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.

Agree that low is part of the game. Though you can refuse to play LOW of course, I know people who refuse to play tau and eldar.

Kangodo wrote:
4. Can we drop the word "legal"? The BRB tells us to agree on what units we play. Banning a LoW is just as legal as NOT banning them.

Just like banning tactical squads is just as legal as not banning them. The issue here isn't the argument that you're allowed to refuse to play against anything you don't want to play against, it's the claim that LOW are somehow special and require more permission/agreement/whatever than any other units. It's blatant hypocrisy if you ban LOW but then act like you're entitled to play whatever codex list you want without your opponent vetoing your choices.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
And once again a conversation about 40K circles around to balance.

I have no philosophical objection to a big, scary unit in a 40K list.

Personally, I don't have an issue with many of them, certainly I'd happily take a crack at most of the Guard and Legion Superheavies, but when you consider the LoW slot also comprises such a litany of broken OPness as the aforementioned Transcendent C'Tan, Revenant Titan etc, which I just don't think would be any fun to play with my real world collection of models (unlike the hypothetical model collection we have on the Internet where the right unit for any given situation magically pops into being, painted and based, when the conversation demands it.)

So then you're confronted with a choice, do you draw a very convoluted, squiggly line around which units are acceptable to you, and which aren't, and then hand your opponent a shopping list of what you will and won't play (which frankly would come across as more of a douche move than outright exclusion to me) or simply say no LoW?

40K is a lurching, wheezing mess of a game, but it isn't irredeemable, as long as everyone is pulling in the same direction. What it doesn't need is people beating other players around the head with the rulebook in order to make other people have "fun" the "right" way.

It sucks that it has to be this way, but the only way the game works is with serious player modification, that's simply how it is, and giant man children plaintively wailing "but...the ruuuuules" don't help anyone. If an opponent isn't keen, then either accept it, or find another way to make it work. If it's appropriate, why not offer to lend it to them to field against you? If they're more familiar with it, maybe they won't object to using it in future games. Because if it's there because you love the model, you're still seeing it on the table. Of course, if you're just trying to shoehorn in a disproportionate advantage, perhaps you'll be less keen.

Yes, I agree with this.

Part of the point of 40K is to be able to play with behemoth war machines. Everyone likes to play the occasional mega game. That is why Apocalypse was produced. But that shouldn't happen every day, they don't really fit in the game.

It is just a pity that GW had to screw it up by spoogeing everything into the core rules.

how often in real world pug games are people REALLY coming up against the broken LOW? i imagine its pretty damn rare tbh


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
4. Can we drop the word "legal"? The BRB tells us to agree on what units we play. Banning a LoW is just as legal as NOT banning them.

Just like banning tactical squads is just as legal as not banning them. The issue here isn't the argument that you're allowed to refuse to play against anything you don't want to play against, it's the claim that LOW are somehow special and require more permission/agreement/whatever than any other units. It's blatant hypocrisy if you ban LOW but then act like you're entitled to play whatever codex list you want without your opponent vetoing your choices.

and i agree with peregrines sentiments riiight here.

for some reason LOW get special treatment when it comes to vetoing, where as any other broken combo is codex based and sacrosanct.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
And once again a conversation about 40K circles around to balance.

I have no philosophical objection to a big, scary unit in a 40K list.

Personally, I don't have an issue with many of them, certainly I'd happily take a crack at most of the Guard and Legion Superheavies, but when you consider the LoW slot also comprises such a litany of broken OPness as the aforementioned Transcendent C'Tan, Revenant Titan etc, which I just don't think would be any fun to play with my real world collection of models (unlike the hypothetical model collection we have on the Internet where the right unit for any given situation magically pops into being, painted and based, when the conversation demands it.)

So then you're confronted with a choice, do you draw a very convoluted, squiggly line around which units are acceptable to you, and which aren't, and then hand your opponent a shopping list of what you will and won't play (which frankly would come across as more of a douche move than outright exclusion to me) or simply say no LoW?

40K is a lurching, wheezing mess of a game, but it isn't irredeemable, as long as everyone is pulling in the same direction. What it doesn't need is people beating other players around the head with the rulebook in order to make other people have "fun" the "right" way.

