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.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
My point is not about balance, it's about whether these models contribute to the game. Are they fun? Do they increase the narrative immersion? Do they inhibit casual gamers? Without any restrictions they hurt the 40k experience, and there's plenty of precedent and experience with reasonable restrictions that would improve everyone's overall experience. Just limit the larger models and LoW to battles of 2,500 points or more. It's an easy fix and prevents casual and younger gamers from getting alienated by someone showing up and plopping a warhound titan on the table.

Pretty much this. My very first game of 40k, back in 2nd edition circa 1996 or 1997, was against someone playing Space Wolves with a Warhound Titan which in those days weren't even official as they were made by Armorcast; being a newbie I believed the guy I questioned if it was legal and he said something like "Of course it's legal, they give you a datafax". It was not a fun game having my regular Space Marines wiped out by the Vulcan Cannons and whatever else the Warhound could do (to say nothing of the 2nd edition Space Wolf cheese with Assault Cannon + Cyclone Missile Launcher Wolfguard Terminators). It nearly soured me on playing completely; I just never played that guy again. IIRC I told the store owner that I wasn't thinking of playing again (the guy was supposed to be running the store's 40k nights) and when he asked why I basically stated that playing something like that isn't fun or enjoyable.

That was nearly 20 years ago, and is still true today. That crap belongs in Epic and large games, not any old battle just because it has rules.

Just the other day I was playing a 750 point mission against the Tau. The guy played a riptide and a Farsight Bomb.

Yes, and that shows that GW can't balance worth crap, but has nothing to do with Lords of War. The Riptide is undercosted and OP, and Deathstars in general are garbage. If the game was balanced better they wouldn't be a problem, but they're nothing compared to most LoWs (which are also way OP and unbalanced)

No LoW is overpowered or unbalanced, their inclusion into normal 40k is debatable but comparing a 600 point single tank to a deathstar is disingenuous. LoW's are supposed to be game changers, that's their whole purpose. Deathstars are the poster children for better balance, no single squad of guys like a Farsight bomb should be that powerful, or that DE/Eldar one that has a rerollable 2++ or some gak.

 Jancoran wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
I don't understand the proliferation of massive models and lords of war. I started in 3rd, and at that time you would once in a while get a glimpse in White Dwarf of a custom built titan set up for Games Day or a Thunderhawk as part of a diorama. But nowadays people are trying to field these things in regular 40k battles, not just 30,000 point megabattles. And frankly, I don't get it. Imperial Knights, Wraith Knights, Riptides, Baneblades...these things barely fit onto the table, they don't seem to fit into 40k the game. Is it really fun to carry around one massive tank to the store, put it on the table, roll the die, and then pick it up again having never moved it? There's no strategy in it.

It's the same reason why it's more fun when Rogue Squadron didn't let you play as the Death Star. When Battlefield 1942 didn't let you fly the Enola Gay. When people take these massive point sinks, the game stops being a battle and becomes an arcade game.

Well I don't see the point myself. Play apocalypse. thats where they belong. It just does. Warhammer 40K is like fighting a conventional war. Once it goes nuclear i mean... Only the Enola Gay matters really as a target.

Who says they don't belong anywhere but apocalypse? Because the rules were in apoc? Well the rules are in the main book now, so they belong there too.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
My point is not about balance, it's about whether these models contribute to the game. Are they fun? Do they increase the narrative immersion? Do they inhibit casual gamers? Without any restrictions they hurt the 40k experience, and there's plenty of precedent and experience with reasonable restrictions that would improve everyone's overall experience. Just limit the larger models and LoW to battles of 2,500 points or more. It's an easy fix and prevents casual and younger gamers from getting alienated by someone showing up and plopping a warhound titan on the table.

Pretty much this. My very first game of 40k, back in 2nd edition circa 1996 or 1997, was against someone playing Space Wolves with a Warhound Titan which in those days weren't even official as they were made by Armorcast; being a newbie I believed the guy I questioned if it was legal and he said something like "Of course it's legal, they give you a datafax". It was not a fun game having my regular Space Marines wiped out by the Vulcan Cannons and whatever else the Warhound could do (to say nothing of the 2nd edition Space Wolf cheese with Assault Cannon + Cyclone Missile Launcher Wolfguard Terminators). It nearly soured me on playing completely; I just never played that guy again. IIRC I told the store owner that I wasn't thinking of playing again (the guy was supposed to be running the store's 40k nights) and when he asked why I basically stated that playing something like that isn't fun or enjoyable.

