tyrannosaurus wrote:
I'm glad that there's so many pro-Forgeworld posters on this thread who believe that using FW models should not require any special agreement. I have to ask though, where were you all in the Lord of War threads? If 30k is okay, my titan is ok.

yes! Reaver Titan even. dont care. if you buy the thing and paint it PLEASE bring it anytime. We play 3k games standard though so its a lot more accessible.

Anyone who "refuses" games per se against someone who has taken that much effort to make an army is a bad person. (now if you are using cheap stand in models to emulate so OP netlist that is a different story)

tenebre wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
I'm glad that there's so many pro-Forgeworld posters on this thread who believe that using FW models should not require any special agreement. I have to ask though, where were you all in the Lord of War threads? If 30k is okay, my titan is ok.

yes! Reaver Titan even. dont care. if you buy the thing and paint it PLEASE bring it anytime. We play 3k games standard though so its a lot more accessible.

Anyone who "refuses" games per se against someone who has taken that much effort to make an army is a bad person. (now if you are using cheap stand in models to emulate so OP netlist that is a different story)

Anyone who says anyone else is a bad person for holding different beliefs, is a bad person. (omg, I'm a bad person ?)

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
Just curious, how many folks that are pro-forgeworld in this thread have imperial armies or only imperial armies?

I'm pro-FW, and I only play tau.

 Ashiraya wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:


Great, so you're happy for me to bring my Forge World Titan without any special agreement? I remember you seemed pretty opposed to Lords of War in the past.

FW =/= LoW

I can't really see how one could accept FW and not LoW on the same basis.

Some people don't like LoW.

Is T-Rex unable to understand that super heavies are still super heavies regardless of who makes them? FW stuff, yes. Super heavies, no.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
Just curious, how many folks that are pro-forgeworld in this thread have imperial armies or only imperial armies?

I've played pure-C:SM for 3 years now, and only now getting a Fellblade. Its mainly for our narrative campaign where there will be an apocolypse game or two, so i'd want to be prepared.

Im totally fine if someone wanted to play with their own FW models against me, heck, i'd even play against Thudd guns just for the heck of it. Even if its a LoW, If you wanted to have fun by bringing that, I can respect that fact, having coughed up huge amounts of money and time to bring that beast to the table. Plus it allows me to play against new things i've never played before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:


Great, so you're happy for me to bring my Forge World Titan without any special agreement? I remember you seemed pretty opposed to Lords of War in the past.

FW =/= LoW

I can't really see how one could accept FW and not LoW on the same basis.

Some people don't like LoW.

Is T-Rex unable to understand that super heavies are still super heavies regardless of who makes them? FW stuff, yes. Super heavies, no.

And FW has plenty of non-super heavy units that can be used (like the rapier destroyers and decimator engines). It shouldn't be a blanket ban, FW has plenty of good stuff that isn't "OMG OP please nerf!" One could look to the codices to see OP stuff more often then FW. We all should know about the O'Vesa star, Screamerstar, Seerstar, and Beastpack by now and know how incredible those units were.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Is T-Rex unable to understand that super heavies are still super heavies regardless of who makes them? FW stuff, yes. Super heavies, no.

If FW is fine, then unbound, dataslates, formations, dual CAD, triple allies, super heavies and everything else is fine too.

Now, of course you can agree with someone on specific limitations, but it's still pure house rule without any logical backing to it.

The only "standard" there is outside of what the BRB says is tournaments, and even that should be agreed on.
I tend to consider it as default though, because most people believe in limitations - so I take the standard limitations and expect other players to know them. (1CAD + 1allied)

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Is T-Rex unable to understand that super heavies are still super heavies regardless of who makes them? FW stuff, yes. Super heavies, no.

If FW is fine, then unbound, dataslates, formations, dual CAD, triple allies, super heavies and everything else is fine too.

Now, of course you can agree with someone on specific limitations, but it's still pure house rule without any logical backing to it.

The only "standard" there is outside of what the BRB says is tournaments, and even that should be agreed on.
I tend to consider it as default though, because most people believe in limitations - so I take the standard limitations and expect other players to know them. (1CAD + 1allied)

I don't get your logic. One thing is fine, so everything is fine? No.

Makumba wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I still can't understand why people want to separate FW and GW. It even says Games Workshop on the resin FW sprues.

Because accepting FW means accepting that the game they know has changed. And change is scary for some people, so it's easier to shut it out and not adapt to new things.

I don't know how the game is played in the US, but here people play at stores or at tournaments , who are sponsored by stores. No shop is going to support a brand of models it doesn't sell and which lowers the chance that someone will buy stuff from the store. It is economy not being scared.
Players don't like it because there is little ways to check yourself, if the person using FW rules is actualy using them correctly, because there are so many reprints of their books , experimental rules etc and having them in pdf form makes it even easier to manipulate. FW also makes such gems like the thudd gun, 6th turbo laser armed anything and the game is already imbalanced enough without adding those units.

You must have missed the post where I talked about how pro-FW the shop I play in is, with the owner having quite a bit of it himself. And he runs Rogue Trader events, campaigns and Apoc games. Why is he pro-FW (beyond his own tastes)? Because even if he's not selling you that paticular model, he's going to sell you just about everything else and those supporting sales bring business. From paint, to codexes, to an army to go with whatever you're getting from FW it actually works with his business to support them, even if it costs him some direct sale money, because in the long run he makes more by allowing it in his store than he does if he banned it.

EDIT: And "the game is unbalanced so why let anything else in?" is poor logic. The game is unbalanced so stop taking it so seriously and have some fun! When 40k starts paying out a million dollars in national tournaments I will understand taking it seriously, but until then, it's a game with plastic Space Men, not WWIII.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Is T-Rex unable to understand that super heavies are still super heavies regardless of who makes them? FW stuff, yes. Super heavies, no.

If FW is fine, then unbound, dataslates, formations, dual CAD, triple allies, super heavies and everything else is fine too.

Yes, yes they are. I really can't stand the "need" people have to try and cap rules like they do. Hell if someone wants to run 30 CADs let them! They're handicapping themselves with the extra HQs and troops they need anyways. Are you playing in a tournament with a massive thousand dollar or more cash prize at stake? No? Then lighten up and run wild instead of trying to strip parts off the game!

On Saturday this past week I saw an unbound Riptide army (13 'Tides, about 6 of them FW ones) fighting an IG tank company. You want to know why the IG lost? Poor dice rolls more than anything. Their rolls to hit and wound weren't always the best, and neither were their scatters. But everyone had fun despite one of them losing. And it looked cool as hell too!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

On Saturday this past week I saw an unbound Riptide army (13 'Tides, about 6 of them FW ones) fighting an IG tank company. You want to know why the IG lost? Poor dice rolls more than anything. Their rolls to hit and wound weren't always the best, and neither were their scatters. But everyone had fun despite one of them losing. And it looked cool as hell too!

Well, the IG tank company is basically unbound + bonuses, so it's not really a "fair" comparison. (3000 points with those very cool looking R'varna must have looked damn nice on the table)

I've got nothing against unbound tbh, with all the random stuff there is in the game, from formations to dataslates to ... unbound is probably the most reasonable answer.

I have something against players who want to authorize just the bit of FW they're comfortable with, yet want to pretend LoW or anything else is out of bounds.

If you're going to limit, the only logical limit is 1CAD + 1Allied (ETC, Nova), if not, play everything.

morgoth wrote:
Wanna play anything else than core 40K (BRB, codex, CAD(+allied x1)) ? just ask.

Find any place in the rulebook that defines any such thing as "core" 40k. You won't find it. What you're talking about is a player-created standard for some 3rd party tournament events, not anything defined by the rules in any way. Let's not forget most FW stuff is designed to work within the whole "single traditional FoC" paradigm in addition to the codex or in place of one.

morgoth wrote:

Apparently, lots of people agree on the same definition of "core 40K", even though they do not name it like that.

The bigger tournaments have been sticking to CAD+allied for a while now, I think it's fair to consider that "standard".

And you'll notice most also allow FW too (e.g. BAO)

morgoth wrote:

The only "standard" there is outside of what the BRB says is tournaments, and even that should be agreed on.

And there is no single worldwide tournament standard. What fly's at GW's Warhammer World tournament won't fly at the BAO which won't necessarily fly at the NOVA invitational.

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

On Saturday this past week I saw an unbound Riptide army (13 'Tides, about 6 of them FW ones) fighting an IG tank company. You want to know why the IG lost? Poor dice rolls more than anything. Their rolls to hit and wound weren't always the best, and neither were their scatters. But everyone had fun despite one of them losing. And it looked cool as hell too!

Well, the IG tank company is basically unbound + bonuses, so it's not really a "fair" comparison. (3000 points with those very cool looking R'varna must have looked damn nice on the table)

I've got nothing against unbound tbh, with all the random stuff there is in the game, from formations to dataslates to ... unbound is probably the most reasonable answer.

I have something against players who want to authorize just the bit of FW they're comfortable with, yet want to pretend LoW or anything else is out of bounds.

If you're going to limit, the only logical limit is 1CAD + 1Allied (ETC, Nova), if not, play everything.

I don't know how it wasn't a fair example to bring up, we had one unbound army and one CAD army and the thing that was the biggest reason the CAD army lost was dice rolls. And it still looked cool, and everyone had a good time.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I don't know how it wasn't a fair example to bring up, we had one unbound army and one CAD army and the thing that was the biggest reason the CAD army lost was dice rolls. And it still looked cool, and everyone had a good time.

It's not fair because the Tank Company is an unbound army by nature, it's even better than what you would get as unbound armored force in most codexes because it has bonus's on top of being full of tanks that don't suck.
If you want a meaningful comparison, try a real single CAD army against that TideSwarm. At 3000 points it's bound to just plain suck, as the CAD was originally designed for much smaller armies as a light restriction preventing "All Elites" or "All Heavy Support" armies.



I'm all for it tbh, I just think your example doesn't say "unbound is fair vs CAD". It just says "unbound is fair vs imperial-unbound-cheese-that-was-allowed-before-unbound".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

The only "standard" there is outside of what the BRB says is tournaments, and even that should be agreed on.

And there is no single worldwide tournament standard. What fly's at GW's Warhammer World tournament won't fly at the BAO which won't necessarily fly at the NOVA invitational.

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I don't know how it wasn't a fair example to bring up, we had one unbound army and one CAD army and the thing that was the biggest reason the CAD army lost was dice rolls. And it still looked cool, and everyone had a good time.

It's not fair because the Tank Company is an unbound army by nature, it's even better than what you would get as unbound armored force in most codexes because it has bonus's on top of being full of tanks that don't suck.
If you want a meaningful comparison, try a real single CAD army against that TideSwarm. At 3000 points it's bound to just plain suck, as the CAD was originally designed for much smaller armies as a light restriction preventing "All Elites" or "All Heavy Support" armies.

I say "Tank Company" as it was a codex army will almost all tanks (he had a Heavy Weapons team too, but otherwise he'd filled the army with tanks). It wasn't the FW tank company. Sorry it wasn't clearer.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I say "Tank Company" as it was a codex army will almost all tanks (he had a Heavy Weapons team too, but otherwise he'd filled the army with tanks). It wasn't the FW tank company. Sorry it wasn't clearer.

That's still not a real CAD army, it's imperial cheese pretending to fit CAD when it's all tanks.
To me, it's just as unbound as the Riptide Swarm.

HQ: 1-2 Tank Commander
Troops 2-6 Vet squads in Chimera.
Elites: 0-3 Ogryn squads in Chimera
Fast Attack: 0-3 Hellhound Squadrons
Heavy Support: 0-3 Leman Russ squadrons
LoW: 0-1 Superheavy Tank


How is this not a real CAD army?
The army consists of 4-33 Tanks, and 0-1 Superheavy Tank.

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I say "Tank Company" as it was a codex army will almost all tanks (he had a Heavy Weapons team too, but otherwise he'd filled the army with tanks). It wasn't the FW tank company. Sorry it wasn't clearer.

That's still not a real CAD army, it's imperial cheese pretending to fit CAD when it's all tanks.
To me, it's just as unbound as the Riptide Swarm.

Easy there Tonto. Just because you're not fond of the army doesn't make it cheese, nor does it make it actually unbound. It used a CAD, therefore was a CAD army, agree with it or not.

It's not like IG tank armies of any stripe are exactly stellar in this edition anyway, they're certainly not getting anywhere near top tournament tables.

Still, pretending that a tank only CAD is representative of a CAD army is a bad joke.

Maybe cheese is a big word, but it's still the only army that got to do that for that long while when CAD was the only way to play.

IG aren't the only army where this was possible, for years Eldar armies have often run what effectively are armored companies for maximum effectiveness, stuff like lots of wave serpents backed up by falcons/fire prisms/war walkers with some minimum sized Dire Avenger units to make the Serpents scoring, perhaps a unit if jetbikes or two for objective nabs.

Um, you can't say "CAD loses to unbound" and then when presented with a CAD that does well vs unbound say "well that doesn't count as CAD because of some arbitrary rule that I get to decide."

To say that is to commit the fallacy of moving the goalposts, and is an untenable logical claim.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
Just curious, how many folks that are pro-forgeworld in this thread have imperial armies or only imperial armies?

Tau purist, not even kroot enter my cadres.
My forces are usually led by Ralai (he's thematically awesome, even if impractical.), get tetra marker support, and sometimes assisted by remora drones or sensor towers.

 Vaktathi wrote:
IG aren't the only army where this was possible, for years Eldar armies have often run what effectively are armored companies for maximum effectiveness, stuff like lots of wave serpents backed up by falcons/fire prisms/war walkers with some minimum sized Dire Avenger units to make the Serpents scoring, perhaps a unit if jetbikes or two for objective nabs.

bs.
Until 13 months ago, that was clearly impractical ( I did field it) because the Wave Serpent couldn't do any damage and the DA weren't any better. At 180+ per tank that doesn't do much, it wasn't really competitive.
War Walkers don't compare to AV14, they go down to bolter fire.

morgoth wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
IG aren't the only army where this was possible, for years Eldar armies have often run what effectively are armored companies for maximum effectiveness, stuff like lots of wave serpents backed up by falcons/fire prisms/war walkers with some minimum sized Dire Avenger units to make the Serpents scoring, perhaps a unit if jetbikes or two for objective nabs.

bs.
Until 13 months ago, that was clearly impractical ( I did field it) because the Wave Serpent couldn't do any damage and the DA weren't any better. At 180+ per tank that doesn't do much, it wasn't really competitive.
War Walkers don't compare to AV14, they go down to bolter fire.

Who cares about 13 months ago? We're playing 7th, and your claim that there is no CAD that can beat unbound is bogus NOW, and what happened before 13 months ago is irrelevant.

Don't latch onto his phrase "for years" because whether or not it is wrong, his larger point stands.

morgoth wrote:

bs.

Hrm, not so much really.

Until 13 months ago, that was clearly impractical ( I did field it) because the Wave Serpent couldn't do any damage and the DA weren't any better.

