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.
WayneTheGame wrote: @Kangodo you're missing the entire point. It's easier to allow than disallow; that in fact is part of the entire problem with 40k as a game: The "kitchen sink" everything-by-default approach instead of a core set with optional addons. LoW as an option was fine, because it required the person wanting to field it to ask. As much as it seems that way this is not the same thing as having a person who does *not* want to face a Lord of War to ask not to field it.
Do you not get the difference between "Can I use a Lord of War?" and "Could you not use a Lord of War"?
Perhaps I am just being dense, but really what is the difference? To me it seems that it essentially boils down to the same thing, one player asking another player to change something to get more enjoyment from the game.
The difference is that it's easier to ask to have something optional allowed, than something standard removed.
*Personally I think instead of 40k and Apocalypse they should have gone for two separate rulesets, a 2nd Ed skirmish-style ruleset and a ruleset somewhere between 5th ed and Epic. *shrugs*
I very much agree. It's rather bizarre the way GW increases the amount of rules with the scale. The amount of rules should decrease as you increase scale, so that the game moves fluidly. I've never played with the Apocalypse ruleset, but from everything I've seen it seems to add lots of rules without simplifying. The old cityfight book simplified by increasing unit coherency, making blast weapons roll to hit with d3 hits, large blast and template were d6 hits. It seems like Apoc should make similar changes, and they've already got the old Epic 40k ruleset to start with, couldn't be that hard.
"Bringer of death, speak your name, For you are my life, and the foe's death." - Litany of the Lasgun
WayneTheGame wrote: @Kangodo you're missing the entire point. It's easier to allow than disallow; that in fact is part of the entire problem with 40k as a game: The "kitchen sink" everything-by-default approach instead of a core set with optional addons. LoW as an option was fine, because it required the person wanting to field it to ask. As much as it seems that way this is not the same thing as having a person who does *not* want to face a Lord of War to ask not to field it.
Do you not get the difference between "Can I use a Lord of War?" and "Could you not use a Lord of War"?
Perhaps I am just being dense, but really what is the difference? To me it seems that it essentially boils down to the same thing, one player asking another player to change something to get more enjoyment from the game.
The difference is that it's easier to ask to have something optional allowed, than something standard removed.
WayneTheGame wrote: @Kangodo you're missing the entire point. It's easier to allow than disallow; that in fact is part of the entire problem with 40k as a game: The "kitchen sink" everything-by-default approach instead of a core set with optional addons. LoW as an option was fine, because it required the person wanting to field it to ask. As much as it seems that way this is not the same thing as having a person who does *not* want to face a Lord of War to ask not to field it.
Do you not get the difference between "Can I use a Lord of War?" and "Could you not use a Lord of War"?
Perhaps I am just being dense, but really what is the difference? To me it seems that it essentially boils down to the same thing, one player asking another player to change something to get more enjoyment from the game.
The difference is that it's easier to ask to have something optional allowed, than something standard removed.
My apologies for not being more clear, allow me to rephrase. Why do you feel that it is "easier to ask to have something optional allowed, than something standard removed"? I'm not trying to be irritating or stupid I genuinely want to understand why you feel this way. I'm not good with social interaction so my apologies once again if it is something obvious that I am missing.
Everything I say, barring quotes and researched information, is my personal opinion. Not fact.
"Being into 40k but not the background is like being into porn but not masturbation..." - Kain
"I barely believe my dice are not sentient and conspiring against me." - knas ser
slowthar wrote: (Meanwhile the brits are annoyed that everything with us damned yanks has to come down to a damn car metaphor )
As an Australian who loves cars, owns a '71 big block Corvette and has spent several years working on a team that builds race cars... I fething hate car analogies I find them a useless abstraction because 99% of the time it's sufficient to explain a situation in wargaming by simply explaining the wargaming situation itself instead of abstracting it with cars when cars share very little similarity to toy soldiers.
Sorry, needless use of analogies is one of my pet peeves. Too often it just sidetracks a discussion to the validity of the analogy instead of actually just settling the topic at hand... like right now
Yeah, needless use of analogies is like having a really special car, that's really valuable, and then using it to go to the shops and stuff when it really needs to be used only for special occasions.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Yeah, needless use of analogies is like having a really special car, that's really valuable, and then using it to go to the shops and stuff when it really needs to be used only for special occasions.
WayneTheGame wrote: @Kangodo you're missing the entire point. It's easier to allow than disallow; that in fact is part of the entire problem with 40k as a game: The "kitchen sink" everything-by-default approach instead of a core set with optional addons. LoW as an option was fine, because it required the person wanting to field it to ask. As much as it seems that way this is not the same thing as having a person who does *not* want to face a Lord of War to ask not to field it.
Do you not get the difference between "Can I use a Lord of War?" and "Could you not use a Lord of War"?
