In normal 40k games like at the 1500 points level, are players allowed to use superheavy vehicles or things like warhound or reaver titans (if they can still finish their FOC of course)?
So that means reaver titans could be used in regular 40k games? I have somebody who's interested in trading one with me so I was wondering if I could even use it in games between 1500-2000 points :x
Yes, you CAN use a reaver at 1500; you just need to find a detachment (not just the CAD from the BRB, other detachments allow Lords of War as well) that has a LOW slot, that you can fill at 1500
From memory the reaver is 1400 - 1450 points, so good luck finding a detachment that you can fulfill the mandatory requirements of....
Else, you can go unbound where you do not use detachments. This is also perfectly fine, as long as your opponent agrees.
The main issue with only having say, one vehicle, is the same problem people have with all-mech armies now: a large proportion of their army may be unable to affect it at all, and so they feel it is worthless. However with all mecfh you can, after blowing the vehicle up, get to the guys inside, whereas with a reaver there ARE no guys inside...
In the end it comes down to whether the other player wants to play that, rather than 'legal', though.
Mainly this. No one is obligated to play you, even if everything in your list is within the rules. Some Lords of War fundamentally alter game-play (a Reaver definitely does), so always check with your opponent first.
In the end it comes down to whether the other player wants to play that, rather than 'legal', though.
Mainly this. No one is obligated to play you, even if everything in your list is within the rules. Some Lords of War fundamentally alter game-play (a Reaver definitely does), so always check with your opponent first.
Since GW does not want to limit your purchases most things are "legal".
It has been a change in thought that players are more choosy of what they will play against.
You may have to come to a tournament-like army selection rule system to ensure you pick lists that are competitive but people are still willing to play against.
If it's legal and people won't play you if you bring it, then they're TFG. It's like saying "I won't play you if you bring drop pods because I don't like them"...
Dalymiddleboro wrote: If it's legal and people won't play you if you bring it, then they're TFG. It's like saying "I won't play you if you bring drop pods because I don't like them"...
Nope. GW grew the game beyond what some people like. Their choices are stop playing altogether (not good for anyone really), play a game they won't enjoy (most of my army has any role to play in this game) or politely decline to play against things that dramatically move the game away feom what they enjoy. Choosing the last hardly makes someone TFG.
In time, LoW will be as much part of the game as allies, fliers and named characters.
The bigger issue is probably the reaver not giving you a whole lot of fun games, since playing a single unit will get boring after a couple of games, after which you'll have an expensive model that took a lot of work to build and paint sitting on the shelf.
If you want to invest in a LoW, pick one of the smaller ones (<400 points), so you are fielding an actual army alongside them, for example a CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT, or on a more serious note, a macharius heavy tank are still powerful assets to your army, but they are still just a part of your army.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: If it's legal and people won't play you if you bring it, then they're TFG. It's like saying "I won't play you if you bring drop pods because I don't like them"...
Uh, I decline games all the time. Some people play a different style of game from me, some people can't stop talking about inane things, some never intend to paint their armies, whatever... I try to play with people who I know I'll enjoy playing against. Seems pretty common sense to me and not TFG in the least.
Imperial Knights are Superheavies that are legal to play in 40k, and do not require a LoW slot. Logan, Draigo, and Gaz are LoW that are neither Superheavies nor Gargantuan. The 40k landscape is changing, and we can't just arbitrarily say "no LoW" or "no SHV" or "no digital-only units" without unfairly limiting some armies over others. Its much easier, and slightly more fair, to say "no duplicate formations" or "highlander style", although even that can be too limiting to some. A much better solution, yet still by no means perfect, is a "don't be a D-Bag" policy, or a "peer review" process for list building. Probably the best solution is to assume "'Ard Boyz at 1500pts", and build around that.
In the end, play to your local meta, don't be dick.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Indeed, people are welcome to play against what they like.
Bringing a LoW is not TFG behavior, but nor is declining to play against it.
Rules of 40k:
1) Don't be a dick
2) Be adults.
honestly, just rule #1 needs to apply...
social contract game people... this is D&D that you paint yourself and have multiple characters in...
As others have said, you can but there's currently a stigma associated with superheavies, especially Titans so if you show up to a friendly game with a titan, you might not make friends. If you arrange it beforehand (e.g. "I just got a Titan, who wants to have a fun game and try to stop it?") then it might be fun, but in general it's a d-bag move to turn up to a regular game and plop down a Titan if your opponent isn't expecting one.
WayneTheGame wrote: As others have said, you can but there's currently a stigma associated with superheavies, especially Titans so if you show up to a friendly game with a titan, you might not make friends. If you arrange it beforehand (e.g. "I just got a Titan, who wants to have a fun game and try to stop it?") then it might be fun, but in general it's a d-bag move to turn up to a regular game and plop down a Titan if your opponent isn't expecting one.
That or bring a second army with you and give them the option of witch to fight.
The big thing about the LoW fear/hatred it the fact that many show up and not tell anyone. If they know in advance I have found that most are ok with one if they know it is showing up.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: If it's legal and people won't play you if you bring it, then they're TFG. It's like saying "I won't play you if you bring drop pods because I don't like them"...
Who is more of a TFG: the guy who brings a 2000pt army consisting of Horus and a Reaver titan, or the guy with the normal TAC list who doesn't want to play against that?
Dalymiddleboro wrote: If it's legal and people won't play you if you bring it, then they're TFG. It's like saying "I won't play you if you bring drop pods because I don't like them"...
Who is more of a TFG: the guy who brings a 2000pt army consisting of Horus and a Reaver titan, or the guy with the normal TAC list who doesn't want to play against that?
The guy who's being a Jerk about the other guy's list
Really what is a 'normal' game of 40k these days? If it's a tournament then there will be rules, otherwise just talk with your opponent beforehand and make sure you're on the same page.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: .... It's like saying "I won't play you if you bring drop pods because I don't like them"...
Indeed it is.
And neither is a problem. I've turned down games in the past because the player had an army that I didn't particularly want to play against. That's not being 'TFG'... it's not wasting your precious hobby time on a game that you're not going to enjoy.
If someone wants to play a boardgame, and you say 'Sure... but not Monopoly! That gak bores me to tears' ... is that being unreasonable?
Except that's not really true. If you say you're not going to play against tactical squads people are going to think you're being unreasonable (or even TFG), and you're going to have a hard time finding anyone interested in playing with you. But if you refuse to play against LoW those same people will support you and accuse your opponent of being unreasonable (or even TFG) for bringing a LoW without begging for special permission first. There's a clear double standard here where most, if not all, non-LoW codex options are assumed to be included by default but you need special permission for LoW/FW/etc.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: If it's legal and people won't play you if you bring it, then they're TFG. It's like saying "I won't play you if you bring drop pods because I don't like them"...
Not quite the TFG, at least they are not wasting your time.
I tend to look at what a TFGdoes to you, refusing to play is an "oh well" moment.
If I see the "net list of the month" while I brought the "Fluff factor 5000" army, I conclude that person wants to play a different game than me and it would suck on both counts.
Plus only the truly sadistic want to play a full game with someone where they table them: look for some challenge.
I HAVE seen people that intentionally try to have a game with the weakest army opponent they can find, feels rather abusive in outlook.
SO superheavies! love them! Really want a big game playing them since joe troopers would be in short supply due to the points suck (2000+ pts).
Fielded a Baneblade a couple times, gave warning about that beast and nothing else so a nasty surprise was not had.
Each instance of giving warning made a pretty close fight, I had fun and my opponent had some answers to that bad boy so they had fun too.
Guess I am saying in summary: Telling each other what "Lord of war" unit you are taking and nothing else may help keep it fair.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: If it's legal and people won't play you if you bring it, then they're TFG. It's like saying "I won't play you if you bring drop pods because I don't like them"...
Who is more of a TFG: the guy who brings a 2000pt army consisting of Horus and a Reaver titan, or the guy with the normal TAC list who doesn't want to play against that?
That's not exactly a normal case though. most people who run a LOW just wanna use a baneblade with their Imperial guard. that list is an unbound list of 2 LOWs, one of which isn't, strictly speaking, even a legal 40k unit
Except that's not really true. If you say you're not going to play against tactical squads people are going to think you're being unreasonable (or even TFG), and you're going to have a hard time finding anyone interested in playing with you. But if you refuse to play against LoW those same people will support you and accuse your opponent of being unreasonable (or even TFG) for bringing a LoW without begging for special permission first. There's a clear double standard here where most, if not all, non-LoW codex options are assumed to be included by default but you need special permission for LoW/FW/etc.
>Then have an open discussion with the group about how you would like to play a LoW, but you don't want to be TFG. Point out things like they are all part of the game now.
>Suggest a LoW Tournament, requiring everyone to take one. Then everyone will see that they are not that bad.
Peregrine wrote: Except that's not really true. If you say you're not going to play against tactical squads people are going to think you're being unreasonable (or even TFG), and you're going to have a hard time finding anyone interested in playing with you. But if you refuse to play against LoW those same people will support you and accuse your opponent of being unreasonable (or even TFG) for bringing a LoW without begging for special permission first. There's a clear double standard here where most, if not all, non-LoW codex options are assumed to be included by default but you need special permission for LoW/FW/etc.
Do you know anyone that refuses to play against Tactical Marines?
If not: Argument invalid.
The most important part about a game is that you both have fun.
And for many games both players have a certain expectation of what a game of WH40k will be.
Fighting against a 1000-point Lord of War isn't fun for many people.
And while I agree that they shouldn't complain and at least try it, I also think that you should inform the opponent if you're doing such a thing.
Likewise I also expect my opponent to inform me if he is going to play a tournament list, so that I will know what to expect from a game.
If I should expect a Lord of War for every single game, my lists would become very standard and include a gigantic amount of heavy firepower, more than I usually (want to) take.
That also effects the player that does not have a Lord of War, because his two or three vehicles will get blown away in my first turn of shooting.
Anpu42 wrote: >Then have an open discussion with the group about how you would like to play a LoW, but you don't want to be TFG. Point out things like they are all part of the game now.
>Suggest a LoW Tournament, requiring everyone to take one. Then everyone will see that they are not that bad.
And this just confirms the double standard. I don't have to have an open discussion about how I would like to use a tactical squad, or have a "everyone must take a tactical squad" tournament to justify my decision to use them. I just show up with tactical squads in my army, and my opponents are obligated to accept it. So why should it be any different with LoW?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote: Do you know anyone that refuses to play against Tactical Marines?
No, and that's exactly the point. In theory the "both players have to agree" and "you can refuse a game for any reason" rules apply equally to titans and tactical squads. But in practice certain categories of units (LoW, FW, etc) are treated as if they require special permission, while others are assumed to be legal without question and you're TFG if you even think about refusing to allow them.
Anpu42 wrote: >Then have an open discussion with the group about how you would like to play a LoW, but you don't want to be TFG. Point out things like they are all part of the game now.
>Suggest a LoW Tournament, requiring everyone to take one. Then everyone will see that they are not that bad.
And this just confirms the double standard. I don't have to have an open discussion about how I would like to use a tactical squad, or have a "everyone must take a tactical squad" tournament to justify my decision to use them. I just show up with tactical squads in my army, and my opponents are obligated to accept it. So why should it be any different with LoW?
About Tactical Squads, no you don't, but Yes with LoW.
Not Because it is LoW, but because it is a issue with the group. There are lots of groups with issues, not that I have to tell you. We had the same discussions when 6th and then 7th cam out:
>Flyers
>LoW
>Unbound
>Fortifications
In the end we have no issues with any of them once everyone's concerns and fears were addressed.
Now our group would most likely go "Cool a Reaver Titan!" rather than "No you can't play that." We also feel it is not unreasonable to go "Fred...this is the 10th time you brought out your Riptide SPAM in a row, you want to bring something else, it is getting real boring to fight you."
Peregrine wrote: No, and that's exactly the point. In theory the "both players have to agree" and "you can refuse a game for any reason" rules apply equally to titans and tactical squads. But in practice certain categories of units (LoW, FW, etc) are treated as if they require special permission, while others are assumed to be legal without question and you're TFG if you even think about refusing to allow them.
No, RAW they don't require special permission.
The fact is that a game with a Lord of War is played differently than a game without a LoW.
Or are you going to tell me that a Tactical Squad plays the same as a Transcendent C'tan?
People expect you to at least inform them and they expect you to not play it if they don't want it.
That's not a law, that is an unofficial 'understanding'.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Why should we tell them about LoW? I mean, they don't inform us they're bringing Abaddon... Why do we have to inform them we're taking Gazghull?
Because we are talking about SHV's and GMC's and not about Ghazghkull. You don't have to tell me that you suddenly decided to field a Reaver Titan, the rules don't require you to inform me before I arrive at the place where we game. But I will pack my things and go play someone else. If there is nobody else, I will go home.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Why should we tell them about LoW? I mean, they don't inform us they're bringing Abaddon... Why do we have to inform them we're taking Gazghull?
Because we are talking about SHV's and GMC's and not about Ghazghkull.
You don't have to tell me that you suddenly decided to field a Reaver Titan.
But I will pack my things and go play someone else.
I think that mentality is very obtuse. It's a slippery slope to start deciding if you'll play someone based on what they bring. Why not just accept they're part of the game, and build your TAC list against it?
Because I am a player that plays this game and pays a lot of money to enjoy himself. And that does not include playing against a Reaver Titan that I did not expect just as I decided to try out a melee-Necron army. Or when I decide to dust off my underpowered crappy Blood Angels.
As for the quote itself:
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I think that mentality is very obtuse. It's a slippery slope to start deciding if you'll play someone based on what they bring. Why not just accept they're part of the game, and build your TAC list against it?
I decide if I will play someone based on whether I will have fun for the next couple of hours or not. And that happens to be influenced by the list he plays. The only obtuse mentality is expecting me to do something I don't want because you think it's a part of the game. Which I agree on, they are a part of the game! Just like Apocalypse is part of the game. But I prefer it if people inform me that we are playing a weekend of Apocalypse when I decide to come over to play.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I think that mentality is very obtuse. It's a slippery slope to start deciding if you'll play someone based on what they bring. Why not just accept they're part of the game, and build your TAC list against it?
Yet the rules say that is perfectly legal ('Preparing for Battle', under the heading 'Choosing Your Army' in bold type).
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I think that mentality is very obtuse. It's a slippery slope to start deciding if you'll play someone based on what they bring. Why not just accept they're part of the game, and build your TAC list against it?
Yet the rules say that is perfectly legal ('Preparing for Battle', under the heading 'Choosing Your Army' in bold type).
Rules also say it's perfectly legal to bring yourself a titan.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Rules also say it's perfectly legal to bring yourself a titan.
Nobody said it's not legal. Read this, read it again and then read it a third time:
Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use.
In short: You cannot force me to play against your Titan. Not just because the rules tell it, but I am sure that your country has some rules against that too.
Only if both players agree. If they don't, then the rules do not say that you can bring a Titan despite the fact that your opponent didn't agree to it.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Rules also say it's perfectly legal to bring yourself a titan.
Nobody said it's not legal.
Read this, read it again and then read it a third time:
Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use.
In short: You cannot force me to play against your Titan.
Not just because the rules tell it, but I am sure that your country has some rules against that too.
Do you have any idea what a TFG is?
And I'm such a thing because I have better things to do than spend three hours on something I don't like?
Maybe you are unaware, but maybe you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion You cannot force someone to do something against their will.
But sure, go ahead and break forum-rules, game-rules, store-rules and national law because you HAVE to play with that Titan.
Do you have any idea what a TFG is?
And I'm such a thing because I have better things to do than spend three hours on something I don't like?
Maybe you are unaware, but maybe you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion You cannot force someone to do something against their will.
But sure, go ahead and break forum-rules, game-rules, store-rules and national law because you HAVE to play with that Titan.
Actually, I've broken none of those things. I would seriously try and relax though. Life is too short to get mad at the internet...
1. Insulting other users is not allowed.
2. The game tells you that an opponent should agree on the units you take.
3. Stores probably have rules against forcing people to play you.
4. Extortion is illegal.
So that are four (maybe three) out of four rules you'd break. Good luck!
Maybe people wouldn't get mad if you didn't insult them? But I'm going and I'll let a moderator deal with it.
Kangodo wrote: 1. Insulting other users is not allowed.
2. The game tells you that an opponent should agree on the units you take.
3. Stores probably have rules against forcing people to play you.
4. Extortion is illegal.
So that are four (maybe three) out of four rules you'd break. Good luck!
Maybe people wouldn't get mad if you didn't insult them? But I'm going and I'll let a moderator deal with it.
I welcome a MOD. I haven't insulted anyone. I've extorted no one. As far as the game goes, it also gives guidlines on what units you may take according to Warhammer 40000, according to those guidelines, you're alotted one LOW in a bound army list as well as unbound.
Now our group would most likely go "Cool a Reaver Titan!" rather than "No you can't play that." We also feel it is not unreasonable to go "Fred...this is the 10th time you brought out your Riptide SPAM in a row, you want to bring something else, it is getting real boring to fight you."
