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.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
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......)

Yeah, I'm not a fan of deathstar lists either. I don't "refuse" games because of deathstars the same way I don't "refuse" games just because of superheavies, but I might ask my opponent if they mind not using them or if there's another person around I can play who doesn't have deathstars then I'll be more inclined to play them.

Deathstar units are mostly a 40k fail than a good feature IMO.

you can equally say NO to both for the same reasons... there is no difference between them in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yonan wrote:
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".

they are no harder to prevent.. you have the same basis in the rules to prevent them. you can say no to anything.... so i dont understand your response

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
you can equally say NO to both for the same reasons... there is no difference between them in the rules.

You can equally say no to both in the sense you can say no to anything. But one of them pretty simply comes under the heading "superheavies" or "LoW", the other is a side effect of list construction, what one person calls a deathstar someone else might not, so no, it's not really "equally" IMO.

Sure, you can still say no to both, and like I said, I do tend to avoid games that revolve around singular expensive units.

Basically, the point is, if your question is "If you don't like LoW what about deathstars???" The answer is "deathstars suck but this is a thread about LoW so that is mostly what we're talking about".

so what your saying is "dont mention deathstars" cos thats not fair.

sorry but they do suck. but if by naming convention i can say my LOW isnt a LOW its just a big tank, then ok cos thats the same way that your person may decide an internet deathstar isnt a deathstar...
Deathstars arent a side effect of list construction any more than adding a baneblade or a warhound, both are parts of list construction done in full knowledge of what your adding

but it seems its ok to run screamerstar and THAT is preferable to a LOW because it has a higher model count. but i know what id prefer to come up against. (and it doesnt involve a unit of daemons...)

..and not all superheavies / LOW are even close to equal. SO a blanket "NO LOW" takes out far many more interesting units than it bans annoying ones.

Playing with a macharius is not much different, points sink wise, than playing with a large unit of assault terminators. Except the assault terminators are a ton more survivable and will likely deal much more damage...

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
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".

they are no harder to prevent.. you have the same basis in the rules to prevent them. you can say no to anything.... so i dont understand your response

Peoples definitions of death stars vary. Lords of War are a FoC slot. One is straight forward and gets some friendly fire as baneblades for example are largely fine (I fething love baneblades). The other is not straight forward and will cause a lot of arguing over what is and isn't a death star.

I don't play since 7th, and when I did we didn't need a LoW slot to take one, just as I didn't need unbound to take CSM + IG + Daemons in friendly games. You can do whatever you want in friendly games, but in pick up games and tournaments you need easy modifications to rules like "no unbound" "no LoW" etc. Not "You can take this HQ but you can't join it to that unit and you can't roll for this power unless your list doesn't include that"... damn that would get messy fast.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
so what your saying is "dont mention deathstars" cos thats not fair.

I'm not saying it can't be mentioned, I'm just saying that's why it's not mentioned.

sorry but they do suck. but if by naming convention i can say my LOW isnt a LOW its just a big tank, then ok cos thats the same way that your person may decide an internet deathstar isnt a deathstar...

Erm, no, a LOW is a LOW because it takes up a LOW slot, a superheavy is a superheavy because it has the unit type superheavy. "Deathstar" is a community created term, so different communities and different individuals can have different definitions of it (or may never have heard about it at all).

Deathstars arent a side effect of list construction any more than adding a baneblade or a warhound, both are parts of list construction done in full knowledge of what your adding

They're a side effect of list construction because they usually aren't a model, they require several units that work together in some way (that in some cases it debatably might not have been intended by the writers). A Baneblade or a Warhound is a single model, taken in a single slot, with a specific unit type. It's not a side effect of list creation in the same way as most deathstars. Most deathstar constituents can be taken individually and aren't actually all that bad, thus it is the list construction that creates a deathstar.

but it seems its ok to run screamerstar and THAT is preferable to a LOW because it has a higher model count. but i know what id prefer to come up against. (and it doesnt involve a unit of daemons...)

It seems ok??? Where did you read that? Now you're just making stuff up to support a point that doesn't exist, both Yonan and I specifically said we don't like deathstars either (can't speak for everyone who doesn't like LoW, but of those that have replied):

Yonan wrote:People don't like deathstars either and see them as a huge flaw of the game...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Yeah, I'm not a fan of deathstar lists either...