It sucks that it has to be this way, but the only way the game works is with serious player modification, that's simply how it is, and giant man children plaintively wailing "but...the ruuuuules" don't help anyone. If an opponent isn't keen, then either accept it, or find another way to make it work. If it's appropriate, why not offer to lend it to them to field against you? If they're more familiar with it, maybe they won't object to using it in future games. Because if it's there because you love the model, you're still seeing it on the table. Of course, if you're just trying to shoehorn in a disproportionate advantage, perhaps you'll be less keen.

Yes, I agree with this.

Part of the point of 40K is to be able to play with behemoth war machines. Everyone likes to play the occasional mega game. That is why Apocalypse was produced. But that shouldn't happen every day, they don't really fit in the game.

It is just a pity that GW had to screw it up by spoogeing everything into the core rules.

how often in real world pug games are people REALLY coming up against the broken LOW? i imagine its pretty damn rare tbh

Without wanting to be over emotive.

Statistically, the odds of someone being run over by a drunk driver are very small. If it happens to me, it will still suck.

It doesn't mean that the community as a whole shouldn't take steps to try and make sure it never happens to anyone.

The fact that GW have total control over their "universe" in the sense of the 40K ruleset, and they're apparently content to allow it to persist in the state where anyone can be mown down at any time, even though they could stop the problem incredibly easily says what about their attitude to their product and their customers?

It's not about being broken! I have played against a LoW and I won.
It was just the most freaking boring game of WH40k I have ever played in my entire life.
All of that caused by a LoW that took up over 50% of his points.

 Peregrine wrote:
Just like banning tactical squads is just as legal as not banning them. The issue here isn't the argument that you're allowed to refuse to play against anything you don't want to play against, it's the claim that LOW are somehow special and require more permission/agreement/whatever than any other units. It's blatant hypocrisy if you ban LOW but then act like you're entitled to play whatever codex list you want without your opponent vetoing your choices.

They don't require any more permission.
They require the same amount of permission as any other unit.
And no permission = no permission.

PS. Thank you for explaining what others are arguing.. I'm sure it's totally not about the legality even though he used the word 'legal' more often than a lawbook.

"Legal" in the context of 40k is becoming an increasingly meaningless term. Each game kind of needs to be an agreement on what you're going to do vs what is actually legal. For many people, LOW are on the "do not want" side of the agreement, for various reasons.

 azreal13 wrote:


So then you're confronted with a choice, do you draw a very convoluted, squiggly line around which units are acceptable to you, and which aren't, and then hand your opponent a shopping list of what you will and won't play (which frankly would come across as more of a douche move than outright exclusion to me) or simply say no LoW?

40K is a lurching, wheezing mess of a game, but it isn't irredeemable, as long as everyone is pulling in the same direction. What it doesn't need is people beating other players around the head with the rulebook in order to make other people have "fun" the "right" way.

It sucks that it has to be this way, but the only way the game works is with serious player modification, that's simply how it is, and giant man children plaintively wailing "but...the ruuuuules" don't help anyone. If an opponent isn't keen, then either accept it, or find another way to make it work. If it's appropriate, why not offer to lend it to them to field against you? If they're more familiar with it, maybe they won't object to using it in future games. Because if it's there because you love the model, you're still seeing it on the table. Of course, if you're just trying to shoehorn in a disproportionate advantage, perhaps you'll be less keen.

Nonsense. The game works perfectly fine without player modification. Again, this internet fallacy that the game requires huge amounts of negotiation before playing and that PUGs are impossible. The only games I've played so far have been straight out of the rulebook [including LoW] and I've experienced no issues at all. Imposing restrictions and house rules upon others [seemingly before even trying it out first] because you don't like the direction the game is headed and want to force people to play it the way you want it to be played does not mean it is broken.

The biggest disagreements I've experienced have been when negotiating restrictions and house rules because everyone has their own views on what the rules should be. The problems are created by people playing games developer. Of course players can invent their own way of choosing armies. If they want, instead of dice, they can use paper scissors stone, or read chicken entrails. However the easiest way to avoid disagreement is to use the rules as published.