It wasn't always impractical, I played such an Eldar army in 5th (where it worked for the first year or two fairly well). If you go back to 4th edition it was super practical, you saw it all the time because Skimmers were absurdly difficult to kill and had lots of firepower for the time. It was actually still pretty good even for the first year or so of 5E. It's been a pretty commonly capable army for several editions with a gap largely consisting of the second half of 5E only.

War Walkers don't compare to AV14, they go down to bolter fire.

In terms of raw durability against shooting attacks from the front/sides, sure. In terms of bringing huge amounts of firepower where it's needed, not necessarily. That said, holofield skimmers like Fire Prisms certainly do compare with AV14 tanks.

Either way, it's 100% practical now for Eldar to run an Armored Company style army within a traditional FoC with minimal infantry just as it is for IG.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Is T-Rex unable to understand that super heavies are still super heavies regardless of who makes them? FW stuff, yes. Super heavies, no.

But my Titan is made by Forge World. So, you would allow 30k Forge World, which uses a supplement not intended for playing against 40k armies [and also allows the use of superheavies], but you would not allow my 40k Forge World Titan, which is part of the CAD in the main 40k rulebook? You'll need to explain that one a little more as, you're right, I don't understand.

Also, what about primarchs? Would you allow them?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Is T-Rex unable to understand that super heavies are still super heavies regardless of who makes them? FW stuff, yes. Super heavies, no.

But my Titan is made by Forge World. So, you would allow 30k Forge World, which uses a supplement not intended for playing against 40k armies [and also allows the use of superheavies], but you would not allow my 40k Forge World Titan, which is part of the CAD in the main 40k rulebook? You'll need to explain that one a little more as, you're right, I don't understand.

Also, what about primarchs? Would you allow them?

What do want to face less, an army with FW in it, or a reaver?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Is T-Rex unable to understand that super heavies are still super heavies regardless of who makes them? FW stuff, yes. Super heavies, no.

But my Titan is made by Forge World. So, you would allow 30k Forge World, which uses a supplement not intended for playing against 40k armies [and also allows the use of superheavies], but you would not allow my 40k Forge World Titan, which is part of the CAD in the main 40k rulebook? You'll need to explain that one a little more as, you're right, I don't understand.

Also, what about primarchs? Would you allow them?

I view 30k as a separate game though I would try it out at least once. But generally, no, I wouldn't play against 30k.
A FW titan is still a super heavy, so no, I wouldn't play against it.
Primarchs? 30k. So no. If I was playing 30k, then yes.
Stuff intended for 40k? Yes.

Why is it difficult to understand that people can be fine playing against non superheavy FW stuff, and not want to play to against any type of superheavy?

Seems like a perfectly reasonable, logical position to hold.

Enjoying FW products and army lists and non superheavy units doesn't mean you automatically have to like everything superheavy. There is a very distinct different between playing an Eldar opponent with Hornets, and one using a Revenant.

I play 30k, both Imperial Fists and Adeptus Mechanicus and all of the guys I game with don't have a problem with me running them.

30k in my opinion in my opinion is pure Warhammer, the legions are just different enough for flavor, but you don't see the disparity between Riptides and Ork nobz. For the Xenos lover, 30k wouldn't work, but for marine on marine action it doesn't get any better than 30k.

valace2 wrote:
I play 30k, both Imperial Fists and Adeptus Mechanicus and all of the guys I game with don't have a problem with me running them.

30k in my opinion in my opinion is pure Warhammer, the legions are just different enough for flavor, but you don't see the disparity between Riptides and Ork nobz. For the Xenos lover, 30k wouldn't work, but for marine on marine action it doesn't get any better than 30k.

Actually you'll soon be seeing IK and Imperial Army..Armies in the next book, with more Mechanicus and Dark Mechanicus.

And with specific conditions Word Bearers can take Daemons.

morgoth wrote:
If FW is fine, then unbound, dataslates, formations, dual CAD, triple allies, super heavies and everything else is fine too.

Can you link me the UN resolution that says I have to like all of those things if I like FW?
All of these things are decided on an individual level, you cannot say that because someone thinks X is fine, he must also agree with Y.
I personally only have an issue with "SHV's" if I have to face them every game, but I have no problem with any of the others as long as people don't start to 'WAAC'.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
Just curious, how many folks that are pro-forgeworld in this thread have imperial armies or only imperial armies?

I have one Imperial Army tank and 5 or so Necron models from FW.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is it difficult to understand that people can be fine playing against non superheavy FW stuff, and not want to play to against any type of superheavy?

Seems like a perfectly reasonable, logical position to hold

It's perfectly reasonable and everyone understood what they intended.
But sometimes there are people on the internet that, when they have no arguments left, start nitpicking every line you say until you need a solicitor to write down your comments.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Who cares about 13 months ago? We're playing 7th, and your claim that there is no CAD that can beat unbound is bogus NOW, and what happened before 13 months ago is irrelevant.

Don't latch onto his phrase "for years" because whether or not it is wrong, his larger point stands.

I did not make such a claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Seems like a perfectly reasonable, logical position to hold.

You feel it to be right, but it's not logical.
There is no logical argument to move the bar from consensus to +FW and stop it just before LoW.

morgoth wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Who cares about 13 months ago? We're playing 7th, and your claim that there is no CAD that can beat unbound is bogus NOW, and what happened before 13 months ago is irrelevant.

Don't latch onto his phrase "for years" because whether or not it is wrong, his larger point stands.

I did not make such a claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Seems like a perfectly reasonable, logical position to hold.

You feel it to be right, but it's not logical.
There is no logical argument to move the bar from consensus to +FW and stop it just before LoW.

Because they don't like to play with LOW? That's a pretty logical argument.

morgoth wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Who cares about 13 months ago? We're playing 7th, and your claim that there is no CAD that can beat unbound is bogus NOW, and what happened before 13 months ago is irrelevant.

Don't latch onto his phrase "for years" because whether or not it is wrong, his larger point stands.

I did not make such a claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Seems like a perfectly reasonable, logical position to hold.

You feel it to be right, but it's not logical.
There is no logical argument to move the bar from consensus to +FW and stop it just before LoW.

Quite a bit of logic actually. People don't like to play with LoW, and FW has always been legal.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Because they don't like to play with LOW? That's a pretty logical argument.

And liking is a feeling, not based on logic.

morgoth wrote:
There is no logical argument to move the bar from consensus to +FW and stop it just before LoW.

Sure there is. FW units function exactly like codex units, the only "argument" against them is nitpicking about which book they were published in. LoW are functionally very different and make significant changes in how the game plays. So while they're indisputably legal according to GW it's reasonable to not want to play against them.

12 pages so far this time and the same old arguments and impoliteness that got the other threads closed started back on page... One I think. Someone must be asleep at the wheel. lol

To reiterate, I have no problems playing against it. I rather think many of the models are cool. I usually bring extra stuff with me when I play in public. If I see someone pull out a reaver titan, I just tailor my list to match. If a tourney allows it, I just dont participate in that tourney. No because I dont like it, but because it negates the TAC list.

Either way, I'm not going to argue about it. Life is too short.

 Peregrine wrote:

morgoth wrote:
There is no logical argument to move the bar from consensus to +FW and stop it just before LoW.

Sure there is. FW units function exactly like codex units, the only "argument" against them is nitpicking about which book they were published in. LoW are functionally very different and make significant changes in how the game plays. So while they're indisputably legal according to GW it's reasonable to not want to play against them.

Because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a core 40K consisting of only what you find in a shop, i.e. BRB, Codex, and the units mentionned in the codex.
Otherwise, it's really clear that there is core 40K, then DataSlates, then FW supplement, which you can divide in LoW / not LoW if you're really picky. Might as well divide it further. or not.

It's perfectly fine that you feel like that or that you'd like to play with other people who feel like you, it doesn't matter that it's not logical, let it go.

Nobody needs an argument against FW or LoW, let it go.

Be at peace, my brother, play how you feel, and with people who like that feel.

Don't ask of others to actually comply with your vision of the game.

morgoth wrote:
Because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a core 40K consisting of only what you find in a shop, i.e. BRB, Codex, and the units mentionned in the codex.

You're right, I refuse to acknowledge it because it's a concept that you've invented. It's just like how you refuse to acknowledge my definition of "core 40k" that doesn't include Tyranids (I hate them and wish they didn't exist) as anything more than my desired house rules.

Don't ask of others to actually comply with your vision of the game.

This is amusing hypocrisy when you're saying it in a post about how awesome your vision of the game is.

morgoth wrote:


You feel it to be right, but it's not logical.
There is no logical argument to move the bar from consensus to +FW and stop it just before LoW.

First of all, I never said it was 'right'. I just said it was a way some people enjoy the game.

Second, its perfectly logical. If you claim someone's argument is illogical, its generally best if you actually explain why you think that way.

I'll explain it to you how it's logical to like FW, but dislike LoW.

I don't like superheavies for a number of reasons. Therefore, I would generally avoid playing games with LoW (exceptions made to GW's ridiculous HQs becoming LoW for no change in stats). I enjoy a lot of non-SH FW stuff, including fun and fluffy lists. Therefore, I am totally okay with non-LoW FW stuff.

Perfectly logical. If anything is illogical its an argument based around the absurd notion that liking 'X' means I automatically have to like 'Y'. You'll find that some people enjoy this game differently than others.

Now, before anyone jumps down my throat about 'legality', yes, everything is technically 'legal', as far as that term applies to 40k list construction. That doesn't mean I have to play against it, and I would choose to turn down games against LoW more often than not, but readily throw down against a DKOK or Eldar Corsair list.

 Peregrine wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a core 40K consisting of only what you find in a shop, i.e. BRB, Codex, and the units mentionned in the codex.

You're right, I refuse to acknowledge it because it's a concept that you've invented. It's just like how you refuse to acknowledge my definition of "core 40k" that doesn't include Tyranids (I hate them and wish they didn't exist) as anything more than my desired house rules.

I know I'm not the person replied to, but I'd be more than happy to acknowledge your definition of "core 40k", I'd just point out that it is not a common definition The definition that is "core 40k" = rulebook + codices/FAQs is hardly a randomly contrived definition, there are legitimate reasons for wanting it like that even if you don't agree with them.

 Blacksails wrote:

I'll explain it to you how it's logical to like FW, but dislike LoW.

I don't like superheavies for a number of reasons. Therefore, I would generally avoid playing games with LoW (exceptions made to GW's ridiculous HQs becoming LoW for no change in stats). I enjoy a lot of non-SH FW stuff, including fun and fluffy lists. Therefore, I am totally okay with non-LoW FW stuff.

Perfectly logical. If anything is illogical its an argument based around the absurd notion that liking 'X' means I automatically have to like 'Y'.

Logical is a term you can use to describe a conclusion that depends on facts and implications.

Fact: a very large share (95+%) of the population of 40K gamers knows about BRB and Codex and uses those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: a smaller share(maybe a minority) of that population of 40K gamers know about FW stuff, and use those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: within that minority, there exist smaller sub-minorities that like FW models but cannot stand LoW, and even tinier smaller sub-minorities that are fine with Lord Kaldor Draigo and an Imperial Titan but would never play against an Eldar Titan.


You are part of a minority, and you are asking for everyone to join you in that minority.
But you do so without realizing you're actually part of a sub-minority (those who like FW but not LoW) and therefore what you ask for makes little sense.
You are asking that everyone joins your sub-minority, even though it represents the opinion of a very tiny fraction of players.


What would be a lot more logical, and what I was suggesting, is that you would ask people to join you in your large minority group, i.e. accepting everything that is not BRB+Codex with CAD or CAD+.
Then you would have a position that regroups everyone who does not limit themselves to just what you find in a shop, and that opinion would be a lot stronger by being a lot simpler and shared by more people: i.e.

We believe EVERYTHING GW should be considered standard. It makes the game better.

Otherwise, your current position is:

We believe FW miniatures are OK, but unbound is not, dataslates are not, Lords of War are not, etc.

Which has about as much weight as:

We believe unbound is OK, but FW miniatures are not except Lords of War, etc.

Which has a lot less weight than:

We believe BRB+Codex with CAD+allies is OK, the rest is on demand.

An opinion which is both simpler and shared by a lot more players.



Your position is not "logical" in the sense that it only matches that of a tiny minority of players, therefore it does not make sense to offer it as a consensus because it's practically impossible that it becomes a majority opinion.

morgoth wrote:

You are part of a minority, and you are asking for everyone to join you in that minority.

Can you point to the part of my post I said anything along the lines of asking people to join my take on the game?

You are asking that everyone joins your sub-minority, even though it represents the opinion of a very tiny fraction of players.

Once again, can you point to the part of my post I said anything even remotely along those lines?

Please re-read my post and understand what I said.

 Blacksails wrote:

Please re-read my post and understand what I said.

I did.

Your post says it's a perfectly logical position.
Saying it's perfectly logical is asking people to recognize your opinion as more than an opinion.

Asking them to recognize that is also asking them to join you in that belief, to believe that opinion has good reasons to exist.

I did extend the post to the implied request of all the pro-FW anti-LoW because you joined that side of the debate, because there's only one thread and only one debate.

morgoth wrote:


Fact: a very large share (95+%) of the population of 40K gamers knows about BRB and Codex and uses those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: a smaller share(maybe a minority) of that population of 40K gamers know about FW stuff, and use those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: within that minority, there exist smaller sub-minorities that like FW models but cannot stand LoW, and even tinier smaller sub-minorities that are fine with Lord Kaldor Draigo and an Imperial Titan but would never play against an Eldar Titan.

CITATION NEEDED. You don't just get to make factual claims without backing it up.

morgoth:

It's logical because it's used logic. It's logical to play games with FW but without LoW because LoW is not fun to play with/against, and this game is about fun, no? In a game meant to have fun it makes perfect sense to not play with something that is not fun. You seem to have taken the position that you have to have all or none. The thing is, LoWs are often very hard to beat with a TAC list. Thus, not fun. FW items marked as 40k legal are no stronger than normal 40k (And often over-priced. Hazards much?).

Please, stop being purposely obtuse just to support your side, there are plenty of other perfectly reasonable arguments you could use.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Because they don't like to play with LOW? That's a pretty logical argument.

And liking is a feeling, not based on logic.

You don't understand the argument at all.
I dislike playing with LOW, so I wont play with or against them. This is a game for fun. It would be illogical to play something I don't find to be fun.
If you can't understand that then I can't help you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
In the past, FW was most well-known for releasing overpowered units. Which wasn't true, actually, as most of their releases are underpowered, but some examples were ridiculously over the top (e.g. Thudd) and those stood out.

Actually the thudd guns aren't a very good example. In 4th/5th edition (when they were first created) they were a mediocre unit at best, the old artillery rules made them incredibly easy to kill and their only redeeming quality was that they were cheaper than the far superior Griffon. Then 6th edition arrived and brought the sheer idiocy of the new artillery rules, where all of the meatshield crew are T7. All FW did was replace AV 10/10/10 with T7 W2 in the stat line just like the other artillery units (the codex TFC, for example), and even then it took quite a while for people to figure out what had happened.

The eldar warp hunter was a good example as well. It was so over powered for a while. AP2 large template ignores cover. (or maybe it was barrage which isn't much better).

