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.

Field a proxy of it for a few test runs and see what you think.

I will be honest certain Low I have no problem playing against ie the shadow sword I also strangely like facing knights and war hounds

Im fine with any and all LoWs that arent Gargants or SHV/W

Anything Gargant / SHV/W or the likes, if you bring it to a game without telling your opponent to see if he's okay wasting his time against the immovable object that might be your scumbag Warlord Titan, you deserve to sit in the corner and whimper, pondering the case of life that is yourself with no friends.

In a lighter mood, if you tell me before hand, and allow me to make a list on the spot, ill happily play against anything you bring.

Does anyone refuse to play against Dante? Thought not.

Martel732 wrote:
Does anyone refuse to play against Dante? Thought not.

Of course not, he's not even supposed to be here today.

 Psienesis wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Does anyone refuse to play against Dante? Thought not.

Of course not, he's not even supposed to be here today.

That's true! I need to make that reference the next time I use him!

Discussions like this are one of the reasons 40K has become less and less fun:


Nobody wants to play 40K, they want to play THEIR version of the game that includes a list of everything they refuse to play.

People spend more time bickering about what should and shouldn't be allowed in a game and refusing games than they do playing.


Of course GW shares the blame: they blew the game wide open by including silly things like allies, fortifications, LOW, formations, multiple detachments, etc. and gave power gamers and sportshammer players the means to limitlessly cheesy. Now everybody is so on edge and defensive that the other guy is "doing it wrong" that rather then play and see what happens we take our toys and go home.

personally I've never fielded a LOW, but I'll play against anything and If I buy a model and it's legal I'll use it if I feel like it.

If I ever came across them, I'd give Wraithknights a go or two, but then houserule that it costs 100 points more than it does.

Other than that, I'm game for most things.

 CT GAMER wrote:
Discussions like this are one of the reasons 40K has become less and less fun:


Nobody wants to play 40K, they want to play THEIR version of the game that includes a list of everything they refuse to play.


People spend more time bickering about what should and shouldn't be allowed in a game and refusing games than they do playing.


Of course GW shares the blame: they blew the game wide open by including silly things like allies, fortifications, LOW, formations, multiple detachments, etc. and gave power gamers and sportshammer players the means to limitlessly cheesy. Now everybody is so on edge and defensive that the other guy is "doing it wrong" that rather then play and see what happens we take our toys and go home.

personally I've never fielded a LOW, but I'll play against anything and If I buy a model and it's legal I'll use it if I feel like it.

That is exactly what GW has intentionally built however. They've built a game that intentionally isn't suited to pickup or balanced play, that, in order to function, *requires* people to negotiate what they're willing to play to have any sort of functionality.


GW has been open and honest about that being their goal. They, for whatever reason, have no interest in something that's simply playable out of the box and that people have to really spend time pre-negotiating to get to play right.

I'll play against everything and anything.
However, I hate people that throw in a warhound or reaver then complain when I run a harridan.

On the note of over costed LOW choices, I vote my harridan as it really is poor.
However, £250 and 85 hours painting it, he is getting some use!

 Vaktathi wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:
Discussions like this are one of the reasons 40K has become less and less fun:


Nobody wants to play 40K, they want to play THEIR version of the game that includes a list of everything they refuse to play.


People spend more time bickering about what should and shouldn't be allowed in a game and refusing games than they do playing.


Of course GW shares the blame: they blew the game wide open by including silly things like allies, fortifications, LOW, formations, multiple detachments, etc. and gave power gamers and sportshammer players the means to limitlessly cheesy. Now everybody is so on edge and defensive that the other guy is "doing it wrong" that rather then play and see what happens we take our toys and go home.

personally I've never fielded a LOW, but I'll play against anything and If I buy a model and it's legal I'll use it if I feel like it.

That is exactly what GW has intentionally built however. They've built a game that intentionally isn't suited to pickup or balanced play, that, in order to function, *requires* people to negotiate what they're willing to play to have any sort of functionality.