Yep, exactly this. Blanket refusals are just silly, and I will gladly play against an army with a cool titan once in a while, even if it might mean my army gets mercilessly slaughtered. Of course, always playing against certain rather overpowered armies will get old at some point, but that is not really a problem caused exclusively (or even mostly) by LOWs.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I welcome a MOD. I haven't insulted anyone. I've extorted no one. As far as the game goes, it also gives guidlines on what units you may take according to Warhammer 40000, according to those guidelines, you're alotted one LOW in a bound army list as well as unbound.
RTFM:
Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use.
The BRB tells you that your opponent must agree.
Case closed.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: I welcome a MOD. I haven't insulted anyone. I've extorted no one. As far as the game goes, it also gives guidlines on what units you may take according to Warhammer 40000, according to those guidelines, you're alotted one LOW in a bound army list as well as unbound.
RTFM:
Before any game, players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use.
The BRB tells you that your opponent must agree.
Case closed.
People don't have to agree with you. They don't have to do it in a store, and they don't have to do it on the internet. But if someone doesn't agree with you, the appropriate response (certainly on Dakka; usually in life) is not to start ranting at each other nor to start through around claims of extortion. Drop it, and go enjoy some other part of the forum.
Edit: Just in case I was insufficiently clear, we're done with discussing accusations of "TFG"-dom and extortion. If you don't have anything to say on the topic without discussing that, you don't need to be posting in this thread.
Kangodo wrote: The BRB tells you that your opponent must agree.
Case closed.
No, the case is absolutely NOT closed because we're talking about player policies, not RAW. In theory the rules say that you have to agree about everything. In practice what this really means is that a lot of players expect advance notification/begging for permission/etc for certain categories of units/armies (LoW, unbound, etc) but simultaneously expect that if they want to use other categories of units/armies (tactical squads, for example) their opponent is obligated to let them do it and is TFG if they refuse to play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote: And that does not include playing against a Reaver Titan that I did not expect just as I decided to try out a melee-Necron army.
Or when I decide to dust off my underpowered crappy Blood Angels.
Two issues here:
1) Why is it your opponent's job to keep track of which awful army you're going to be playing and give you advanced warning so you can bring a terrible list and still have a chance of winning? Shouldn't it be your job to inform your opponent in advance that you want to bring a terrible list and try to find someone willing to accommodate your request?
2) Why don't you expect to face a Reaver titan? It's part of the rules, complaining about not expecting one makes about as much sense as complaining that you didn't expect to face a Rhino.
Just like Apocalypse is part of the game. But I prefer it if people inform me that we are playing a weekend of Apocalypse when I decide to come over to play.
Except that's not really a good comparison because Apocalypse isn't part of the standard game. It's an alternate form of 40k that requires both players to bring different armies. An army with a LoW, on the other hand, is a normal 40k army played in normal 40k missions against other normal 40k armies. Expecting special advance notice that a LoW will be present is more like demanding advance notice that your opponent will be using a tactical squad.
Peregrine wrote: Except that's not really true. If you say you're not going to play against tactical squads people are going to think you're being unreasonable (or even TFG), and you're going to have a hard time finding anyone interested in playing with you..
I suspect that really comes down to your reasons for doing so.
I haven't refused to play against tactical squads specifically, but I have refused games against bog-standard Marine armies simply because my previous few games were against marines and I wanted to play something different.
It's not as simple as 'If you refuse to play, you're being unreasonable'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: 1) Why is it your opponent's job to keep track of which awful army you're going to be playing and give you advanced warning so you can bring a terrible list and still have a chance of winning? Shouldn't it be your job to inform your opponent in advance that you want to bring a terrible list and try to find someone willing to accommodate your request?
It' nobody's 'job' to keep track of anything. We're talking about a game of toy soldiers. If someone doesn't want to play against someone else's army because the force they have with them wouldn't make for a fun match-up, that's really not as big a deal as you seem to be trying to make it out to be.
Just deleted a long rant, because there has to be a way to express those thoughts more concisely.
I don't currently play the game. Played tail end of third to first few months of fifth then stopped because of life for a while. Ready to come back into the game, but it doesn't appeal to me in the current form. Superheavies and flyers as part of the core game is part of why. I've started collecting, but don't play and probably won't ever buy the 7th edition rules.
I don't mind the idea of playing occasional games against flyers/superheavies, but to me they aren't what I want in the core game. I don't want most lists I build to be forced to have a way to deal with them and I have no interest in obtaining either type of models. I like tanks/monstrous creatures, infantry and heros. That is what the game is primarily about for me, but that is no longer the game so I don't play.
I don't know. Maybe most of the players and potential players prefer flyers and superheavies. My guess is no, but I could be wrong. Perhaps it doesn't mean anything, but a poll here showed 60% preferred 4th/5th and only 25% preferred 6/7th as their favorite era.
Anyway, the options, tactics and feel of the game with and without flyers and superheavies are different enough that they are almost two different games. (At least it seems so to me, though admittedly I haven't played with those rules). One appeals to me, the other doesn't. Perhaps I am in the minority and the game isn't really impacted by those who feel as I do, but I don't think this is the case. I think those who play have fewer opponents and less diversity of human interaction and gameplay due to the rules being structured in a way that drives away more people than they draw in.
As I said above, I would gladly play against superheavies and flyers occasionally, but the prospect of needing to prepare for them every game is so unappealing I simply don't play.
Why is another thread like this still up? Really people I dont care how much you hate the idea of LoW, get over it they are in the game and they are not going anywhere. Just because you do not like it doesnt mean another player should be forced to change up their list or what models they want because you say so. When it comes to friendly games you can easily say "hey I want to try out a friendly list, mind not bringing your Superheavy since I have nothing to handle it?" or "Mind if I change up my list so I can bring stuff to handle your LoW?" Its that easy.
Now for Tournaments you CANNOT say this and guess what, you can toughen up. They are considered legal and you cannot refuse them if you play in tournaments. The biggest issue I have with threads like these is that it seems the vast majority of you guys against it are playing lists that you are REFUSING to change or adapt and instead demand the other player do it, yeah like that is fair.
I don't know. Maybe most of the players and potential players prefer flyers and superheavies. My guess is no, but I could be wrong. Perhaps it doesn't mean anything, but a poll here showed 60% preferred 4th/5th and only 25% preferred 6/7th as their favorite era.
A single poll that not everybody on here or who plays the game voted on shows that most palyers prefer 4th/5t edition, that is a very small % and should not be taken into account for the majority of 40k players.
gmaleron wrote: Why is another thread like this still up? Really people I dont care how much you hate the idea of LoW, get over it they are in the game and they are not going anywhere. Just because you do not like it doesnt mean another player should be forced to change up their list or what models they want because you say so. When it comes to friendly games you can easily say "hey I want to try out a friendly list, mind not bringing your Superheavy since I have nothing to handle it?" or "Mind if I change up my list so I can bring stuff to handle your LoW?" Its that easy.
Now for Tournaments you CANNOT say this and guess what, you can toughen up. They are considered legal and you cannot refuse them if you play in tournaments. The biggest issue I have with threads like these is that it seems the vast majority of you guys against it are playing lists that you are REFUSING to change or adapt and instead demand the other player do it, yeah like that is fair.
I don't know. Maybe most of the players and potential players prefer flyers and superheavies. My guess is no, but I could be wrong. Perhaps it doesn't mean anything, but a poll here showed 60% preferred 4th/5th and only 25% preferred 6/7th as their favorite era.
A single poll that not everybody on here or who plays the game voted on shows that most palyers prefer 4th/5t edition, that is a very small % and should not be taken into account for the majority of 40k players.
Unless the tournament bans them, which happens a lot. Some people are willing to play against them, some aren't. It is that simple, let it go.
I personally am not affected by this, I just get annoyed when people complain about something and try to force others to play the game they feel it should be played as, not as the game actually is. I have a Forgeworld army so will admit I may be more annoyed with arguments like these as I am tired of hearing them.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Just deleted a long rant, because there has to be a way to express those thoughts more concisely.
I don't currently play the game. Played tail end of third to first few months of fifth then stopped because of life for a while. Ready to come back into the game, but it doesn't appeal to me in the current form. Superheavies and flyers as part of the core game is part of why. I've started collecting, but don't play and probably won't ever buy the 7th edition rules.
I don't mind the idea of playing occasional games against flyers/superheavies, but to me they aren't what I want in the core game. I don't want most lists I build to be forced to have a way to deal with them and I have no interest in obtaining either type of models. I like tanks/monstrous creatures, infantry and heros. That is what the game is primarily about for me, but that is no longer the game so I don't play.
I don't know. Maybe most of the players and potential players prefer flyers and superheavies. My guess is no, but I could be wrong. Perhaps it doesn't mean anything, but a poll here showed 60% preferred 4th/5th and only 25% preferred 6/7th as their favorite era.
Anyway, the options, tactics and feel of the game with and without flyers and superheavies are different enough that they are almost two different games. (At least it seems so to me, though admittedly I haven't played with those rules). One appeals to me, the other doesn't. Perhaps I am in the minority and the game isn't really impacted by those who feel as I do, but I don't think this is the case. I think those who play have fewer opponents and less diversity of human interaction and gameplay due to the rules being structured in a way that drives away more people than they draw in.
As I said above, I would gladly play against superheavies and flyers occasionally, but the prospect of needing to prepare for them every game is so unappealing I simply don't play.
(Yes, that is the short version) :-p
I don't think Most Players do not play with the "War Machines". Which might be part of the problem, those who have a Solid Opinion one way or the other are the loudest. I think most of us can take them or leave them.
As far as the Flyers go, they are very popular and I think the same goes with those who have Solid Opinions of them, They are very loud about their opinions.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: If it's legal and people won't play you if you bring it, then they're TFG. It's like saying "I won't play you if you bring drop pods because I don't like them"...
Who is more of a TFG: the guy who brings a 2000pt army consisting of Horus and a Reaver titan, or the guy with the normal TAC list who doesn't want to play against that?
how are you bringing Horus?
30k isnt legal in 40k. so the reaver is atleast 40k legal...
gmaleron wrote: Why is another thread like this still up? Really people I dont care how much you hate the idea of LoW, get over it they are in the game and they are not going anywhere. Just because you do not like it doesnt mean another player should be forced to change up their list or what models they want because you say so.
So the other player should play a game he would get absolutely no enjoyment in playing? Regardless, the actual written rules are clear. Both players have an equal say in how the armies are chosen and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models being used. If both players can't agree, then they both walk away and no one is more at fault than the other. Just stop pretending that the rulebook says that you get to take whatever you want and your opponent can't do anything about it because the rules say otherwise.
If someone showed up to a pick up game with a reaver, I'd politely tell him "no thanks" and look for another game. Neither of us is wrong, it's just that that's not the kind of game I find enjoyable and my time's too precious to spend playing a game I don't enjoy.
well is that player turning up to the FLGS with a TAC style list, or some list like the affore mentioned necron CC army.
if your bringing a very specific list you should have pre arranged your game.
IF you have a TAC army, well that A in the middle is for ALL. and if i was turning up to a FLGS etc with the intent on a random game with random players and random armies guess what id be taking. a list that should be fun against anything.
now we know there is a couple of SH that are in the light atm. Reaver, revenant, Ctan. but outside of them, none are particulary obnoxious. and TAC lists should be able to deal with them.
So im sorry if my TAC list with a converted CSM baneblade, or fellblade or my warhound (without turbolasers) somehow disturbs your idea of what should not be, but if you want i can swap any one of them for 3 helldrakes or other obnoxios lists that are just as legal.
so for me, if your bringing a bad list that is designed to take on something particular, make sure you have your single opponent lined up. or make your list more open and varied
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: If someone showed up to a pick up game with a reaver, I'd politely tell him "no thanks" and look for another game. Neither of us is wrong, it's just that that's not the kind of game I find enjoyable and my time's too precious to spend playing a game I don't enjoy.
just want to mention here, those that think a 1500 pt game against a reaver will take 3 hours... not likely, youll either kill it, be killed by it, or out manouver it in very short time. and their turn would be really quick
gmaleron wrote: Why is another thread like this still up? Really people I dont care how much you hate the idea of LoW, get over it they are in the game and they are not going anywhere. Just because you do not like it doesnt mean another player should be forced to change up their list or what models they want because you say so.
So the other player should play a game he would get absolutely no enjoyment in playing? Regardless, the actual written rules are clear. Both players have an equal say in how the armies are chosen and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models being used. If both players can't agree, then they both walk away and no one is more at fault than the other. Just stop pretending that the rulebook says that you get to take whatever you want and your opponent can't do anything about it because the rules say otherwise.
If you read my whole post you would see that I actually said that it was a friendly game you can do exactly what you just said. please be sure to include all information instead of nitpicking, I am only saying that in regards to people who refuse it based on personal reasons.rules wise it doesn't matter, you can take a Lord of War if you choose to, whether you agree on it or not is up to you and your opponent. the same can be said in regards to the person you're facing, it's not fair for him to always have to do what you want in a game.
ausYenLoWang wrote: well is that player turning up to the FLGS with a TAC style list, or some list like the affore mentioned necron CC army.
if your bringing a very specific list you should have pre arranged your game.
IF you have a TAC army, well that A in the middle is for ALL. and if i was turning up to a FLGS etc with the intent on a random game with random players and random armies guess what id be taking. a list that should be fun against anything.
now we know there is a couple of SH that are in the light atm. Reaver, revenant, Ctan. but outside of them, none are particulary obnoxious. and TAC lists should be able to deal with them.
So im sorry if my TAC list with a converted CSM baneblade, or fellblade or my warhound (without turbolasers) somehow disturbs your idea of what should not be, but if you want i can swap any one of them for 3 helldrakes or other obnoxios lists that are just as legal.
so for me, if your bringing a bad list that is designed to take on something particular, make sure you have your single opponent lined up. or make your list more open and varied
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: If someone showed up to a pick up game with a reaver, I'd politely tell him "no thanks" and look for another game. Neither of us is wrong, it's just that that's not the kind of game I find enjoyable and my time's too precious to spend playing a game I don't enjoy.
just want to mention here, those that think a 1500 pt game against a reaver will take 3 hours... not likely, youll either kill it, be killed by it, or out manouver it in very short time. and their turn would be really quick
A waste of time is still a waste of time. Life's too short. (IMO. To each his own.)
A single poll that not everybody on here or who plays the game voted on shows that most palyers prefer 4th/5t edition, that is a very small % and should not be taken into account for the majority of 40k players.
Polls don't need to include every single person to have validity. Samples of around 2000 are used and accurately reflect the opinions (within a few percentage points) of nearly 300,000,000 people in the United States during elections. The poll I'm referring to had nearly 700 responses. I'm fairly certain the 40k fanbase isn't remotely near as large as the population of the US and that the sample size is large enough to give a reasonably accuarate response.
Perhaps only a certain group of gamers were drawn to the poll and were oversampled and it means nothing, but other data supports the poll. Dropping sales for GW while other tabletop game companies grow is one example of this. A bunch of people here saying they don't want to play against them, at least not in frequent random games further supports this. There is plenty of evidence tha the game is losing popularity if you care to see it, and one question that should be asked is why? I can tell with certainty that superheavies in normal games is part of that decline.
--
Here's the funny thing about this depate. If two people show up at a game store to play a wargame and one pulls out warmachine and the other pulls out fantasy they don't get mad at each other for wanting to play different games. Different companies and rules and clearly different games. This conversation is basically about the same idea though. The two sides want to play different games. Eliminate super heavies from the game and options that otherwise wouldn't be viable are. Either way somebody doesn't get to use something they want to. That's fine. They like different flavors fo40k and shouldn't get ticked at each other for wanting to play different flavors. Just move on to someone who likes the same version you do.
--
Refusing to play against tac squads is not the same thing as refusing to play against super heavies. For one thing every single unit in the game that can harm anything can harm tac squads (unless there is some obscure specialty thing out there I don't know about) but not so with superheavies. So a big part of what you want to bring will be useless against one, but not the other. No comparison, but as some have pointed out there may be a good reason not to play against them and there is nothing wrong with saying no thanks to playing against MEQ for the 16th time in a row.
Super Heavies need substantial house ruling in order to integrate them into standard low point level games. GW may have irresponsibly made them legal but the game still breaks if Warhounds start thrashing around in 1850 point games. The games become silly and dumb.
So instead of going back and forth over their legality, how about discussing how you house rule them so that they can be a part of standard games?
If you want to maintain that they are fine as they are and they should not be house ruled and just played as is then the conversation stops here and people simply won't play against super heavies in normal 40k games. There are bad apples in the LoW roster and they have to be dealt with if you actually want to see LoW in standard games.
col_impact wrote: Super Heavies need substantial house ruling in order to integrate them into standard low point level games. GW may have irresponsibly made them legal but the game still breaks if Warhounds start thrashing around in 1850 point games. The games become silly and dumb.
So instead of going back and forth over their legality, how about discussing how you house rule them so that they can be a part of standard games?
If you want to maintain that they are fine as they are and they should not be house ruled and just played as is then the conversation stops here and people simply won't play against super heavies in normal 40k games. There are bad apples in the LoW roster and they have to be dealt with if you actually want to see LoW in standard games.
to be fair though a NON Turbo laser destructor Warhounds not THAT bad.... and at 750 pts.... that can be locked in combat..