I am happy they fixed it. It was so unfun to play against lol

morgoth wrote:


I did.

It appears you didn't. Or maybe you did, and you just felt like putting words in my mouth and twisting the things I did write into your own fabrication to make a point I never intended to even discuss.

Your post says it's a perfectly logical position.

It is. I can like one thing, and dislike another. Perfectly logical. You have to yet to provide a reason why it isn't logical.

Saying it's perfectly logical is asking people to recognize your opinion as more than an opinion.

No, no it isn't. An opinion is simply just that. Being logical doesn't mean its a fact, it just means there's a reason behind my thinking. Liking one thing and disliking another is totally reasonable when they're two entirely different things.

Asking them to recognize that is also asking them to join you in that belief, to believe that opinion has good reasons to exist.

No, no it isn't. This is a joke right? With argumentation like this, there's no way anyone can make headway with you. You're just going to twist everyone's words to fit your own conclusion. Stop.

I did extend the post to the implied request of all the pro-FW anti-LoW because you joined that side of the debate, because there's only one thread and only one debate.

And that's where you failed. Do not put words into peoples' mouths. Don't extend a post beyond what was written unless its painfully obvious. Do not attempt to turn a complex issue into a black and white, right and wrong, us vs. them debate.

In case you lost track of my original post, I'll remind you that my first post was about how its simple for people to like FW, but dislike LoW. That's it. Its a perfectly reasonable stance to have, and convincing people otherwise is entirely futile and pointless. I'd stop this crusade of yours to convince people of a correct/logical/standard way to play the game and what people should and shouldn't like. Its tiresome.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

morgoth wrote:


Fact: a very large share (95+%) of the population of 40K gamers knows about BRB and Codex and uses those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: a smaller share(maybe a minority) of that population of 40K gamers know about FW stuff, and use those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: within that minority, there exist smaller sub-minorities that like FW models but cannot stand LoW, and even tinier smaller sub-minorities that are fine with Lord Kaldor Draigo and an Imperial Titan but would never play against an Eldar Titan.

CITATION NEEDED. You don't just get to make factual claims without backing it up.

1+1=2, citation needed.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

You don't understand the argument at all.
I dislike playing with LOW, so I wont play with or against them. This is a game for fun. It would be illogical to play something I don't find to be fun.
If you can't understand that then I can't help you.

That's a personal dislike, it doesn't make your POSITION logical, it just makes it logical for YOU.

Some people dislike chocolate, it doesn't make the position "Ban chocolate" a logical position.
Your point of view is exactly as logical as that.

Morgoth, you keep using that word "logical." I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you think what I find to be fun should fit in a mathematical formula, then you're out of your mind.

Yes, it's a personal dislike. That's exactly what I said it was. I dislike LOW. I don't know how to make it clearer than that.

I dislike LOW so I won't play them. End. Done. I don't care if you've taken a semester of Logic 101 and didn't take good notes. Your argument is completely pointless and no one is really sure what you're trying to say.

Are you saying I should play something I dislike because I can't quantify my personal taste with fractal geometry?
That makes zero sense.

(Edit: and I never mentioned banning anything.
And yes, if you present statistical 'facts' you have to back it up.)

morgoth wrote:


1+1=2, citation needed.

Seriously? That's your counter point to Almighty?

Do you wonder why people in this thread aren't taking your points seriously?

 MWHistorian wrote:
I dislike LOW so I won't play them. End. Done.

Good for you, you're an extremist for a minority within a minority. Stop trying to derail this thread that could have been about keeping an open mind in the context of toy miniature soldiers.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

morgoth wrote:


1+1=2, citation needed.

Seriously? That's your counter point to Almighty?

Do you wonder why people in this thread aren't taking your points seriously?

CITATION NEEDED BRO !!!
you can't say people in this thread without a citation !!!

morgoth wrote:

CITATION NEEDED BRO !!!
you can't say people in this thread without a citation !!!

Cute.

morgoth wrote:
Because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a core 40K consisting of only what you find in a shop, i.e. BRB, Codex, and the units mentionned in the codex.

Sisters don't exist at all in a shop. Are the now not "core 40k"? What about Inquisition, as their only book (and all of their unique models) is online? Or Legion of the Damned, who, like Sisters, can't be found in the shop either?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a core 40K consisting of only what you find in a shop, i.e. BRB, Codex, and the units mentionned in the codex.

Sisters don't exist at all in a shop. Are the now not "core 40k"? What about Inquisition, as their only book (and all of their unique models) is online? Or Legion of the Damned, who, like Sisters, can't be found in the shop either?

I do believe they are not part of the core 40K, the 40K that every 40K player knows about.
I do believe they're a "specialist army" that mostly attracts experienced hobbyists.
I think the electronic only is shifting more and more towards being "the norm", but right now, it's still underrepresented.

Every single player I've met knows what Sisters are, even if they've never played them until I bring them to a tournament.

People do read the rulebook and browse the web, you know.

And with such huge amounts of products only available by ordering or, worse, website only... it's hard to say they are a 'specialist' army.

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a core 40K consisting of only what you find in a shop, i.e. BRB, Codex, and the units mentionned in the codex.

Sisters don't exist at all in a shop. Are the now not "core 40k"? What about Inquisition, as their only book (and all of their unique models) is online? Or Legion of the Damned, who, like Sisters, can't be found in the shop either?

I do believe they are not part of the core 40K, the 40K that every 40K player knows about.
I do believe they're a "specialist army" that mostly attracts experienced hobbyists.
I think the electronic only is shifting more and more towards being "the norm", but right now, it's still underrepresented.

Yeah, no. People know who Sisters, the Inquisition and Legion of the Damned are, even if they aren't readily available in your local shop. A brand new player might be a bit caught off guard, but your average player knows of them at least.

That's the thing, sisters are somewhat obscure already.

This whole thread is about fear of the unknown, and IMO, sisters are a lot more unknown than the basic stuff, like your comment on a brand new player shows.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I dislike LOW so I won't play them. End. Done.

Good for you, you're an extremist for a minority within a minority. Stop trying to derail this thread that could have been about keeping an open mind in the context of toy miniature soldiers.

That's extremist at all. Most people now about forgeworld (go to where you play and ask each person if they know about FW, see what happens). Many people don't play with LoW (because it drastically changes the game, and many people prefer to play without it).

morgoth wrote:
That's the thing, sisters are somewhat obscure already.

This whole thread is about fear of the unknown, and IMO, sisters are a lot more unknown than the basic stuff, like your comment on a brand new player shows.

You know what brand new players don't know? EVERYTHING. That's why they're "new players". They're still learning.

I feel you're just trying to shove 40k into neat little compartments it doesn't fit. 40k isn't just "core" and "expanded", nor is it "regular" and "FW". 40k is EVERYTHING. You don't have to play with it all, but it's all 40k.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

morgoth wrote:
That's the thing, sisters are somewhat obscure already.

This whole thread is about fear of the unknown, and IMO, sisters are a lot more unknown than the basic stuff, like your comment on a brand new player shows.

You know what brand new players don't know? EVERYTHING. That's why they're "new players". They're still learning.

I feel you're just trying to shove 40k into neat little compartments it doesn't fit. 40k isn't just "core" and "expanded", nor is it "regular" and "FW". 40k is EVERYTHING. You don't have to play with it all, but it's all 40k.

Hey I'm fine with that too.
I'm just trying to help the misunderstood FW- people realize there's a reason for people not "expecting" them to bring FW to the table.

Sisters aren't really the same as FW. Them being direct only is a more recent happening. Forge World has always been an addition to what you can buy from your local GW, Sisters are the result of GW moving stock they don't move as much to direct only.

I somewhat agree that morgoth has a point with "core 40k" being the codices and rulebook. Back when I was starting 40k there were a lot of armies I hadn't faced because I was new. But often when people would ask me for a game I would go to the store and flip through the relevant codex to get an idea of what that particular army was all about (as a result of getting absolutely pummelled on a few occasions by armies I knew nothing about ).

So I appreciate the idea of a "core 40k" being what you can read about in stores. Of course GW have started to blur that line as well with the moving of stuff to direct only and digital online only.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Sisters aren't really the same as FW. Them being direct only is a more recent happening. Forge World has always been an addition to what you can buy from your local GW, Sisters are the result of GW moving stock they don't move as much to direct only.

"Recent" being more than 6 years ago, since they've been direct only longer than I've been back into 40k (6 years).

Maybe "core 40K" is a bad name, but really if it doesn't have a real book or GW miniatures... I mean come on.

Sisters appear to be in between though, with GW miniatures yet no real book (wtf), I would expect them to move to FW at some point.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Sisters aren't really the same as FW. Them being direct only is a more recent happening. Forge World has always been an addition to what you can buy from your local GW, Sisters are the result of GW moving stock they don't move as much to direct only.

"Recent" being more than 6 years ago, since they've been direct only longer than I've been back into 40k (6 years).

Is it that long? Wow, I really haven't played much recently and GW REALLY hate sisters don't they...

morgoth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

morgoth wrote:


Fact: a very large share (95+%) of the population of 40K gamers knows about BRB and Codex and uses those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: a smaller share(maybe a minority) of that population of 40K gamers know about FW stuff, and use those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: within that minority, there exist smaller sub-minorities that like FW models but cannot stand LoW, and even tinier smaller sub-minorities that are fine with Lord Kaldor Draigo and an Imperial Titan but would never play against an Eldar Titan.

CITATION NEEDED. You don't just get to make factual claims without backing it up.

1+1=2, citation needed.

There's also this thing called the Principa Mathematica where you'd be able to find plenty of evidence that 1+1=2.

Your turn.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Sisters aren't really the same as FW. Them being direct only is a more recent happening. Forge World has always been an addition to what you can buy from your local GW, Sisters are the result of GW moving stock they don't move as much to direct only.

"Recent" being more than 6 years ago, since they've been direct only longer than I've been back into 40k (6 years).

Is it that long? Wow, I really haven't played much recently and GW REALLY hate sisters don't they?

Yup. I got back into 40k in 2008, and it's now 2014. That's 6 years.

morgoth wrote:Maybe "core 40K" is a bad name, but really if it doesn't have a real book or GW miniatures... I mean come on.

Sisters appear to be in between though, with GW miniatures yet no real book (wtf), I would expect them to move to FW at some point.

FW seems to be wanting either nothing to to do with them or is waiting for the studio to figure out what they're going to do with the army before they do anything with them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

morgoth wrote:


Fact: a very large share (95+%) of the population of 40K gamers knows about BRB and Codex and uses those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: a smaller share(maybe a minority) of that population of 40K gamers know about FW stuff, and use those rules as well as the units described within.

Fact: within that minority, there exist smaller sub-minorities that like FW models but cannot stand LoW, and even tinier smaller sub-minorities that are fine with Lord Kaldor Draigo and an Imperial Titan but would never play against an Eldar Titan.

CITATION NEEDED. You don't just get to make factual claims without backing it up.

1+1=2, citation needed.

There's also this thing called the Principa Mathematica where you'd be able to find plenty of evidence that 1+1=2.

Your turn.

I love you.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Your turn.

In order to be considered a 40K player, you need to play 40K.
In order to play 40K, you need the BRB, and one Codex, and some miniatures.
Therefore, 100% of the 40K players know of the BRB and at least one Codex.

Some 40K players own zero FW books and zero FW minis (proof: I don't).
Therefore, there are less FW players than 40K players.

If there were almost as many FW players as 40K players, then FW would be a big part of the GW business, it's not.
Therefore, the share of FW players is expected to be considerably smaller than the share of 40K players (at least 2x smaller for the same economics of scale to not make sense).


Lastly, some FW players enjoy LoW (proof: titans sell).
Therefore, not all FW players are LoW haters and we can conclude that the FW player segment is further fragmented.

Considering the large price tag associated with LoW models, and the fact that FW must run as a business, it stands to reason that they do sell in reasonable amounts.
This alone means that the non-LoW-hating faction is sizeable.

Considering the very high likelihood that other factions exist with as narrow a view as "FW OK / LoW NOK", it stands to reason that that faction is extremely unlikely to be in majority among the FW minority.


I don't know why this needs to be explained though.

morgoth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Your turn.

Some 40K players own zero FW books and zero FW minis (proof: I don't).
Therefore, there are less FW players than 40K players.

You're completely disregarding 30k, which doesn't require any 40k at all. It's a fair assumption, but that's my point: it's all an assumption. You don't have any statistics backing it up, and you're making absolute claims about something without providing a source. It's completely plausible (I'd even agree that it's likely) that your description is true, but you've got nothing that actually proves that it is the case.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Your turn.

Some 40K players own zero FW books and zero FW minis (proof: I don't).
Therefore, there are less FW players than 40K players.

You're completely disregarding 30k, which doesn't require any 40k at all. It's a fair assumption, but that's my point: it's all an assumption. You don't have any statistics backing it up, and you're making absolute claims about something without providing a source. It's completely plausible (I'd even agree that it's likely) that your description is true, but you've got nothing that actually proves that it is the case.

No, you still need the 40k main rule book to play 30k.

I still don't get how opinions need to be proved by math.

There are more people that play Space Marines than any single other army.

Therefore, Space Marines are "core" 40k and every other army is "expanded" 40k.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You're completely disregarding 30k, which doesn't require any 40k at all. It's a fair assumption, but that's my point: it's all an assumption. You don't have any statistics backing it up, and you're making absolute claims about something without providing a source. It's completely plausible (I'd even agree that it's likely) that your description is true, but you've got nothing that actually proves that it is the case.

It's a fact I just demonstrated to you.
Just like 1+1=2, except you don't want to read my proof.

Unless you can find a flawed hypothesis or implication, it's even better than a fact because it cannot be corrupted by the eye of the beholder.

The flawed hypothesis is that "because it isn't mainstream, it isn't 'core' 40k"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There are more people that play Spacr Marines than any single other army.

Therefore, Space Marines are "core" 40k and every other army is "expanded" 40k.

And you will find a ton of players who feel that way and consider anything "unusual" from any other army "bs cheese" and never discuss it once when the "emperor's favorite" get Turn 1 deepstrike without scatter.

That is true as well, except that there is no absolute difference between SM and say Dark Eldar other than pure number of users, i.e. not a property of the codex/army itself.
It's fine to base your distinction on statistics only but it's often meaningless.
You could probably further reduce it to UltraMarines, or even just TacticalSM pose 1 with a bolter, it just wouldn't make much sense.

morgoth wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There are more people that play Spacr Marines than any single other army.

Therefore, Space Marines are "core" 40k and every other army is "expanded" 40k.

And you will find a ton of players who feel that way and consider anything "unusual" from any other army "bs cheese" and never discuss it once when the "emperor's favorite" get Turn 1 deepstrike without scatter.

That is true as well, except that there is no absolute difference between SM and say Dark Eldar other than pure number of users, i.e. not a property of the codex/army itself.
It's fine to base your distinction on statistics only but it's often meaningless.
You could probably further reduce it to UltraMarines, or even just TacticalSM pose 1 with a bolter, it just wouldn't make much sense.