That was nearly 20 years ago, and is still true today. That crap belongs in Epic and large games, not any old battle just because it has rules.

Just the other day I was playing a 750 point mission against the Tau. The guy played a riptide and a Farsight Bomb.

Yes, and that shows that GW can't balance worth crap, but has nothing to do with Lords of War. The Riptide is undercosted and OP, and Deathstars in general are garbage. If the game was balanced better they wouldn't be a problem, but they're nothing compared to most LoWs (which are also way OP and unbalanced)

In the OP I make clear that I'm talking about large base models (Wraithknights, Riptides, Morkanauts, etc.) and LoW. More generally I'm referring to the fact that there are no restrictions on the use of named characters, large base models, and LoW. I regularly play against a Grey Knights player who fields Draigo and four paladins in 1000 point games. In 3rd edition there undoubtably would have been a restriction saying that you cannot play with Draigo in battles below 2000 points. There would have been a restriction saying that you can only field riptides or wraithknights in battles above 2000 points. There would have been rules against using Farsight in a 750 point battle.

Kronk owns the following super heavies (plus an unpainted Stompa).

Kronk would never play with either outside of an Apoc game, a Planetstrike game, or some specific campaign game.

From what I have gathered reading this thread is honestly a lot of the same when it comes to FW: We don't like it because it OP, doesn't fit into the game ect. Here is the thing, if you refuse to play someone with a legal list who wants to bring a LoW that he bought, built and painted then YOU are coming off more as TFG then he is. I really do not understand the LoW hate and I am not trying to step on anyones toes here but it seems like the gamers from the older editions are the ones leading the charge. Well guess what, Warhammer like life changes, it evolves and things are added and taken away. You don't have to like it but telling someone "sorry I don't want to play you because you have a LoW and I feel that it ruins the game" does not help your case one bit.

I have played several people with Lords of War and I have YET to lose to one of them. Are they nasty? Yes. Invincible? No. Overhyped and a Psychological Weapon? Yes. They are not that hard to destroy and even though some have better loadouts then regular units can take you still fall under three big restrictions IMO:

1) Points Cost: Yes maybe some are undercosted at around 500pts. Fine, in a 1500 point game that means 500pts. of your army are in a SINGLE model. Eggs in one basket anyone? And with Melta making a combeback in this edition you should have some good anti-armor and if you don't your a bad General. This also relates to how back in the day you could only take certain units at certain point levels. Being such an expensive single unit will dictate when you take a LoW as much as the old point restrictions.

2) You get bonuses if your opponent fields a LoW and you do not, so not only do you have to fight less but you even get bonuses added on to help you out against it. On top of that, be FLEXIBLE with your army list and willing to change it up when the meta or other units come your way, a lot of this complaining to me comes from people unwilling to be flexible in my experience.

3) In 40k guess what, these units DO exist, so for you to say "I don't like it" but for it to still be in the games fluff and backstory makes your opinion null and void. It makes PERFECT sense for example, an Iyanden Army to have a few Wraith Constructs. It makes sense a Tau Army has some Riptides to provide Fire Support for the rest of the army. Regardless of your opinion they are in the fluff, people like the models and want to use them (for the look of the model, WAAC, Fluff ect) and will continue to do so.

This to me seems to much like "I don't like it or never fought it before so im going to ban it" which I have heard often in regards to FW. If people would just stop complaining, find ways to deal with the problem and execute a lot of this would go away, the problem I believe stems from a lot of people who are comfortable playing one way and feel they should not have to change up their list or tactics and still expect to win. Again not trying to be harsh but I am definitely tired of people saying they don't want to play against my army (Elysian Drop Troops) for reasons like "I don't like it" or "its OP" when they really are just scared to fight it.

 gmaleron wrote:
From what I have gathered reading this thread is honestly a lot of the same when it comes to FW: We don't like it because it OP, doesn't fit into the game ect. Here is the thing, if you refuse to play someone with a legal list who wants to bring a LoW that he bought, built and painted then YOU are coming off more as TFG then he is. I really do not understand the LoW hate and I am not trying to step on anyones toes here but it seems like the gamers from the older editions are the ones leading the charge. Well guess what, Warhammer like life changes, it evolves and things are added and taken away. You don't have to like it but telling someone "sorry I don't want to play you because you have a LoW and I feel that it ruins the game" does not help your case one bit.