Again, the two main ways for choosing armies are Battle-forged [including LoW] and Unbound, and have pages dedicated to how to use them [as well as pages dedicated to how to use superheavies]. And you're suggesting it's unreasonable for me to want to use these rules? I am imposing on you? If you think it's unreasonable for me to want to use superheavies, and the pages of rules have no significance, how do you think someone new to the hobby would approach building their army? My money is on them using either Battle-forged or Unbound. With LoW.As Peregrine already stated, LoW are just as valid as tactical squads. However there's the hypocrisy that it's okay to refuse to play against one, but completely unreasonable to refuse to play against the other.

Also, your assumption that those who take LoW do it in order to curb stomp their opponent. Reading the pro-LoW posts, the majority of the reasons for taking them are fluffy or aesthetic. 95% of the time you're actually gimping yourself by taking a LoW. And yes, I would have no problem at all letting someone use my Warhound [as long as they don't drop it], and even offered to jointly fund my Guard playing friend buying a Baneblade

In a tournament, there are clear rules posted about what games will be played. By signing up for that tournament, you are tacitly subscribing and submitting to those rules. That's your social contract. It's necessary for the tournament to work.

But a pickup game of 40k isn't like that. It's just for the fun of the moment- of the game itself. If the game isn't going to be fun, then it's a failure. And if you think it's a success because you had fun (though the opponent didn't), then you're being selfish. And most people are- but can't we at least aspire to something better?

I don't own any LOWs, and I don't think I'd put my foot down and refuse them either. I'll wait and see. But it'd be nonsensical for me to condemn someone for not wanting to play against them. I don't need the game, and neither do they. We can go our separate ways as adults and see what else is available.

Why on earth would someone try to enforce some sort of uniformity? Are they trying to "purify" 40k? Are they trying to colonize it with "their kind" of players? "I have chosen to embrace the changing style of the game, and I have chosen that you shall also! Previous styles of enjoying the game are no longer allowed!"

As for the correct usage of "check your privilege": I think Kronk's point was that before you dismiss claims of offense, you need consider the offended, not the offender.. If I regularly clear the board with my LoWs, I might naturally see no problem with it, because I always have fun. But the other person, who has to endure hours of futility? His is the more valuable perspective.

Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.

My only beef is with things not being included in the darn codex. Put it in there if they want to include it but geez. Otherwise...

 Jancoran wrote:
Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.

So orks can take a superheavy but nobody else can, simply because GW didn't put the rules in the book that you want them to? How exactly is that fair to anyone who isn't an ork player?

 Jancoran wrote:
Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.

My only beef is with things not being included in the darn codex. Put it in there if they want to include it but geez. Otherwise...

So in other words you've allowed Ghaz and the Stompa?

 Jancoran wrote:
Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.

My only beef is with things not being included in the darn codex. Put it in there if they want to include it but geez. Otherwise...

Another flawed way of looking at things, if I am understanding your intention correctly. Even Forge World has a list of units that can be included as LoW now and have had it apparently since 6th. Restricting the codex means anyone without a 7th release, everyone but Orks, is now out in the street. Escalation is half of a system as well with the options in there being, frankly, awful. GW has a range of books outside of 'Codex: Army X' that all have legal rules bound by the same restrictions as anything else. If it's in the rules, allow it. Be sure that the people signing up understand that LoW are allowed in all of their forms and if they have no way of handling that, they can back out of the tournament.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

Again, the two main ways for choosing armies are Battle-forged [including LoW] and Unbound, and have pages dedicated to how to use them [as well as pages dedicated to how to use superheavies]. And you're suggesting it's unreasonable for me to want to use these rules? I am imposing on you? If you think it's unreasonable for me to want to use superheavies, and the pages of rules have no significance, how do you think someone new to the hobby would approach building their army? My money is on them using either Battle-forged or Unbound. With LoW.As Peregrine already stated, LoW are just as valid as tactical squads. However there's the hypocrisy that it's okay to refuse to play against one, but completely unreasonable to refuse to play against the other.