Thus illustrating the flaw in your hypothesis; statistics does not determine what the "core" of a game is.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The flawed hypothesis is that "because it isn't mainstream, it isn't 'core' 40k"

There is a concept, floating in the air of "core 40K".
I named it "core 40K", and I decided it was limited to all the GW you can get in a store, because that's the GW that you know every single 40K player has seen.
Which is in turn the basis to call it "core 40K".

So what is it, do you have a problem with the existence of such a concept ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There are more people that play Spacr Marines than any single other army.

Therefore, Space Marines are "core" 40k and every other army is "expanded" 40k.

And you will find a ton of players who feel that way and consider anything "unusual" from any other army "bs cheese" and never discuss it once when the "emperor's favorite" get Turn 1 deepstrike without scatter.

That is true as well, except that there is no absolute difference between SM and say Dark Eldar other than pure number of users, i.e. not a property of the codex/army itself.
It's fine to base your distinction on statistics only but it's often meaningless.
You could probably further reduce it to UltraMarines, or even just TacticalSM pose 1 with a bolter, it just wouldn't make much sense.

Thus illustrating the flaw in your hypothesis; statistics does not determine what the "core" of a game is.

Thus illustrating the flaw in your reading comprehension, my concept (which you may not like or even acknowledge) is based on a lot more than statistics.

I always thought "Core" 40k, if such a thing truly exists, was the stuff peddled on the main GW website.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I always thought "Core" 40k, if such a thing truly exists, was the stuff peddled on the main GW website.

The only problem with that is things like apoc are put there.

Frankly I feel that "core" 40k is just a concept dreamed up by a portion of the player base to have a reason to exclude things they don't want to play against.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I feel that "core" 40k is just a concept dreamed up by a portion of the player base to have a reason to exclude things they don't want to play against.

This.

EDIT: Also, I can get FW at my store. Just bought another Warhound there this weekend.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I always thought "Core" 40k, if such a thing truly exists, was the stuff peddled on the main GW website.

The only problem with that is things like apoc are put there.

Yep. I think the concept is a lot of crap because the more specific you get the more subjective you get.

So besides your flawed concept of 'core' 40k, do you actually have a point to make, morgoth?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I feel that "core" 40k is just a concept dreamed up by a portion of the player base to have a reason to exclude things they don't want to play against.

This.

EDIT: Also, I can get FW at my store. Just bought another Warhound there this weekend.

My FLGS has done batch FW orders too.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I feel that "core" 40k is just a concept dreamed up by a portion of the player base to have a reason to exclude things they don't want to play against.

This.

EDIT: Also, I can get FW at my store. Just bought another Warhound there this weekend.

My FLGS has done batch FW orders too.

I actually got to see the model in person and make a purchasing decision, too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I feel that "core" 40k is just a concept dreamed up by a portion of the player base to have a reason to exclude things they don't want to play against.

This.

EDIT: Also, I can get FW at my store. Just bought another Warhound there this weekend.

My FLGS has done batch FW orders too.

I actually got to see the model in person and make a purchasing decision, too.

A bit more than what we can do here, but enough FW models are floating around locally that you can see most of them and get opinions on them pretty easily.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I feel that "core" 40k is just a concept dreamed up by a portion of the player base to have a reason to exclude things they don't want to play against.

Frankly I feel one must be blind to pretend that dataslates, unbound and FW are part of the expectations of every 40K gamer, let alone a majority.
I don't think people need a reason to exclude things they don't want to play against, after all they've already got the fluff bunny vs evil competition guy, the old-size GW vs huge robots, Eldar OP, and so many other things........

Maybe they just like collecting those excuses though.

My concept was just there to name that and to explain why it makes sense - I wouldn't miss the opportunity to see new models.

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I feel that "core" 40k is just a concept dreamed up by a portion of the player base to have a reason to exclude things they don't want to play against.

Frankly I feel one must be blind to pretend that dataslates, unbound and FW are part of the expectations of every 40K gamer, let alone a majority.
I don't think people need a reason to exclude things they don't want to play against, after all they've already got the fluff bunny vs evil competition guy, the old-size GW vs huge robots, Eldar OP, and so many other things........

Maybe they just like collecting those excuses though.

My concept was just there to name that and to explain why it makes sense - I wouldn't miss the opportunity to see new models.

If people don't want to play against certain things that's fine. But please, for the love of the Emperor, just admit it's your personal feelings and not some unspoken rule in the community.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I feel that "core" 40k is just a concept dreamed up by a portion of the player base to have a reason to exclude things they don't want to play against.

Frankly I feel one must be blind to pretend that dataslates, unbound and FW are part of the expectations of every 40K gamer, let alone a majority.
I don't think people need a reason to exclude things they don't want to play against, after all they've already got the fluff bunny vs evil competition guy, the old-size GW vs huge robots, Eldar OP, and so many other things........

Maybe they just like collecting those excuses though.

My concept was just there to name that and to explain why it makes sense - I wouldn't miss the opportunity to see new models.

If people don't want to play against certain things that's fine. But please, for the love of the Emperor, just admit it's your personal feelings and not some unspoken rule in the community.

Exactly. 40k doesn't have a "core" that is only some basic game. If it's legal to play in 40k then it is 40k. You don't have to play with or against those things, but they are still 40k regardless.

I like Forge World.

I just like the models. I think the Hornets look better than Vypers and they are better. I like the Shadow Specters model. I like the lines of the Phoenix Bomber.

Not everybody power games. FW is accepted at our FLGS and nobody has a problem with it. Just make sure you have a copy of the rules and yes sometimes we do get burned when facing a new unit. We learn and adapt. We do not throw hissy fits over plastic toy soldiers. The game is about having fun and feeling challenged.

At our game store we choose not to play LoW for now. This stance may chance to non-codex LoW as to enable Logan and Ghaz without putting the C'Tan or Titans on the table. It is working fine so far.

Nothing I like more than trying to think my way out when my back is against the wall. Steamrolling people is not fun for anyone.

People just have to be mature about this and discuss it like civilized people, There is a way to reach some middle-ground but everyone must make some compromises.

morgoth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Your turn.

In order to be considered a 40K player, you need to play 40K.
In order to play 40K, you need the BRB, and one Codex, and some miniatures.
Therefore, 100% of the 40K players know of the BRB and at least one Codex.

I can play a fully legal army without a codex using FW, as many FW books have completely self contained army lists, they just have a book title of "Imperial Armour" instead of "Codex".

 TheCustomLime wrote:

If people don't want to play against certain things that's fine. But please, for the love of the Emperor, just admit it's your personal feelings and not some unspoken rule in the community.

Definitely, but it does look like some unspoken rule with all the people pretending it is ... or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
I like Forge World.

I just like the models. I think the Hornets look better than Vypers and they are better. I like the Shadow Specters model. I like the lines of the Phoenix Bomber.

Not everybody power games. FW is accepted at our FLGS and nobody has a problem with it. Just make sure you have a copy of the rules and yes sometimes we do get burned when facing a new unit. We learn and adapt. We do not throw hissy fits over plastic toy soldiers. The game is about having fun and feeling challenged.

At our game store we choose not to play LoW for now. This stance may chance to non-codex LoW as to enable Logan and Ghaz without putting the C'Tan or Titans on the table. It is working fine so far.

Nothing I like more than trying to think my way out when my back is against the wall. Steamrolling people is not fun for anyone.

People just have to be mature about this and discuss it like civilized people, There is a way to reach some middle-ground but everyone must make some compromises.

Yup, house rules. rule. or something.
I just find it sad when some people are all like "Hey why you don't want me play FW ?" and at the same time "No LoW here mister !".

I think people can have legitimate reasons not to enjoy LOW while playing with their resin crack. There is a difference between DKoK and a dual shard list.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think people can have legitimate reasons not to enjoy LOW while playing with their resin crack. There is a difference between DKoK and a dual shard list.

But you can't just blanket say "No LoW" because LoW =/= Super heavies. And really you only have a problem with specific super heavies. There are super heavy vehicles which are NOT LoW, and then there are non-super heavies which are LoW.

Surely you aren't suggesting Draigo and Logan "I"maridingmahwolfchariot!" Grimnar are to be excluded because you could take a Titan in their place?

 Grey Templar wrote:


Surely you aren't suggesting Draigo and Logan "I"maridingmahwolfchariot!" Grimnar are to be excluded because you could take a Titan in their place?

What if I exclude them for other reasons? Namely one having awful fluff and the other an awful model. Is that better?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think people can have legitimate reasons not to enjoy LOW while playing with their resin crack. There is a difference between DKoK and a dual shard list.

But you can't just blanket say "No LoW" because LoW =/= Super heavies. And really you only have a problem with specific super heavies. There are super heavy vehicles which are NOT LoW, and then there are non-super heavies which are LoW.

Surely you aren't suggesting Draigo and Logan "I"maridingmahwolfchariot!" Grimnar are to be excluded because you could take a Titan in their place?

I think Grimnar is to be excluded because santa's sled.

You could, but that would be silly and childish.

Certainly just as childish as someone saying he won't allow seer council psyker spam or Riptides because they're "broken"

You'd also want to note Draigo's fluff got way toned down.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think people can have legitimate reasons not to enjoy LOW while playing with their resin crack. There is a difference between DKoK and a dual shard list.

But you can't just blanket say "No LoW" because LoW =/= Super heavies. And really you only have a problem with specific super heavies. There are super heavy vehicles which are NOT LoW, and then there are non-super heavies which are LoW.

Surely you aren't suggesting Draigo and Logan "I"maridingmahwolfchariot!" Grimnar are to be excluded because you could take a Titan in their place?

No. I am just giving my 2 cents on why some people have that attitude. My personal opinion is that LoW is an okay idea with bad execution but, at the same time, a blanket ban is stupid. Baneblades or Santa Grimnar won't break the game like dual shard will.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You could, but that would be silly and childish.

Certainly just as childish as someone saying he won't allow seer council psyker spam or Riptides because they're "broken"

You'd also want to note Draigo's fluff got way toned down.

How is any of that childish?

 Grey Templar wrote:
You could, but that would be silly and childish.

Really? what if I settled for brown bag ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

No. I am just giving my 2 cents on why some people have that attitude. My personal opinion is that LoW is an okay idea with bad execution but, at the same time, a blanket ban is stupid. Baneblades or Santa Grimnar won't break the game like dual shard will.

IMO, if you've have enough dual shard or beast star for the moment, just state it, I think that's fine.
Even dumb builds you can be tired of, they don't need to be competitive.

It smacks of a little kid crying "Wahhhhhh thats not fair!"

Especially since now that super heavies are 100% part of the normal game. It did have some justification when they weren't in the main rulebook, but now that they are disallowing them is no different than barring Heavy Support or Riptides or Wraithknights.

Not allowing LoW or Super Heavies is altering the basic rules, not disallowing optional rules(which is what they were before)

Thats fine if you want to do it. But realize what it means when you do that. Realize its no different than disallowing something as fundamental as Heavy Support or something thats "broken" like the Riptide.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats fine if you want to do it. But realize what it means when you do that.

You say it like it's some grim realisation like telling a person they've been eating people

Who the feth cares, GW write such piss poor rules that I have no problem admitting or realising I'm happy to change them. I've been altering GW's rules since I started playing in 2nd edition, it saddens me that people needed to be told they could take allies when we've been doing it forever at my local club

I understand the implications and the overall legality of the army list construction.

As for being childish and allegedly being similar to a kid crying, I strongly disagree.

Why would I spend a few hours playing a game with someone when I know the two lists are of very different balance levels? If anything, turning down a game against superheavies because I don't like the way they affect the game saves both myself the time and annoyance of dealing with it, and saves my opponent from playing against a frustrated or irritated player.

Don't confuse dictating to others how they should play with simply not wanting to play against a certain type of model. Same goes for Unbound, or Maelstrom; I know full well they're standard parts of the game, but nowhere am I forced to play against lists or in games that include those.

Childish? Hardly. My time is precious, and I'd rather save both myself and my opponent the frustration and play with someone who's looking for the same thing in a game.

Its certainly gakky, but that's how it goes when you have such a terribly balanced and written game.

It's childish because you don't get to exclude a model based on "I don't like how it looks" or "I don't like its fluff".

The thing is that some models are broken, and this is wholly independent of their status as a Lord of War or super-heavy. As stated before, Games Workshop is by far worse than Forge World at making insanely broken rules. They seem to be learning, though.

40k is 40k. That includes Forge World, super-heavies, Lords of War, Riptides, Heldrakes, Wave Serpents, Land Raider Crusaders, Scout Bikes, Wraithlords, Dreadnoughts, Farseers, The Swarmlord, and the Transcendent C'tan. The logic of banning FW/LOW because some things are broken is the same as banning Monstrous Creatures because Riptides exist, or banning Dedicated Transports because Wave Serpents exist.

EDIT:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Surely you aren't suggesting Draigo and Logan "I"maridingmahwolfchariot!" Grimnar are to be excluded because you could take a Titan in their place?

What if I exclude them for other reasons? Namely one having awful fluff and the other an awful model. Is that better?

That's the part being referred to as "childish".

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
It's childish because you don't get to exclude a model based on "I don't like how it looks" or "I don't like its fluff".

Why not?

Who are you to tell someone they have to play a game against something they don't want to play against?

If someone had an ork army of nothing but gakky conversions, I'd refuse that game based on 'I don't like how it looks'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:


That's the part being referred to as "childish".

Again, why?

I'd argue playing a game of toy man dollies is childish I don't really see refusing to play someone based on aesthetics as being any more childish than wargaming is in general. Elitist? Perhaps. Selfish? Perhaps. Childish? Eh, not really.

Because you are forcing someone to change their army (or refusing to play them outright) just because you personally don't like a model. That's just absurd.

As people (myself included) have said in this thread before, everyone has the right to refuse anything. Whether or not they are justified in their refusal is another matter.

"I won't play against your Tyranids until you modify them to suit my visual tastes. I don't understand how Tyranids carrying guns makes sense, so I won't play you unless your only shooting comes from Biovores, Zoanthropes, Exocrines and Raveners" or "I refuse to play against your Dreadnoughts because they have stubby legs". Come on, now.

An entire army of "gakky conversions" is different to a Grey Knight army with a single model whose fluff you don't like, or a Space Wolves army with a single model who looks ridiculous (or more, if Stormwolves are involved).

EDIT: By that logic, Skink, any sort of game at all (except maybe chess) is childish. I'm talking about the kind of "I won't play with you because I don't like your shirt!" childish.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Because you are forcing someone to change their army (or refusing to play them outright) just because you personally don't like a model. That's just absurd.

Never did I say anything about forcing my opponent to change their army. In fact, I made it expressly clear that I would simply turn down the game. As I also pointed out, it is gakky, but it saves both people the time and effort of playing a game one or both of them won't enjoy.

As people (myself included) have said in this thread before, everyone has the right to refuse anything. Whether or not they are justified in their refusal is another matter.

Who deems if its justified or not? You?

"I won't play against your Tyranids until you modify them to suit my visual tastes. I don't understand how Tyranids carrying guns makes sense, so I won't play you unless your only shooting comes from Biovores, Zoanthropes, Exocrines and Raveners" or "I refuse to play against your Dreadnoughts because they have stubby legs". Come on, now.