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?

 kronk wrote:
Kronk owns the following super heavies (plus an unpainted Stompa).

Kronk would never play with either outside of an Apoc game, a Planetstrike game, or some specific campaign game.

Spoiler:

nice Kronk i have one thats very similar.


i have this lot and TBH i dont expect to use them in every game but i do expect that if i wanted to i wont face a wall of BS to use them. its not that any are crazy OP they are just decent, the BaneBlade for example is 3 LR in 1. the warhound (Pre 7th) if it had 2 TL Destructors was a tough sell... now though with the new rules for D weapons... its just not as tough...

pics for fun. crazy flash makes the blue waaay more cyan.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
From what I have gathered reading this thread is honestly a lot of the same when it comes to FW: We don't like it because it OP, doesn't fit into the game ect. Here is the thing, if you refuse to play someone with a legal list who wants to bring a LoW that he bought, built and painted then YOU are coming off more as TFG then he is. I really do not understand the LoW hate and I am not trying to step on anyones toes here but it seems like the gamers from the older editions are the ones leading the charge. Well guess what, Warhammer like life changes, it evolves and things are added and taken away. You don't have to like it but telling someone "sorry I don't want to play you because you have a LoW and I feel that it ruins the game" does not help your case one bit.

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?

Fun for you or fun for your opponent? Your idea of fun may not necessarily be your opponents idea of fun, everyone is different.

 gmaleron wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
From what I have gathered reading this thread is honestly a lot of the same when it comes to FW: We don't like it because it OP, doesn't fit into the game ect. Here is the thing, if you refuse to play someone with a legal list who wants to bring a LoW that he bought, built and painted then YOU are coming off more as TFG then he is. I really do not understand the LoW hate and I am not trying to step on anyones toes here but it seems like the gamers from the older editions are the ones leading the charge. Well guess what, Warhammer like life changes, it evolves and things are added and taken away. You don't have to like it but telling someone "sorry I don't want to play you because you have a LoW and I feel that it ruins the game" does not help your case one bit.

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?

Fun for you or fun for your opponent? Your idea of fun may not necessarily be your opponents idea of fun, everyone is different.

That's exactly my point.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?

Because it's in the rules? The "I don't like it so I'm going to ignore the rules" argument is so flimsy it's laughable. If it was an optional rule then fine, refuse to play against it if you don't like it. LoW are now in the core rules. Ghazkull is now a LoW. Do you refuse to fight against him or are you again going to force people to adhere to your interpretation of the rules and allow him but not others?

Is it fun to play a horde army and sit doing nothing for 30 minutes while your opponent moves all of their models? No, but does that mean I should refuse to play against orks?

You say they don't belong in 40k, I say they do and are a great addition. And I've got the rules on my side.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?

Because it's in the rules? The "I don't like it so I'm going to ignore the rules" argument is so flimsy it's laughable. If it was an optional rule then fine, refuse to play against it if you don't like it. LoW are now in the core rules. Ghazkull is now a LoW. Do you refuse to fight against him or are you again going to force people to adhere to your interpretation of the rules and allow him but not others?

Is it fun to play a horde army and sit doing nothing for 30 minutes while your opponent moves all of their models? No, but does that mean I should refuse to play against orks?

You say they don't belong in 40k, I say they do and are a great addition. And I've got the rules on my side.

It's not a federal law, it's a game. If it's not fun, you don't have to play.

Most LoW are pretty easy to kill actually. Hull points melt away really fast if you keep glancing the vehicle to death every turn. Hell, a squad armed with melta weapons and melta bombs could even kill a LoW like the the stompa in a single turn.

I think people refusing to play against armies that include a LoW is fine, as long as it's an agreement between you and your regular opponents. Pick-up games are a different story. If you walk into a store/club and ask for a game, you best be ready to face the fluffiest of fluffbunny lists or the nastiest cheddar cheesefest that you can imagine. The latter may include a LoW.

I can understand why you'd be against lords of war, but give them a chance. People at my store were scared of knights before I started playing there and all of my opponents so far have been pleasantly surprised that they are not in fact indestructible nor can they manhandle all of their army at once. 12 hull points for as many points as the usual LoW costs honestly isn't that much.

Obviously if you and your friends in your local scene don't like 'em, don't use them. Though I got a feeling that the moment most imperial armies have access to lords of war, they'll change their opinions about the restricion.

