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.

 BoomWolf wrote:
That's sound judgement. given you have played against it before.

The people who never tried are the ones driving me nuts, especially when they come out with things like "there is no possible way to beat that without cheese", yet I beaten such things multiple times without cheezing, and I know many others.

Honestly, most LoW, on the competitive level, are not really worth it.

Not just that!
I would really love to play against it again, or against Baneblades, or Imperial Knights.
But Titans go too far to be honest and as a Necron-player I don't even field my own T-C'tan because it's so horribly overpowered.

And I don't want to face them all the time, I would like to be warned because it really does create another type of game.
I usually play with friends, so I can expect them to not field it if I am really against it and they can expect me to sometimes allow it.
Things like this have to come from both sides or else there is no game at all.

 Jidmah wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm pretty sure that a trio of carnifexes will have no trouble tearing it apart in a single round of combat. You even get your armor against most wounds from that D-weapon.

I'm pretty sure that weapon is AP1.

Point taken. I actually never bothered to check the AP on it. Still, it has 4 attacks which have to hit on 4+, usually resulting in 2d3 wounds. Something that shouldn't scare a couple of monstrous creatures. Sure, it will kill one on the roll of 6, but there are bunch of models out there which can do the same or better (warboss with 'eadwompa comes to mind). Since it's just I1 you might even kill it before it strikes back.

The stompa from the codex is probably one of the tamest super-heavies out there - if you can't handle it, a pair of land raiders or your usual necron AV13 spam would have crushed you as well.

A trio of Carnifexes would do a decent amount of damage, but on average will be torn apart before killing the Stompa. That's assuming you can actually get a trio of Carnifexes in to combat with it. I personally don't field a trio of Carnifexes in a TAC 1500pt Tyranid army, and they certainly wouldn't be armed in the optimal way to take on a Stompa as that's a very expensive unit that doesn't do all that much against most enemies, far more likely they'd be equipped as Dakka-fexes. Even if you did take them, it would be unlikely that you would get the charge off, which is pretty much what you need to do any damage. If you did get the charge, you'd do on average 5 HP of damage on the charge, each combat after that roughly 3 HP per turn (~1 per fex). The Stompa should be killing a Carnifex per combat. The Carnifex could get lucky and roll some "explode" results, but likewise the Stompa could get lucky and roll a 6 on stomp or the destroyer table and just wipe out the entire Carni brood in one go.

Any army can come ill prepared for the more powerful superheavies. You could also argue that people might come unprepared for an IG armoured battlegroup, but I think that's more unlikely because most IG tanks have a soft AV10 rear and die quickly in close combat to many foes. Tyranids in particular are an army that on a whole is poorly suited to take on super-heavy walkers.

Even then, as I mentioned, I have less issues with not being able to kill the things and more simply not liking them in standard 2000pts or less games.

So how do those who dont like the big nasty giant LOW feel about the now 7th edition trend of making important codex characters LOW

Would you play against those LOW?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So how do those who dont like the big nasty giant LOW feel about the now 7th edition trend of making important codex characters LOW

Would you play against those LOW?

To be honest.

I don't care about them.

Perhaps It might be that I have 15 LoW capable units under my command (8 baneblade chassis, 3 macharius, 4 malcador).

That and from what I have seen of "CLoW" or "Character Lord of War" like Ghaz, while they are capable of doing well in their element, they do not have the presence and destructive potential such as a Baneblade or something.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The blunt fact is GW can put the LoW label on a time expired taco and it becomes part of the official game.

Expired taco is op as hell, it's dirahhea blast is a strength
D ap1 torrent template weapons for feths sake.

Jokes aside you are right which is why "bans" make as much sense as removing the Queen from chess because it's op.

2x210 wrote:
Jokes aside you are right which is why "bans" make as much sense as removing the Queen from chess because it's op.

Huh? The fickle nature of GW's rules writing is even more reason to make "bans". If GW themselves don't write solid rules, it makes perfect sense why gamers would want to change them.