Admittedly a hyperbolic example, on both our parts, but if someone really, really, hates Tyranids both in fluff and design, who are you to judge them for turning down a game? Accept that some people like different parts of this game. It may seem odd, but there's no point in telling them otherwise.

An entire army of "gakky conversions" is different to a Grey Knight army with a single model whose fluff you don't like, or a Space Wolves army with a single model who looks ridiculous (or more, if Stormwolves are involved).

Yes, an entire army of gakky conversions is different to an army of stock GW models. Again, a poor example on my part, and while I'd personally play against Santa Grimnar, I assure you it would detract from my enjoyment of the game with such a stupid looking model flying about.

Getting back to the topic on hand about FW, and I guess partly by extension, LoW, I fail to see how its being childish to turn down a game because of the inclusion of either or both of those elements. Some people like different things, and playing against a poorly balanced giant thing (either underpowered or overpowered) can result in a fairly un-fun game for either or both players. Turning down the game rather than having an unpleasant game sounds like a mature thing to do.

Don't waste your breath [finger muscles?] Frozen Ocean, you won't convince the anti-LoW crowd who's arguments pretty much boil down to "Don't like".

Anyway, the whole LoW argument will become redundant very soon [if it isn't already]. How many "Should flyers be in 40k?" threads do you see these days? LoW are becoming increasingly accepted, and when 8th drops and people realise they aren't going anywhere it'll become a non-argument.

Anti-Low is just because some people don't like playing against them. They are perfectly legal, it's just that not everyone likes to face them.

Yeah, I personally love LoW but I won't argue with the anti-LoW crowd. They don't really have an argument beyond "I don't like it" to which I can only say "Fair enough, but you're missing out" and then go on having a blast with the gaming group here in Harrisburg, Titans and all.

If you don't like LoW, just say you don't like LoW.
You don't need a reason.
You don't need an excuse.
LoW are not more imbalanced than other things, you just don't want to deal with them.

And that's fine.
You have the right to play any kind of 40K you like.
You don't need a justification to not want to play some things.

Blacksails wrote:Never did I say anything about forcing my opponent to change their army. In fact, I made it expressly clear that I would simply turn down the game. As I also pointed out, it is gakky, but it saves both people the time and effort of playing a game one or both of them won't enjoy.

If you wouldn't enjoy a game because Draigo was in it, then your enjoyment is extremely delicate.

Blacksails wrote:Who deems if its justified or not? You?

No, Ghandi. Unless discussion is what a forum is for, I'm not sure.

Blacksails wrote:

"I won't play against your Tyranids until you modify them to suit my visual tastes. I don't understand how Tyranids carrying guns makes sense, so I won't play you unless your only shooting comes from Biovores, Zoanthropes, Exocrines and Raveners" or "I refuse to play against your Dreadnoughts because they have stubby legs". Come on, now.

Admittedly a hyperbolic example, on both our parts, but if someone really, really, hates Tyranids both in fluff and design, who are you to judge them for turning down a game? Accept that some people like different parts of this game. It may seem odd, but there's no point in telling them otherwise.

You can't accuse me of using hyperbole when you are retracting your own statements and contradicting yourself. You said you wouldn't play against Draigo or Logan Grimnar, and now you're saying that you would (but you'd hate it). That is no more ridiculous than what I just said. Some people don't like things about 40k, but turning down a game because of a model, or even fluff? Things that have no bearing on how the game actually plays.

Blacksails wrote:Getting back to the topic on hand about FW, and I guess partly by extension, LoW, I fail to see how its being childish to turn down a game because of the inclusion of either or both of those elements. Some people like different things, and playing against a poorly balanced giant thing (either underpowered or overpowered) can result in a fairly un-fun game for either or both players. Turning down the game rather than having an unpleasant game sounds like a mature thing to do.

We didn't say that turning down LOW was childish. We said turning down/excluding models you personally do not like the appearance and/or fluff of is childish. Having an actually unpleasant experience with a game just because it has a character you don't like in it is childish. Plenty of people don't like Marneus Calgar's fluff, but that shouldn't matter in a game, apart from maybe taking particular amusement from killing him. Turning down units because you believe their rules will impact the game in an unpleasant way is fine. The issue is with people saying that flatly refusing all LOW and Forge World content, regardless of what it actually is, which is not fine.

tyrannosaurus wrote:Don't waste your breath [finger muscles?] Frozen Ocean, you won't convince the anti-LoW crowd who's arguments pretty much boil down to "Don't like".

I really am starting to see that. Furthermore, I type everything by breathing on my keyboard. It's very exhausting, but also very good exercise.

EDIT:

morgoth wrote:
If you don't like LoW, just say you don't like LoW.
You don't need a reason.
You don't need an excuse.
LoW are not more imbalanced than other things, you just don't want to deal with them.

And that's fine.
You have the right to play any kind of 40K you like.
You don't need a justification to not want to play some things.

Exactly. Just stop acting like LOW/FW/superheavies aren't part of 40k and that there is concrete evidence to support this. Admitting that the reason is "I don't like it/want to play against it" is much more acceptable.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Don't waste your breath [finger muscles?] Frozen Ocean, you won't convince the anti-LoW crowd who's arguments pretty much boil down to "Don't like".

Yes, the arguments boil down to "don't like because reasons" and "do like because reasons". Ya know, kind of the same thing to which ALL arguments boil down in the end

morgoth wrote:
If you don't like LoW, just say you don't like LoW.
You don't need a reason.
You don't need an excuse.
LoW are not more imbalanced than other things, you just don't want to deal with them.

And that's fine.
You have the right to play any kind of 40K you like.
You don't need a justification to not want to play some things.

Except, as has been pointed out by Peregrine before, that's not the case. It's seen by some as perfectly acceptable to refuse to play against LoW, but the same logic doesn't apply when it comes to other units. If someone at a club refused to play against someone because they don't like tactical marines, this would be considered ridiculous, and would require justification. However refusing to play against LoW for the same reasons, despite being as legal as tactical marines, is considered by some to be fine, and not requiring justification.

The worst part about turning down a model because of its fluff is that some people use 'special characters' to represent their OWN characters.

Like, if someone wanted to use Draigo to represent "Fredrick Fredricksson VII, Earl of Fredrick" or whathaveyou.

I would refuse to play them, and then assault them with my rulebook.

I have a rather distasteful history with the Earl.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Except, as has been pointed out by Peregrine before, that's not the case. It's seen by some as perfectly acceptable to refuse to play against LoW, but the same logic doesn't apply when it comes to other units.

Wha? Yes it does. The same logic applies to anything you don't want to play against.

If someone at a club refused to play against someone because they don't like tactical marines, this would be considered ridiculous, and would require justification.

My response to this is "well, duh". The reason it would be considered ridiculous is because it would be an extremely odd request. Very few people would start 40k if they had such a disdain for tactical marines that they didn't want to play against them. If you don't want to play against tactical marines, sure, whatever, don't, but it's ridiculous hyperbole to compare refusal to play against tactical marines as being the same as refusal to play against expensive LOW choices.

However refusing to play against LoW for the same reasons, despite being as legal as tactical marines, is considered by some to be fine, and not requiring justification.

I personally don't like expensive LOW models. When I started 40k, they were for all intents and purposes non-existent. They were in Epic, where they fit the scale and also the rules are better written to account for them... but they did not exist in regular 40k. Tactical Marines have been around pretty much forever.

LOW might be as legal as tactical marines because GW tells us so, but it is unnecessary hyperbole to pretend turning down LOW is the same as turning down tactical marines. Sure, in the end it might come down to "Don't like because reasons", but then so does every other argument ever, don't pretend the "reasons" part is the same.

If someone doesn't want to play against tactical marines, ok fine, but the immediate question that comes up is why on earth did you start 40k in the first place? Tactical marines have always been an integral part of the game, they are troops and the game has always (well at least up until Unbound) been an integral part of the game, my first game involved tactical marines and I'm guessing that's true of a lot of people because they've been in every starter set for over 2 decades. It's not the same thing as not wanting to play against expensive LOW.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:


If you wouldn't enjoy a game because Draigo was in it, then your enjoyment is extremely delicate.

It was a poor example on my part, to which I admitted.

A more sensible example would be turning down a game with a revenant titan in it because I don't feel like being a punching bag. Is that better?

No, Ghandi. Unless discussion is what a forum is for, I'm not sure.

My point was that you don't get to determine what is an acceptable reason for declining the game.

You can't accuse me of using hyperbole when you are retracting your own statements and contradicting yourself. You said you wouldn't play against Draigo or Logan Grimnar, and now you're saying that you would (but you'd hate it). That is no more ridiculous than what I just said. Some people don't like things about 40k, but turning down a game because of a model, or even fluff? Things that have no bearing on how the game actually plays.

I made some poor examples and admitted they were poor. I haven't contradicting myself because I maintain the same position that people have the right to decline a game with LoW in it, and indeed, for any other reason they see fit. There are certainly more wackier reasons, but convincing someone they're childish for turning down a game doesn't exactly speak a whole lot about the maturity level of that person.

As for fluff, or a collection of models, absolutely. gakky conversions, poor or no paint jobs, proxies, and a custom army with awful fluff your opponent prattles on about are plenty good reasons to decline a game. They may not have a bearing on how the game is played, but they have an effect on the enjoyment of the game through immersion and story telling.

We didn't say that turning down LOW was childish. We said turning down/excluding models you personally do not like the appearance and/or fluff of is childish. Having an actually unpleasant experience with a game just because it has a character you don't like in it is childish. Plenty of people don't like Marneus Calgar's fluff, but that shouldn't matter in a game, apart from maybe taking particular amusement from killing him. Turning down units because you believe their rules will impact the game in an unpleasant way is fine. The issue is with people saying that flatly refusing all LOW and Forge World content, regardless of what it actually is, which is not fine.

A blanket ban on FW/LoW is a tough call, because its infinitely easier to tell someone you don't want to play against LoW, rather than provide a list of the models you find acceptable to play against. Same goes for FW. While I disagree with the blanket ban thing on principle, I can see how its appealing to people. But if that's the decision a player has come to based from experience, who's to tell them otherwise?

I really am starting to see that. Furthermore, I type everything by breathing on my keyboard. It's very exhausting, but also very good exercise.

This is a two way street. You can't claim its a waste of time discussing something because you disagree, when you are being equally as uncompromising in your position.

To re-iterate my original stance; play the game how you want. Its totally reasonable to decline a game because you don't want to play against FW or LoW for a variety of reasons, the same way it acceptable to turn down any game for a number of reasons. You may not like some of those reasons, or disagree with them entirely, but them's the breaks.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

If someone at a club refused to play against someone because they don't like tactical marines, this would be considered ridiculous, and would require justification.

My response to this is "well, duh". The reason it would be considered ridiculous is because it would be an extremely odd request. Very few people would start 40k if they had such a disdain for tactical marines that they didn't want to play against them. If you don't want to play against tactical marines, sure, whatever, don't, but it's ridiculous hyperbole to compare refusal to play against tactical marines as being the same as refusal to play against expensive LOW choices.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

If someone at a club refused to play against someone because they don't like tactical marines, this would be considered ridiculous, and would require justification.

My response to this is "well, duh". The reason it would be considered ridiculous is because it would be an extremely odd request. Very few people would start 40k if they had such a disdain for tactical marines that they didn't want to play against them. If you don't want to play against tactical marines, sure, whatever, don't, but it's ridiculous hyperbole to compare refusal to play against tactical marines as being the same as refusal to play against expensive LOW choices.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

If someone at a club refused to play against someone because they don't like tactical marines, this would be considered ridiculous, and would require justification.

My response to this is "well, duh". The reason it would be considered ridiculous is because it would be an extremely odd request. Very few people would start 40k if they had such a disdain for tactical marines that they didn't want to play against them. If you don't want to play against tactical marines, sure, whatever, don't, but it's ridiculous hyperbole to compare refusal to play against tactical marines as being the same as refusal to play against expensive LOW choices.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

Yes, it can. And I think TAC is dead - there was recently another thread where we opened this can of worms, but there really isn't such a thing as TAC in 7th edition because there are so many armies out there. There's not "one ring army to rule them all" - rather, you bring what you like and use it to the best of your abilities. This means, of course, that sometimes you suffer crushing defeats and other times uncontested victories, but c'est la guerre.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

The reason it's hyperbole is because the reasons that lead to the conclusion "don't like" are massively different. I don't like Broccoli and I don't like Hyundais, however the two are not comparable.

You are free to think declining LoW is an odd request, that's your prerogative, but it is silly to think the reasons behind declining aren't valid because it's the same as declining tactical marines.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

The reason it's hyperbole is because the reasons that lead to the conclusion "don't like" are massively different. I don't like Broccoli and I don't like Hyundais, however the two are not comparable.

You are free to think declining LoW is an odd request, that's your prerogative, but it is silly to think the reasons behind declining aren't valid because it's the same as declining tactical marines.

Actually, I think the reasons behind declining it aren't valid because they're not actually good reasons. They boil down to "don't like," at which point I'm like "okay, fair enough." But the in-between stages are usually wrong.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

If someone at a club refused to play against someone because they don't like tactical marines, this would be considered ridiculous, and would require justification.

My response to this is "well, duh". The reason it would be considered ridiculous is because it would be an extremely odd request. Very few people would start 40k if they had such a disdain for tactical marines that they didn't want to play against them. If you don't want to play against tactical marines, sure, whatever, don't, but it's ridiculous hyperbole to compare refusal to play against tactical marines as being the same as refusal to play against expensive LOW choices.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

Yes, it can. And I think TAC is dead - there was recently another thread where we opened this can of worms, but there really isn't such a thing as TAC in 7th edition because there are so many armies out there. There's not "one ring army to rule them all" - rather, you bring what you like and use it to the best of your abilities. This means, of course, that sometimes you suffer crushing defeats and other times uncontested victories, but c'est la guerre.

And I would rather not play a game with a predetermines outcome because it is not fun. Thats the most important part of this game, to have fun. If someone is not having fun then there is no point in playing.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

If someone at a club refused to play against someone because they don't like tactical marines, this would be considered ridiculous, and would require justification.

My response to this is "well, duh". The reason it would be considered ridiculous is because it would be an extremely odd request. Very few people would start 40k if they had such a disdain for tactical marines that they didn't want to play against them. If you don't want to play against tactical marines, sure, whatever, don't, but it's ridiculous hyperbole to compare refusal to play against tactical marines as being the same as refusal to play against expensive LOW choices.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

Yes, it can. And I think TAC is dead - there was recently another thread where we opened this can of worms, but there really isn't such a thing as TAC in 7th edition because there are so many armies out there. There's not "one ring army to rule them all" - rather, you bring what you like and use it to the best of your abilities. This means, of course, that sometimes you suffer crushing defeats and other times uncontested victories, but c'est la guerre.

And I would rather not play a game with a predetermines outcome because it is not fun. Thats the most important part of this game, to have fun. If someone is not having fun then there is no point in playing.

Right. I think it's unfortunate that people let the outcome of a game determine the amount of fun they've had with it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

If someone at a club refused to play against someone because they don't like tactical marines, this would be considered ridiculous, and would require justification.