Yes and no i sometimes use a lord of war in games as i like the models, there is only one low i wont use outside of apoc and thats a trans ctan hes just to tough. Who would complain against a lord of skulls at around a 1k points it naff or a baneblade at 500-600 thats a lot of points in one big target even my nids arnt worried by them, in the end its in the rules and they can be a major risk/theat but thems tge breaks.

 Mumblez wrote:

I think people refusing to play against armies that include a LoW is fine, as long as it's an agreement between you and your regular opponents. Pick-up games are a different story. If you walk into a store/club and ask for a game, you best be ready to face the fluffiest of fluffbunny lists or the nastiest cheddar cheesefest that you can imagine. The latter may include a LoW.

You are horribly wrong, the latter will not include many LoW, the former will.

Most LoW are so underwhelming, borderline WEAK that only a fluffy list or a "timmy" players ("I want it because its big and cool, who cares its inefficient") will want most of them to appear on their lists.

I'm not afraid of nearly any LoW under the new 7th edition rules that nerfed the D. the only one that I am fawning on is the C'tan, as he's freaking unkillable when the game is too small and the WoW power is insanely good, but I'd play even him at a large game ("large" is 1500 or more in my book) where there is a decent chance to take him out.


I am willing to be most anti-LoW guys never even played against one. Its freaking FUN, especially when they got one and you don't. you get a chance to do a "bigger they are" routine there and have an epic scene of a bunch of guys working at a team to take down a colossal opponent.
And before the blame comes, as it always do every time I stand for LoW being cool-I do not own any. I do not plan to own any. and I would not a taken one to the field even if I could borrow one because I don't like being the big guy.
Same way I don't own, plan to own, or borrow any fortifications, they don't match my style. but I still do want my opponent to field some from time to time, it makes the game more versatile and interesting the more options are out there, the more diverse and concept-shaking the better.

Seriously, its the same thing as happened in 6th with "oh no fliers. I am not going to play against them, yada yada yada..." if anyone would come up with something like that people will laugh at him for being a slow. same will happen with LoW soon enough, and people will learn to accept them as an integral and meaningful part of the game. (nope, not using fliers either...though I might at some point)

I bet there was something that was introduced in 5th too that caused people to throw a fit. the community here seems to love throwing fits. after a while nobody care and the "change resistance" guys pretend that they always thought the new thing is good and were never against it.

Well there wasn't.

There were the usual complaints about pricing and balance, but there was not a whole new section of rules that caused hissy fits.

The reason being that the big new chunks like Apocalypse, that were unpopular with quite a lot of players, were kept as optional add-ons rather than spooged into the main game.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?

Because it's in the rules? The "I don't like it so I'm going to ignore the rules" argument is so flimsy it's laughable. If it was an optional rule then fine, refuse to play against it if you don't like it. LoW are now in the core rules. Ghazkull is now a LoW. Do you refuse to fight against him or are you again going to force people to adhere to your interpretation of the rules and allow him but not others?

Is it fun to play a horde army and sit doing nothing for 30 minutes while your opponent moves all of their models? No, but does that mean I should refuse to play against orks?

You say they don't belong in 40k, I say they do and are a great addition. And I've got the rules on my side.

It's not a federal law, it's a game. If it's not fun, you don't have to play.

Then don't play the game if this bothers you so much, Tyrannosaurs is right when he says they are in the core rules and just because you don't like it you really don't have a leg to stand on when you tell people that you dont want to play it. Also if you are ever entering a tournament or even a game store, and you need to be prepared to potentially fight this because it is in the core rules, I respect your opinion, just realize that it may adversely affect you more often than not as you may come off as TFG if you give the argument of "they don't belong in standard 40k games". Instead of just saying that, adapt to the New World Edition off the game and learn to beat it because it's not going away.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
From what I have gathered reading this thread is honestly a lot of the same when it comes to FW: We don't like it because it OP, doesn't fit into the game ect. Here is the thing, if you refuse to play someone with a legal list who wants to bring a LoW that he bought, built and painted then YOU are coming off more as TFG then he is. I really do not understand the LoW hate and I am not trying to step on anyones toes here but it seems like the gamers from the older editions are the ones leading the charge. Well guess what, Warhammer like life changes, it evolves and things are added and taken away. You don't have to like it but telling someone "sorry I don't want to play you because you have a LoW and I feel that it ruins the game" does not help your case one bit.