The Queen isn't OP in chess. It has been an integral part of the game for hundreds of years.

Flyers, Allies, Super heavies and so on are not integral to 40K. They are badly thought-out add-ons that GW has invented not to enhance the game experience but to sell more expensive kits. They upset the already dodgy game balance and spoil the fun for people who don't want to play with them because they don't fit in the game size.

None of that mattered when they were optional, but GW have put them in the core rules, thus validating people to say everyone is required to play with them whether they like them or not. This obviously is nonsense, since if you dislike something enough you won't play with it, and any game is a matter of mutual consent.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Queen isn't OP in chess. It has been an integral part of the game for hundreds of years.

Flyers, Allies, Super heavies and so on are not integral to 40K. They are badly thought-out add-ons that GW has invented not to enhance the game experience but to sell more expensive kits. They upset the already dodgy game balance and spoil the fun for people who don't want to play with them because they don't fit in the game size.

None of that mattered when they were optional, but GW have put them in the core rules, thus validating people to say everyone is required to play with them whether they like them or not. This obviously is nonsense, since if you dislike something enough you won't play with it, and any game is a matter of mutual consent.

The Queen is the strongest piece in chess and often difficult to counter without a queen.of your own. Apply thes features to a wh40k unit and 90% of the Internet will scream OP.

Also, whatever's been said about Low can just as easily be said about every single WH40k unit ever.

'<random unit x> spoils the fun of people who don't want to play against it and by putting it in the core rules Gw has validated people saying you have to play against it whether you like itor not.'

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Flyers, Allies, Super heavies and so on are not integral to 40K.

Then what IS integral? You could make the same "not integral" comment about pretty much anything that isn't basic WHFB-in-space troops choices fighting a small skirmish game. The only difference between, say, a Rhino and a Baneblade is that certain people prefer to have one but not the other.

They are badly thought-out add-ons that GW has invented not to enhance the game experience but to sell more expensive kits.

I disagree with this strongly. Superheavies, allies and flyers are all things that could potentially enhance the game experience. Remember, the one advantage 40k has rules-wise is the large-scale tanks/MCs/etc that their skirmish-scale competition lacks. Adding in flyers and superheavies is just a natural extension of this concept, especially since both of them existed long before 7th edition. The fact that they fail to do improve the game experience is a result of GW's shameful incompetence, not the original concept.

None of that mattered when they were optional, but GW have put them in the core rules, thus validating people to say everyone is required to play with them whether they like them or not. This obviously is nonsense, since if you dislike something enough you won't play with it, and any game is a matter of mutual consent.

But if putting them in the core rules has no effect since you can refuse to play then why are you so unhappy that they were included?

LordBlades wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Queen isn't OP in chess. It has been an integral part of the game for hundreds of years.

Flyers, Allies, Super heavies and so on are not integral to 40K. They are badly thought-out add-ons that GW has invented not to enhance the game experience but to sell more expensive kits. They upset the already dodgy game balance and spoil the fun for people who don't want to play with them because they don't fit in the game size.

None of that mattered when they were optional, but GW have put them in the core rules, thus validating people to say everyone is required to play with them whether they like them or not. This obviously is nonsense, since if you dislike something enough you won't play with it, and any game is a matter of mutual consent.

The Queen is the strongest piece in chess and often difficult to counter without a queen.of your own. Apply thes features to a wh40k unit and 90% of the Internet will scream OP.

Also, whatever's been said about Low can just as easily be said about every single WH40k unit ever.

'<random unit x> spoils the fun of people who don't want to play against it and by putting it in the core rules Gw has validated people saying you have to play against it whether you like itor not.'

LOW are fine. They just don't belong as an unfiltered category in lower point value games (under 2001). So some ban list, some nerfing measures, or some percentage rule would be required to enable them to be included at lower point values. Lords of War were designed for 3000+ point games after all. Allowing it to be a free-for-all at lower point values simply leads to degenerate games that people don't want to spend time playing out.