My response to this is "well, duh". The reason it would be considered ridiculous is because it would be an extremely odd request. Very few people would start 40k if they had such a disdain for tactical marines that they didn't want to play against them. If you don't want to play against tactical marines, sure, whatever, don't, but it's ridiculous hyperbole to compare refusal to play against tactical marines as being the same as refusal to play against expensive LOW choices.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

Yes, it can. And I think TAC is dead - there was recently another thread where we opened this can of worms, but there really isn't such a thing as TAC in 7th edition because there are so many armies out there. There's not "one ring army to rule them all" - rather, you bring what you like and use it to the best of your abilities. This means, of course, that sometimes you suffer crushing defeats and other times uncontested victories, but c'est la guerre.

And I would rather not play a game with a predetermines outcome because it is not fun. Thats the most important part of this game, to have fun. If someone is not having fun then there is no point in playing.

Right. I think it's unfortunate that people let the outcome of a game determine the amount of fun they've had with it.

The outcome has nothing to do with it. Having no chance at all does. The game is not fun unless you can actually do stuff. If all my army does is serve as target practice, than I might as well have not played. Obseve that I said predetermined outcome not loss. If you will win or will lose every time the game gets boring and dull. If there is not chance at all than it's just sitting for an hour and a half rolling dice.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

If someone at a club refused to play against someone because they don't like tactical marines, this would be considered ridiculous, and would require justification.

My response to this is "well, duh". The reason it would be considered ridiculous is because it would be an extremely odd request. Very few people would start 40k if they had such a disdain for tactical marines that they didn't want to play against them. If you don't want to play against tactical marines, sure, whatever, don't, but it's ridiculous hyperbole to compare refusal to play against tactical marines as being the same as refusal to play against expensive LOW choices.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

Yes, it can. And I think TAC is dead - there was recently another thread where we opened this can of worms, but there really isn't such a thing as TAC in 7th edition because there are so many armies out there. There's not "one ring army to rule them all" - rather, you bring what you like and use it to the best of your abilities. This means, of course, that sometimes you suffer crushing defeats and other times uncontested victories, but c'est la guerre.

And I would rather not play a game with a predetermines outcome because it is not fun. Thats the most important part of this game, to have fun. If someone is not having fun then there is no point in playing.

Right. I think it's unfortunate that people let the outcome of a game determine the amount of fun they've had with it.

The outcome has nothing to do with it. Having no chance at all does. The game is not fun unless you can actually do stuff. If all my army does is serve as target practice, than I might as well have not played. Obseve that I said predetermined outcome not loss. If you will win or will lose every time the game gets boring and dull. If there is not chance at all than it's just sitting for an hour and a half rolling dice.

I find it hard to believe that your army is so inflexible that it literally has a 0% chance of winning a dice game. I just recently lost a game to a friend of mine and I was using a Warhound Titan at 1500 points. His biggest unit was a Land Raider and 5 terminators in it. He won by running onto objectives, and my D-weapon only rolled a few sixes for its hits, so he got quite a few saves on some tough models. His Chapter Master with the Shield Eternal tanked pretty much everything.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

If someone at a club refused to play against someone because they don't like tactical marines, this would be considered ridiculous, and would require justification.

My response to this is "well, duh". The reason it would be considered ridiculous is because it would be an extremely odd request. Very few people would start 40k if they had such a disdain for tactical marines that they didn't want to play against them. If you don't want to play against tactical marines, sure, whatever, don't, but it's ridiculous hyperbole to compare refusal to play against tactical marines as being the same as refusal to play against expensive LOW choices.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

Yes, it can. And I think TAC is dead - there was recently another thread where we opened this can of worms, but there really isn't such a thing as TAC in 7th edition because there are so many armies out there. There's not "one ring army to rule them all" - rather, you bring what you like and use it to the best of your abilities. This means, of course, that sometimes you suffer crushing defeats and other times uncontested victories, but c'est la guerre.

And I would rather not play a game with a predetermines outcome because it is not fun. Thats the most important part of this game, to have fun. If someone is not having fun then there is no point in playing.

Right. I think it's unfortunate that people let the outcome of a game determine the amount of fun they've had with it.

The outcome has nothing to do with it. Having no chance at all does. The game is not fun unless you can actually do stuff. If all my army does is serve as target practice, than I might as well have not played. Obseve that I said predetermined outcome not loss. If you will win or will lose every time the game gets boring and dull. If there is not chance at all than it's just sitting for an hour and a half rolling dice.

I find it hard to believe that your army is so inflexible that it literally has a 0% chance of winning a dice game. I just recently lost a game to a friend of mine and I was using a Warhound Titan at 1500 points. His biggest unit was a Land Raider and 5 terminators in it. He won by running onto objectives, and my D-weapon only rolled a few sixes for its hits, so he got quite a few saves on some tough models. His Chapter Master with the Shield Eternal tanked pretty much everything.

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

Well fair enough again. I would say you to change your army by making it less inflexible, because LoW are here and here to stay, but I know I'll just get the "NO YOU CHANGE YOUR ARMY!" response. FWIW, you'll have to adapt eventually, or stop playing the game. But I can't make you.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

Well fair enough again. I would say you to change your army by making it less inflexible, because LoW are here and here to stay, but I know I'll just get the "NO YOU CHANGE YOUR ARMY!" response. FWIW, you'll have to adapt eventually, or stop playing the game. But I can't make you.

No I won't have to adapt, because plenty of people do't play with LoW. I'm not going to make you change your army, I will just politely decline to play with you.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

Well fair enough again. I would say you to change your army by making it less inflexible, because LoW are here and here to stay, but I know I'll just get the "NO YOU CHANGE YOUR ARMY!" response. FWIW, you'll have to adapt eventually, or stop playing the game. But I can't make you.

No I won't have to adapt, because plenty of people do't play with LoW. I'm not going to make you change your army, I will just politely decline to play with you.

Which is unfortunate, because the game would've been enjoyable for both of us. You don't even know what LoW I would've brought. Perhaps it was the amazing.... MALCADOR! Dun dun dunnn!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps it was the amazing.... MALCADOR! Dun dun dunnn!

As long as its not the Defender.

That thing is totally OP with its 5 heavy bolters in limited traverse hull positions.

Gods, imagine the horror of playing against a cheesy Macharius with it's twin linked battle cannon.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Gods, imagine the horror of playing against a cheesy Macharius with it's twin linked battle cannon.

Wait that's way better than my Malcador! It even has Armor 14?!? Oh my god, such op, much nerf needed.
EDIT: OHGOD WRONG THREAD

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Actually, I think the reasons behind declining it aren't valid because they're not actually good reasons. They boil down to "don't like," at which point I'm like "okay, fair enough." But the in-between stages are usually wrong.

Gah can we stop with this "boils down to don't like". Of course it boils down to don't like, IT HAS TO BOIL DOWN TO DON'T LIKE. EVERYTHING HAS TO BOIL DOWN TO DO/DON'T LIKE. It's a hobby for feths sake, of course everything boils down to do and don't like.

It's annoyingly dismissive of the REASONS people do and don't like to keep saying "it boils down to don't like" because it's fething obvious that things boil down to don't like or do like.

Ok, now we've got that out of the way. We get down to brass tacks where you simply disregard the actual reasons people don't like them.

Who are you to judge that the reasons are wrong? I don't like expensive LoW plainly and simply because...

a) I don't like games which revolve heavily around a single model and since I typically play < 2000pts, taking an expensive LoW means the game will revolve heavily around one model.

b) It looks stupid to me because it seems horribly out of scale, it looks completely out of scale to have 20 dudes running around the feet of a behemoth machine of war and call it a battle. It looks stupid to me when you have a 6x4 table (or 4x4 in small games) which is occupied largely by a giant tank or walker. If you have a Warhound on each side of the table it looks less like a battlefield and more like 2 dudes standing in my living room.

c) I don't think they make for good games, they feel shoehorned in to the game to sell larger more expensive kits.

d) For the most part they detract further from the already pathetic balance of 40k.

If someone doesn't want to play against tactical marines, sure, it comes down to "don't like", but the reasons are so blatantly different that it's hardly the same. Not even to get in to the logistical problem that tactical marines have always been an integral part of the game, you'd have to severely modify the rules to ignore them, LoW in common games have only existed for a few short years and are just a tacked on non-essential addition to the FOC. They are not remotely the same.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Gods, imagine the horror of playing against a cheesy Macharius with it's twin linked battle cannon.

Wait that's way better than my Malcador! It even has Armor 14?!? Oh my god, such op, much nerf needed.

Edit: and it isn't the number of actual models, but rather the number of possible models.

Invisibility could affect every model involved in the game (possibly). Gorechild can only ever effect, in any realm of possibility, Kharn.

If I didn't just come from reading that thread, I'd be super confused.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

Well fair enough again. I would say you to change your army by making it less inflexible, because LoW are here and here to stay, but I know I'll just get the "NO YOU CHANGE YOUR ARMY!" response. FWIW, you'll have to adapt eventually, or stop playing the game. But I can't make you.

No I won't have to adapt, because plenty of people do't play with LoW. I'm not going to make you change your army, I will just politely decline to play with you.

Which is unfortunate, because the game would've been enjoyable for both of us. You don't even know what LoW I would've brought. Perhaps it was the amazing.... MALCADOR! Dun dun dunnn!

Well, if I know you have Low, I'm pretty sure that I will know what your army has. And I am talking about something like, oh I don't know, titains. I'll play with titains in apoc, no where else. There may have been a small misundertanding, when I am talking about LoW and losing I am talking about the things that should not belong in a normal game (think every edition until 7th).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

Well fair enough again. I would say you to change your army by making it less inflexible, because LoW are here and here to stay, but I know I'll just get the "NO YOU CHANGE YOUR ARMY!" response. FWIW, you'll have to adapt eventually, or stop playing the game. But I can't make you.

No I won't have to adapt, because plenty of people do't play with LoW. I'm not going to make you change your army, I will just politely decline to play with you.

Which is unfortunate, because the game would've been enjoyable for both of us. You don't even know what LoW I would've brought. Perhaps it was the amazing.... MALCADOR! Dun dun dunnn!

Well, if I know you have Low, I'm pretty sure that I will know what your army has. And I am talking about something like, oh I don't know, titains. I'll play with titains in apoc, no where else. There may have been a small misundertanding, when I am talking about LoW and losing I am talking about the things that should not belong in a normal game (think every edition until 7th).

Who are you to decide what belongs in a normal game? Like, that's just your opinion, man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Gods, imagine the horror of playing against a cheesy Macharius with it's twin linked battle cannon.

Wait that's way better than my Malcador! It even has Armor 14?!? Oh my god, such op, much nerf needed.

Edit: and it isn't the number of actual models, but rather the number of possible models.

Invisibility could affect every model involved in the game (possibly). Gorechild can only ever effect, in any realm of possibility, Kharn.

If I didn't just come from reading that thread, I'd be super confused.

I sorry.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

Well fair enough again. I would say you to change your army by making it less inflexible, because LoW are here and here to stay, but I know I'll just get the "NO YOU CHANGE YOUR ARMY!" response. FWIW, you'll have to adapt eventually, or stop playing the game. But I can't make you.

No I won't have to adapt, because plenty of people do't play with LoW. I'm not going to make you change your army, I will just politely decline to play with you.

Which is unfortunate, because the game would've been enjoyable for both of us. You don't even know what LoW I would've brought. Perhaps it was the amazing.... MALCADOR! Dun dun dunnn!

Well, if I know you have Low, I'm pretty sure that I will know what your army has. And I am talking about something like, oh I don't know, titains. I'll play with titains in apoc, no where else. There may have been a small misundertanding, when I am talking about LoW and losing I am talking about the things that should not belong in a normal game (think every edition until 7th).

Who are you to decide what belongs in a normal game? Like, that's just your opinion, man.

Yes it is, your point being...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yes it is, your point being...

That your opinion is silly. That's why I reserve the right to look at you askance. That's what I've been saying this whole thread. "Don't like X" is a valid reason to not want to see X. But I will still think of you as silly, and still put you in the same pidgeonhole as someone who won't play with Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yes it is, your point being...

That your opinion is silly. That's why I reserve the right to look at you askance. That's what I've been saying this whole thread. "Don't like X" is a valid reason to not want to see X. But I will still think of you as silly, and still put you in the same pidgeonhole as someone who won't play with Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras.

Not really. A titan is something that makes the game not fun for me, tac marines don't. A titan dramatically shifts the game.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yes it is, your point being...

That your opinion is silly. That's why I reserve the right to look at you askance. That's what I've been saying this whole thread. "Don't like X" is a valid reason to not want to see X. But I will still think of you as silly, and still put you in the same pidgeonhole as someone who won't play with Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras.

Not really. A titan is something that makes the game not fun for me, tac marines don't. A titan dramatically shifts the game.

Right but it's the same argument. When I'm using an all-Vanquisher Tank unbound army, I'd rather face a Titan than Tactical Marines. So I'll just turn down every game against tactical marines, because having a 0% chance of winning is unfun.

^ Same pidgeonhole.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yes it is, your point being...

That your opinion is silly. That's why I reserve the right to look at you askance. That's what I've been saying this whole thread. "Don't like X" is a valid reason to not want to see X. But I will still think of you as silly, and still put you in the same pidgeonhole as someone who won't play with Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras.

Not really. A titan is something that makes the game not fun for me, tac marines don't. A titan dramatically shifts the game.

Right but it's the same argument. When I'm using an all-Vanquisher Tank unbound army, I'd rather face a Titan than Tactical Marines. So I'll just turn down every game against tactical marines, because having a 0% chance of winning is unfun.

^ Same pidgeonhole.

At this point you are just reaching. Your talking about some extreme examples here. What you are saying is the equivilant of "you want to stop child abuse, thus you want to not allow parents to discipline their kids." Just because it is the same idea does not mean it is the same thing.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

At this point you are just reaching. Your talking about some extreme examples here. What you are saying is the equivilant of "you want to stop child abuse, thus you want to not allow parents to discipline their kids." Just because it is the same idea does not mean it is the same thing.

But it really is. In my example, I'd probably try to make my army more flexible, instead of trying to bring 10 Vanquisher tanks to every game. Because I want people to be able to use their tactical marines against me. Such inflexibility on the part of an army creator makes me raise my eyebrows, look askance, and think they're silly.

It literally is a question of increasing the flexibility of your army, in both cases, and I will continue to pidgeonhole people who obstinately refuse to improve their army. Depending on other factors surrounding them, they get pidgeonholed into:

1) Financially unstable. Sometimes, you just can't afford to change up your army. This is regrettable.
2) Obstinate. Sometimes, people resist change because it's hard.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

At this point you are just reaching. Your talking about some extreme examples here. What you are saying is the equivilant of "you want to stop child abuse, thus you want to not allow parents to discipline their kids." Just because it is the same idea does not mean it is the same thing.

But it really is. In my example, I'd probably try to make my army more flexible, instead of trying to bring 10 Vanquisher tanks to every game. Because I want people to be able to use their tactical marines against me. Such inflexibility on the part of an army creator makes me raise my eyebrows, look askance, and think they're silly.