I'm so glad my local meta is a "bring whatever and I'll try to beat it" style of play. The game is much more fun when you allow unbound and super heavies. Everyone brings their best lists and nobody cries about anything being OP. We all realize that if the game is that much of a blowout we should've probably brought a different list. My normal TAC list can handle hordes, reavers and anything in between. I would actually prefer an opponent throw nothing but a reaver down at 1,500. As long as we don't play purge, it will be a quick game and I'll easily win on points. I don't see the difference between asking someone not to bring a reaver and asking someone to bring a better list so they don't get annihilated by any army that isn't fluffy bunny of the year material.
col_impact wrote: Super Heavies need substantial house ruling in order to integrate them into standard low point level games. GW may have irresponsibly made them legal but the game still breaks if Warhounds start thrashing around in 1850 point games. The games become silly and dumb.
So instead of going back and forth over their legality, how about discussing how you house rule them so that they can be a part of standard games?
If you want to maintain that they are fine as they are and they should not be house ruled and just played as is then the conversation stops here and people simply won't play against super heavies in normal 40k games. There are bad apples in the LoW roster and they have to be dealt with if you actually want to see LoW in standard games.
to be fair though a NON Turbo laser destructor Warhounds not THAT bad.... and at 750 pts.... that can be locked in combat..
So since everyone fields them with turbo laser destructors then you are saying that they indeed are that bad. Are you suggesting that LoW should be house-ruled that certain weapons can't be picked?
They are technically part of the everyday game so in a nuetral environment you may face them. If you dont like them, feel free to ask an opponent to not use it. If they agree, your set. If not, you have the option to not play.
This may affect whether or not you want to join in on tournaments or leagues where they are allowed because in those you are agreeing to play against them by joining if the league or tourney allows them.
Well the units not able to hurt the reaver could still claim objectives and secondary ones. just a matter of playing towards obliterating the enemy or playing towards winning the objectives.
personally, I preferred when they were optional that were not part of the base game and were instead an optional extra. Of course, that is only my personal preference.
I have seen where this has changed the lay of the land in shops where some players dont play "public" games such as tournies and such near as much while others you rarely saw before are showing up for them much more often. I am one of those you see less now.
Peregrine wrote: No, the case is absolutely NOT closed because we're talking about player policies, not RAW. In theory the rules say that you have to agree about everything. In practice what this really means is that a lot of players expect advance notification/begging for permission/etc for certain categories of units/armies (LoW, unbound, etc) but simultaneously expect that if they want to use other categories of units/armies (tactical squads, for example) their opponent is obligated to let them do it and is TFG if they refuse to play.
So did you ever encounter someone that refused to play against Tactical Squads?
It's a bad move when you have to make up random scenarios that never happen if you want to make a point.
1) Why is it your opponent's job to keep track of which awful army you're going to be playing and give you advanced warning so you can bring a terrible list and still have a chance of winning? Shouldn't it be your job to inform your opponent in advance that you want to bring a terrible list and try to find someone willing to accommodate your request?
Because around here we make 'appointments' on a Facebook-group to play with someone, then we travel half an hour to play that guy.
It's not about a chance of winning, it's about playing a normal list and playing against a Reaver Titan.
2) Why don't you expect to face a Reaver titan? It's part of the rules, complaining about not expecting one makes about as much sense as complaining that you didn't expect to face a Rhino.
Only RAW. But in the real world people don't expect a Reaver Titan every single game.
It's not a rule, but it's decent behaviour.
If you bring something of which you know that 9 out of 10 people would want a warning, you simply give them that warning.
Otherwise you're not going to end up making a lot of friends.
It's like going to the cinema.
When you go out, you usually prefer to know which film you are going to see. I don't think anyone prefers a cinema where they only show random movies.
col_impact wrote: Super Heavies need substantial house ruling in order to integrate them into standard low point level games. GW may have irresponsibly made them legal but the game still breaks if Warhounds start thrashing around in 1850 point games. The games become silly and dumb.
So instead of going back and forth over their legality, how about discussing how you house rule them so that they can be a part of standard games?
If you want to maintain that they are fine as they are and they should not be house ruled and just played as is then the conversation stops here and people simply won't play against super heavies in normal 40k games. There are bad apples in the LoW roster and they have to be dealt with if you actually want to see LoW in standard games.
to be fair though a NON Turbo laser destructor Warhounds not THAT bad.... and at 750 pts.... that can be locked in combat..
So since everyone fields them with turbo laser destructors then you are saying that they indeed are that bad. Are you suggesting that LoW should be house-ruled that certain weapons can't be picked?
i smell an "everyone" here....
i doubt that EVERYONE uses them as such. and you can get better value from a reaver with 8 such shots for less points...
I couldn't care less what people field when we play; I prefer a challenge even if it's so lopsided that I couldn't possibly win. If someone wants to take a Reaver, fine, I'll kill him them the same as if they fielded a whole army. My Guard don't run from a fight.
I can see where people might be offended when someone puts a LoW on the table that isn't Draigo, or Ghaz, or some other random single model former-HQ unit. But in the end, it's your own fault if you build a competitive list that doesn't account for all of the possibilities; don't be upset that someone merely plays differently and beats you.
Frankenberry wrote: I prefer a challenge even if it's so lopsided that I couldn't possibly win..
That's not a challenge. It's an exercise in futility.
'Challenge' implies an actual contest.
LoW's die just like everything else, why admit defeat before battle is even joined? Who knows, you might actually win. Oh wait, the Mathhammer guys say you'll lose, better not even try.
Kangodo wrote: The BRB tells you that your opponent must agree. Case closed.
No, the case is absolutely NOT closed because we're talking about player policies, not RAW. In theory the rules say that you have to agree about everything. In practice what this really means is that a lot of players expect advance notification/begging for permission/etc for certain categories of units/armies (LoW, unbound, etc)
In practice what this really means is that you have to accept not everyone is going to find the same things fun as you find fun and you may either have to adapt your list or not play a person... especially if you take things that are more controversial like LoW rather than things that aren't remotely controversial like Tactical Marines.
but simultaneously expect that if they want to use other categories of units/armies (tactical squads, for example) their opponent is obligated to let them do it and is TFG if they refuse to play.
Whether or not you are "TFG" entirely depends on how much whinging and moaning you do. It's entirely possible for 2 people to mutually agree to not play a game without either being "TFG".
1) Why is it your opponent's job to keep track of which awful army you're going to be playing and give you advanced warning so you can bring a terrible list and still have a chance of winning? Shouldn't it be your job to inform your opponent in advance that you want to bring a terrible list and try to find someone willing to accommodate your request?
Why is everything turned into one side vs another? 2 players have to agree on a game that they will find fun. It's as much my job as my opponent's job to do that, sometimes that might involve compromise and sometimes that might involve finding another opponent.
2) Why don't you expect to face a Reaver titan? It's part of the rules, complaining about not expecting one makes about as much sense as complaining that you didn't expect to face a Rhino.
This is just a silly comparison. There are heaps of reasons why expecting to face a Rhino is different to expecting to face a Reaver.
Expecting special advance notice that a LoW will be present is more like demanding advance notice that your opponent will be using a tactical squad.
Except it's nothing alike because anyone playing 40k likely finds a tactical squad acceptable while you know full well lots of people don't find expensive superheavies acceptable.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Except it's nothing alike because anyone playing 40k likely finds a tactical squad acceptable while you know full well lots of people don't find expensive superheavies acceptable.
While tactical squad might be a bit of a stretch, there are many other things some people (on this forum at least) find not acceptable: fliers,mass AV13, more than x Wave Serpents below y points, more than x Rpitides below y points etc. So where do you draw the line?
col_impact wrote: Super Heavies need substantial house ruling in order to integrate them into standard low point level games. GW may have irresponsibly made them legal but the game still breaks if Warhounds start thrashing around in 1850 point games. The games become silly and dumb.
So instead of going back and forth over their legality, how about discussing how you house rule them so that they can be a part of standard games?
If you want to maintain that they are fine as they are and they should not be house ruled and just played as is then the conversation stops here and people simply won't play against super heavies in normal 40k games. There are bad apples in the LoW roster and they have to be dealt with if you actually want to see LoW in standard games.
to be fair though a NON Turbo laser destructor Warhounds not THAT bad.... and at 750 pts.... that can be locked in combat..
So since everyone fields them with turbo laser destructors then you are saying that they indeed are that bad. Are you suggesting that LoW should be house-ruled that certain weapons can't be picked?
My chaos warhound has a plasma blast gun and vulcan megabolter. Cos both weapons look awesome.
Kangodo wrote: So did you ever encounter someone that refused to play against Tactical Squads?
It's a bad move when you have to make up random scenarios that never happen if you want to make a point.
Sigh. Would you please read my posts before responding to them? The fact that nobody protests about tactical squads is the whole point! There is near-unanimous agreement that tactical squads are allowed and in the unlikely event that you dare to disagree and refuse to allow your opponent to use them you will instantly be labeled TFG and shunned from the community.
It's not about a chance of winning, it's about playing a normal list and playing against a Reaver Titan.
A list with a Reaver titan IS a normal list. The fact that you don't like how 7th edition works doesn't mean that the "normal" game is one that obeys all of your bizarre house rules about army construction.
But in the real world people don't expect a Reaver Titan every single game.
Well then that's their problem for not understanding how the game works. The Reaver is a legal choice, if you are surprised by one then it's entirely your fault.
When you go out, you usually prefer to know which film you are going to see. I don't think anyone prefers a cinema where they only show random movies.
This analogy fails when you consider the fact that many people do play pickup games of 40k against random opponents.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Except it's nothing alike because anyone playing 40k likely finds a tactical squad acceptable while you know full well lots of people don't find expensive superheavies acceptable.
While tactical squad might be a bit of a stretch, there are many other things some people (on this forum at least) find not acceptable: fliers,mass AV13, more than x Wave Serpents below y points, more than x Rpitides below y points etc. So where do you draw the line?
You don't have to draw a hard line at all. Unless it's a tournament (in which case the "the line" is dictated to you) or you have agreed with your opponent to go in to a game entirely with fixed lists (which, frankly, 40k sucks for such games as much as I wish it didn't).
On this forum we tend to talk in absolutes too much (or at least Peregrine does ). In reality 40k isn't well suited to hard lines, hard stances, hard arguments, etc. It's best if you just discuss with your opponent what you do and don't like.
Some people don't like Riptides in small games, some people don't care, I think it's best to go in with the attitude that you might have to change your list to have a mutually agreeable experience.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: A list with a Reaver titan IS a normal list. The fact that you don't like how 7th edition works doesn't mean that the "normal" game is one that obeys all of your bizarre house rules about army construction.
These days I don't think there's much point talking about "normal". There's enough people that detest LoW that "normal" in one place is not "normal" in another and it seems to me that GW's capacity to impose "normal" on players is starting to fail.
Deciding you aren't going to play against expensive superheavies in small games may be a house rule, but it's hardly a "bizzare" one. Deciding you aren't going to allow tactical marines would be a "bizzare house rule".
Just because GW makes no distinction on whether a Reaver is allowed versus whether a Rhino is allowed doesn't suddenly mean the community isn't going to make their own distinctions.
If you are going to define "normal", then I'd say "normal" = "agree with your opponent".
It always is saddening to see that people seriously quote a portion of the book that tells them to ask their opponent first if he's interested in playing before starting the game.
I mean, come on people. You need a written rule for that?
Nobody needs to tell his opponent beforehand which list you're running. Why would there be? At the same time, it's perfectly fine to deny playing when facing a certain list, unit or model. For ANY reason actually.
I don't get why people need instructions on how to converse with other people, it's like they'd rather complain.
How to talk to a possible 40k opponent, distilled:
You: Yo, down for some 40k?
Them: Sure. Points?
You: 1250 sounds good.
Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys.
You: Pretty cool stuff man, love the paint. What's that?
Them: Oh, it's a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT. Basically a super-heavy transport.
You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against super-heavy units. Would you mind maybe not fielding it?
Them: Eh, I guess. Let's play.
DONE. Holy crap, people don't have to make an enormous issue about people being TFG's because they want to field the 1200 dollar model they bought and painted. Jesus, it's like people forgot how to be people or something.
I can understand how some people might feel a little hurt when they are told by their prospective opponent "nah, I don't really want to play against that" to their $1000 "investment".
Frankenberry wrote: I don't get why people need instructions on how to converse with other people, it's like they'd rather complain.
How to talk to a possible 40k opponent, distilled:
You: Yo, down for some 40k? Them: Sure. Points? You: 1250 sounds good. Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys. You: Pretty cool stuff man, love the paint. What's that? Them: Oh, it's a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT. Basically a super-heavy transport. You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against super-heavy units. Would you mind maybe not fielding it? Them: Eh, I guess. Let's play.
DONE. Holy crap, people don't have to make an enormous issue about people being TFG's because they want to field the 1200 dollar model they bought and painted. Jesus, it's like people forgot how to be people or something.
You: Yo, down for some 40k? Them: Sure. Points? You: 1250 sounds good. Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys. You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against forgeworld stuff. Would you mind maybe not fielding it?
Would that be an issue for you? Or would you be fine and re-arrange your army to AM?
col_impact wrote: Super Heavies need substantial house ruling in order to integrate them into standard low point level games. GW may have irresponsibly made them legal but the game still breaks if Warhounds start thrashing around in 1850 point games. The games become silly and dumb.
So instead of going back and forth over their legality, how about discussing how you house rule them so that they can be a part of standard games?
If you want to maintain that they are fine as they are and they should not be house ruled and just played as is then the conversation stops here and people simply won't play against super heavies in normal 40k games. There are bad apples in the LoW roster and they have to be dealt with if you actually want to see LoW in standard games.
to be fair though a NON Turbo laser destructor Warhounds not THAT bad.... and at 750 pts.... that can be locked in combat..
So since everyone fields them with turbo laser destructors then you are saying that they indeed are that bad. Are you suggesting that LoW should be house-ruled that certain weapons can't be picked?
My chaos warhound has a plasma blast gun and vulcan megabolter. Cos both weapons look awesome.
QFT
Admittedly they are magnetized so i can swap them to whatevers... but thats the normal loadout
Frankenberry wrote: I don't get why people need instructions on how to converse with other people, it's like they'd rather complain.
How to talk to a possible 40k opponent, distilled:
You: Yo, down for some 40k? Them: Sure. Points? You: 1250 sounds good. Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys. You: Pretty cool stuff man, love the paint. What's that? Them: Oh, it's a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT. Basically a super-heavy transport. You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against super-heavy units. Would you mind maybe not fielding it? Them: Eh, I guess. Let's play.
DONE. Holy crap, people don't have to make an enormous issue about people being TFG's because they want to field the 1200 dollar model they bought and painted. Jesus, it's like people forgot how to be people or something.
You: Yo, down for some 40k? Them: Sure. Points? You: 1250 sounds good. Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys. You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against forgeworld stuff. Would you mind maybe not fielding it?
Would that be an issue for you? Or would you be fine and re-arrange your army to AM?
That would be annoying, but born out of ignorance more than anything. My dislike of expensive LoW is not born out of me not knowing what they are.
But yeah, it would be annoying, but if they genuinely don't want to play against it I wouldn't get all uppity about it, I would just restructure them as regular IG. I have a small DKOK army in the making and it fits in nicely with my Cadian army either as allies or as an expansion within the IG codex.
Frankenberry wrote: I don't get why people need instructions on how to converse with other people, it's like they'd rather complain.
How to talk to a possible 40k opponent, distilled:
You: Yo, down for some 40k?
Them: Sure. Points?
You: 1250 sounds good.
Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys.
You: Pretty cool stuff man, love the paint. What's that?
Them: Oh, it's a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT. Basically a super-heavy transport.
You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against super-heavy units. Would you mind maybe not fielding it?
Them: Eh, I guess. Let's play.
DONE. Holy crap, people don't have to make an enormous issue about people being TFG's because they want to field the 1200 dollar model they bought and painted. Jesus, it's like people forgot how to be people or something.
You: Yo, down for some 40k?
Them: Sure. Points?
You: 1250 sounds good.
Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys.
You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against forgeworld stuff. Would you mind maybe not fielding it?
Would that be an issue for you? Or would you be fine and re-arrange your army to AM?
I shouldn't have to do that, in fact I'd kindly decline and move on to another person. But, in reality, I'd probably already have the dex and have to spend a stupid amount of time proxying models, so yeah, I guess that's doable if you want to ruin the entire game.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: If it's legal and people won't play you if you bring it, then they're TFG. It's like saying "I won't play you if you bring drop pods because I don't like them"...
This is ridiculous, there's no comparison what so ever to a DP list and bringing a reaver Titan to a 2000 point game.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:That would be annoying, but born out of ignorance more than anything. My dislike of expensive LoW is not born out of me not knowing what they are.
But yeah, it would be annoying, but if they genuinely don't want to play against it I wouldn't get all uppity about it, I would just restructure them as regular IG. I have a small DKOK army in the making and it fits in nicely with my Cadian army either as allies or as an expansion within the IG codex.