Deathstar units are mostly a 40k fail than a good feature IMO.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:The answer is "deathstars suck...

LoW/Super Heavies are, obviously, touchy subjects. I believe I posted a while back about my experience with a Imp. Knight. They are a part of the game, and I overall, looking back, didn't mind the game against such a beast. It was difficult, but it wasn't a BAD thing. I mean, playing Orks, I expect I won't be winning TOO many games as it is. Again...that game was against the old Dex too...so maybe I'd do better now with a better book.

As it stands right now, because I enjoy this game, I wouldn't turn down someone who brought their LoW/super heavy. I would, however, ask them to allow me to refine my list a little, to better suit myself for what will undoubtedly be an steeper uphill battle than I was expecting anyway. If anything, I'd add my Stompa to my list, and have a great time blowing everything up with Supa Rokkits! WHOOOOO!!!!

Are LoW/Super Heavies something I'd want to run or face ALL the time? Of course not. But once in a while, we all want to watch the table burn. And thats not such a bad thing. I am a little happy my Stompa rules are in my Codex, and I could field it if I really, really wanted too. I don't need to use the photocopied page from my local store's apoc book so I could make my list ahead of time before the big monthly apoc game.

As others have said, they require a little...discussion pre-game. Pick up games can be risky. I'm spoiled in that any games I play are all pre-discussed over Facebook before either of us head over to the store, and typically our games are arranged several days in advance. Not many opportunities for in store games, since the store caters to all forms of tabletop, and some days are almost exclusive for Magic players.

LoW can add a new dynamic to the game, IF you let them. They are intimidating, and some are obviously more powerful and daunting than others. Since I play Orks, I get my mind into the Orkish mindset, and decide...I want to kill dat and use it fer scrap!

Melevolence wrote:
LoW can add a new dynamic to the game, IF you let them.

I don't deny they do add a different dynamic, but IMO they should be limited to large games or specific scenarios in smaller games so that we don't just end up always playing 1000-2000pt games that revolve around a single model.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
LoW can add a new dynamic to the game, IF you let them.

I don't deny they do add a different dynamic, but IMO they should be limited to large games or specific scenarios in smaller games so that we don't just end up always playing 1000-2000pt games that revolve around a single model.

Oh, I agree. Thats basically what the rest of my post was stating, minus point ranges. They are fun, VERY fun, when used in full agreement and for scenarios/campaigns. I also feel they do fit best in Apoc sized games, where it would seem more likely they would send out their most expensive tools and weaponry, unless the world NEEDED to be claimed (Campaign). I wouldn't feel comfortable fielding a Stompa in a 2k or less game unless previously agreed upon. It would be difficult for most people to stop even a Stompa if they weren't prepared, and to me, it isn't as satisfying to win with such a sneaky tactic. I'd let my opponent know in an Orky fashion dat we be bringing da stompy! Dat way dey can bring their stompy! And our stompy can fight and prove who is da best!

Melevolence wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
LoW can add a new dynamic to the game, IF you let them.

I don't deny they do add a different dynamic, but IMO they should be limited to large games or specific scenarios in smaller games so that we don't just end up always playing 1000-2000pt games that revolve around a single model.

Oh, I agree. Thats basically what the rest of my post was stating, minus point ranges. They are fun, VERY fun, when used in full agreement and for scenarios/campaigns. I also feel they do fit best in Apoc sized games, where it would seem more likely they would send out their most expensive tools and weaponry, unless the world NEEDED to be claimed (Campaign). I wouldn't feel comfortable fielding a Stompa in a 2k or less game unless previously agreed upon. It would be difficult for most people to stop even a Stompa if they weren't prepared, and to me, it isn't as satisfying to win with such a sneaky tactic. I'd let my opponent know in an Orky fashion dat we be bringing da stompy! Dat way dey can bring their stompy! And our stompy can fight and prove who is da best!

I don't really feel it is any more difficult to deal with (most) superheavies than it is to deal with an equivalent points number of heavy armour (that is, my IG army will deal with it fine, my Tyranid army thanks to the changes in "Smash" will tend to struggle).

The main thing I don't like is that, in a smaller game, the game revolves around it. It's fun once in a while, but shouldn't be a standard thing. Hell, I remember back in the late 90's playing games of Epic 40k where we just plonked down the biggest Titan from each army and had a crack at killing it, yeah, it was fun, no, I don't want every game to be like that.