So I would play against a SuperHeavy in an 1850 game if it was on the list of SuperHeavies allowed at the BAO since the BAO applied some filtering measure on the category LOW.

GW putting LOW into the general standard category was just lousy slop on their part. LOW obviously need some stewardship for fair competitive play.

LordBlades wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Queen isn't OP in chess. It has been an integral part of the game for hundreds of years.

Flyers, Allies, Super heavies and so on are not integral to 40K. They are badly thought-out add-ons that GW has invented not to enhance the game experience but to sell more expensive kits. They upset the already dodgy game balance and spoil the fun for people who don't want to play with them because they don't fit in the game size.

None of that mattered when they were optional, but GW have put them in the core rules, thus validating people to say everyone is required to play with them whether they like them or not. This obviously is nonsense, since if you dislike something enough you won't play with it, and any game is a matter of mutual consent.

The Queen is the strongest piece in chess and often difficult to counter without a queen.of your own. Apply thes features to a wh40k unit and 90% of the Internet will scream OP.

Also, whatever's been said about Low can just as easily be said about every single WH40k unit ever.

'<random unit x> spoils the fun of people who don't want to play against it and by putting it in the core rules Gw has validated people saying you have to play against it whether you like itor not.'

The widespread problems with balance in 40K do not argue for expecting people to accept even less balance.

We can disagree about the reasons why people dislike LoW etc, the fact is that a lot of them do. That situation will not be resolved by comments about the queen in chess.

 Peregrine wrote:
The only difference between, say, a Rhino and a Baneblade is that certain people prefer to have one but not the other.

Cool, so you won't mind if you swap out that Baneblade for a Rhino and leave the rest of your list the same. No? Oh, maybe that's because there is a difference, a difference of about 490 points

They are badly thought-out add-ons that GW has invented not to enhance the game experience but to sell more expensive kits.

I disagree with this strongly. Superheavies, allies and flyers are all things that could potentially enhance the game experience. Remember, the one advantage 40k has rules-wise is the large-scale tanks/MCs/etc that their skirmish-scale competition lacks. Adding in flyers and superheavies is just a natural extension of this concept, especially since both of them existed long before 7th edition. The fact that they fail to do improve the game experience is a result of GW's shameful incompetence, not the original concept.

I think killkrazy was referring to intent more than potential benefit when he said GW invented it to sell more expensive kits, and I agree with that. I don't disagree that superheavies, fliers and allies could potentially enhance the game experience as an extension of the game. But yeah, I tend to think GW invented them more to sell big overpriced kits. When they weren't selling enough big overpriced kits as they were primarily limited to Apocalypse, they made the move to include them in what we describe as "standard" games.

But if putting them in the core rules has no effect since you can refuse to play then why are you so unhappy that they were included?

You might have missed the part "thus validating people to say everyone is required to play with them whether they like them or not." So yes, there is an effect.

An example might be allies. I've always played with allies when I desired to play with allies as special scenarios. I didn't need them included in the core rules. Now they are part of the core rules, most people just take them as a given in standard games. To me, this is the wrong way round. Allies shouldn't be "standard", they should be "special". But GW don't do rules variations, they just do what they do and we call it "standard". I have no problem with allies, I do have a problem with allies just being the norm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordBlades wrote:
The Queen is the strongest piece in chess and often difficult to counter without a queen.of your own. Apply thes features to a wh40k unit and 90% of the Internet will scream OP.

Comparing the Queen in chess to anything in 40k is incredibly useless. The first 2 reasons that come to mind and I'm sure there are others.

1. Chess is played with fixed "armies" that are the same for both sides.

2. The modern rules for Chess go back 500+ years (according to wikipedia at least). Anyone alive today who plays chess would have known the rules when they got in to it... the same rules as their Daddy and his Daddy and his Daddy and his Daddy and you get the idea. 40k has only had Lord of War included in the core rulebook for 3 months.