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?

Bingo, that is the problem entirely.

Ive been at this hobby for a long time now and every game Ive seen with super heavies outside of apoc go like this:
1) The super heavy murders everything while the other guy shakes his head at why he bothered to play against it
2) The super heavy blows up turn 1 or 2 and the game is over in 45 minutes leaving both players wondering why they bothered to play with/against it.


That hasn't changed. All the stupid rules (allies, formations, multiple detachments) in 40k really need to be in an optional category or in 3000pts+. The game is already suffering from people sick to death of having games go south from factors they have no control of, super heavies just strain that even more especially now that GW is forcing them on you like it should be accepted, and moving other normal units into the LoW slots to normalize it. They aren't fun, I don't find them fun, they provide no challenge or they are completely over bearing.

For you people defending it, you got to see it as a cash grab, and you must see that people are leaving the hobby in droves. Its your willful ignorance why the hobby is continuing the go that the way it is, you're the sycophants that just take it tell GW they are doing a great job.

 gmaleron wrote:
Then don't play the game if this bothers you so much, Tyrannosaurs is right when he says they are in the core rules and just because you don't like it you really don't have a leg to stand on when you tell people that you dont want to play it. Also if you are ever entering a tournament or even a game store, and you need to be prepared to potentially fight this because it is in the core rules, I respect your opinion, just realize that it may adversely affect you more often than not as you may come off as TFG if you give the argument of "they don't belong in standard 40k games". Instead of just saying that, adapt to the New World Edition off the game and learn to beat it because it's not going away.

While your argument is technically valid, you are basically demonstrating why it's a bad thing and why GW was fething stupid to ever put it in the core rules to begin with. It was done deliberately to "force" acceptance of LoWs in standard games of 40k, for exactly the reason you're so vehemently arguing.

Your argument isn't helping your cause, despite being factually correct.

Since I moved away from my gaming group, I've had to resort to pick up games. The few times I had them, the conversation went something like this.

Want to play a game?
How many points?
Book missions or something else?
Tournament-Competitive, fluffy, something else?
Forge World ok?
Escalation or Stronghold assault?
Cool, let's play.

For this addition, I'd add "No Lords of War, ok?" My answer will be "No thanks". If I miss out on some games because of it, no loss.

 Rautakanki wrote:
The idea is good but as ever the point costs of so many are ridiculous in one way or another.

Agreed. Most of the LoW were priced when they were exclusive to Apocalypse, and points didn't really matter so much. Now, you have some pretty bad point discrepancies. Since GW had to know that they were going to be including them in regular 40K, you would have thought they would have put more thought into the points cost.

Apocalypse came out in 2007 though. It was still 4th edition. I doubt GW knew back then they were going to include those units in 7th edition in 2014.

 gmaleron wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?

Because it's in the rules? The "I don't like it so I'm going to ignore the rules" argument is so flimsy it's laughable. If it was an optional rule then fine, refuse to play against it if you don't like it. LoW are now in the core rules. Ghazkull is now a LoW. Do you refuse to fight against him or are you again going to force people to adhere to your interpretation of the rules and allow him but not others?

Is it fun to play a horde army and sit doing nothing for 30 minutes while your opponent moves all of their models? No, but does that mean I should refuse to play against orks?

You say they don't belong in 40k, I say they do and are a great addition. And I've got the rules on my side.

It's not a federal law, it's a game. If it's not fun, you don't have to play.

Then don't play the game if this bothers you so much, Tyrannosaurs is right when he says they are in the core rules and just because you don't like it you really don't have a leg to stand on when you tell people that you dont want to play it. Also if you are ever entering a tournament or even a game store, and you need to be prepared to potentially fight this because it is in the core rules, I respect your opinion, just realize that it may adversely affect you more often than not as you may come off as TFG if you give the argument of "they don't belong in standard 40k games". Instead of just saying that, adapt to the New World Edition off the game and learn to beat it because it's not going away.

You're right. I did stop playing the game because I didn't like the direction 40k was going in. I rely on pick-up games and LOW included in the main rule book was one of the reasons I left.

The group at my LGS uses them from time to time. Those wanting to try one in a game typically bring two lists - one WITH the LoW and one without. That way we can all have fun. I've played against a few IG super-heavy tanks as well as the Khorne Lord of Skulls. I wouldn't want to do it every game, but it was kind of fun trying to strategize around those things without having any LoW of my own. We're all still trying to figure out the new edition so who knows how it will end up, but for now they don't seem to be that big of a deal.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Apocalypse came out in 2007 though. It was still 4th edition. I doubt GW knew back then they were going to include those units in 7th edition in 2014.