I can see why one doesn't like facing a big LoW, but the CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT is definitely not one of those. It's basically four chimeras in one model, has no real killing power (IIRC the best it can do is four lascannons) and isn't hard to kill at all. I think it's just as fair to be annoyed when someone declines a LoW for no reason. Most LoW in the 300-400 class are like that, they are basically slightly stronger versions of regular models, very similar in strength and survivability to Imperial Knights, which most people seem to have no issues with whatsoever.
Frankenberry wrote:I shouldn't have to do that, in fact I'd kindly decline and move on to another person. But, in reality, I'd probably already have the dex and have to spend a stupid amount of time proxying models, so yeah, I guess that's doable if you want to ruin the entire game.
So, why is that person different from the person declining the LoW?
By the BRB a LoW is completely legal as a part of any Detachment.
By refusing to play against a LoW is refusing to play a Legal Unit.
It is still about the attitude. If someone showed up with a Reaver hoping to play with it and I refused, I would be TFG that ruined his day.
Now I have never fought a Reaver, but I have a Gargant. In that game [it was a 2 on 1] the Gargant Focused all of its fire on me and ignored the All Dreadnaught Army. I did not have a good time in that game because of the Gargant, but because the other guy was being a .
I do know that I can take one down if I took the right List. I know there are no Un-killable units out there, so there is always a chance.
Jidmah wrote: I can see why one doesn't like facing a big LoW, but the CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT is definitely not one of those. It's basically four chimeras in one model, has no real killing power (IIRC the best it can do is four lascannons) and isn't hard to kill at all. I think it's just as fair to be annoyed when someone declines a LoW for no reason. Most LoW in the 300-400 class are like that, they are basically slightly stronger versions of regular models, very similar in strength and survivability to Imperial Knights, which most people seem to have no issues with whatsoever.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:That would be annoying, but born out of ignorance more than anything. My dislike of expensiveLoW is not born out of me not knowing what they are.
Of course, "expensive" is a relative term and my definition may vary from others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anpu42 wrote: By refusing to play against a LoW is refusing to play a Legal Unit.
By refusing your opponent's refusal you are refusing a legal request to refuse to play against an agreed upon force
The "legal" discussion doesn't really get you far when GW's own rulebook basically states "do whatever the feth you want, the rules are more what you call guidelines than actual rules".
Anpu42 wrote: By refusing to play against a LoW is refusing to play a Legal Unit.
By refusing your opponent's refusal you are refusing a legal request to refuse to play against an agreed upon force
The "legal" discussion doesn't really get you far when GW's own rulebook basically states "do whatever the feth you want, the rules are more what you call guidelines than actual rules".
So what then is the point of the CAD then?
Why don't we all just play Unbound and just move on?
Anpu42 wrote: By refusing to play against a LoW is refusing to play a Legal Unit.
By refusing your opponent's refusal you are refusing a legal request to refuse to play against an agreed upon force
The "legal" discussion doesn't really get you far when GW's own rulebook basically states "do whatever the feth you want, the rules are more what you call guidelines than actual rules".
So what then is the point of the CAD then? Why don't we all just play Unbound and just move on?
Guidelines.
EDIT: But when I read the rules, that's how they read to me. You have to agree on how you organise your forces, here's some guidelines, you have to decide if you want other restrictions.
There are many ways you can pick an army, and these are discussed in detail in the Choosing Your Army section. Both players will need to agree whether they will use a points limit, and any other restrictions they will place upon their army selection. In some cases, the mission may also specify certain restrictions or requirements.
There are many other types of restrictions and requirements that players might agree on for their armies.
Anpu42 wrote: By refusing to play against a LoW is refusing to play a Legal Unit.
By refusing your opponent's refusal you are refusing a legal request to refuse to play against an agreed upon force
The "legal" discussion doesn't really get you far when GW's own rulebook basically states "do whatever the feth you want, the rules are more what you call guidelines than actual rules".
So what then is the point of the CAD then?
Why don't we all just play Unbound and just move on?
Because at the end of the day this is merely a game, and games are meant to be fun for both sides and played in good spirit.
There is obviously a large difference between a LoW characters that are recently coming out, and previous LoW super-heavies. Any TAC army can handle the Ork, SW, or GKLoW character, not easily, but they are almost assuredly able to. Most can probably handle Baneblades and the like at higher point values. The point being that the larger the point range you have to work with the more likely it is that you have enough of SOMETHING to handle it.
Is it possible to take a Warhound Titan at 1000 points? Yes, is it legal? Yes. Are you being a sporting player if you show up and EXPECT as though it is your birthright that people play against you? Nooope. Saying someone should be obliged to battle you is very funny, but already undermining the point of the hobby which is to have fun. As with all things in life it will take some compromise, but hey its possible.
Dalymiddleboro wrote: Why should we tell them about LoW? I mean, they don't inform us they're bringing Abaddon... Why do we have to inform them we're taking Gazghull?
Because we are talking about SHV's and GMC's and not about Ghazghkull.
You don't have to tell me that you suddenly decided to field a Reaver Titan.
But I will pack my things and go play someone else.
I think that mentality is very obtuse. It's a slippery slope to start deciding if you'll play someone based on what they bring. Why not just accept they're part of the game, and build your TAC list against it?
Well, fielding lascannon and melta weapons take a few points to field and are not very effective when facing horde armies.
So if you build you list accordingly assuming a Reaver Titan will be across the table, the green horde will be laughing through the whole game.
I have to say it is a valid decision that if the rock-paper-scissors formulation of opposing army lists look too one-sided why play the game?
No-one is obligated to sit through what would be an obvious beating, even GW has a rule "our weapons are useless" to disengage from a hopeless fight: why not the player?
<edit> After coming across too many players that are into playing the game where the more overwhelming the win, the better: got no time for you, unless we agree to play our "A" lists and meet again.
Anpu42 wrote: By refusing to play against a LoW is refusing to play a Legal Unit.
By refusing your opponent's refusal you are refusing a legal request to refuse to play against an agreed upon force
The "legal" discussion doesn't really get you far when GW's own rulebook basically states "do whatever the feth you want, the rules are more what you call guidelines than actual rules".
So what then is the point of the CAD then?
Why don't we all just play Unbound and just move on?
Guidelines.
EDIT: But when I read the rules, that's how they read to me. You have to agree on how you organise your forces, here's some guidelines, you have to decide if you want other restrictions.
There are many ways you can pick an army, and these are discussed in detail in the Choosing Your Army section. Both players will need to agree whether they will use a points limit, and any other restrictions they will place upon their army selection. In some cases, the mission may also specify certain restrictions or requirements.
There are many other types of restrictions and requirements that players might agree on for their armies.
Yes, I know that.
To me using that makes it is a crutch for those who are afraid of facing the unknown.
I want to ask the following questions to anyone who declines to play against a "Legal" List: [NOTE: The Quotes on Legal are there to denote a list that falls within the CADFOC, not part of A Players Agreements]
Have you ever faced a Reaver Titan or the like?
If no, then how do you know you won't enjoy the game?
If Yes, what made the game unenjoyably for you? The same can be said for Unbound, Flyers and Fortifications.
Quickjager wrote: Are you being a sporting player if you show up and EXPECT as though it is your birthright that people play against you? Nooope. Saying someone should be obliged to battle you is very funny, but already undermining the point of the hobby which is to have fun.
Hit the nail on the head right there.
I do not know how many times I have seen players of this nature.
The look of shock and anger when I say, "Nah, I do not feel like playing against a force like that, I brought my balanced army today."
You can see them considering showering me with ridicule, try to bully me into it... quite interesting the range of emotion.
Then the look of anxiety when I say, "Tell you what, I will bring my more competitive list and we can meet-up and play a "proper" game another time, Ok?"
Usually they start trying to weasel out of it because they were looking for a victim to stomp on.
At this point for the next game he does not need to tell me a blessed thing, the gloves are off and bring it on.
Anpu42 wrote: By refusing to play against a LoW is refusing to play a Legal Unit.
By refusing your opponent's refusal you are refusing a legal request to refuse to play against an agreed upon force
The "legal" discussion doesn't really get you far when GW's own rulebook basically states "do whatever the feth you want, the rules are more what you call guidelines than actual rules".
So what then is the point of the CAD then? Why don't we all just play Unbound and just move on?
Guidelines.
EDIT: But when I read the rules, that's how they read to me. You have to agree on how you organise your forces, here's some guidelines, you have to decide if you want other restrictions.
There are many ways you can pick an army, and these are discussed in detail in the Choosing Your Army section. Both players will need to agree whether they will use a points limit, and any other restrictions they will place upon their army selection. In some cases, the mission may also specify certain restrictions or requirements.
There are many other types of restrictions and requirements that players might agree on for their armies.
Yes, I know that. To me using that makes it is a crutch for those who are afraid of facing the unknown. I want to ask the following questions to anyone who declines to play against a "Legal" List: [NOTE: The Quotes on Legal are there to denote a list that falls within the CADFOC, not part of A Players Agreements] Have you ever faced a Reaver Titan or the like? If no, then how do you know you won't enjoy the game? If Yes, what made the game unenjoyably for you? The same can be said for Unbound, Flyers and Fortifications.
Reaver specifically, no, but over the years I've played plenty of games where an army (or both) consisted primarily of 1 model. It can be fun, definitely, the times I have done it we haven't done it as a "standard game", we usually make up a scenario or use one if one is available (Epic had 1 or 2 fun scenarios that revolved around a titan being taken on by a swarm of smaller things). But I don't want to be playing against them regularly in standard mission type games with my TAC list (not because I'm incapable of adapting, but because it pushes the stupidity of rock-paper-scissors too far for TAC games IMO and because I don't think they fit the scale of the type of game I typically like to play).
Yes, I've played against fliers, no I don't like them in 40k (good concept, dislike the implementation). I haven't played against an Unbound army and I don't need to play against an Unbound army to form an opinion on it. I have played with and against fortifications, I don't have a huge problem with the concept of fortifications, but again I think they're poorly implemented. Yes I've played with and against allies long before the allies rules existed and yes I still don't like them being part of the core game.
Peregrine wrote: Sigh. Would you please read my posts before responding to them? The fact that nobody protests about tactical squads is the whole point! There is near-unanimous agreement that tactical squads are allowed and in the unlikely event that you dare to disagree and refuse to allow your opponent to use them you will instantly be labeled TFG and shunned from the community.
I did read it, and you keep coming up with a hypothetical situation where someone labels another as TFG for refusing Tactical Squads.
So my question - again - is: "Have you ever encountered such a situation?"
People don't complain about Tactical Squads because two Tactical Squads don't invalidate most lists I have ever played with or against in my life.
Reaver Titans do such a thing!
A list with a Reaver titan IS a normal list. The fact that you don't like how 7th edition works doesn't mean that the "normal" game is one that obeys all of your bizarre house rules about army construction.
According to the Oxford dictionary normal means: "Conforming to a standard, usual, typical or expected."
Please don't confuse 'legal' with 'normal', because 'normal' is what the majority says it is.
Well then that's their problem for not understanding how the game works. The Reaver is a legal choice, if you are surprised by one then it's entirely your fault.
It's only a legal choice if your opponent agrees per the BRB.
And seeing as the majority of people don't expect a Reaver Titan it's also not normal to play against it, according to the definition of the word 'normal'.
MWHistorian wrote: The fact that this discussion is so heated shows that there's something deeply wrong in 40k.
No, there is nothing wrong in 40k.
The issue is that some people consider it unreasonable if I don't want to play against something that I do not want to play against.
Wait.. Let's rephrase that: The issue is that some people consider it unreasonable if I would like to be informed before a game if the opponent is fielding units that are generally considered to be not normal for a game of WH40k because they change the way a normal game is played.
So in short:
-Do I mind playing against SHV's? No.
-Would I like to be informed well before the game? Yes.
-Do I like to play against SHV's all the time? No.
-Is there a problem with that? No, because it's a game. That we play for our amusement.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Reaver specifically, no, but over the years I've played plenty of games where an army (or both) consisted primarily of 1 model. It can be fun, definitely, the times I have done it we haven't done it as a "standard game", we usually make up a scenario or use one if one is available (Epic had 1 or 2 fun scenarios that revolved around a titan being taken on by a swarm of smaller things). But I don't want to be playing against them regularly in standard mission type games with my TAC list (not because I'm incapable of adapting, but because it pushes the stupidity of rock-paper-scissors too far for TAC games IMO and because I don't think they fit the scale of the type of game I typically like to play).
I feel the same, one every once in a while is a blast [and yes the pun was intended], but I would not want to play against them all of the time.
This goes to the guy showing up with his Reaver. It will probably be an every once in a while game so I would have no issue with it. Now if that is all he brought every time to every game, I would see an issue, mostly because it would get boring after a few times.
Yes, I've played against fliers, no I don't like them in 40k (good concept, dislike the implementation).
I like them as long as there are not buckets of them and I know in advance so I can bring some AAA even if it is just Flakk Missiles.
I haven't played against an Unbound army and I don't need to play against an Unbound army to form an opinion on it.
They can be fun if you are facing a good Balanced/Fluffy list like an all Dreadnaught or my Loganwing Terminator Wolf Guard Army.
I have played with and against fortifications, I don't have a huge problem with the concept of fortifications, but again I think they're poorly implemented. Yes I've played with and against allies long before the allies rules existed and yes I still don't like them being part of the core game.
We have found them just clumsy enough during the List building Phase that by the time I think about one I don't have the points left unless I build the list around it.
MWHistorian wrote: The fact that this discussion is so heated shows that there's something deeply wrong in 40k.
Not at all. Human beings engaging in a heated discussion on a specific topic in no way illustrates anything wrong with the topic in question. Human beings can have a heated discussion on ANY topic.
short of tabling your opponent, in missions that use "cards" to generate points, you will most likely lose with a reaver at 1500 points, I cannot imagine you having any significant scoring models to take objectives beyond the reaver which of course would not have Objective secured.
MWHistorian wrote: The fact that this discussion is so heated shows that there's something deeply wrong in 40k.
Not at all. Human beings engaging in a heated discussion on a specific topic in no way illustrates anything wrong with the topic in question. Human beings can have a heated discussion on ANY topic.
The discussion is about fundamental differences in a game that makes a deep divide in the player base.
That doesn't happen to this level in most other games. (successful ones, anyways.) Not the argument itself that's unusual, but the nature of it. The question is, what sort of game is 40k supposed to be?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Except it's nothing alike because anyone playing 40k likely finds a tactical squad acceptable while you know full well lots of people don't find expensive superheavies acceptable.
While tactical squad might be a bit of a stretch, there are many other things some people (on this forum at least) find not acceptable: fliers,mass AV13, more than x Wave Serpents below y points, more than x Rpitides below y points etc. So where do you draw the line?
For a lot of people this illustrates the crux of the issue. Before, superheavies (and flyers before that) were optional things. With them being pushed as being part of the "core" game and able to be used in regular games, it blurs the line between what is acceptable an what isn't. That's precisely the issue. If you ban Lords of War, you ban things that aren't gamebreaking like Logan or Ghaz, so you just ban superheavies. But Imperial Knights are superheavies, so you ban superheavies except Knights. But then you get into a slippery slope. One of the concerns when the IK was released was the impact on tournaments, because you could field an "army" of just IKs; if a tournament banned them, they've now set a precedent to ban an army so what would be next, banning Tau or Eldar? Just look at the arguments here. Superheavies are "allowed", so you can't refuse to play them? If you refuse to play someone who plops down a Titan in a random game, are you TFG or is he TFG, or neither or both of you? If you refuse to play someone with a superheavy, how about someone with an IK "army"? How about an Eldar player with Wave Serpent Spam? This is a very dangerous path to be walking down, and the fact that it exists at all shows a very critical issue with the 40k rules.
That's the problem in a nutshell. The "everything in, pick what you want" approach just doesn't work because it reverses the social contract; instead of saying "I want to field my Titan" it's "I don't want to play against your Titan" which has a negative connotation. Allowed by default is bad.
MWHistorian wrote: The fact that this discussion is so heated shows that there's something deeply wrong in 40k.
Not at all. Human beings engaging in a heated discussion on a specific topic in no way illustrates anything wrong with the topic in question. Human beings can have a heated discussion on ANY topic.
The discussion is about fundamental differences in a game that makes a deep divide in the player base.
That doesn't happen to this level in most other games. (successful ones, anyways.) Not the argument itself that's unusual, but the nature of it. The question is, what sort of game is 40k supposed to be?
Exalted. The fact that this discussion always crops up and 40k is the only game that has such a divide in the community ("I should be allowed to field a Titan because it's just as legal as bringing a Tactical Squad" versus "I don't think superheavies belong in the game and don't have fun playing them") is proof that there's something terribly wrong with it.
It's a game that tries to cater to every possible combination of player and fails miserably because different people want different things, and typically the rules exist to smooth out the edges so multiple kinds of players can play each other. 40k doesn't do that and lets both extremes meet and argue.
MWHistorian wrote: The fact that this discussion is so heated shows that there's something deeply wrong in 40k.
Not at all. Human beings engaging in a heated discussion on a specific topic in no way illustrates anything wrong with the topic in question. Human beings can have a heated discussion on ANY topic.
The discussion is about fundamental differences in a game that makes a deep divide in the player base.