One doesn't need to know the rules to think the ctan is op.
IMO it is just the way GW writes their rules. They want people to play huge multiple thousands per side battles on huge tables, where a LoW or anything doesn't matter much. But put the same LoW in to a 1500 army and it suddenly sucks. Problems with scaling unit rules. An assasin in a 500pts game is op. In 1500 it feels like wasted points

Sometimes of course they manage to do both at the same time and a unit is OP in small and normal points. And more offten then not it is eldar. GW loves to make those falcons that can take shoting from 1000pts and maybe end up with a weapon destroyed. Or dual pulsar armed super mobile super resilient titants for eldar. Or super eldar exarchs which rival HQ choices from other armies and cost around 100pts less.

Personally I think there is potentially massive fun in a game of giant futuristic war machines. I just don't think 40K is the game system that can achieve it.

But that doesn't matter if the idea is an optional extension, only it isn't optional nowadays.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Personally I think there is potentially massive fun in a game of giant futuristic war machines. I just don't think 40K is the game system that can achieve it.

But that doesn't matter if the idea is an optional extension, only it isn't optional nowadays.

Yes it is. There's even a rule to state you must agree on what each is fielding before playing.

That "rule" was always there, but now its explicitl

It is optional, but then so is playing orks. Same as its ever been.

Now, however, the onus is on people to explain why, and come to some sort of understanding, as opposed to the knee jerk "no" which was the response of many, many people to SH, etc.

col_impact - "LOW are fine. They just don't belong as an unfiltered category in lower point value games (under 2001). So some ban list, some nerfing measures, or some percentage rule would be required to enable them to be included at lower point values. Lords of War were designed for 3000+ point games after all. Allowing it to be a free-for-all at lower point values simply leads to degenerate games that people don't want to spend time playing out. "

SOME LoW were designed for 3k+ games. Most werent.

The "LoW belong in large games" (some say over 2000, some over 3000) is absurd.

You know why? because LoW start at freaking 300 points, not counting character LoWs.
300. you got squads that get more expensive than that.


On the other hand you got colossal 1500-2000 point models, who are obviously not intended for even 3000 point games.

There is no "clear cut" where LoW are intended to be played, they are just epic-scale characters, tanks, airplanes and monsters.

 BoomWolf wrote:
The "LoW belong in large games" (some say over 2000, some over 3000) is absurd.

You know why? because LoW start at freaking 300 points, not counting character LoWs.
300. you got squads that get more expensive than that.


On the other hand you got colossal 1500-2000 point models, who are obviously not intended for even 3000 point games.

There is no "clear cut" where LoW are intended to be played, they are just epic-scale characters, tanks, airplanes and monsters.

Because when they were originally introduced they came with a note saying "APOCALYPSE ONLY" which was 3000pts+. Up until 4 months ago that was still the case and nothing has changed in the main rules that would mean they are now suitable to be used in non-Apocalypse game.

As for characters as LoW, stop using that as an argument. Up until a week or two ago Draigo was an HQ, as was Ghaz and Logan up until their releases only 2 or 3 months ago respectively (and Ghaz got nerfed!). This is a blantant attempt by GW to encourage LoW. People could field Logan or Draigo and their opponent use it as an excuse to use a Titan. "You're using a Lord of War so why can't I?"

 Deadshot wrote:


As for characters as LoW, stop using that as an argument. Up until a week or two ago Draigo was an HQ, as was Ghaz and Logan up until their releases only 2 or 3 months ago respectively (and Ghaz got nerfed!). This is a blantant attempt by GW to encourage LoW. People could field Logan or Draigo and their opponent use it as an excuse to use a Titan. "You're using a Lord of War so why can't I?"

Yep. Ghaz, Logan, and Draigo are as much a LoW as KK's expired Taco.