It literally is a question of increasing the flexibility of your army, in both cases, and I will continue to pidgeonhole people who obstinately refuse to improve their army. Depending on other factors surrounding them, they get pidgeonholed into:

1) Financially unstable. Sometimes, you just can't afford to change up your army. This is regrettable.
2) Obstinate. Sometimes, people resist change because it's hard.

So, I have to change my entire army just to beat one unit? What if I am not playing against it? What if the only LoW available to me is £155 and I don't like it? What if I prefer playing with my current army?
My army is fine against anything other than a titan or imperial knights. I prefer the tactical, unit based, fighting rather than having two giant units shoot at each other. What you are doing is putting people into groups that do not exist.

I highly doubt you are unable to make reasonable modifications to an existing list to deal with Knights or Titans.

If you cant kill a couple av13 walkers with a 4+ save and 6 hull points how do you expect to deal with half a dozen wave serpents or three LRBTs hiding behind an aegis line?

Seriously, knights are not that hard to kill. War hound titans are not that hard to kill. Baneblades are silly easy to kill. Revenant titans are made of tissue paper, they only have the rough equivalent of a 5+/4+ save.

Actually try facing some lords of war. Once you get past the mental image of them being invincible, they actually go down shockingly easy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I highly doubt you are unable to make reasonable modifications to an existing list to deal with Knights or Titans.

If you cant kill a couple av13 walkers with a 4+ save and 6 hull points how do you expect to deal with half a dozen wave serpents or three LRBTs hiding behind an aegis line?

Seriously, knights are not that hard to kill. War hound titans are not that hard to kill. Baneblades are silly easy to kill. Revenant titans are made of tissue paper, they only have the rough equivalent of a 5+/4+ save.

Actually try facing some lords of war. Once you get past the mental image of them being invincible, they actually go down shockingly easy.

So?
I've won every game against LoW's so far and I still think they aren't fun and I don't want to see them in every game.
Perhaps one in five games might be fine, but not really more than that.

Luckily I own three Transcendent C'tans, so it's not hard to convince people not to play LoW's too much

Kangodo wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I highly doubt you are unable to make reasonable modifications to an existing list to deal with Knights or Titans.

If you cant kill a couple av13 walkers with a 4+ save and 6 hull points how do you expect to deal with half a dozen wave serpents or three LRBTs hiding behind an aegis line?

Seriously, knights are not that hard to kill. War hound titans are not that hard to kill. Baneblades are silly easy to kill. Revenant titans are made of tissue paper, they only have the rough equivalent of a 5+/4+ save.

Actually try facing some lords of war. Once you get past the mental image of them being invincible, they actually go down shockingly easy.

So?
I've won every game against LoW's so far and I still think they aren't fun and I don't want to see them in every game.
Perhaps one in five games might be fine, but not really more than that.

Luckily I own three Transcendent C'tans, so it's not hard to convince people not to play LoW's too much

HUR HUR ill play 3 of the most powerful LOW in a game to try stop people wanting to play the basic ones..... totally lame mate.

now to say if you cant deal with a cultist driven baneblade i think you have a problem.
now if i was running a dual turbolaser warhound id understand a little more trepidation, but thats still only 2 units targetable per turn. not goin to be too hard to avoid really...

We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

The game got more variety through FW and LoW. Unfortunately there are still people who will somehow abuse this fact.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

 Darkseid wrote:

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

I think that's key.

I had a bad time trying to have games with people who did not like the game the way I like it.

But often what happens is that you can't find people with the same vision and you accept playing with people with different visions - at which point you should do so consciously, ready to make concessions, or not at all.

I read it that he's talking about this thread rather than those he plays with.

 Darkseid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

The game got more variety through FW and LoW. Unfortunately there are still people who will somehow abuse this fact.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

Games shouldn't require negotiation before the game just to have a fair session. You should be able to show up, explain your army, list and have a bash.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

The game got more variety through FW and LoW. Unfortunately there are still people who will somehow abuse this fact.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

Games shouldn't require negotiation before the game just to have a fair session. You should be able to show up, explain your army, list and have a bash.

And if you're needing to negotiate every little thing you're probably playing the wrong people (or are the wrong people). Being able to show up, plop and army on the table and then roll should be acceptable but some people like to start creating all sorts of limitations and then claim they're playing 40k "correctly" when what they're playing is a homebrew of 40k.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

The game got more variety through FW and LoW. Unfortunately there are still people who will somehow abuse this fact.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

Games shouldn't require negotiation before the game just to have a fair session. You should be able to show up, explain your army, list and have a bash.

Before 6th edition, Super-heavies/GC/Flyers were Apocalypse only, with a single exception being a Battle Mission of 1500 pts vs 3 Baneblades. If you wanted to use Forgeworld, you needed your opponents permission.
In 6th edition, Forgeworld was more of a let your opponennt know you are bringing this as a matter of courtesy. Flyers became part of the normal rules, and shortly into 6th SHV/GCs became legal in normal games.
7th edition basically threw all that out and said bring whatever. If your opponent doesn't like it they are not Forging the Narrative hard enough. The way the rules are now designed, not only do you need to agree with your opponent what sources will be allowed, you also need to agree on how you can build your army.

 Happyjew wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

The game got more variety through FW and LoW. Unfortunately there are still people who will somehow abuse this fact.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

Games shouldn't require negotiation before the game just to have a fair session. You should be able to show up, explain your army, list and have a bash.

Before 6th edition, Super-heavies/GC/Flyers were Apocalypse only, with a single exception being a Battle Mission of 1500 pts vs 3 Baneblades. If you wanted to use Forgeworld, you needed your opponents permission.
In 6th edition, Forgeworld was more of a let your opponennt know you are bringing this as a matter of courtesy. Flyers became part of the normal rules, and shortly into 6th SHV/GCs became legal in normal games.
7th edition basically threw all that out and said bring whatever. If your opponent doesn't like it they are not Forging the Narrative hard enough. The way the rules are now designed, not only do you need to agree with your opponent what sources will be allowed, you also need to agree on how you can build your army.

Which is a fundamental issue with 40k. You shouldn't need to negotiate army lists with your opponent but because of Gee Dubs new "Do whatever you want" philosophy of design some may very well have to. I personally expect better from such an expensive ruleset but price doesn't always indicate quality.

 Happyjew wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

The game got more variety through FW and LoW. Unfortunately there are still people who will somehow abuse this fact.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

Games shouldn't require negotiation before the game just to have a fair session. You should be able to show up, explain your army, list and have a bash.

Before 6th edition, Super-heavies/GC/Flyers were Apocalypse only, with a single exception being a Battle Mission of 1500 pts vs 3 Baneblades. If you wanted to use Forgeworld, you needed your opponents permission.
In 6th edition, Forgeworld was more of a let your opponennt know you are bringing this as a matter of courtesy. Flyers became part of the normal rules, and shortly into 6th SHV/GCs became legal in normal games.
7th edition basically threw all that out and said bring whatever. If your opponent doesn't like it they are not Forging the Narrative hard enough. The way the rules are now designed, not only do you need to agree with your opponent what sources will be allowed, you also need to agree on how you can build your army.

5th edition didn't need forgeworld permission, that was people misinterpreting the rules for it in order to avoid doing what they could facing it.

I mean it's like how SC's were permission only in 3rd, sure back then but its standard now.

 Daba wrote:
I read it that he's talking about this thread rather than those he plays with.

Indeed I was.

But he said, and I quote

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

His game could not have become no longer enjoyable just due to forum trolls. right ?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
5th edition didn't need forgeworld permission, that was people misinterpreting the rules for it in order to avoid doing what they could facing it.

From IA Apocalypse (the original first edition).

The question of 'is it official?' continues to come up regularly from 40K players about Imperial Armour models and rules. By the above question I take players to mean, a) can they use their model and the rules for it in tournaments, b) use them without their opponent's consent, like codex rules. I'll address the tournament question first.

a) a few paragraphs about it being up to the tournament organiser.

b) Opponent's consent. As far as we are concerned Codexes and the rulebook are official, everything else is up to the players to use or ignore at will. The only thing that matters is that both players know this before they start, and both players agree that's the way they want to play the game.

So basically Warwick Kinrade of Forgeworld was saying "Rulebook and Codexes legal, no questiosn about it. Everything else is optional and both players need to agree to use the rules".

So yes, in 5th edition you did need your opponents permission.

morgoth wrote:
But he said, and I quote

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

His game could not have become no longer enjoyable just due to forum trolls. right ?

Sorry, let me clarify. The "You don't play Low so you're playing it wrong" crowd are elitists, but they don't diminish my fun. Additions to the game that throw it further out of balance or change the game completely are what diminish my enjoyment of the game.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Sorry, let me clarify. The "You don't play Low so you're playing it wrong" crowd are elitists, but they don't diminish my fun. Additions to the game that throw it further out of balance or change the game completely are what diminish my enjoyment of the game.

I think I know what you mean, you'd like to keep on playing the old 40K where that SM captain with his 2+ save and his bike was a god and there was nothing above.
No tanks to care about, no big robots, no Titans, just the old game with its old (very warped) balance and its old squad+sergeant style.

I don't like that game. I can see where there's a huge difference between that game and the current 40K.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Sorry, let me clarify. The "You don't play Low so you're playing it wrong" crowd are elitists, but they don't diminish my fun. Additions to the game that throw it further out of balance or change the game completely are what diminish my enjoyment of the game.

I think I know what you mean, you'd like to keep on playing the old 40K where that SM captain with his 2+ save and his bike was a god and there was nothing above.
No tanks to care about, no big robots, no Titans, just the old game with its old (very warped) balance and its old squad+sergeant style.

I don't like that game. I can see where there's a huge difference between that game and the current 40K.

I never said that. Where are you reading that from? You have a very active imagination there. If you're going to read my posts, you should at least put a little effort into understand them.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Sorry, let me clarify. The "You don't play Low so you're playing it wrong" crowd are elitists, but they don't diminish my fun. Additions to the game that throw it further out of balance or change the game completely are what diminish my enjoyment of the game.

I think I know what you mean, you'd like to keep on playing the old 40K where that SM captain with his 2+ save and his bike was a god and there was nothing above.
No tanks to care about, no big robots, no Titans, just the old game with its old (very warped) balance and its old squad+sergeant style.

I don't like that game. I can see where there's a huge difference between that game and the current 40K.

Strawman argument of the century.

Not wanting to play Apocalypse isn't the same as not wanting to play against mech armies that have been popular for over a decade.

 MWHistorian wrote:

I never said that. Where are you reading that from? You have a very active imagination there. If you're going to read my posts, you should at least put a little effort into understand them.

My bad then, where do you draw the line ?

Is it Wraith Knights ?
Revenants ?
What about Baneblades ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Strawman argument of the century.

Not wanting to play Apocalypse isn't the same as not wanting to play against mech armies that have been popular for over a decade.

It's fundamentally the exact same thing: refusing to adapt to new paradigm shifting units.

When I first played my Eldar mech close to a decade ago, people I played against whined because it broke their paradigm. Even today I get that kind of reaction from people.
That's highly similar to "WK or Revenants or Baneblades broke my game".

Ask yourself: is it a super heavy.
If you say yes, then it's a No-Go.

 Musashi363 wrote:
Ask yourself: is it a super heavy.
If you say yes, then it's a No-Go.

Pretty much.
Yes, I could beat them. A SH would hurt from my SOB's melta heavy list.
It's the style of game a SH creates that I don't like.

Luckily my group of friends is laid back on this. As long as it's all fun and jokes, you could field a Titan and we wouldn't care. Hell, the CSM player of our group one day said "I want to play [Khorne Chaos Lord from Siege of Vraks which name I can't recall]" and we were like "sure, no problem mate, as long as it fits the points limit you can field whatever you want".
I personally can't field anything from FW since they haven't made a model for Bran Redmaw yet, but as soon as they make it I'll buy it.

If someone complains because you play something that's FW, and if said miniature isn't too gamebreaking, then they're not worth your time. This is still a game, where you should simply had fun. That's why I can't stand WAAC players.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Musashi363 wrote:
Ask yourself: is it a super heavy.
If you say yes, then it's a No-Go.

Pretty much.
Yes, I could beat them. A SH would hurt from my SOB's melta heavy list.
It's the style of game a SH creates that I don't like.

What style of game is that?

 PunkNeverDie110 wrote:
Luckily my group of friends is laid back on this. As long as it's all fun and jokes, you could field a Titan and we wouldn't care. Hell, the CSM player of our group one day said "I want to play [Khorne Chaos Lord from Siege of Vraks which name I can't recall]" and we were like "sure, no problem mate, as long as it fits the points limit you can field whatever you want".
I personally can't field anything from FW since they haven't made a model for Bran Redmaw yet, but as soon as they make it I'll buy it.

If someone complains because you play something that's FW, and if said miniature isn't too gamebreaking, then they're not worth your time. This is still a game, where you should simply had fun. That's why I can't stand WAAC players.

This is what I've been saying. In a close group of like-minded people, 40k works great. A load of fun without much thinking.
It's the PU games that I rely on that make 40k unplayable for me.
Most FW isn't game breaking and adds a lot of variety and cool factor into the game.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Which is a fundamental issue with 40k. You shouldn't need to negotiate army lists with your opponent but because of Gee Dubs new "Do whatever you want" philosophy of design some may very well have to. I personally expect better from such an expensive ruleset but price doesn't always indicate quality.

Exactly. LoW is not an exception. A Chaos Space Marine elite melee army facing off against a grav-tank based Eldar army sounds like an awesome and exciting fight fluffwise but gamewise it will likely end up a one-sided predictable slaughter.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 PunkNeverDie110 wrote:
Luckily my group of friends is laid back on this. As long as it's all fun and jokes, you could field a Titan and we wouldn't care. Hell, the CSM player of our group one day said "I want to play [Khorne Chaos Lord from Siege of Vraks which name I can't recall]" and we were like "sure, no problem mate, as long as it fits the points limit you can field whatever you want".
I personally can't field anything from FW since they haven't made a model for Bran Redmaw yet, but as soon as they make it I'll buy it.

If someone complains because you play something that's FW, and if said miniature isn't too gamebreaking, then they're not worth your time. This is still a game, where you should simply had fun. That's why I can't stand WAAC players.

This is what I've been saying. In a close group of like-minded people, 40k works great. A load of fun without much thinking.
It's the PU games that I rely on that make 40k unplayable for me.
Most FW isn't game breaking and adds a lot of variety and cool factor into the game.

This is very much my experience as well. 40k works very well for small and close knit playgroups that engage in lots of self direction/self selection. It's increasingly becoming a nightmare however for larger groups, local leagues, pickup games, and events.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I never said that. Where are you reading that from? You have a very active imagination there. If you're going to read my posts, you should at least put a little effort into understand them.

My bad then, where do you draw the line ?

Is it Wraith Knights ?
Revenants ?
What about Baneblades ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Strawman argument of the century.

Not wanting to play Apocalypse isn't the same as not wanting to play against mech armies that have been popular for over a decade.

It's fundamentally the exact same thing: refusing to adapt to new paradigm shifting units.