That doesn't happen to this level in most other games. (successful ones, anyways.) Not the argument itself that's unusual, but the nature of it. The question is, what sort of game is 40k supposed to be?
Different people, different answers.
For GW it is a game for "collectors of GW models".
I "think" it has been established that it is not a "proper" competitive game.
So I guess getting blown away by a Titan or a Baneblade is all in the name of good fun in the grimdark of 40k.
WayneTheGame wrote: For a lot of people this illustrates the crux of the issue. Before, superheavies (and flyers before that) were optional things. With them being pushed as being part of the "core" game and able to be used in regular games, it blurs the line between what is acceptable an what isn't. That's precisely the issue. If you ban Lords of War, you ban things that aren't gamebreaking like Logan or Ghaz, so you just ban superheavies. But Imperial Knights are superheavies, so you ban superheavies except Knights. But then you get into a slippery slope. One of the concerns when the IK was released was the impact on tournaments, because you could field an "army" of just IKs; if a tournament banned them, they've now set a precedent to ban an army so what would be next, banning Tau or Eldar? Just look at the arguments here. Superheavies are "allowed", so you can't refuse to play them? If you refuse to play someone who plops down a Titan in a random game, are you TFG or is he TFG, or neither or both of you? If you refuse to play someone with a superheavy, how about someone with an IK "army"? How about an Eldar player with Wave Serpent Spam? This is a very dangerous path to be walking down, and the fact that it exists at all shows a very critical issue with the 40k rules.
In a tournament, you would be foolish to refuse to play an army, as there is prizes (and usually an entry fee) involved. In friendly games, no one is forcing you to play against something or someone. If you have a choice between playing a gainst an Eldar Serpent-spam army, or an AS army with an IK, you choose which of the two you would find more enjoyable. If no one wants to play against Serpent-spam, and that is all you ever bring, eventually you will no longer get games until you change your list up a bit.
That said, all games are a social contract. If I don't want to play against my buddies Corellian Corvette, in X-Wing there are two options. Tell him I don't want to play against it, or find somebody else to play. If I don't want to play against someone's Wood Elf Fantasy army because he painted the Elves bright pink, no one is forcing me too.
To answer a previous series of questions:
I've never played against a super-heavy outside of 5th edition Apocalypse. I don't refuse to, just nobody in my group actively uses them.
I would have no problem playing against a super-heavy LoW in a friendly game. If I don't enjoy it, I won't play against it in the future. I've no idea how I'll feel, but as long as the guy isn't a jerk, I'll probably enjoy it (even if I get tabled by turn 3) and play again, with a slightly different list.
WayneTheGame wrote: For a lot of people this illustrates the crux of the issue. Before, superheavies (and flyers before that) were optional things. With them being pushed as being part of the "core" game and able to be used in regular games, it blurs the line between what is acceptable an what isn't. That's precisely the issue. If you ban Lords of War, you ban things that aren't gamebreaking like Logan or Ghaz, so you just ban superheavies. But Imperial Knights are superheavies, so you ban superheavies except Knights. But then you get into a slippery slope. One of the concerns when the IK was released was the impact on tournaments, because you could field an "army" of just IKs; if a tournament banned them, they've now set a precedent to ban an army so what would be next, banning Tau or Eldar? Just look at the arguments here. Superheavies are "allowed", so you can't refuse to play them? If you refuse to play someone who plops down a Titan in a random game, are you TFG or is he TFG, or neither or both of you? If you refuse to play someone with a superheavy, how about someone with an IK "army"? How about an Eldar player with Wave Serpent Spam? This is a very dangerous path to be walking down, and the fact that it exists at all shows a very critical issue with the 40k rules.
That's the problem in a nutshell. The "everything in, pick what you want" approach just doesn't work because it reverses the social contract; instead of saying "I want to field my Titan" it's "I don't want to play against your Titan" which has a negative connotation. Allowed by default is bad.
The slippery slope argument doesn't really fly with me because at the end of the day we're all gamers and we all just want to have fun. We'll never reach the point of banning everything because then there'd be no game
No one has to be "TFG", that term gets thrown around way too much, two people can come to an agreement about what they're wanting to do without either of them being "TFG". Only when you start acting douchy are you "TFG".
It's a dangerous road to be walking down in the sense of splitting the community up, but there's not much else that can be done about it. You either accept the force selection GW provides, don't accept it and change it or don't accept it and quit.
The debates are hardly a sign of impending doom. they're simply a sign on CHANGE, even a cursory examination of history has shown that change produces debate. often fairly intense debate, but time moves on and the debate eventually ends and what was once hotly debated is just accepted as the norm. the game'll shake itself out.
In the last 3 years GW's introduced two entirely new unit types to the scene (that until recently where reserved exclusivly for forge world and or apoc) it'll take some time for the community to shake out and adapt.
BrianDavion wrote: The debates are hardly a sign of impending doom. they're simply a sign on CHANGE, even a cursory examination of history has shown that change produces debate. often fairly intense debate, but time moves on and the debate eventually ends and what was once hotly debated is just accepted as the norm. the game'll shake itself out.
In the last 3 years GW's introduced two entirely new unit types to the scene (that until recently where reserved exclusivly for forge world and or apoc) it'll take some time for the community to shake out and adapt.
Of course 40k will continue on, the question is does the community "shake out and adapt" = "severe fracturing of the community, many people quitting and the game as a whole being severely diminished".
In time people will ease up on most super heavies. Most people I know are already cool with ones like Baneblades, Stompas, Obelisks, etc. They are pretty sweet.
Now stuff like Revenants and Transcendent C'tans we tend to stay away from because they're a bit much.
If the game was well written and had solid balance, there would be minimal complaints about Lords of War, SHVs, whatever imo. It would just boil down to refusing them if you didn't feel like playing that type of game due to playing those lists too often lately, or just wanting a certain kind of game... whatever. No reasonable person begrudges you for turning down a a game like that.
I love my baneblades and the idea of superheavies but the're so poorly balanced that I can't rationalise including them as they further skew the already terrible balance normally. Especially when they're forced in to encourage sales rather than to improve the game. That's the part that really gets me and is part of why you'll see me and many others in the "why I left GW and where I went to" thread.
Superheavies/LoW - good in theory, bad with GWs incompetent implementation into an incompetently written game.
I tend to think the only good implementation of superheavies in 40k is to limit them to a certain % of your whole army and/or whatever % you want in an Apoc game and/or limited to special scenarios. But that's just me As I've mentioned in previous threads on the matter I simply don't like big expensive models in small games unless it's some special scenario that revolves around it. I also think in a rock-paper-scissors game it's hard to balance things with reasonably high AV that consume most your points, either you have the anti-armour to kill it and it's a cake walk or you don't.
Titans work better in Epic, not just because the scale is more appropriate but also because the way Epic had a "firepower" system where you might have special weapons that were more likely to do damage, but anything could do damage to a war machine, the only question was how much firepower you had determined how many dice you'd roll and thus how much damage you could potentially do.
Yonan wrote: If the game was well written and had solid balance, there would be minimal complaints about Lords of War, SHVs, whatever imo. .
If the game was well written and had solid balance, there wouldn't be any complaints with fielding a LoW because it wouldn't be grossly unbalanced to field one, they would likely be like Colossals/Gargantuans in Warmachine/Hordes: A lot of points in one unit that has interesting tactical application, but simply fielding one doesn't give you a huge advantage.
I played the other week against a guy who was not equiped to face knights. To still use them and not be tfg telling him he had to face them or be branded tfg, I was like sure, np. I put them on the table anyway. One was standing and inert while the other was set up with the waist up laying on the ground next to the legs. terraign that looked cool. My couple hundred doller investment still got used. I still got kudos for my paint job and he knows I have them and to prepare for them in possible future games.
Sigvatr wrote: Baneblades are fine imo. Most LoW are ok-ish balance-wise with a few exceptions such as the T-Ctan and / or Reavers.
"Balance-wise" in terms of other LoW. LoW still should not be part of regular 40k games.
Superheavy vehicles and giant monsters arent the only LoW though.
Blanket statements like that would also remove the usability of Ghaz, Logan, Draigo and all subsequent codexes which will probably have important characters as LoW
So Draigo, Logan and Ghaz shouldnt be in normal games then?
Anpu42 wrote:I just hate feeling like I am TFG for wanting to pull out my Shadowsword.
And I just hate feeling like I am TFG for telling you to put it back away
(though I don't feel like TFG for for doing such things so whatever, lol. You really should worry less about being called TFG, it's a label that gets applied far too liberally and needlessly, especially on Dakka.)
EVIL INC wrote:...To still use them and not be tfg telling him he had to face them or be branded tfg, I was like sure, np...
...One was standing and inert while the other was set up with the waist up laying on the ground next to the legs. terraign that looked cool...
I was pointing out the same thing you were. if you try to use the model there will be someone who calls you tfg and if you ask someone else not to use it, someone will call you tfg. Just pointing out that it is a label that many wil use, especially here , to try to make whoever is disagreeing with you look like the bad guy.
The second one is a demonstration of how we used my two knights for terrain in a game. Those were the poses (I do not have them glued at the waist so I was able to take the top half off one and sit it on the table seperate from the legs to show "battle damage while the one I left together was considered dead but intact. This to demonstrate that you dont have to leave them out ofthe game altogether.
Ok, cheers for clarifying! Maybe I'm just tired as it's well past my bed time but I read your post like 3 times and couldn't figure out what those sentences meant
Anpu42 wrote: I just hate feeling like I am TFG for wanting to pull out my Shadowsword.
Oddly enough still: the "rule of cool" would still work.
Is the Shadowsword well painted and put together?
Even picky me has a hard time saying no to play against a good looking army no matter how outgunned I may be.
TFG's tend to have what looks like incomplete armies since they are usually the netlist of the week hastily assembled.
DO ITTOIT wrote: In time people will ease up on most super heavies. Most people I know are already cool with ones like Baneblades, Stompas, Obelisks, etc. They are pretty sweet.
Now stuff like Revenants and Transcendent C'tans we tend to stay away from because they're a bit much.
When 'crons finally get their new codex I expect to see the Transcendant C'tan adjusted a bit.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Seems TFG just means "Guy who does/plays something I dont like" these days.
Pretty much.
To me, TFG is still based on actions and attitudes rather than list.
TFG: the guy who wants to have his brand of fun at your expense.
Who fully expects you take whatever BS he dishes out because "It is in the rules and I have a loud voice, so you must do what I say!!!"
It is my spare time too, life is short, I have no time for being someone's chew-toy: take a walk princess.
I'd say yea, but it looks like I'm the sole provider of figures for my group, currently (I'm still convincing my friends to pick up the hobby), so the figures I get are the figures we play. If I made the SH dip, however, I'd try to make it fair. Otherwise I'll likely be stuck playing World of Darkness wishing my shelf decorations were on the table...
WrentheFaceless wrote: Seems TFG just means "Guy who does/plays something I dont like" these days.
Pretty much.
To me, TFG is still based on actions and attitudes rather than list.
TFG: the guy who wants to have his brand of fun at your expense.
Who fully expects you take whatever BS he dishes out because "It is in the rules and I have a loud voice, so you must do what I say!!!"
It is my spare time too, life is short, I have no time for being someone's chew-toy: take a walk princess.
I get it now, your spare time request must trump tfg s spare time requests. Which doesn't change who the tfg is at all btw.
Cant we just compromise and not play and be done with it. Because your idea of fun appereantly is not the same as the guy in front of you.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:That would be annoying, but born out of ignorance more than anything. My dislike of expensive LoW is not born out of me not knowing what they are.
But yeah, it would be annoying, but if they genuinely don't want to play against it I wouldn't get all uppity about it, I would just restructure them as regular IG. I have a small DKOK army in the making and it fits in nicely with my Cadian army either as allies or as an expansion within the IG codex.
I can see why one doesn't like facing a big LoW, but the CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT is definitely not one of those. It's basically four chimeras in one model, has no real killing power (IIRC the best it can do is four lascannons) and isn't hard to kill at all. I think it's just as fair to be annoyed when someone declines a LoW for no reason. Most LoW in the 300-400 class are like that, they are basically slightly stronger versions of regular models, very similar in strength and survivability to Imperial Knights, which most people seem to have no issues with whatsoever.
Frankenberry wrote:I shouldn't have to do that, in fact I'd kindly decline and move on to another person. But, in reality, I'd probably already have the dex and have to spend a stupid amount of time proxying models, so yeah, I guess that's doable if you want to ruin the entire game.
So, why is that person different from the person declining the LoW?
Jesus fething christ, I never said anyone is any sort of way if they don't want to play against FW. Read my fething post why don't you instead of just inventing a reason to argue.
My whole fething point is that people need to learn how to communicate rather than inventing insults and ways to exclude others because some irrational fear of interacting with other human fething beings.
If you say you're not going to play against tactical squads people are going to think you're being unreasonable (or even TFG), and you're going to have a hard time finding anyone interested in playing with you. But if you refuse to play against LoW those same people will support you and accuse your opponent of being unreasonable (or even TFG) for bringing a LoW without begging for special permission first. There's a clear double standard here where most, if not all, non-LoW codex options are assumed to be included by default but you need special permission for LoW/FW/etc.
This /thread.
if you're going to bring the argument that the rulebook states you should discuss how the armies are selected, then we might as well all tear out the pages in the rulebook which show Battleforged FOCs/CADs, the main *quote* way of selecting an army. It's just as reasonable for me to turn up expecting to be able to use 8 Heavy slots as it is for you to refuse to play against LOW. Either CAD/FOC is redundant or it isn't, you can't have it both ways [well, you can, but it's incredibly hypocritical].
If 40k was a well written game you'd have a good point - no other popular tabletop game I can think of has players with such wildly different ideas of what is required for it to be fun. 40k *isn't* a well written game however, and it's only getting worse with unbound, base-lining of super heavies and what not. You can have some fun in 40k still but it requires some fixing and customizing of the rules - the problem here is GW for fracturing the playerbase, not the players that modify the game differently to how you want to play it.
I don't know about other tabletop-games, but TCG's have that same problem.
Even though it's legal, people will refuse to play you if you bring certain cards.
You simply don't walk into a FLGS with your top-tier Vintage deck and go 1-on-1 against a standard deck.
And that has never been an issue, people understood that most opponents don't want to play against certain things.
I don't understand why this would suddenly be such a problem in 40k?
Kangodo wrote: I don't know about other tabletop-games, but TCG's have that same problem.
Even though it's legal, people will refuse to play you if you bring certain cards.
You simply don't walk into a FLGS with your top-tier Vintage deck and go 1-on-1 against a standard deck.
And that has never been an issue, people understood that most opponents don't want to play against certain things.
I don't understand why this would suddenly be such a problem in 40k?
It's a problem because you are making the assumption that all people who bring super heavies do it in an attempt to stomp their opponent. The vast majority of LoW are actually much more of a liability than an asset, and from reading numerous threads like this, those who bring super heavies do it because they look amazing, for fluff reasons, because they want to use their legal model they spent a lot of money on, or a combination of the three, but not to gain an unfair advantage. Again after reading a lot of threads on the subject, it seems that it's the more competitive players who have a problem with them in the fear that they may affect their ability to win [YMMV].
A lot of anti-LoW posts are made in ignorance, as if you have actually played against them, you will realise the vast majority aren't a problem. On the other hand Knights are superheavies and LoW in all but name, are very competitive units [winner of BAO ran one], have D-weapons, but are generally considered to be fine. Again, hypocrisy.
But your arguments don't change the fact that the rules say that it is up to both players to decide how they're going to select their armies and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use. No amount of arguing for or against is going to change that.
If you say you're not going to play against tactical squads people are going to think you're being unreasonable (or even TFG), and you're going to have a hard time finding anyone interested in playing with you. But if you refuse to play against LoW those same people will support you and accuse your opponent of being unreasonable (or even TFG) for bringing a LoW without begging for special permission first. There's a clear double standard here where most, if not all, non-LoW codex options are assumed to be included by default but you need special permission for LoW/FW/etc.
This /thread.
if you're going to bring the argument that the rulebook states you should discuss how the armies are selected, then we might as well all tear out the pages in the rulebook which show Battleforged FOCs/CADs, the main *quote* way of selecting an army. It's just as reasonable for me to turn up expecting to be able to use 8 Heavy slots as it is for you to refuse to play against LOW. Either CAD/FOC is redundant or it isn't, you can't have it both ways [well, you can, but it's incredibly hypocritical].
Again with the all or nothing attitude. What's wrong with using them as guidelines instead of some etched in stone law? Just because you don't agree with all the aspects of the FOC/CAD doesn't mean you need to burn them in a fire and spend each and every game working from the ground up to construct your army. You take the CAD/FOC, then you add restrictions or allowances as you see fit and agree with your opponent. This is actually how the rules are worded, they basically say agree on "other" restrictions and requirements, the RAW are basically telling you "here's the starting point, now you can change it as you see fit" (paraphrased).
You can totally have it both ways without it being hypocritical (sorry, "incredibly hypocritical"). The only way it's hypocritical is if you view the rules as a dichotomy of either following them all or throwing them all out the window. Even the ACTUAL laws we live by aren't like that, or do you feel it's "incredibly hypocritical" for someone to abhor rape and murder but then break the speed limit on their way home from work?