Also, your assumption that those who take LoW do it in order to curb stomp their opponent. Reading the pro-LoW posts, the majority of the reasons for taking them are fluffy or aesthetic. 95% of the time you're actually gimping yourself by taking a LoW. And yes, I would have no problem at all letting someone use my Warhound [as long as they don't drop it], and even offered to jointly fund my Guard playing friend buying a Baneblade

I am one of those players jumping into 7th almost brand new. I'm building a brand new Eldar army alongside friends of mine that are just getting into it and all of my models I currently have are from 3rd Edition. So starting from scratch, LoW are in my 1500pt list and even larger LoW are in my 2000. Because I can look at it with fresh eyes and learn an army thinking about LoW and not have to crowbar in the slot to my existing armies, maybe that's why I don't mind it. I don't like LoW, but I'm also okay with them being fielded and I expect myself to have an answer to them when I get to the points costs where they appear at. That's part of the game that I'm jumping back into and just another bit for me to learn. I didn't complain about fliers and I'm not complaining about Titans.

I've only fielded my hierophant once in a 2000 point 2 v 1. Fun game. They knew in advance that it was being used. In a small game with no prior warning it's a silly idea. We have a thing that it will only come out for special occasions or if someone gets too cocky with the banter

 Jancoran wrote:
Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.

My only beef is with things not being included in the darn codex. Put it in there if they want to include it but geez. Otherwise...

Hint: GW explicitely allowed every 40k-legal LoW to be fielded in their publications.

I like LOWs. I don't play them at low points unless both I and the opponent agree on it, but I love to occasionally field my baneblade or add a Knight detachment to my army for some fun.

If you hate them - it's okay - they're tought nuts and can ruin your day if you didn't prepare for facing them, but they're very cool and can look fantastic with properly painted army and the cool factor is most important in my local meta. Nobody's spamming the cheese, there was no taudar here, our only Daemons player doesn't like the idea of daemon factory - I play in perfect environment.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.

My only beef is with things not being included in the darn codex. Put it in there if they want to include it but geez. Otherwise...

Hint: GW explicitely allowed every 40k-legal LoW to be fielded in their publications.

Actually, they gave you permission to play ANY model you have. (Unbound)

How do Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, Baneblades, and Riptides barely fit on the table?

 40k Wargamer wrote:
How do Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, Baneblades, and Riptides barely fit on the table?

Small table?

 Jancoran wrote:
Im allowing Lords of War in my next tournament that are included in the Codex.

My only beef is with things not being included in the darn codex. Put it in there if they want to include it but geez. Otherwise...

right now Orks are the ONLY faction with a 7th edition Codex. this'll change over time but there are no shortage iof Lords of war to be found in Escalation. which I suspect will still be a worthwhile source as even if they released a new guard codex, I can't see them putting the Baneblades VARIENTS in (thats a lot of pages)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 40k Wargamer wrote:
How do Wraithknights, Imperial Knights, Baneblades, and Riptides barely fit on the table?

good question, especially in light that of those 4 things named the land raider actually takes up more table space then 3 of them

I love the lords of war, I play the armored battle group and they fit rite in. I feel that for a pick up game a simple hey I am bringing a LOW can you handle that, do you need to adjust your army for it? if we cant come to an agreement then we both move on, if I cant scare up another game then I drop the lord of war and play him as such. the idea is to have fun playing for both players in this situation and a simple heads up should be given.

a tournament well if the LOW are allowed prepare for them I do not owe you a heads up nor do I expect one. I still want a fun game for both players nothing sucks more than facing the guy who rubs your face in it as his screamer star just mows through your army while you can do nothing about it. its the luck of the draw that I faced that army but at least try and make the atmosphere fun to be there. we spend far to much money, time on this hobby to not enjoy it.

you want to spend 1500 points on a titan in a 2k tourney well good luck to you I can still win by killing the rest of your army and claiming only a couple objectives I don't think it can kill my whole army in the game time allowed maybe im wrong but we will see. at the same time people look at me bringing 9 lemuns as un fun at times and that can be just as bad as a titan at times. in a pick up I am looking for a fun game and will turn down a game if I feel that it will not be a fun time due to match up, or the player as I do not like playing against certain people because of there attitude.

LOW are part of the game and should be but when they are on the table in a fun game common sense has got to be part of the match up as well. taking on a new player with limited models and experience with no chance of dealing with one back out, offer to prop up his army with extras what have you. common sense and courtesy are just as much a part of the game as the battle.

The transcendent C'tan is no more broken than a lot of combinations already allowed in 40k without LoW. Like Beaststar! Drop pod assault and Imperial knights.

And here's where I'd put my Lord of War...if I had one!

