Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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 OP LoW 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.

I still play 40k and enjoy it though.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

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 OP LoW 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 OP LoW 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.

 Xerics wrote:


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.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


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?

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


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?

 Anpu42 wrote:

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.

Its really that simple.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


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.

 Anpu42 wrote:

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.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

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?

 Anpu42 wrote:

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.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

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".

 Blacksails wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

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.