It's just as reasonable for me to turn up expecting to be able to use 8 Heavy slots as it is for you to refuse to play against LOW.
Sure it is.... but good luck getting a game. I recommend you also bring a list that is closer to the FOC/CAD if you expect people to play against you.
Do you have any idea what a TFG is?
And I'm such a thing because I have better things to do than spend three hours on something I don't like?
Maybe you are unaware, but maybe you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion You cannot force someone to do something against their will.
But sure, go ahead and break forum-rules, game-rules, store-rules and national law because you HAVE to play with that Titan.
Actually, I've broken none of those things. I would seriously try and relax though. Life is too short to get mad at the internet...
The TFG is the guy who shows up with a rule of cool fluffy bunny list and expects everyone else to play down to his level. It's like a football team asking their opponents to play their second string because it isn't "fair". Sure, you have the right to turn down games. However, the person turning down the game is the TFG. I'll say this again, 40k is inherently competitive. Why are people who build an army that's meant to win games in a competitive game looked at as TFG? I guess Nick Saban is TFG for starting Cooper and Yeldon against WVU. He should've played their backups to make it more fun for the other team. To whoever said it's competitive players that don't like titans, I strongly disagree. It's the casual players who expect everyone else to play down to their level so they don't have to figure out how to put a decent list together or buy some new models once in awhile. My group is full of competitive players and we enjoy the challenge that comes with facing stuff like revenants, reavers and c'tans. I hang out/play games 2 or 3 days a week and have yet to see anyone turn a game down no matter how ridiculous the list is. I've seen a list of nothing but 2 c'tans going unbound. I've seen 7 obsec wave serpents. The other guy puts a list together that he thinks will do well and they play the game. You get better at this game by challenging yourself, not turning down every game where the opponent has a better list or one "OP" model on the table.
Toofast wrote: The TFG is the guy who shows up with a rule of cool fluffy bunny list and expects everyone else to play down to his level. It's like a football team asking their opponents to play their second string because it isn't "fair". Sure, you have the right to turn down games. However, the person turning down the game is the TFG. I'll say this again, 40k is inherently competitive. Why are people who build an army that's meant to win games in a competitive game looked at as TFG?
For the love of all that is good in this fething world can we stop using the term "TFG". No one has to be "TFG", it's entirely possible for 2 people to have a mutual disagreement on what they will find fun without either being TFG. The only TFG is the guy who acts like TFG.
It's the casual players who expect everyone else to play down to their level so they don't have to figure out how to put a decent list together or buy some new models once in awhile. My group is full of competitive players and we enjoy the challenge that comes with facing stuff like revenants, reavers and c'tans. I hang out/play games 2 or 3 days a week and have yet to see anyone turn a game down no matter how ridiculous the list is. I've seen a list of nothing but 2 c'tans going unbound. I've seen 7 obsec wave serpents. The other guy puts a list together that he thinks will do well and they play the game. You get better at this game by challenging yourself, not turning down every game where the opponent has a better list or one "OP" model on the table.
God forbid someone wants to enjoy the game differently to you
I don't play games 2 or 3 days a week. When I do get around to playing a game I want it to be a game I will enjoy. This has nothing to do with challenging myself, this has nothing to do with me thinking expensive LOW models are OP'd, it has everything to do with me not wanting to play with/against them in standard games because it's not what I find fun.
You mention football... even football is a game where you have different levels of play. You have various professional levels. You have amateur competitive play with people playing at A grade, B grade through to however many grades they can make with the number of people who want to play. You then also have people who just like to have a casual game in the park. Out here we play Aussie rules football and you'll often see a few people in a park just kicking the ball between them.
Isn't it wonderful how football can be enjoyed on so many levels? Too bad 40k isn't like that and you're labelled "TFG" for wanting to participate in the way you find fun.
Toofast wrote: The TFG is the guy who shows up with a rule of cool fluffy bunny list and expects everyone else to play down to his level. It's like a football team asking their opponents to play their second string because it isn't "fair". Sure, you have the right to turn down games. However, the person turning down the game is the TFG. I'll say this again, 40k is inherently competitive. Why are people who build an army that's meant to win games in a competitive game looked at as TFG? I guess Nick Saban is TFG for starting Cooper and Yeldon against WVU. He should've played their backups to make it more fun for the other team. To whoever said it's competitive players that don't like titans, I strongly disagree. It's the casual players who expect everyone else to play down to their level so they don't have to figure out how to put a decent list together or buy some new models once in awhile. My group is full of competitive players and we enjoy the challenge that comes with facing stuff like revenants, reavers and c'tans. I hang out/play games 2 or 3 days a week and have yet to see anyone turn a game down no matter how ridiculous the list is. I've seen a list of nothing but 2 c'tans going unbound. I've seen 7 obsec wave serpents. The other guy puts a list together that he thinks will do well and they play the game. You get better at this game by challenging yourself, not turning down every game where the opponent has a better list or one "OP" model on the table.
And hey guess what, "TFG" you don't have to play against! It's amazing! It's like people have a choice to do things! Just like you choose to play 2 C'tans, I or anyone else can say "Nooooope, not feeling like playing that!" Even your football analogy is flawed as the above poster proved. Improving one self is only a good argument when the rules are clear and balanced; otherwise there will always be that one combo that will prove to be over the top to the actual balanced list.
1000-point game
Blood Angel compromising a TAC list; it very much fails to have much in the way to take on AV14, short of Assault and Assault-bikes with Melta, maybe MAYBE it has Dante in it with a pair of meltas for some nice AT-alphastrike.
vs.
IG with a Warhound Titan and the remaining 250-ish points are there to fulfill the requirements.
Blood Angel wants to play a Maelstrom mission to balance out the fight. IG wants to play a Kill-point variant. Who is TFG?
Do you know why you have stuff like that going in your play group? Because you agreed to it. It's great but guess what. We could do that before 7th, but now that it is a BRB rule people are trying to force it on someone else. Blaming casuals for asking people to play to their level? That is frankly disgusting, if we had your way no one new would come to the game.
There's a big difference between choosing a certain army or going easy to teach a new player and changing your whole list for someone who has played for 15 years because they still choose not to field a competitive list. A TAC list should be able to do well against an army that spends 90% of their points on a single model just by playing the objectives. I see these battles all the time and it's rarely as one sided as you all make it sound.
Again with the all or nothing attitude. What's wrong with using them as guidelines instead of some etched in stone law? Just because you don't agree with all the aspects of the FOC/CAD doesn't mean you need to burn them in a fire and spend each and every game working from the ground up to construct your army. You take the CAD/FOC, then you add restrictions or allowances as you see fit and agree with your opponent. This is actually how the rules are worded, they basically say agree on "other" restrictions and requirements, the RAW are basically telling you "here's the starting point, now you can change it as you see fit" (paraphrased).
I recommend you also bring a list that is closer to the FOC/CAD if you expect people to play against you.
I think what I'll do is bring my Titan, then if I get refused a game, have a backup list which includes 9 Exorcists and 4 quads of Dominions. I'll then get to listen to an explanation as to why the FOC/CAD rules in the book that a moment ago were entirely negotiable, become suddenly very important. More than happy to see the FOC/CAD as guidelines as long as everything is negotiable. You expect me to drop the LOW slot, I'll be asking for more slots in Heavy Support and Fast Attack so the game can become more fun for me.
Your advice also suggests that I should try to stick close to the FOC/CAD if I expect to get a game, but then you would expect me to deviate from the FOC/CAD and drop my LoW? Interesting logic.
Yonan wrote: If 40k was a well written game you'd have a good point - no other popular tabletop game I can think of has players with such wildly different ideas of what is required for it to be fun.
An interesting question IMO is: Is this issue related to actual rules issues in the game (as in: other games have less)? Or is it just an issue of game popularity? A large and knowledgeable community does a much better job at highlighting rules issues (and therefore cause fractures between people who thinks said issues are important and people who don't) than a smaller and/or less informed one.
Why I am asking this: while I am a newbie in tabletop wargames, I am a long time player and internet forum regular in Pen&Paper RPGs, and I have noticed that roughly the more popular games (like D&D) tend to generate a lot more heated debates in regard to play style differences than the less popular games (like FFGs WH40k line of RPGs) despite rules issues of similar magnitude.
Again with the all or nothing attitude. What's wrong with using them as guidelines instead of some etched in stone law? Just because you don't agree with all the aspects of the FOC/CAD doesn't mean you need to burn them in a fire and spend each and every game working from the ground up to construct your army. You take the CAD/FOC, then you add restrictions or allowances as you see fit and agree with your opponent. This is actually how the rules are worded, they basically say agree on "other" restrictions and requirements, the RAW are basically telling you "here's the starting point, now you can change it as you see fit" (paraphrased).
I recommend you also bring a list that is closer to the FOC/CAD if you expect people to play against you.
I think what I'll do is bring my Titan, then if I get refused a game, have a backup list which includes 9 Exorcists and 4 quads of Dominions. I'll then get to listen to an explanation as to why the FOC/CAD rules in the book that a moment ago were entirely negotiable, become suddenly very important. More than happy to see the FOC/CAD as guidelines as long as everything is negotiable. You expect me to drop the LOW slot, I'll be asking for more slots in Heavy Support and Fast Attack so the game can become more fun for me.
You can do whatever the hell you want, I really don't care. Just don't use hyperbole and call people hypocrites for using the FOC as guidelines when at the end of the day we're all in it to have fun and the rulebook you hold so dear encourages it anyway.
Your advice also suggests that I should try to stick close to the FOC/CAD if I expect to get a game, but then you would expect me to deviate from the FOC/CAD and drop my LoW? Interesting logic.
The reality is there are parts of army selection that not everyone agrees on (in this case, expensive LoW). I don't "expect" you to do anything, but it's naive to think there aren't good reasons why someone is more likely to take umbrage with a Reaver than they are with a Rhino. I'm not the one finger waggling telling you what you HAVE to do.
"Interesting logic"... how? It seems pretty simple logic to me. You start with the FOC and then deviate from it as necessary. It's easier than making something from scratch each time. If you want to throw the FOC out the window completely, fine, do that, it'll just be much more legwork to find an opponent than someone saying "let's play a game using a standard FOC but without LoW".
Also you bring up taking 9 heavies as if that's somehow supposed to convince me that we should stick religiously to the FOC... personally I have no issues with someone suggesting modifications like that to create a more interesting game. If someone wants to play a game where we completely ignore the FOC and instead we work together to set up armies we think will create a good matchup, I'm all for it. Of course if you bring a Reaver and I say "no thanks" and then you come along acting like an arse trying to spite me saying "well fine then, I'll just take 9 heavies since you don't want to use the FOC as outlined in the BRB" I'll just tell you to find another opponent
I've played a MoW mission against a Reaver titan at 2k points (he had some chaos Marines and sorcerer to fill out his CAD) with my RG jump pack/drop pod list. Was no contest really, my storm talon was zooming around avoiding the Reaver to keep me from getting tabled while I wracked up objective points. Was fun. Not sure if he'll ever field that list again though.
Super Heavies should be legal, being a jerk in a 40k game shouldn't.
Its funny how people on both sides think they are morally right. Who cares if someone doesnt want to play with you for whatever reason? Its a game of toy soldiers that is played by adults. Maybe its time to remind you. Find someone else that is okay with your playstyle and move on. No need to beat this dead horse anymore.
My god im so happy that i dont have to play in a store against random opponents but instead play in a a club with like minded grown ups.
If you make a TAC list, you should also be prepared to deal with superheavies. Otherwise you wouldn't be bringing a TAC list and would need to inform your opponent in advance that you will bring a specific list (otherwise you will probably have a disappointing game).
A TAC list should be able to take all comers, and superheavies are easy to deal with. Remember, instead of that single Baneblade, you could also have faced a whole bunch of LRBTs. Baneblades (and most other superheavies) usually are not a competitive option in a low-points games at all.
tyrannosaurus wrote: It's a problem because you are making the assumption that all people who bring super heavies do it in an attempt to stomp their opponent. The vast majority of LoW are actually much more of a liability than an asset, and from reading numerous threads like this, those who bring super heavies do it because they look amazing, for fluff reasons, because they want to use their legal model they spent a lot of money on, or a combination of the three, but not to gain an unfair advantage. Again after reading a lot of threads on the subject, it seems that it's the more competitive players who have a problem with them in the fear that they may affect their ability to win [YMMV].
A lot of anti-LoW posts are made in ignorance, as if you have actually played against them, you will realise the vast majority aren't a problem. On the other hand Knights are superheavies and LoW in all but name, are very competitive units [winner of BAO ran one], have D-weapons, but are generally considered to be fine. Again, hypocrisy.
They look amazing. Most of them aren't overpowered. And I would love to play against them.
And if Peregrine used a different language, I would definitely agree with him.
But it remains a fact that playing with LoW's is really different from playing without them.
That is my problem with them: They bring an entirely different game to the table than what I would expect or even would like to have.
Which is why I said it'd be the polite thing to do if your opponent informs you of the kind of game you are going to have.
It took me 30 seconds to type that to friends and it took them 10 seconds to all agree on it. No problem at all!
Iron_Captain wrote: If you make a TAC list, you should also be prepared to deal with superheavies. Otherwise you wouldn't be bringing a TAC list and would need to inform your opponent in advance that you will bring a specific list (otherwise you will probably have a disappointing game).
A TAC list should be able to take all comers, and superheavies are easy to deal with. Remember, instead of that single Baneblade, you could also have faced a whole bunch of LRBTs. Baneblades (and most other superheavies) usually are not a competitive option in a low-points games at all.
The concept of TAC armies has kind of broken down over the past few years in 40k, at least IMO. They're good if everyone else is bringing TAC lists, but as soon as you get a spammy list it just screws up the balance.
Toofast wrote: There's a big difference between choosing a certain army or going easy to teach a new player and changing your whole list for someone who has played for 15 years because they still choose not to field a competitive list. A TAC list should be able to do well against an army that spends 90% of their points on a single model just by playing the objectives. I see these battles all the time and it's rarely as one sided as you all make it sound.
I'm quoting this not to single you out but because the bolded part made me angry. I just had another small bout of thinking to play 40k again (#4 for anyone bored enough to keep count lol) before once again deciding it's not worth the time or money because the game is a pile of gak. I had wanted to do an all Terminator army, because Terminators are awesome in the fluff. Doing some research though I found out how bad they are in the game now and that I'd likely lose all the time because they aren't competitive. When you're looking at spending $300 or more, you don't want to be told that you're going into every game with a disadvantage simply because you're playing what you like. That's bullgak. Feth me for wanting to play a fluffy army representing an elite strike team instead of taking all Gravgun bikers with Kor'sarro Khan despite not playing White Scars, right? I deserve to lose for picking the wrong units, because Emperor forbid I like how they look and like the fluff.
And yet the common argument is always that 40k isn't a competitive game, right? So why does fielding a competitive list matter in a game that by design and intent is not competitive? Especially in a game that isn't meant to be competitive, shouldn't all options be at least mostly viable other than extremes (e.g. fielding all Scouts probably shouldn't be good except in rare situations)?
So back to this argument about LoW. The underlying issue as with everything else is that 40k tries to please everyone and instead results in having arguments like this. LoW are legal, but some of them are so much better than virtually everything else in the game that they can turn the tide alone, and either you have to refuse to play with superheavies because you don't want to deal with something that can just blow your army off the table in one turn, or allow everything and deal with that one jerk who wants to play a Titan for exactly that reason and waste your time. For every guy who wants to include a Baneblade (fairly tame superheavy IIRC) because they play Guard and a big tank is awesome, there's the guy who wants to field the super unit to just wipe the floor with everyone he faces.
I would be willing to bet that almost always it's the guy who wants the Titan who is the jerk, not the person that doesn't want to play them. Sorry, but in my experiences in the past the guy who shows up with the super-army (whether it's a Titan, or in the days of Herohammer WHFB 5th edition the kitted out lord on the dragon with a unit hiding in the woods) doesn't want to have a fun game, he wants to grind someone into the dust to feel like a badass. Maybe you and the people in this thread arguing for LoW aren't like that, but it's hard to shake the stereotype because it's far too common to see.
Personally, this thread illustrates why someone like me might want to play 40k again but doesn't want to waste the time playing a game that has rules so terrible that you need to form a social contract with your opponent to make sure you have fun and wanting to have fun can cause arguments because it typically means that someone else might not have fun if you have fun, and vice versa. What other game has that kind of nonsense? Really these arguments of whether superheavies should be allowed and who's "TFG" for not wanting them allowed boils down to the ideas that A) My fun trumps your fun, and B) You're playing a game where people can have different ideas of fun and argue over whose idea of fun is right, because each idea of fun is mutually exclusive!
Does that not come off as some major flaw that my fun might hinge on being able to field the army I want and have a fighting chance, or not getting my army wiped out by a Titan, while yours hinges on getting to field a mega giant robot that can wipe armies out by itself (because that's cool)?
Kangodo 613643 7180335jpeg wrote:
That is my problem with them: They bring an entirely different game to the table than what I would expect or even would like to have.
Which is why I said it'd be the polite thing to do if your opponent informs you of the kind of game you are going to have.
