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.

 gmaleron wrote:
I really don't see HOW this thread is still going? .

I don't know, I've said what I have on my mind in relation to Lords of War. At this point im just watching...



Popcorn?

There's a lot of "stop liking what I don't like!" and "stop disliking what I like!" in this thread.

Personally, I don't like LoW. I don't like the concept, I don't like the implementation, and I don't think it fits in a 'standard' game of 40k.

I'd probably indulge a friend if they really wanted, but I'd probably turn down a pick up game with LoW. If someone wants to play with them, more power to them, but it won't be with me.

Regardless of whether GW "designed" them for 2k or 3k or 3k+ is largely irrelevant to me. Models that are worth 25-75% of my force, IMO, aren't well suited to the game size I'm playing. Models that are so big that when placed on a 4x6 table look like 2 people standing in my living room rather than 2 people on a battlefield aren't well suited to the size of game I typically play.

GW had a game that was great for titans and such. It was called Epic.

 gmaleron wrote:
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.

Yeah that doesn't address my problems with LoW's.

col_impact wrote:
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.

That list is silly and is made up of completely random decisions without any reason.

Can anyone seriously argue the rail tigershark or lord of skulls would have been a problem?
Or why on earth necrons are stuck with only the obilisk, when the Tvault is completely fair (personally took one down in mere 1000 points)
Bet ther are many more examples there, but these are the glaring ones of models I am actually familiar with.

The difference between apoc formations and regular formations is also silly, given that the "fire support cadre" base cost is over 550 points (can easily pass the 700 mark) without being apoc, while the piranha formation that is apoc starts in 200 and even fully-decked-out barely scratches the 300.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Can anyone seriously argue the rail tigershark or lord of skulls would have been a problem?

The argument is that they have AP2 or AP3 weapons that can ignore cover saves, which means you can kill marines on a 2+ without a save. And it's just not fair to the poor marine players to make them take models off the table without a save, even though every non-marine player gets to do that all the time. It's an incredibly stupid ban list that has nothing to do with legitimate balance issues.

 BoomWolf wrote:

col_impact wrote:
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.

That list is silly and is made up of completely random decisions without any reason.

Can anyone seriously argue the rail tigershark or lord of skulls would have been a problem?
Or why on earth necrons are stuck with only the obilisk, when the Tvault is completely fair (personally took one down in mere 1000 points)
Bet ther are many more examples there, but these are the glaring ones of models I am actually familiar with.

The difference between apoc formations and regular formations is also silly, given that the "fire support cadre" base cost is over 550 points (can easily pass the 700 mark) without being apoc, while the piranha formation that is apoc starts in 200 and even fully-decked-out barely scratches the 300.

So are you basically saying that GW published a LOW list that is immaculate and free of any broken units and that the BAO messed up that perfection by daring to restrict any of them? Please clarify. I think it's going to be a hard sell on your part that the BAO restricted list of LOW is anything but an improvement over the free-for-all list that GW put out there. How much testing time do you think GW put into their "everything goes list, we don't care just please buy them" versus the amount of time the BAO TOs put into theirs in terms of coming up with a fair, competition standard?

What I'm saying, that while its true that a select few SH are overpowered, that list has banned FAR more than they should have, for no reason except "because"

Ban lists need to ban the bare minimum of things that outright cannot be handled without another ban-worthy item, and while only three of these exist, I notice off the top of my head that at least 10 who were banned.
And given of of the non-banned was banned of specific upgrades, meaning they are not shy of going inside a model and banning part of it, and with that method they could bring all three of the trinity into fair levels, and each has exactly one option that takes him OTT (usually when picked twice).

Meaning, its a lazy ban list that just threw names in there and anything that remotely seemed strong got banned, even when in reality some of them as SO weak that taking them is outright gimping yourself.

 BoomWolf wrote:
What I'm saying, that while its true that a select few SH are overpowered, that list has banned FAR more than they should have, for no reason except "because"

Ban lists need to ban the bare minimum of things that outright cannot be handled without another ban-worthy item, and while only three of these exist, I notice off the top of my head that at least 10 who were banned.
And given of of the non-banned was banned of specific upgrades, meaning they are not shy of going inside a model and banning part of it, and with that method they could bring all three of the trinity into fair levels, and each has exactly one option that takes him OTT (usually when picked twice).

Meaning, its a lazy ban list that just threw names in there and anything that remotely seemed strong got banned, even when in reality some of them as SO weak that taking them is outright gimping yourself.

You assume there was no reason "except because". However you don't actually know what reasons they have for the bans they've given.

Perhaps they've taken the safe option and banned everything LoW except for the ones they've had a chance to actually test or know just from mathhammer aren't overpowered. Given it's for a tournament, I think that's a perfectly acceptable method of banning, the alternative being going through all of them in great detail to figure out which ones are overpowered and then if you miss one and someone brings it, it feths up the whole balance of the tournament.

Of course I don't follow the BAO. I imagine their methods are probably more thorough than GW/FW who don't even hold tournaments or encourage any high degree of competitiveness.

You don't need to be a mathmatical genius to realize that the lord of skulls and the tigershark ax10 are both completely outclassed by some of the non-banned choices, or that the Tvault is a glass cannon that any self-respecting army can blow up instantly.

I mean, they "balanced" by derping around.

Necrons-only obilisk, who is practically useless.
Tau-only orca (big transport) and drone tigershark (a transport for drones, who can deepstrike anyway, that costs about double what it should.)
Chaos-brass scorpion.

I KNOW there is a built-in favor for IoM, but BAO made it worse.

Just wait for forge world to make your chapters primarch and then start using him against your ctan guy.

1) Enough with saying GW dont hold tournaments - I've recently played in one. They may not hold them where you live, but parochialism isnt an excuse for ignorance.

2) comp lists tend to just create a whole new way-to-break OR removes options without a balance reason. For example, missing the obvious not-a-problem LOW

3) Sorry, 40k and "serious and competitive" in the same breath? Futile.