I really liked the lord of skulls, put it into a battle versus a knight and it got dealt to in cc. I've been rather disenchanted since then.

In my experience (with a Baneblade), players are hindering themselves if they field a LoW in smaller point games (< 3000pts), because that's most of your firepower shooting from one location, making it easier for the opponents to get cover saves from everything. Also the opponent is able to spread out enough that even the Apocalyptic Blast doesn't do as much as it would in bigger games.

So I fully agree with jasper76, that at least most Lords of War are liabilities.

Shew, I must say, I consider myself very lucky to have the gaming group I have. Its not large, but we are always open to try new things just to see, and if its seriously broken, we don't use it again.

The biggest problem with Lords of War is they are not all created equal. For example, the Chaos unique super heavies (ie, the ones where there are no loyalist equivalent) are typically overpriced by a fair bit, with a surprising lack of ranged Destroyer weapons. Eldar super heavies, on the other hand, are generally under-priced and loaded to the gills with ranged Destroyer weapons. Even with the 7th edition nerf to D weapons, those things still make a mockery of vehicles and non-character models.

Personally, I don't mind if somebody brings a Super Heavy, as long as they don't mind that I update my list to either A) bring one myself, or B) add units to potentially deal with it. I do have one caveat, don't bring a Super Heavy to a game less than 1500. Some of the more common Super Heavies such as Baneblades and Stompas can prove to be very difficult to have even a small chance against at lower points costs.

Exactly. The lord of skulls is not worth 888pts (plus the pts for the good guns). Giving it "khorne's sacred number for points cost to emphasize how KHORNE it is" is fun for about five minutes. How much are revenants? I was fortunate to ally with an eldar player in an apoc game and it tore s**t up, nothing could hit it and it was dropping 4 d plates a turn. I figure it must be at least 1000pts?

pax_imperialis wrote:
Exactly. The lord of skulls is not worth 888pts (plus the pts for the good guns). Giving it "khorne's sacred number for points cost to emphasize how KHORNE it is" is fun for about five minutes. How much are revenants? I was fortunate to ally with an eldar player in an apoc game and it tore s**t up, nothing could hit it and it was dropping 4 d plates a turn. I figure it must be at least 1000pts?

I think the Revenant is around 900 and some change. Eldar have several cheaper options that are pretty obnoxious in their own right, and most of them are armed with the same (or similar) D weapons and titan holofield the Revenant has.

Personally, I don't think LOW belong in the standard rules. They should have been in a separate book IMO, but then I suppose less would be sold. It's just that I feel like as Ravenous D posted earlier, the LOW is either destroyed before it can make a difference or the other player is not prepared for it, at which point it dominates.

As for discussing it before the game, well, I think that in real life that's a recipe for friction. Let's say one player wants to use their LOW and their opponent thinks it won't be fun. If the LOW user gets their way, the anti-LOW player is going into the game with their mood soured, and maybe they're going to lose and consider it a waste of their time. If the anti-LOW player gets their way, the person who handed over a wad of cash for the thing and spent time painting it is understandably unhappy. My problem is with the way that GW have put these contentious units into the main rules, but then (upon realising that some people just won't want to use LOW) effectively thrown up their hands and said "We don't know how to handle this, sort it out for yourselves!" If they had been in a separate Apocalypse-esque book, or were restricted to certain sizes of game, there would at least have been some more concrete guidelines. Or, failing that, why didn't they just come out and write something like "LOW are legal in all games, like it or lump it?" That at least would have been better than leaving it to you to deal with.

I'm not inclined to protest about something that's in the main rulebook. Looking at some big superheavy and saying "but the game won't be fun for me" would sound hollow even to my own ears, and even when it's true. So I just accept them. But "if you can't beat them, join them" is one maxim I definitely won't be applying

That's why I use the idea of "Fine, I will play them. But not every single game."

Another way to get rid of them is to simply beat their ass every time and explain them how they could've won if they didn't spend so many points on one single model

 Fezman wrote:
Or, failing that, why didn't they just come out and write something like "LOW are legal in all games, like it or lump it?" That at least would have been better than leaving it to you to deal with.

That's exactly what they did. LOW are explicitly included in the core rulebook and legal in all games. The fact that certain players want them to require special permission doesn't mean that what GW said is in any way unclear.