It took me 30 seconds to type that to friends and it took them 10 seconds to all agree on it. No problem at all!
Yes and no, naturally with this new edition the meta has shifted greatly to bringing back lots of vehicles since the buff to them occurred with 7th edition. Naturally that means people bring more Melta and other Anti-Vehicle weaponry and have more of their infantry riding around in transports, so the tools to handle these LoW are already there. In EVERY game I have played against a LoW I have been just fine in dealing with it because of the anti-armor I bring, I don't even bring extra I just bring my all comers list and do just fine. I think a lot of people when they hear "LoW" they freak out and get scared before even fighting it. Lesson here is to try it before you knock it, same argument with how "Forgeworld is OP" when it clearly isn't. The biggest thing here is that people just need to learn how to adapt to handle it as they should be expecting it, especially at tournaments, and I wonder how many players are just saying no because they don't wish to adapt their lists? Not to mention I think it gets overlooked the benefits your receive when fighting a LOW when you don't have one of your own, and I think this argument centers more around the "Super-Heavies rather then the Characters.
And the whole agreeing to playing with it or not and worrying about being TFG, to be TFG it comes down to attitude. For example, at a Tournament recently my buddy brought his Revnant Titian and he literally had some Guardians and a single Farseer, that WAS his army. Two players saw the Titan and immediately demanded he lose the Titan or they quit, he refused and they stormed out of the Tournament and were told they are not welcome back in the store until they apologized for the scene they created. Who is TFG? Clearly the two individuals raging out at a TOURNAMENT where people were bring their A game to begin with, they should have expected it. As long as your not a tool you would not be TFG for bringing a LOW, and you have every right to refuse to play one just as they have the right to say "thanks but I want to play with this and if you don't want to ill find someone else to play."
WayneTheGame wrote: Personally, this thread illustrates why someone like me might want to play 40k again but doesn't want to waste the time playing a game that has rules so terrible that you need to form a social contract with your opponent to make sure you have fun and wanting to have fun can cause arguments because it typically means that someone else might not have fun if you have fun, and vice versa. What other game has that kind of nonsense? Really these arguments of whether superheavies should be allowed and who's "TFG" for not wanting them allowed boils down to the ideas that A) My fun trumps your fun, and B) You're playing a game where people can have different ideas of fun and argue over whose idea of fun is right, because each idea of fun is mutually exclusive!
Yeah, if I were a new gamer approaching 40k for the first time, I wouldn't start it. The only reason I persist with it is that I started around 20 years ago and have armies amassed from that time and given how long it takes me to paint them there's no way in hell I'm selling them on impulse probably for less than I paid for them.
I think there's a lot of 40k veterans who think "this isn't what I signed up for" for various reasons. These days I wish 40k wasn't so popular back when I started and WW2 games were more popular so I would have started them instead
WayneTheGame wrote: Personally, this thread illustrates why someone like me might want to play 40k again but doesn't want to waste the time playing a game that has rules so terrible that you need to form a social contract with your opponent to make sure you have fun and wanting to have fun can cause arguments because it typically means that someone else might not have fun if you have fun, and vice versa. What other game has that kind of nonsense? Really these arguments of whether superheavies should be allowed and who's "TFG" for not wanting them allowed boils down to the ideas that A) My fun trumps your fun, and B) You're playing a game where people can have different ideas of fun and argue over whose idea of fun is right, because each idea of fun is mutually exclusive!
Yeah, if I were a new gamer approaching 40k for the first time, I wouldn't start it. The only reason I persist with it is that I started around 20 years ago and have armies amassed from that time and given how long it takes me to paint them there's no way in hell I'm selling them on impulse probably for less than I paid for them.
I think there's a lot of 40k veterans who think "this isn't what I signed up for" for various reasons. These days I wish 40k wasn't so popular back when I started and WW2 games were more popular so I would have started them instead
Luckily (well not luckily) all my stuff was lost long ago, so I have zero vested interest beyond some Tau that I found in a closet and a few SM things that I bought a while back when I was curious. But with discussions like this, feth no. I'll stick with Warmachine despite the gripes I have with it, because at least I can take virtually what I want and have a fighting chance and don't have to hash out what is and isn't allowed with my opponent and risk one of us not being happy to play/not play with a certain thing.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: You can do whatever the hell you want, I really don't care. Just don't use hyperbole and call people hypocrites for using the FOC as guidelines when at the end of the day we're all in it to have fun and the rulebook you hold so dear encourages it anyway.
The reality is there are parts of army selection that not everyone agrees on (in this case, expensive LoW). I don't "expect" you to do anything, but it's naive to think there aren't good reasons why someone is more likely to take umbrage with a Reaver than they are with a Rhino. I'm not the one finger waggling telling you what you HAVE to do.
"Interesting logic"... how? It seems pretty simple logic to me. You start with the FOC and then deviate from it as necessary. It's easier than making something from scratch each time. If you want to throw the FOC out the window completely, fine, do that, it'll just be much more legwork to find an opponent than someone saying "let's play a game using a standard FOC but without LoW".
Also you bring up taking 9 heavies as if that's somehow supposed to convince me that we should stick religiously to the FOC... personally I have no issues with someone suggesting modifications like that to create a more interesting game. If someone wants to play a game where we completely ignore the FOC and instead we work together to set up armies we think will create a good matchup, I'm all for it. Of course if you bring a Reaver and I say "no thanks" and then you come along acting like an arse trying to spite me saying "well fine then, I'll just take 9 heavies since you don't want to use the FOC as outlined in the BRB" I'll just tell you to find another opponent
Good effort at swerving the argument. You might as well just type "DON'T LIKE" and call it a day.
The fact is, for everything except LoW the FOC is considered by most to be sacrosanct. I'm asking you, why should LoW be considered optional when the rest of the FOC restrictions aren't? Either the FOC is important or it isn't. You choose. You are using the part of the rulebook that allows for flexibility to refuse to play a unit you don't like, then use the argument that the restrictions imposed by the FOC are important and should form the basis for most games of 40k. You accuse me of using hyperbole, then use an analogy comparing Reavers to Rhinos.
Telling me to find another opponent in a hypothetical scenario where we meet isn't an argument, but I'll run with it. If your gaming group are fine with not playing LoW just because you don't like them then more power to you. Personally I would want a better explanation. Also, I would expect you to realise that you are the one being unreasonable in refusing to play against all LoW [especially if you play against Knights]. If you said that you wouldn't play against Transcendent C'Tans and Revenants I could understand. Blanket bans make you look silly as clearly you don't understand the impact that all but the biggest or most OPLoW have on the game.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: These days I wish 40k wasn't so popular back when I started and WW2 games were more popular so I would have started them instead
A flames of war army in standard size of 1780pts (depending on the list you pick) can cost less than 100$. Heck you can get a competitive force for the price of a landraider. Thats a list that doesnt suck wit loads of different units. Expanding your army cheaply is really easy because of how the list building works. So i'd say give it a shot. The opportunity is still there. I started FoW 2 Years ago and we have a lot of fun with it. Its also a different experiene in painting and modelling aspects and its in my opinion really the cheapest of the major systems. Ive spent around 200$ and i have a really huge canadian rifle company with lots and lots of infantry, tanks, different artillery options, airplanes. reconaissance etcpp.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: You can do whatever the hell you want, I really don't care. Just don't use hyperbole and call people hypocrites for using the FOC as guidelines when at the end of the day we're all in it to have fun and the rulebook you hold so dear encourages it anyway.
The reality is there are parts of army selection that not everyone agrees on (in this case, expensive LoW). I don't "expect" you to do anything, but it's naive to think there aren't good reasons why someone is more likely to take umbrage with a Reaver than they are with a Rhino. I'm not the one finger waggling telling you what you HAVE to do.
"Interesting logic"... how? It seems pretty simple logic to me. You start with the FOC and then deviate from it as necessary. It's easier than making something from scratch each time. If you want to throw the FOC out the window completely, fine, do that, it'll just be much more legwork to find an opponent than someone saying "let's play a game using a standard FOC but without LoW".
Also you bring up taking 9 heavies as if that's somehow supposed to convince me that we should stick religiously to the FOC... personally I have no issues with someone suggesting modifications like that to create a more interesting game. If someone wants to play a game where we completely ignore the FOC and instead we work together to set up armies we think will create a good matchup, I'm all for it. Of course if you bring a Reaver and I say "no thanks" and then you come along acting like an arse trying to spite me saying "well fine then, I'll just take 9 heavies since you don't want to use the FOC as outlined in the BRB" I'll just tell you to find another opponent
Good effort at swerving the argument. You might as well just type "DON'T LIKE" and call it a day.
The fact is, for everything except LoW the FOC is considered by most to be sacrosanct. I'm asking you, why should LoW be considered optional when the rest of the FOC restrictions aren't? Either the FOC is important or it isn't. You choose. You are using the part of the rulebook that allows for flexibility to refuse to play a unit you don't like, then use the argument that the restrictions imposed by the FOC are important and should form the basis for most games of 40k. You accuse me of using hyperbole, then use an analogy comparing Reavers to Rhinos.
Telling me to find another opponent in a hypothetical scenario where we meet isn't an argument, but I'll run with it. If your gaming group are fine with not playing LoW just because you don't like them then more power to you. Personally I would want a better explanation. Also, I would expect you to realise that you are the one being unreasonable in refusing to play against all LoW [especially if you play against Knights]. If you said that you wouldn't play against Transcendent C'Tans and Revenants I could understand. Blanket bans make you look silly as clearly you don't understand the impact that all but the biggest or most OPLoW have on the game.
If you understand why he wouldn't play against Tranny C'Tans then you should understand why he wouldn't play against LoW in general. There is no agreed upon house rule, so why can't I just bring the game to its logical breaking point and bring Tranny C'tan each time to the game and wreck everyone's fun? If there are bad apples and you are not fixing it, expect people to categorically ban it from consideration.
Personally, I would play against any LoW that has been BAO approved in an 1850 game. I think anyone who would not accept the BAO list of acceptable LoW would be someone who is unreasonable. BAO provided an additional and requisite level of quality control on the category LoW.
Let's keep one thing in mind. We have this problem because things like Tranny Ctan are bonkers OMG broken good and GW has unleased them as legal for standard. Its stupid and silly to allow LoW without dealing with it. So deal with it and provide a house rule that insures fair play or stop complaining when you can't play your LoW.
As I have said before the focus in this thread should not be on legality or not legality but on agreeing upon the most elegant way of fixing this LoW slop so that we all can play with LoW. Quit trying to force slop on us before cleaning it up.
gmaleron wrote: Yes and no, naturally with this new edition the meta has shifted greatly to bringing back lots of vehicles since the buff to them occurred with 7th edition. Naturally that means people bring more Melta and other Anti-Vehicle weaponry and have more of their infantry riding around in transports, so the tools to handle these LoW are already there. In EVERY game I have played against a LoW I have been just fine in dealing with it because of the anti-armor I bring, I don't even bring extra I just bring my all comers list and do just fine. I think a lot of people when they hear "LoW" they freak out and get scared before even fighting it. Lesson here is to try it before you knock it, same argument with how "Forgeworld is OP" when it clearly isn't. The biggest thing here is that people just need to learn how to adapt to handle it as they should be expecting it, especially at tournaments, and I wonder how many players are just saying no because they don't wish to adapt their lists? Not to mention I think it gets overlooked the benefits your receive when fighting a LOW when you don't have one of your own, and I think this argument centers more around the "Super-Heavies rather then the Characters.
I think you still don't get the point.
I already played against them and I won hard.
And I don't mind playing them again, but I think a game with or without LoW are two entirely different things.
I would not enjoy WH40k if I should expect a LoW every game, because it really limits the things you can try out in a list.
That doesn't mean I refuse to play againt them, I just prefer it if games with them are rare. That means we need communication and that shouldn't be an issue seeing as we are all social beings.
And the whole agreeing to playing with it or not and worrying about being TFG, to be TFG it comes down to attitude. For example, at a Tournament recently my buddy brought his Revnant Titian and he literally had some Guardians and a single Farseer, that WAS his army. Two players saw the Titan and immediately demanded he lose the Titan or they quit, he refused and they stormed out of the Tournament and were told they are not welcome back in the store until they apologized for the scene they created. Who is TFG? Clearly the two individuals raging out at a TOURNAMENT where people were bring their A game to begin with, they should have expected it. As long as your not a tool you would not be TFG for bringing a LOW, and you have every right to refuse to play one just as they have the right to say "thanks but I want to play with this and if you don't want to ill find someone else to play."
Tournaments and friendly games are two different things.
If you go to a tournament, you should expect people to play whatever they think is needed to win.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Good effort at swerving the argument. You might as well just type "DON'T LIKE" and call it a day.
Sorry if I seem like I'm swerving the argument, I'm not trying to do that, if it seems like that it's probably just a miscommunication. I'll try and address your points in turn if it's a problem.
The fact is, for everything except LoW the FOC is considered by most to be sacrosanct.
I don't think the rest of the FOC is sacrosanct. It's just less controversial for reasons pointed out heap of times.
I'm asking you, why should LoW be considered optional when the rest of the FOC restrictions aren't?
Because they sufficiently change the game that not all people want to play against them. And it's not JUST LoW, it's lots of things, it's simply LoW are the ones being discussed here. Most times I go to my local store I hear people negotiating a game of what they do and don't want.
Either the FOC is important or it isn't. You choose.
No, you don't have to choose. It's not a dichotomy, there are shades of grey. I don't think you understand what I mean when I say "guidelines". It's not important enough to be rigid and unyielding, it's important enough to be a good starting point.
You are using the part of the rulebook that allows for flexibility to refuse to play a unit you don't like, then use the argument that the restrictions imposed by the FOC are important and should form the basis for most games of 40k.
Again, "guidelines". Read the rules, they basically say (paraphrased). 1. You need to decide how you'll choose an army. 2. Here's a common way we suggest to choose an army. 3. You may want to have additional restrictions and requirements.
You seem to be stopping at 2 by saying either the FOC is important or it's not. If you're going to follow the RAW, you are going to start with what they give you and adapt it. Oddly enough, in this case, the RAW are actually a good idea, as NOT using the FOC they give you as the basis for most games means you need to start from scratch each game which is just impractical.
You accuse me of using hyperbole, then use an analogy comparing Reavers to Rhinos.
I was simply using it to demonstrate how they're NOT the same... the point is that they are very different and hence why 1 is more controversial than the other. That's not hyperbole, that's just pointing out reality. It's also a point Peregrine has used saying they are both equally valid which is why I used it as a point to say why they aren't both equally valid.
Telling me to find another opponent in a hypothetical scenario where we meet isn't an argument, but I'll run with it. If your gaming group are fine with not playing LoW just because you don't like them then more power to you. Personally I would want a better explanation.
It's been stated so many times in so many threads now, I really can't be bothered typing it again. If you really want I can dig up the old thread that was locked and link it. Yes, it boils down to "I don't like it because reasons". If you don't feel those reasons are valid you are more than welcome to leave.
Also, I would expect you to realise that you are the one being unreasonable in refusing to play against all LoW
No. I'm not the one being unreasonable if I don't want to waste my time playing a game I won't enjoy. The only unreasonable person is the one who acts like an arse about it. I am not going to call anyone unreasonable for wanting to play with expensive LoW and I expect not to be called unreasonable for not wanting to play with expensive LoW.
The idea that one player has to be to blame is, IMO, silly. If there's blame to be levelled at anyone, it's GW, levelling blame at other players for trying to enjoy their games as they see fit is, IMO, not beneficial unless your goal is simply to chase away the people who don't share your viewpoint. If that's your goal (and I'm not saying it is) then you are being unreasonable because you're actively attempting to damage the enjoyment of other players.
[especially if you play against Knights]. If you said that you wouldn't play against Transcendent C'Tans and Revenants I could understand. Blanket bans make you look silly as clearly you don't understand the impact that all but the biggest or most OPLoW have on the game.
For the most part I've only said "expensive LoW", if I simply said "LoW" then I apologise. I don't really see why it matters though, people have their reasons for banning** lots of things, if someone wants to ban tactical marines I really couldn't care less... I just won't be playing against them because I don't agree with the ban.
**I don't like using the term "ban" as it too strong for what the reality is in my situation, I don't "ban" LoW, I simply don't like playing with/against them in standard < 2000pt games and will seek to find other opponents if other opponents are available and may just go home if I can't be arsed playing a game I won't enjoy. But there's definitely ways of making games with expensive LoW more fun than simply playing a standard game and I'm open to those ideas.
I still can't believe how much rage is going on about Super Heavies. Every time i field my Revenant i lose in VP's. Its especially vulnerable to drop pod meltas which every marine army has nowadays. Its cool to field it but many people see it and walk away having never tried it because of the ignorant posts all over the internet about how OP they are.
The only way you are going to beat a LOW is by playing against it.
Also I like how people complain that some brings a Superheavy and their TAC list can't beat it so its pointless. Guess what? It isn't a TAC list unless it can deal with a superheavy or gargantuan creature. This is the future and superheavies are a viable unit just like riptides, tactical marines, drop pods, helldrakes, wave serpents, demon factories, wraithstar/nightscythe assault, and any other army you can think of.
