said it was not part of the game.
The same goes with LoW's!

And the current change is not aimed at people who already loved or hated them.
It's probably more aimed at the people who are indifferent, they are now more likely to include them.
Those people are probably the biggest group of players out there: People who don't really care and do as the BRB tells them.
That is why I think it's unfair to claim that the playerbase is divided now.
In reality the "neutral" group went from anti-LoW to pro-LoW; that is not dividing the playerbase, it's shifting the majority to the other side.

I run a stompa.

Going to run it tonight in a 1250 pt game just to piss my buddy off.. lol


But seriously, whats the big deal? Yes, they are powerful- but they are also huge targets, and cost a lot of points (most of them) I don't see what the big deal is, plenty of other things in this game are difficult to kill or deal with. Seems like most of the people who complain about LOW/Superheavy are people who don't own one....

Have most of the people complaining ever even played with one, or even against one?

Not a big fan, having a game that involves even a small amount of strategy is hard enough without D weapons going off like nukes all over the place.

Personally I like playing with LoW, I try to field one every game, especially as I usually play 3000 to 4000 points and I have a fair few of them.

I always declare exactly what I'm bringing in advance, but then I don't play pick up games as I simply don't enjoy all the random rubbish that a minority bring to the game with petty rules bickering, cheesy lists, etc. that just make them unpleasant to be around. With all the questions that you have to ask about did you bring this or that in order to get a good match up 40k is headed into the realm of a certain adult community that uses coloured handkerchiefs in pockets to speed up the communication of preferences.

Having a single points intensive model reduces the number of models on the table and speeds up the game, a pure horde at that points level takes ages to play.

However I've played against a Revenant without taking a reciprocal LoW on my side, it did not make for a fair game. This I understood and knew before the game, I wanted to let my friend try out his new toy, however I was quite surprised at how much carnage it caused. The turn it arrived it made back half its points in its first round of shooting. It took me another 3 turns to kill it, mostly because it has such a range of movement I struggled to get appropriate weaponry in LoS and range, I had to redeploy into concentric circles of overlapping fire so that he couldn't escape. In the end a lone Guardsman finished it off and died in the subsequent explosion, so that was suitably cinematic

40k often seems like rock, paper, scissors and that you need to bring something that can deal with each type, flyers are a new type, as are things like the Revenant, you have to have the appropriate tools to fight against them or you will get steamrolled. All Armies need to have access to these appropriate tools, and they currently don't. It will get better over time but we are in a transitional period at the moment while GW rushes (and they are rushing with the new release schedule) to catch up.

 Banzaimash wrote:
Not a big fan, having a game that involves even a small amount of strategy is hard enough without D weapons going off like nukes all over the place.

so you havent read the new rules for D weapons then, thanks for your out of date input. also go look at the number of models that are superheavies that carry multiple D weapons so that they COULD go off like "nukes all over the place". short answer you wont find many if any.

i am still a little confused as to something though, there are lots of people saying "oh that superheavy uses lots of points in 1 block and its not fun to have to kill/avoid it etc". i presume you also refused then games against those deathstar lists? because thats a heap of points in 1 block that needs to be killed avoided, except the deathstars were HARDER to kill ( 2++ re-rollables, armor saves etc) where these vehicles are usually so big they cant even claim cover saves. (eldar titan be damned......)

People don't like deathstars either and see them as a huge flaw of the game, but they're much harder to prevent than saying "no LoW's".