Deadshot wrote:

Because when they were originally introduced they came with a note saying "APOCALYPSE ONLY" which was 3000pts+.

Incorrect. That was the recommended minimum size for an apocalypse game. It wasnt a hard and fast rule

 Deadshot wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
The "LoW belong in large games" (some say over 2000, some over 3000) is absurd.

You know why? because LoW start at freaking 300 points, not counting character LoWs.
300. you got squads that get more expensive than that.


On the other hand you got colossal 1500-2000 point models, who are obviously not intended for even 3000 point games.

There is no "clear cut" where LoW are intended to be played, they are just epic-scale characters, tanks, airplanes and monsters.

Because when they were originally introduced they came with a note saying "APOCALYPSE ONLY" which was 3000pts+. Up until 4 months ago that was still the case and nothing has changed in the main rules that would mean they are now suitable to be used in non-Apocalypse game.

Contrary to your claim, many things changed in the rules to make them more suitable for smaller games.

1) Superheavy Walkers may now be locked in combat.
2) D-weapons no longer categorically ignore saves except when a 6 is rolled.
3) Victory through Attrition grants the opponent 1 VP for every 3 hull-points-worth of damage a superheavy has suffered.

Victory through attrition is only when playing Escalation missions.

 Deadshot wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
The "LoW belong in large games" (some say over 2000, some over 3000) is absurd.

You know why? because LoW start at freaking 300 points, not counting character LoWs.
300. you got squads that get more expensive than that.


On the other hand you got colossal 1500-2000 point models, who are obviously not intended for even 3000 point games.

There is no "clear cut" where LoW are intended to be played, they are just epic-scale characters, tanks, airplanes and monsters.

Because when they were originally introduced they came with a note saying "APOCALYPSE ONLY" which was 3000pts+. Up until 4 months ago that was still the case and nothing has changed in the main rules that would mean they are now suitable to be used in non-Apocalypse game.

As for characters as LoW, stop using that as an argument. Up until a week or two ago Draigo was an HQ, as was Ghaz and Logan up until their releases only 2 or 3 months ago respectively (and Ghaz got nerfed!). This is a blantant attempt by GW to encourage LoW. People could field Logan or Draigo and their opponent use it as an excuse to use a Titan. "You're using a Lord of War so why can't I?"

What part of "not counting character LoWs" was not clear?
You got "real" LoW, as in SUPERHEAVY models, who are starting at 300 points.

YOU are the one that should stop using the "originaly introduced as apocalypse only" excuse. the fact they used to be separate does not mean the separation was needed to begin with, just like the fact assassins were part of GK does not mean they ever belonged there.


As for "nothing changed", I'm guessing the D rules nerfed to oblivion from their past selves is not a change?
Or the fact that non-superheavies size cap has increased, making the gap between SW and non-SW smaller?
The changes to how SHW/GMC are played? the switch from old structure points to simple large pull of hull points?
Do we REALLY need to make a shopping list of everything that has changed in regards of superheavies the past year?

Maybe you don't see it because the changes were over several releases (first apoc, then escalation, then 7th), but the former apoc rules really did have superheavies at a whole other scale then they are in 7th edition rules, even if the models themselves are identical, by merely changing the surrounding rules.

Even worse for the "new" argument , SH date to well before apocalypse was released. So no, none of this "designed for over 3k" nonsense.

 BoomWolf wrote:
The "LoW belong in large games" (some say over 2000, some over 3000) is absurd.

You know why? because LoW start at freaking 300 points, not counting character LoWs.
300. you got squads that get more expensive than that.


On the other hand you got colossal 1500-2000 point models, who are obviously not intended for even 3000 point games.

There is no "clear cut" where LoW are intended to be played, they are just epic-scale characters, tanks, airplanes and monsters.

In the absence of a "clear cut" LOW do not belong in low point games. Otherwise you will get abuse.