Perhaps I am just being dense, but really what is the difference? To me it seems that it essentially boils down to the same thing, one player asking another player to change something to get more enjoyment from the game.
The difference is that it's easier to ask to have something optional allowed, than something standard removed.
My apologies for not being more clear, allow me to rephrase. Why do you feel that it is "easier to ask to have something optional allowed, than something standard removed"? I'm not trying to be irritating or stupid I genuinely want to understand why you feel this way. I'm not good with social interaction so my apologies once again if it is something obvious that I am missing.
Especially when there is a rule, with accompanying text , that says you are to do exactly that?
Apparently any form of conversation about the game beforehand should be verboten though. Sod social interaction, or trying to work out what people actually want from the game...
WayneTheGame wrote: @Kangodo you're missing the entire point. It's easier to allow than disallow; that in fact is part of the entire problem with 40k as a game: The "kitchen sink" everything-by-default approach instead of a core set with optional addons. LoW as an option was fine, because it required the person wanting to field it to ask. As much as it seems that way this is not the same thing as having a person who does *not* want to face a Lord of War to ask not to field it.
Do you not get the difference between "Can I use a Lord of War?" and "Could you not use a Lord of War"?
Perhaps I am just being dense, but really what is the difference? To me it seems that it essentially boils down to the same thing, one player asking another player to change something to get more enjoyment from the game.
The difference is that it's easier to ask to have something optional allowed, than something standard removed.
My apologies for not being more clear, allow me to rephrase. Why do you feel that it is "easier to ask to have something optional allowed, than something standard removed"? I'm not trying to be irritating or stupid I genuinely want to understand why you feel this way. I'm not good with social interaction so my apologies once again if it is something obvious that I am missing.
Especially when there is a rule, with accompanying text , that says you are to do exactly that?
Apparently any form of conversation about the game beforehand should be verboten though. Sod social interaction, or trying to work out what people actually want from the game...
and thats the crux of the issue... people are trying to treat this like a pure drop in PUG game like call of duty or something when its actually a D&D social contract type game.
GW should NOT be making a restrictive ruleset that only makes player A happy, they have gone the smart route, and made a game that has elements to make player A B C happy, and left it to the players themselves to choose what stuff they like to include, so that more people enjoy the game.
its a framwork game like D&D where the intent is creating your OWN fun, and your own version of the game specifically suited to you.
its not like call of duty where everything is set in stone (even if it is more "balanced" and a tighter rule set)
even in tournaments, It takes me maybe 2 minutes to go over "hey this is how these rules could be interpreted, what do you feel is fair?" and in 14 years I have only rolled off on a rules dispute once...
its even easier with pugs "oh you dont want to play my ________, ok no problem dude, play that other guy, or lets adjust things a bit so we both have fun"
I will add my .02$ here. I feel like it is acceptable to use in std 40K but I am a gamer for the sake of the game. I have seen a lot of valid points for the pro and con , still I wouldn't mind. The LOW is a point sink and war is not fair, this is a game and some look for balance yada yada, I am willing to take a infantry platoon against any MC or uber mech force just to see how I do. Not intending to bad mouth anyone just my thoughts. I don't care if it's balanced or fair, I just like to play.
It's different because of perception: When you're asking to add something optional, a "No" isn't a big deal because it was optional. When that thing is considered standard, a "No" seems more like you're not wanting to use the actual rules.
To put it another way: Before you had to house rule (more or less...) adding LoW to the game. Now, you have to house rule NOT having LoWs.
To put it another way: Before you had to house rule (more or less...) adding LoW to the game. Now, you have to house rule NOT having LoWs.
There's absolutely no difference there even though it's not quite accurate. Before you had to house rule LoW in, now you have to ask you opponent not to You aren't house ruling, you are stating a preference for how you want to play the game so in fact it requires less rule manipulation.
Use you example in a sentence:
6th:
Guy rocks up to a PUG game with a Baneblade, opponent doesn't like to play with LoW, declines game.
7th:
Guy rocks up to a PUG game with a Baneblade, opponent doesn't like to play with LoW, declines game.
Neither one is TFG, just two people who wanted to play 40k with their toys, they become TFG when one starts ragging on the other.
Musashi363 wrote: Now imagine having this conversation before a pickup game...sound fun?
Basically had this conversation before a local league started up and there was debate about allowing LoW. One guy said "if you show up and your opponent doesn't want to play your LoW, you should use an alternate list without LoW". To which I asked "then if a player shows up and has Tau, can I ask them to play with a different army?" Then the uproar began.
Rather than uproar are you saying people didn't just vote as to whether Tau were allowed? Presumably that's how you decided the rules for the league between you right?
It's your league, if you guys decide it there's nothing stopping you from saying nothing but marines if you agree.