Instead of whining about a superheavy or gargantuan creature do some theorycrafting for yourself instead of listening to the poison that is the internet tell you all about the superheavies they have never faced.
Instead of whining about a superheavy or gargantuan creature do some theorycrafting for yourself instead of listening to the poison that is the internet tell you all about the superheavies they have never faced.
Or you can accept that some people simply don't like playing against them, for a variety of reasons.
Instead of whining about a superheavy or gargantuan creature do some theorycrafting for yourself instead of listening to the poison that is the internet tell you all about the superheavies they have never faced.
Or you can accept that some people simply don't like playing against them, for a variety of reasons.
So those of us who have accepted that LoW are here and now part of the game must submit to those who don't want change?
Instead of whining about a superheavy or gargantuan creature do some theorycrafting for yourself instead of listening to the poison that is the internet tell you all about the superheavies they have never faced.
Or you can accept that some people simply don't like playing against them, for a variety of reasons.
So those of us who have accepted that LoW are here and now part of the game must submit to those who don't want change?
Accepting that certain people do not wish to face LoW is 'submission'?
What's the alternative? You forcing the opponent to accept playing LoW against her will?
So those of us who have accepted that LoW are here and now part of the game must submit to those who don't want change?
I have no clue where you managed to get that out of what I wrote.
Nowhere did I say anyone has to submit to anything.
People can just, you know, not play people for a number of reasons. The inclusion of superheavies might be one of those reasons. Having a not painted army might be another. Having a bright pink army might be a strange, but valid reason for someone to turn down a game. You can argue till you're blue in the face that its legal, but it doesn't mean anyone has to play you.
Therefore, I'll repeat my statement;
you can accept that some people simply don't like playing against them, for a variety of reasons.
Instead of whining about a superheavy or gargantuan creature do some theorycrafting for yourself instead of listening to the poison that is the internet tell you all about the superheavies they have never faced.
Or you can accept that some people simply don't like playing against them, for a variety of reasons.
So those of us who have accepted that LoW are here and now part of the game must submit to those who don't want change?
What's the alternative? You forcing the opponent to accept playing LoW against her will?
Well you option if to force me NOT to play my LoW.
They are a legal part of the game. That can not be disputed.
Now many quote the "You both are supposed to agree on the basic ground rules of the game." That can not be disputed.
So that leave what as an option?
1] Play against the LoW 2] Pack up your stuff and Go Home
That is not something that should be put of the LoW Player who is playing by the Rules and making me TFG because I want to play my Baneblade. Just like the guy who wants to play his Unbound list is immediately labeled WAAC.
Well you option if to force me NOT to play my LoW.
No forcing is involved. To my knowledge, there's simply terms. If someone says 'I am willing to play a game, on x terms' and x includes 'no LoW' then yes, saying that it is TFG to put these terms may appear TFG in itself.
Well you option if to force me NOT to play my LoW.
No forcing is involved. To my knowledge, there's simply terms. If someone says 'I am willing to play a game, on x terms' and x includes 'no LoW' then yes, saying that it is TFG to put these terms may appear TFG in itself.
Just my observation.
Still I am not getting what I want to play with
What are you giving up?
Well you option if to force me NOT to play my LoW.
No forcing is involved. To my knowledge, there's simply terms. If someone says 'I am willing to play a game, on x terms' and x includes 'no LoW' then yes, saying that it is TFG to put these terms may appear TFG in itself.
Just my observation.
Still I am not getting what I want to play with
What are you giving up?
The exact same thing, a game they would enjoy.
Would the game have been enjoyable if they had been 'forced' (Say, due to peer pressure) to accept the game anyway?
I doubt it. The best thing is to find another opponent if you disagree.
And you're wanting your opponent to give up any enjoyment he might get out of the game just so you can field your super heavy. What are you giving up in that case?
It's not always about "I gave up something, so you have to as well".
Still I am not getting what I want to play with
What are you giving up?
You could both not play eachother if a reasonable compromise can't be reached.
True, but that is not the point.
The point is everyone who refuses to play against Legal List with LoW [Or Unbound or Flyers] is getting to Choose what I do with the only consequence is they don't get to play a game with me.
Choices are down to Play something I don't want to play or don't play.
So it becomes His Way or the High Way and is become the "Hero"
If a LoW war player did that we become the "Villain"
Currently this is not a two way street. The response keeps being that We [The Low Players] are always wrong.
The arguments for superheavies are refusing to open their eyes to what the other side is saying. They aren't listening. The issue for many has nothing to do with being unable to win against them, but with finding games involving them to not be particularly enjoyable.
I see statements about winning against superheavies being easy because just play objectives or just use a bunch of melta. The issue with superheavies isn't only about whether they are difficult to beat or whether there are ways to beat them, it is about the process of beating them not being fun for some. I suspect many here could win every game against such a unit, but not find the game enjoyable either because of the way they are forced to build their list in order to win, or because of the way they are forced to play in order to win. If list building, and game play lose their enjoyment (win or lose) what is the point? One side seems to be saying "too bad, if you don't like it don't play" which is an incredibly juvenile and short-sided mindset. If a large portion of players don't like the game as is and leave, there won't be a game left to play in time.
As has been said here repeatedly, we are really talking about playing 2 different games even though they are both 40k and use the same rules. You ban certain superheavies, or even all of them and the game is completely different. Yes those units can't be used, but many others become viable and or very effective. Tactics change. The game is just diferent. Some prefer one, some the other, some are equally happy with both, some will refuse to play one or the other. Just let it be. No one is a bad dude because they have a way they prefer to play the game. If someone wants to play different than you, just move on. There is no point in trying to insist they play your way or in demeaning them for not choosing to play according to your terms.
GW is not trying to make a game that works well, they are trying to sell as many models, and as many expensive models as possible. Because of this, it is up to the players to craft for themselves a game that they like.
Ghaz wrote: And you're wanting your opponent to give up any enjoyment he might get out of the game just so you can field your super heavy. What are you giving up in that case?
It's not always about "I gave up something, so you have to as well".
But it is.
It is like back when you hade to get your opponent's "Permission" To take Logan, Vulkan or any Special Character.
I can not recount all of the games I hade to use Logan as a "Generic Wolf Lord" and had no Choice in the matter.
I haven't joined on with the 7th edition train, so I can only comment so much, but my main issue with the inclusion of super-heavies into standard games of 40k is the continual dilution of units in terms of battlefield effectiveness...units that you pay a substantial amount of money for. It all goes back to the arguments people make in favor of games like WMH or Infinity- it's not that their models are cheaper (they usually really aren't), but the models themselves have notable levels of usefulness.
Obviously this is a little different in 40k, which I think it one of its selling points- people want the feeling of a battle versus a skirmish. But look at a 3rd edition army versus a 7th: with the newer editions the model numbers for armies have increased dramatically. The models you pay a lot of money for are now less and less useful than before, sometimes bordering on becoming obsolete. Super-heavies may not break the game in terms of being over-powered, but they represent a trend of GW shoehorning absolutely everything (especially bigger and bigger units) they can into 40k with the sole purpose of generating more revenue, and the consequence being that you buy $30-$50 squads of troops that do little other than serve as cannon fodders for the massive gribblies dictating the flow of the game.
Anpu42 wrote: So it becomes His Way or the High Way and is become the "Hero"
If a LoW war player did that we become the "Villain"
Currently this is not a two way street. The response keeps being that We [The Low Players] are always wrong.
Why do we keep having to go back to the victim thing? Is it not enough to say people don't enjoy the game the same way you do so you don't have to play them at all?
No one has to be the hero or villain at all, that's just silly. If that is the case then it sound like your entire gaming group is nothing but TFG's
You show up for a game, your opponent says they don't want to play against X, you do want to play with X so you either find another opponent or discuss a compromise where you can still play with X, if you can't find a compromise that still lets you play with X then you find another opponent.
No heroes and villains. No one has to be right or wrong.
Accolade wrote: I haven't joined on with the 7th edition train, so I can only comment so much, but my main issue with the inclusion of super-heavies into standard games of 40k is the continual dilution of units in terms of battlefield effectiveness...units that you pay a substantial amount of money for. It all goes back to the arguments people make in favor of games like WMH or Infinity- it's not that their models are cheaper (they usually really aren't), but the models themselves have notable levels of usefulness.
Obviously this is a little different in 40k, which I think it one of its selling points- people want the feeling of a battle versus a skirmish. But look at a 3rd edition army versus a 7th: with the newer editions the model numbers for armies have increased dramatically. The models you pay a lot of money for are now less and less useful than before, sometimes bordering on becoming obsolete. Super-heavies may not break the game in terms of being over-powered, but they represent a trend of GW shoehorning absolutely everything they can into 40k with the sole purpose of generating more revenue, and the consequence being that you buy $30-$50 squads of troops that do little other than serve as cannon fodders for the massive gribblies dictating the flow of the game.
Units do have their usefulness. A squad of guardians spread out around an objective make a great objective secured unit and they can take heavy weapons platforms to pop off bright lance shots at tanks. Just because your infantry cant hurt a super heavy doesnt mean its useless. This is part of whats going wrong at my FLGS. They think the only way to win is brute force. They HAVE to table the opponent. I win on the objectives because i play the objectives. Just because you cant hurt something with every unit in your book doesn't mean it's a useless unit. Instead of brute forcing everything, learn to play to the advantages of every unit to overcome the disadvantages of them.
Ghaz wrote: And you're wanting your opponent to give up any enjoyment he might get out of the game just so you can field your super heavy. What are you giving up in that case?
It's not always about "I gave up something, so you have to as well".
But it is.
It is like back when you hade to get your opponent's "Permission" To take Logan, Vulkan or any Special Character.
I can not recount all of the games I hade to use Logan as a "Generic Wolf Lord" and had no Choice in the matter.
Then it was Flyers
Now it is Lords of War...
No it's not. Please point out a single rule that says your opponent has to give up something if he asks you to give up something. You want your opponent to give up any choice on what rules are being used in the game. What are you giving up?
Anpu42 wrote: So it becomes His Way or the High Way and is become the "Hero"
If a LoW war player did that we become the "Villain"
Currently this is not a two way street. The response keeps being that We [The Low Players] are always wrong.
Why do we keep having to go back to the victim thing? Is it not enough to say people don't enjoy the game the same way you do so you don't have to play them at all?
No one has to be the hero or villain at all, that's just silly. If that is the case then it sound like your entire gaming group is nothing but TFG's
You show up for a game, your opponent says they don't want to play against X, you do want to play with X so you either find another opponent or discuss a compromise where you can still play with X, if you can't find a compromise that still lets you play with X then you find another opponent.
No heroes and villains. No one has to be right or wrong.
How else to I express this problem then?
I show up with a Baneblade. My Opponent says "No I won't play against that!"
I have no recourse, but to put my Baneblade away or not to play.
If I try to push the issue in any way, I become TFG even though he was the one who forced me to change my list.
Ghaz wrote: And you're wanting your opponent to give up any enjoyment he might get out of the game just so you can field your super heavy. What are you giving up in that case?
It's not always about "I gave up something, so you have to as well".
But it is.
It is like back when you hade to get your opponent's "Permission" To take Logan, Vulkan or any Special Character.
I can not recount all of the games I hade to use Logan as a "Generic Wolf Lord" and had no Choice in the matter.
Then it was Flyers
Now it is Lords of War...
Well I think of it like this...
There are 2 types of people who don't like X (where X is whatever).
1. Those who don't like it because they are ignorant.
2. Those who don't like it for legitimate reasons.
People from group 1. will eventually come round. People from group 2 will eventually either concede or give up and quit.
Given 40k is a diminishing community rather than a growing community, when people start giving up and quitting because they don't like something, I don't consider that a good thing.
Ghaz wrote: And you're wanting your opponent to give up any enjoyment he might get out of the game just so you can field your super heavy. What are you giving up in that case?
It's not always about "I gave up something, so you have to as well".
But it is.
It is like back when you hade to get your opponent's "Permission" To take Logan, Vulkan or any Special Character.
I can not recount all of the games I hade to use Logan as a "Generic Wolf Lord" and had no Choice in the matter.
Then it was Flyers
Now it is Lords of War...
No it's not. Please point out a single rule that says your opponent has to give up something if he asks you to give up something. You want your opponent to give up any choice on what rules are being used in the game. What are you giving up?
That Rule that says you are supposed to negotiate what you both want to play that keeps being thrown around here.
Both players are supposed to agree on what is allowed and not allowed. With LoW What choice is being given, None. So I am being ask to give something up as part of the Negotiation. During a Negotiation usually Both side make concession to each other. My concession if is I have to give up my LoW, what is his concession. Or do I not understand what a Negotiation is?
Anpu42 wrote: How else to I express this problem then?
I show up with a Baneblade. My Opponent says "No I won't play against that!"
I have no recourse, but to put my Baneblade away or not to play.
If I try to push the issue in any way, I become TFG even though he was the one who forced me to change my list.
Well you do have some recourse, if you think they're not wanting to play against it because they're ignorant and you REALLY want to play with it, you can ask them if they'd be willing to play against it if they change up their list or if they're willing to play a different scenario.
If they simply don't want to play it because it would not create the sort of game they want to play, don't play the game... no one has to be TFG. If you both don't want to play against each other then you both don't want to play against each other, no need for one person to feel like they're the victim.
If you can't find anyone else to play against at all, that sucks, but you just have to accept that no one is playing the same game as you want to play. I own miniatures from various games I've tried to get people in to and now they're just sitting collecting dust because no one wants to play them.
If it makes you happy you can console yourself with the fact the people who don't like expensive LoW will eventually quit and you can enjoy 40k with like minded people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anpu42 wrote: Both side make concession to each other. My concession if is I have to give up my LoW, what is his concession. Or do I not understand what a Negotiation is?
So we cut the LoW in half and give half to both sides?
If they're scared they won't be able to deal with it, you can let them change their list to deal with it. So he's conceding to play against your LoW and you're conceding that you're probably going to get destroyed for the benefit of teaching them that the LoW isn't actually all that hard to beat. Or you could offer to swap armies to show how easy it is to beat your LoW.
If it's someone like me who simply doesn't like playing standard games where most the points is tied up in a single model, you could offer to NOT play a standard game.
If at the end of the day you simply want to play with your LoW and they simply don't, there is no middle ground and you don't play a game. There doesn't have to be a TFG at all. If there's no middle ground, there's no middle ground and you both equally don't play a game against each other.
Anpu42 wrote: How else to I express this problem then?
I show up with a Baneblade. My Opponent says "No I won't play against that!"
I have no recourse, but to put my Baneblade away or not to play.
If I try to push the issue in any way, I become TFG even though he was the one who forced me to change my list.
Well you do have some recourse, if you think they're not wanting to play against it because they're ignorant and you REALLY want to play with it, you can ask them if they'd be willing to play against it if they change up their list or if they're willing to play a different scenario.
If they simply don't want to play it because it would not create the sort of game they want to play, don't play the game... no one has to be TFG. If you both don't want to play against each other then you both don't want to play against each other, no need for one person to feel like they're the victim.
If you can't find anyone else to play against at all, that sucks, but you just have to accept that no one is playing the same game as you want to play. I own miniatures from various games I've tried to get people in to and now they're just sitting collecting dust because no one wants to play them.
If it makes you happy you can console yourself with the fact the people who don't like expensive LoW will eventually quit and you can enjoy 40k with like minded people.
No, no one has to be TFG and it should not be that way, but many do make it that guy. I have been the victim of it many time.
I have been playing Space Wolves since 1998. When the 5th edition Space Wolf Codex came out I decided to play at the local LGS.
Before I even unpacked my first box I put my new Codex on the table was immediately labeled TFG, WAAC Player and Bandwagon Player.
This is what seems to be happening to LOW Players.
This seems be the same thing, but against a series of units.
This is why I do not play at my Local [Not-So] Friendly Game Store.
By some of the "Logic" I have been seeing here every one would have been in there right to deny my use of my 5th Edition Codex: Codex.
Well I'm sorry for you if your local gaming group is a bunch of d-bags. But that more comes down to your local gaming group being a bunch of d-bags than someone's God given right to not play a game they won't find fun
I stopped playing at one particular store in the late 90's because most of the people who frequented the store were obnoxious. There was no problem with me wanting to play a different game to them, they were just all obnoxious so I stopped playing there.
Sometimes in this life you come across people you don't want to interact with. So you just avoid them.
I see this as a separate issue to people who genuinely know what a LoW is and genuinely don't want to play against it because they won't find it fun.
Janthkin wrote: People don't have to agree with you. They don't have to do it in a store, and they don't have to do it on the internet. But if someone doesn't agree with you, the appropriate response (certainly on Dakka; usually in life) is not to start ranting at each other nor to start through around claims of extortion. Drop it, and go enjoy some other part of the forum.
Edit: Just in case I was insufficiently clear, we're done with discussing accusations of "TFG"-dom and extortion. If you don't have anything to say on the topic without discussing that, you don't need to be posting in this thread.
You know, I feel some of you missed this.
Rather than issue a WHOLE BUNCH of warnings and suspensions for continued idiocy in this thread, I'm just going to kill it.
). In reality 
.