GW has been open and honest about that being their goal. They, for whatever reason, have no interest in something that's simply playable out of the box and that people have to really spend time pre-negotiating to get to play right.

However they underestimated just how argumentative, opinionated and competitive many of us are and how these traits would hinder that pre-negotiating.

Discussion should entail:

1. What points do we want to play?
2. Specific scenario or roll random?
3. agreeable table/terrain set up
4. Who's bringing the beer/snacks?

In other words what are the specifics of the game we want to play in the context of what are legal armies and scenario/table/terrain options. Not a negotion to veto models and change codexes prior to play.


Instead it's often a tense hostage negotiation in which both sides accuse the other of being cheesy and reading a manifesto of what models they refuse to play against.

 CT GAMER wrote:
Discussions like this are one of the reasons 40K has become less and less fun:


Nobody wants to play 40K, they want to play THEIR version of the game that includes a list of everything they refuse to play.

People spend more time bickering about what should and shouldn't be allowed in a game and refusing games than they do playing.


Of course GW shares the blame: they blew the game wide open by including silly things like allies, fortifications, LOW, formations, multiple detachments, etc. and gave power gamers and sportshammer players the means to limitlessly cheesy. Now everybody is so on edge and defensive that the other guy is "doing it wrong" that rather then play and see what happens we take our toys and go home.

personally I've never fielded a LOW, but I'll play against anything and If I buy a model and it's legal I'll use it if I feel like it.

It's always been that way. Used to be (in some cases still is) people refused to play against anything from Forgeworld. Then it became certain deathstar units, and then Super-Heavies and LOW. Next edition will probably be some entire super-cheese Codices.

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:
Discussions like this are one of the reasons 40K has become less and less fun:


Nobody wants to play 40K, they want to play THEIR version of the game that includes a list of everything they refuse to play.


People spend more time bickering about what should and shouldn't be allowed in a game and refusing games than they do playing.


Of course GW shares the blame: they blew the game wide open by including silly things like allies, fortifications, LOW, formations, multiple detachments, etc. and gave power gamers and sportshammer players the means to limitlessly cheesy. Now everybody is so on edge and defensive that the other guy is "doing it wrong" that rather then play and see what happens we take our toys and go home.

personally I've never fielded a LOW, but I'll play against anything and If I buy a model and it's legal I'll use it if I feel like it.

That is exactly what GW has intentionally built however. They've built a game that intentionally isn't suited to pickup or balanced play, that, in order to function, *requires* people to negotiate what they're willing to play to have any sort of functionality.


GW has been open and honest about that being their goal. They, for whatever reason, have no interest in something that's simply playable out of the box and that people have to really spend time pre-negotiating to get to play right.

However they underestimated just how argumentative, opinionated and competitive many of us are and how these traits would hinder that pre-negotiating.

Discussion should entail:

1. What points do we want to play?
2. Specific scenario or roll random?
3. agreeable table/terrain set up
4. Who's bringing the beer/snacks?

In other words what are the specifics of the game we want to play in the context of what are legal armies and scenario/table/terrain options. Not a negotion to veto models and change codexes prior to play.


Instead it's often a tense hostage negotiation in which both sides accuse the other of being cheesy and reading a manifesto of what models they refuse to play against.

Aye, it's very clear that the people running GW and deciding product direction don't really have much of a connection to their market and playerbase, I think that was made especially clear by the recent GW AGM meeting article.

GW is... odd.

They make one thing and one thing only: 28mm scale Sci-Fi and Fantasy Miniatures. Which is fine.
But then they refuse to investigate how to best sell that.

Lego makes one thing and one thing only: Colourful plastic bricks. They do a gakton of market research, and develop ingenious ways to get their product sold.

GW has its head so far stuck up its own arse it's unreal.

Honestly, I feel as if most superheavies add a new element to the game, and generally can be dealt with by an equivalent amount of points (E.g. a 700 point stompa can generally be countered by 700 points of an enemy army).