If some entity (GW or TO) provides some "clear cut" then LOW can be included and you can get 300 point LOW in lower point games. I am not disagreeing with you there.

The category LOW needs some legislation at the lower point values. The complete absence of legislation at the lower point values is not an acceptable state. LOW should not be allowed at all at the lower point values if it's going to be a free-for-all.

I am 100% in disagreement with anyone who thinks LOW can simply be thrown into any 40k game in a free-for-all fashion.

I am 100% in agreement with anyone who thinks LOW can be a part of any 40k game if we first come up with a set of house rules of how to prevent LOW abuse.

I think pretty much every LoW, except for titans and the trannscendant c'tan, are just fine. A small ban list for tournies for a few just crazy powerful LoWs and an otherwise general accaptance is good for me.

col_impact wrote:
In the absence of a "clear cut" LOW do not belong in low point games. Otherwise you will get abuse.

If some entity (GW or TO) provides some "clear cut" then LOW can be included and you can get 300 point LOW in lower point games. I am not disagreeing with you there.

The category LOW needs some legislation at the lower point values. The complete absence of legislation at the lower point values is not an acceptable state. LOW should not be allowed at all at the lower point values if it's going to be a free-for-all.

I am 100% in disagreement with anyone who thinks LOW can simply be thrown into any 40k game in a free-for-all fashion.

I am 100% in agreement with anyone who thinks LOW can be a part of any 40k game if we first come up with a set of house rules of how to prevent LOW abuse.

Funny thing I just realized: replace "LOW" in your post with "named characters" and it exactly mirrors the discussion that was happening when I started playing Warhammer40k.

"No matter how often history repeats itself, mankind will never learn from it.

col_impact wrote:

I am 100% in agreement with anyone who thinks LOW can be a part of any 40k game if we first come up with a set of house rules of how to prevent LOW abuse.

As opposed to 2++ stars abuse, allies abuse, spam abuse and excessive model count time limit abuse?

Abuses will always exist, the question is how you handle them.

Avoiding a whole part of the game just because it CAN be abused under given conditions is silly, especially when you single out one part of the game while leaving others just as open for abuse.
Heck, finding ways to abuse is half what the tournaments are about.

 BoomWolf wrote:
As opposed to 2++ stars abuse, allies abuse, spam abuse and excessive model count time limit abuse?

Abuses will always exist, the question is how you handle them.

Avoiding a whole part of the game just because it CAN be abused under given conditions is silly, especially when you single out one part of the game while leaving others just as open for abuse.
Heck, finding ways to abuse is half what the tournaments are about.

He's talking about house-rules and I think that is pretty simple to do.
"Don't be a dick or I won't invite you for the next game because people don't like playing against your lists." should do the trick

I will always inform my friends if I take a LoW and ask their opinion.
I always try to 'tailor' my list to them to a point where a game is balanced, fair and enjoyable.
Sure I could take AV13-spam every game and kick his ass, but that would be boring and that would probably make them stop playing.

I play according to fair, competitive standards.

I want my opponent to bring his A game, the most brutal list he can bring, but according to a fair, competitive standard.

I will play according to fully fleshed out guidelines like these . . .

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2014/06/gt-level-organized-play-army.html

So if your LOW is on that BAO list we can play a BAO match.

Free-for-all LOW is in the same boat as unbound play. Not for serious, competitive play.

I really don't see HOW this thread is still going? Really people guess what LoW are not going anywhere, in fact they are becoming more and more prevalent if anything! Guess what, it means you have to change up your tactics because wether you like it or not its LEGAL and in all honesty not that bad. Have played against a few LoW with both my Tau and Elyisans and have yet to lose a game or be seriously picked apart by one.

If its a friendly game, change up your list accordingly and if your opponent gets annoyed just say "need stuff to handle your Low." In a competitive setting be prepared to face one in the tourney while constructing your list, its not hard. Not trying to be a WAAC kind of guy, but instead of complaining about it just adapt and overcome.