When I first played my Eldar mech close to a decade ago, people I played against whined because it broke their paradigm. Even today I get that kind of reaction from people.
That's highly similar to "WK or Revenants or Baneblades broke my game".

Fundamentally it is similar. In practice, it is completely different. Most transports (Wave Serpents aside) don't upset the power balance in nearly the same way as using apocalypse stuff in regular 40k. And honestly, Stronghold Assault does some incredibly stupid things too. Have fun playing against 3 Sicaran tanks hiding behind 9 Void Shields.

"The Game" (tm) used to allow you to take nothing but Lone Wolves (before the new SW codex came out). Do you really want to play a version of 40k where you're facing off against 30 or so Terminators with Chainfists that you literally cannot kill without giving your opponent Victory Points? There's a reason that many gaming groups are saying "no" to Apoc units in regular 40k - they upset the power balance and many players have no desire to play against them.

FW factors into this because many people associate FW with the titan models - at least in my area, the problem isn't with FW as much as it's with units that were formerly restricted to Apoc. Units like Blight Drones, Hornets, Contemptors, etc. aren't bad at all and I would love to play against a full DKoK army. But, I don't see anything more obnoxious than someone winning a GT with some of those horribly cast Armorcast models from the early 90's.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 PunkNeverDie110 wrote:
Luckily my group of friends is laid back on this. As long as it's all fun and jokes, you could field a Titan and we wouldn't care. Hell, the CSM player of our group one day said "I want to play [Khorne Chaos Lord from Siege of Vraks which name I can't recall]" and we were like "sure, no problem mate, as long as it fits the points limit you can field whatever you want".
I personally can't field anything from FW since they haven't made a model for Bran Redmaw yet, but as soon as they make it I'll buy it.

If someone complains because you play something that's FW, and if said miniature isn't too gamebreaking, then they're not worth your time. This is still a game, where you should simply had fun. That's why I can't stand WAAC players.

This is what I've been saying. In a close group of like-minded people, 40k works great. A load of fun without much thinking.
It's the PU games that I rely on that make 40k unplayable for me.
Most FW isn't game breaking and adds a lot of variety and cool factor into the game.

This is very much my experience as well. 40k works very well for small and close knit playgroups that engage in lots of self direction/self selection. It's increasingly becoming a nightmare however for larger groups, local leagues, pickup games, and events.

Exactly. Pickup games are a giant hassle of what can and cannot be used. half the time the local TO tries to cater to both groups, some tournaments are unbound, some aren't. Some allow super heavies, some limit it to one. Guess what has happened? The populations split so bad, you cant get enough to get a tournament going for either rule set. No tournaments for 2 months now, and MABYE 2 people show up for pickup games on games nights. Down from a peak of 20+ just in mid 6th, which was already pissing people off with allies/flyers.

40k is a write off in our area now. Hopeing infinity picks up here, warmahordes is ok, but a little variety is fun.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Fundamentally it is similar. In practice, it is completely different. Most transports (Wave Serpents aside) don't upset the power balance in nearly the same way as using apocalypse stuff in regular 40k. And honestly, Stronghold Assault does some incredibly stupid things too. Have fun playing against 3 Sicaran tanks hiding behind 9 Void Shields.

"The Game" (tm) used to allow you to take nothing but Lone Wolves (before the new SW codex came out). Do you really want to play a version of 40k where you're facing off against 30 or so Terminators with Chainfists that you literally cannot kill without giving your opponent Victory Points? There's a reason that many gaming groups are saying "no" to Apoc units in regular 40k - they upset the power balance and many players have no desire to play against them.

FW factors into this because many people associate FW with the titan models - at least in my area, the problem isn't with FW as much as it's with units that were formerly restricted to Apoc. Units like Blight Drones, Hornets, Contemptors, etc. aren't bad at all and I would love to play against a full DKoK army. But, I don't see anything more obnoxious than someone winning a GT with some of those horribly cast Armorcast models from the early 90's.

So really, you don't want to play anything else than the 40K you already know and are pissed every time there's something new that actually changes the game ?

morgoth wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Fundamentally it is similar. In practice, it is completely different. Most transports (Wave Serpents aside) don't upset the power balance in nearly the same way as using apocalypse stuff in regular 40k. And honestly, Stronghold Assault does some incredibly stupid things too. Have fun playing against 3 Sicaran tanks hiding behind 9 Void Shields.

"The Game" (tm) used to allow you to take nothing but Lone Wolves (before the new SW codex came out). Do you really want to play a version of 40k where you're facing off against 30 or so Terminators with Chainfists that you literally cannot kill without giving your opponent Victory Points? There's a reason that many gaming groups are saying "no" to Apoc units in regular 40k - they upset the power balance and many players have no desire to play against them.

FW factors into this because many people associate FW with the titan models - at least in my area, the problem isn't with FW as much as it's with units that were formerly restricted to Apoc. Units like Blight Drones, Hornets, Contemptors, etc. aren't bad at all and I would love to play against a full DKoK army. But, I don't see anything more obnoxious than someone winning a GT with some of those horribly cast Armorcast models from the early 90's.

So really, you don't want to play anything else than the 40K you already know and are pissed every time there's something new that actually changes the game ?

That isn't the main objection. The main objection to all of this is that they create a situation whereby there are the "haves and have nots" who do want to play with the big stuff and those who don't. Moreover if both sides agreed to use them fine, however if one person does not have a LOW etc the game seemingly revolves around them killing it regardless of what said superheavy actually is.

FW does give you more options, but a few are a little dense when it comes to it, despite the harsh fact that we all know some of the FW units are actually better "balanced" than some codex units.


Overall its a waste of time to actually bother because you only encounter hypocrisy, I.E "you cannot use an IK but riptide/wraithknights are fine" . Given the fact that PUGs are quite common its easy to see why warmahordes is gaining popularity. At least i can turn up, use a colossal etc (similar to a 40k super-heavy) and due to the rather balanced nature of said game nobody complains about it, not to mention the far better community attitude. Not the sore arse, blown ego fest that 40k seems to be infested with.

carry on

 Art_of_war wrote:

That isn't the main objection. The main objection to all of this is that they create a situation whereby there are the "haves and have nots" who do want to play with the big stuff and those who don't. Moreover if both sides agreed to use them fine, however if one person does not have a LOW etc the game seemingly revolves around them killing it regardless of what said superheavy actually is.

FW does give you more options, but a few are a little dense when it comes to it, despite the harsh fact that we all know some of the FW units are actually better "balanced" than some codex units.


Overall its a waste of time to actually bother because you only encounter hypocrisy, I.E "you cannot use an IK but riptide/wraithknights are fine" . Given the fact that PUGs are quite common its easy to see why warmahordes is gaining popularity. At least i can turn up, use a colossal etc (similar to a 40k super-heavy) and due to the rather balanced nature of said game nobody complains about it, not to mention the far better community attitude. Not the sore arse, blown ego fest that 40k seems to be infested with.

carry on

But that's not true. A titan that costs 500 bucks is 2500 points, i.e. 5 points per buck, i.e. better priced than most things.
There's no "have nots" in this case.
Now if you talk about Eldar Hornets, which are awesome replacements to the Vypers, yeah there's a bit of have nots there, because they're a lot closer to 3 points per buck - like the WK.

But how is that different from regular 40K ? I mean, a Beast Pack is one point per buck.


It's a problem of community attitude, not of balance, not of haves and have nots.
WK and Riptides don't win games, IK are somewhat bs because they're among the only ones that can roll almost unbound while being BF, but otherwise they're rather balanced.

And that's really the point that I see every opponent to LoW and other things ignore.

And every last one of them seems to just be complaining because their army that used to do well now does nothing because they did not adapt to the newer stuff.

Morgoth: that's not how unbound works. Either you don't have an FOC, or you do. There is no "almost no FOC".

Also Knights have their own FOC that currently gives no bonuses once so ever. So they can't count as Battle Forged either (as that is a specific FOC option).

morgoth wrote:

 Art_of_war wrote:

That isn't the main objection. The main objection to all of this is that they create a situation whereby there are the "haves and have nots" who do want to play with the big stuff and those who don't. Moreover if both sides agreed to use them fine, however if one person does not have a LOW etc the game seemingly revolves around them killing it regardless of what said superheavy actually is.

FW does give you more options, but a few are a little dense when it comes to it, despite the harsh fact that we all know some of the FW units are actually better "balanced" than some codex units.


Overall its a waste of time to actually bother because you only encounter hypocrisy, I.E "you cannot use an IK but riptide/wraithknights are fine" . Given the fact that PUGs are quite common its easy to see why warmahordes is gaining popularity. At least i can turn up, use a colossal etc (similar to a 40k super-heavy) and due to the rather balanced nature of said game nobody complains about it, not to mention the far better community attitude. Not the sore arse, blown ego fest that 40k seems to be infested with.

carry on

But that's not true. A titan that costs 500 bucks is 2500 points, i.e. 5 points per buck, i.e. better priced than most things.
There's no "have nots" in this case.
Now if you talk about Eldar Hornets, which are awesome replacements to the Vypers, yeah there's a bit of have nots there, because they're a lot closer to 3 points per buck - like the WK.

But how is that different from regular 40K ? I mean, a Beast Pack is one point per buck.


It's a problem of community attitude, not of balance, not of haves and have nots.
WK and Riptides don't win games, IK are somewhat bs because they're among the only ones that can roll almost unbound while being BF, but otherwise they're rather balanced.

And that's really the point that I see every opponent to LoW and other things ignore.

And every last one of them seems to just be complaining because their army that used to do well now does nothing because they did not adapt to the newer stuff.

You're partially right. It's not really about balance in the usual sense of the word. (With a few exceptions.) But it's about balance in the sense that the game becomes all about that SH. Some people prefer a game where it's not "kill the giant." Sometimes, sure. But not on a usual basis. It's preference and (usually) little more, which is legit in a game for fun.

 MWHistorian wrote:

You're partially right. It's not really about balance in the usual sense of the word. (With a few exceptions.) But it's about balance in the sense that the game becomes all about that SH. Some people prefer a game where it's not "kill the giant." Sometimes, sure. But not on a usual basis. It's preference and (usually) little more, which is legit in a game for fun.

Come on... if it's slay the Giant it's a gimmicky game with a Titan that fills more than 50% of the points, and that doesn't make much sense.
When faced which such silliness, just say you've got enough silliness for now.

It has NOTHING to do with balance. Just with silliness.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

You're partially right. It's not really about balance in the usual sense of the word. (With a few exceptions.) But it's about balance in the sense that the game becomes all about that SH. Some people prefer a game where it's not "kill the giant." Sometimes, sure. But not on a usual basis. It's preference and (usually) little more, which is legit in a game for fun.

Come on... if it's slay the Giant it's a gimmicky game with a Titan that fills more than 50% of the points, and that doesn't make much sense.
When faced which such silliness, just say you've got enough silliness for now.

It has NOTHING to do with balance. Just with silliness.

Are we having the same conversation here?

 MWHistorian wrote:

Are we having the same conversation here?

Yes even though you keep on trying to derail it... damn you're a hard one.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

You're partially right. It's not really about balance in the usual sense of the word. (With a few exceptions.) But it's about balance in the sense that the game becomes all about that SH. Some people prefer a game where it's not "kill the giant." Sometimes, sure. But not on a usual basis. It's preference and (usually) little more, which is legit in a game for fun.

Come on... if it's slay the Giant it's a gimmicky game with a Titan that fills more than 50% of the points, and that doesn't make much sense.
When faced which such silliness, just say you've got enough silliness for now.

It has NOTHING to do with balance. Just with silliness.

Does not make much sense compared to what?

Wolf riding super-mutants in power armor?
"Clap if you believe" hordes of green football hooligans?
Evil for the purpose of evil space elves that consider BDSM as a valid combat tactic?
Killer robots who's programming got haywire enough for them to try eating people?

40K is not boasting much logic anyway, if you are looking for doing things in a practical fashion and not doing overly excessive things "to prove the point we can", you are looking at the wrong game world, because half of what defines 40k is "everyone is insane and going completely over the top"

But the case of super-heavies, its not even that far-fetched.
If there is a titan on the board, its not an army backed up by something absurd that overshadows the army itself that fights a "normal" army, its a deployed superweapon with its escort force fighting againt the forces sent to take down said superweapons.

What about deploying superweapons makes so little sense to you? we occasionally did that in real life. it sometimes even works. (not in such scale, but a tank in early WW1 was indeed a superweapon, B52 is fit for superheavy class aircraft.) we kina stopped the superweapon method once we started to use ICBMs (they are too easy targets for long-range missiles), but 40k does not follow the same limits of "practicality" and "reason", otherwise most large-scale fights would have ended with "they got nuked from orbit"

morgoth wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Fundamentally it is similar. In practice, it is completely different. Most transports (Wave Serpents aside) don't upset the power balance in nearly the same way as using apocalypse stuff in regular 40k. And honestly, Stronghold Assault does some incredibly stupid things too. Have fun playing against 3 Sicaran tanks hiding behind 9 Void Shields.

"The Game" (tm) used to allow you to take nothing but Lone Wolves (before the new SW codex came out). Do you really want to play a version of 40k where you're facing off against 30 or so Terminators with Chainfists that you literally cannot kill without giving your opponent Victory Points? There's a reason that many gaming groups are saying "no" to Apoc units in regular 40k - they upset the power balance and many players have no desire to play against them.

FW factors into this because many people associate FW with the titan models - at least in my area, the problem isn't with FW as much as it's with units that were formerly restricted to Apoc. Units like Blight Drones, Hornets, Contemptors, etc. aren't bad at all and I would love to play against a full DKoK army. But, I don't see anything more obnoxious than someone winning a GT with some of those horribly cast Armorcast models from the early 90's.

So really, you don't want to play anything else than the 40K you already know and are pissed every time there's something new that actually changes the game ?

Thanks for completely ignoring (or missing) my point. Carry on.

This practice of "nothing to say : present straw man" is really obnoxious. My point is that 7th's introduction had some unintended consequences. The Lone Wolf army that was legal at the beginning of 7th literally broke the game. Don't bother replying to my post unless you can say whether you would or would not feel comfortable playing an army against which it is literally impossible to win.

While the introduction of Apoc units in regular 40k is intentional, and legal, my point (which you have completely failed to address in any meaningful way, as usual) is that legal 40k allows for some incredibly stupid things. I don't want to play "kill the giant" outside of a one-off scenario type game. I sure as hell don't want to play "kill the giant" in a pickup game. Reecius at FLG had some pretty solid video batreps of what was possible in the new 40k ruleset - things like reasonably competitive armies tabled in 2 turns by a Revenant Titan. This is why tournament organizers are restricting choices: because they, unlike you (for some inexplicable reason), understand the "The Game" (tm) is currently incredibly stupid and needs a bit of oversight to be playable in a competitive environment.

I don't want to play 40k that is "kill the giant" or "you can't win because every model you kill gives me a VP." I've been invested in this game since Rogue Trader, so I think I've earned the right to criticize it when the designers go off the reservation and publish garbage rules.

To quote myself from another thread:

When the "good guys" are Nazi-wannabes, you know that gak is fethed up!