Probably the only ones that are just flying rodent gak bonkers that I've seen are the revenant titan and the 888 point demon FGC. The tau super suit is probably on that list as well - well nigh unkillable (by orks at least) and fantastic shooting.

But things like stompas, baneblades, that demon engine on tracks, even wraithknights aren't unbeatable.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Honestly, I feel as if most superheavies add a new element to the game, and generally can be dealt with by an equivalent amount of points (E.g. a 700 point stompa can generally be countered by 700 points of an enemy army).

Probably the only ones that are just flying rodent gak bonkers that I've seen are the revenant titan and the 888 point demon FGC. The tau super suit is probably on that list as well - well nigh unkillable (by orks at least) and fantastic shooting.

But things like stompas, baneblades, that demon engine on tracks, even wraithknights aren't unbeatable.

What about the Tyranid Harridan? flying rodent gak Bonkers?

I ask because I'm planning one as a centerpiece for my "flying swarm" themed tyranid army, although I suspect I'll ony use it against a few friends that are esy going…

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Honestly, I feel as if most superheavies add a new element to the game, and generally can be dealt with by an equivalent amount of points (E.g. a 700 point stompa can generally be countered by 700 points of an enemy army).

Probably the only ones that are just flying rodent gak bonkers that I've seen are the revenant titan and the 888 point demon FGC. The tau super suit is probably on that list as well - well nigh unkillable (by orks at least) and fantastic shooting.

But things like stompas, baneblades, that demon engine on tracks, even wraithknights aren't unbeatable.

I think it very much depends on what army the SH is up against.

If it's on wheels, tracks or legs, my Sisters can probably handle it (it's a melta party! Everyone bring marshmallows and roasting sticks!)

If it flies? I'm in a much worse position as I don't have a lot of Skyfire in my usual lists, my local group doesn't usually rock fliers.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, it's very clear that the people running GW and deciding product direction don't really have much of a connection to their market and playerbase, I think that was made especially clear by the recent GW AGM meeting article.

They ought to consider reorganizing their local stores as franchises.

A bit of independent management would do a lot to keep the higher management honest. GW has serious issues soaking up information from the grassroots and engaging with their audience. While 40k gamers do tend towards hysterical passion, over the long run faults like this can kill a business and in a lot of cases they have.

GW hates FLGS, direct-sales take sales out of their webstore. They don't even like their own stores very much.

Aye, if it were up to GW, every sale would be through their webstore and nowhere else.

The problem with franchising stores is that there's really no point, if someone is going to independently operate a store, they might as well just be a complete independent and sell more than just GW stuff.

Seems like the community is still divided at this point. I will try bringing my Warhound next open game night. I would gladly play against any other LoW. (though wraithknights scare me) Hopefully a fun game takes place and helps soften the locals towards LoW.

I won't play against any SH/GCs without warning. And I don't think I'd play against an IK army more than once.

As long as you don't complain about the smell of my 3 Heldrake cheese, I won't complain about your Lord of War

I haven't played against one yet so I'm not entirely sure what to expect.

I know Ghazkull became one, but I haven't seen him in a long time

 Psienesis wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Does anyone refuse to play against Dante? Thought not.

Of course not, he's not even supposed to be here today.

So many interweb cookies belong to you!

Kudos x 6!

CT Gamer - your paying over 700 points for a flying GC with no D at all and a somewhat poor stat line.
The hierophant is much the same.

If you want a half decent GC for once, run a barbed hierodule.

Think some of the earlier commenters got this dead right, if it's legal and they want to bring a LoW then great. If it beats me, it won't next time.

My wee bro decided to rock a stompa against my Tau and a hammerhead picked it to pieces while it tore up my fire warriors and kroot. The points trade was almost equal and I spent so much firepower on it his army could march across the board unhindered. Spent too long being afraid of it, got punished for it and had a great time doing it.

Was a totally different game because of it and would love to play against more of them!

I like playing against any LoW (apart from wraithknights, but only if the opponent also brings a farseer conclave or whatever its called)
there is something strangely satisfying when you glance an imperial knight to death with radium carbines on its rear armour