It was redone for 6th edition right before Escalation. Also, the Forge World Apoc book was redone in 2013 as well, even listing the super heavies as Lords of War. Heck, even the units in Escalation suffer from wonky pricing (mainly because they were cut and pastes from Apocalypse) and that's what started the whole Super Heavies in regular 40K craze to begin with.

I have 3 stompa, a killbursta tank, a baneblade, a storm blade, and 3 knights.

I love all of them and have most painted. I am careful though about when I use them. I always let my opponents know when I want to use them and we negotiate whether they feel like playing them or not.

I have a Transcendant C'tan and an Obelisk, but I try to only use them if both players want to play with them, or we're doing a special scenario.

 kronk wrote:
Since I moved away from my gaming group, I've had to resort to pick up games. The few times I had them, the conversation went something like this.

Want to play a game?
How many points?
Book missions or something else?
Tournament-Competitive, fluffy, something else?
Forge World ok?
Escalation or Stronghold assault?
Cool, let's play.

For this addition, I'd add "No Lords of War, ok?" My answer will be "No thanks". If I miss out on some games because of it, no loss.

How about you both just follow the rules in the rulebook? Surely for PUGs the best thing to do is follow the rules as published?

Beyond the first two questions you're moving into house rule territory which suits regular gaming groups much better than PUGs, and the Forge World and Escalation questions are meaningless as they're part of standard 40k.

I also wanted to address the argument put forward that LoWs have been banned to help protect new entrants to the game. Surely house ruling against LoW and refuding to allow the player to follow the published rules is going to cause more disillusionment than allowing the new player to have a go at taking down a titan? Also, what if the new player has bought, built and painted their own LoW and then turns up excited to find out they can't use it? Finally, having to play against some of the more broken 'normal' units is going to be more frustrating for the new player than playing against the very killable Low?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Since I moved away from my gaming group, I've had to resort to pick up games. The few times I had them, the conversation went something like this.

Want to play a game?
How many points?
Book missions or something else?
Tournament-Competitive, fluffy, something else?
Forge World ok?
Escalation or Stronghold assault?
Cool, let's play.

For this addition, I'd add "No Lords of War, ok?" My answer will be "No thanks". If I miss out on some games because of it, no loss.

How about you both just follow the rules in the rulebook? Surely for PUGs the best thing to do is follow the rules as published?

Beyond the first two questions you're moving into house rule territory which suits regular gaming groups much better than PUGs, and the Forge World and Escalation questions are meaningless as they're part of standard 40k.

I also wanted to address the argument put forward that LoWs have been banned to help protect new entrants to the game. Surely house ruling against LoW and refuding to allow the player to follow the published rules is going to cause more disillusionment than allowing the new player to have a go at taking down a titan? Also, what if the new player has bought, built and painted their own LoW and then turns up excited to find out they can't use it? Finally, having to play against some of the more broken 'normal' units is going to be more frustrating for the new player than playing against the very killable Low?

The whole point of GW's approach to providing pic'n'mix rules for forging a narrative is to be able to take whatever bits you want and weave them into your game.

Thus it's fine to reject LoW if you don't like them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The whole point of GW's approach to providing pic'n'mix rules for forging a narrative is to be able to take whatever bits you want and weave them into your game.

Thus it's fine to reject LoW if you don't like them.

Where does it talk about 'pick & mix' rules in the rulebook? There are two options with creating a list. Battleforged following the FoC [which includes LoW] or Unbound. Where's the permission to pick & choose rules? Where's the permission to refuse to play against units you don't like? Again, obviously no-one can force you to play a game, but expecting others to disregard the rules in order to fit in with your vision of 40k surely requires a stronger argument than "I don't like it"?

I find this attitude towards the rules very strange. For some reason 40k players have assumed the right to choose which rules to follow. However when playing other games it seems the rules are sacrosanct. All of the issues surrounding PUGs have been artificially created by those who, for whatever reason, refuse to adhere to the rules.

Follow the rules. No problems.

Nope.

LoWs are not a part of the game I fell in love with many moons ago, and they're not a part of the game I want to play.

Well... I say LoWs, but if an Ork player wants to use Maggie, I'm not about to say no.