For better or for worse LoW are here to stay. If you ban LOW then i can ban Riptide, or wraithknight, or helldrake etc. If you want to go even further since you are banning a whole slot out of the FoC i can just say no Heavy Supports right? (or ban Elites in the case of Tau)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/24 17:31:13
Xerics wrote: For better or for worse LoW are here to stay. If you ban LOW then i can ban Riptide, or wraithknight, or helldrake etc. If you want to go even further since you are banning a whole slot out of the FoC i can just say no Heavy Supports right?
You can, but most people will think you're being significantly more unreasonable. If it's just games with mates, then really who gives a frak.
Xerics wrote: For better or for worse LoW are here to stay. If you ban LOW then i can ban Riptide, or wraithknight, or helldrake etc. If you want to go even further since you are banning a whole slot out of the FoC i can just say no Heavy Supports right?
You can, but most people will think you're being significantly more unreasonable. If it's just games with mates, then really who gives a frak.
As of 7th edition Banning LoW slot is exactly like banning any other slot in the FoC. Welcome to the new 40k. It is not more unreasonable anymore.
Xerics wrote: For better or for worse LoW are here to stay. If you ban LOW then i can ban Riptide, or wraithknight, or helldrake etc. If you want to go even further since you are banning a whole slot out of the FoC i can just say no Heavy Supports right? (or ban Elites in the case of Tau)
And this was the point I was making about it being easier to allow than restrict. Before 6th edition, LoW weren't in the same category as Riptides, Wraithknights, Tactical Marines. Now they are. Before, banning LoW was as simple as not allowing the Escalation book, which was entirely reasonable to do (especially for tournaments). But now, banning LoW is basically the same as banning Tau, or Dreadnoughts or Dire Avengers. It's perceived as a fundamental change to the game, instead of just choosing not to use an optional book. For me there's a big difference between the two, because removing something included by default opens the floodgates. Now that LoW are included by default as part of the game, if you ban them what's to ban terrain, or psykers or use D10s instead of D6s for rolling? You're changing a "core" part of the game now rather than choosing to not use a supplement.
Xerics wrote: For better or for worse LoW are here to stay. If you ban LOW then i can ban Riptide, or wraithknight, or helldrake etc. If you want to go even further since you are banning a whole slot out of the FoC i can just say no Heavy Supports right?
You can, but most people will think you're being significantly more unreasonable. If it's just games with mates, then really who gives a frak.
As of 7th edition Banning LoW slot is exactly like banning any other slot in the FoC. Welcome to the new 40k. It is not more unreasonable anymore.
I wasn't talking about the rules, I was talking about what people will find reasonable. What is in the rules and what people will find reasonable are 2 different (though admittedly not unrelated) things. I do think LoW in smaller games will be banned in a lot of groups and a lot of games as a regular thing despite what the rules say.
I do think LoW being part of the core rules will serve to fracture the community more than anything. GW will get a bit more money out of each individual customer but the total number of customers will drop as the community gets more divided, at least IMO.
But yeah, banning Heavy Supports is fine, I have no problem with it, discuss it with your opponent and see what they say. I'd be happy to try some games with different FOC slots banned. But I still think more people will find banning LoW more reasonable than banning any other FOC slot.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/24 17:39:26
Xerics wrote: For better or for worse LoW are here to stay. If you ban LOW then i can ban Riptide, or wraithknight, or helldrake etc. If you want to go even further since you are banning a whole slot out of the FoC i can just say no Heavy Supports right?
You can, but most people will think you're being significantly more unreasonable. If it's just games with mates, then really who gives a frak.
As of 7th edition Banning LoW slot is exactly like banning any other slot in the FoC. Welcome to the new 40k. It is not more unreasonable anymore.
Precisely my point. As of 7th edition banning LoW is now unreasonable, just like banning Elites or Heavy Support, when before it was perfectly reasonable to not include an optional supplement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/24 17:37:16
TheAvengingKnee wrote: I have a warhound I got for a campaign I was doing, Ive used it a couple times for fun but I definitely don't use it every game.
no, dude. You are doing it wrong. You have LoW you HAVE to use it now since it's mandatory.
I actually also have a transcendent C'tan because someone only wanted the kit for the vehicle part but doesn't play them so I offered him $15 for it.
I would field the superheavy more but its not much fun to stomp someone just because your vehicle 1 shots theirs (though I am glad they toned down D weapons in 7th). Against most people neither of them would see the board(except maybe setup off to the side as the overseer of all, just to show it off in the case of the warhound as its the old armorcast model from before forgeworld made the titans)
Blood for the bloo... wait no, I meant for Sanguinius!
Xerics wrote: For better or for worse LoW are here to stay. If you ban LOW then i can ban Riptide, or wraithknight, or helldrake etc. If you want to go even further since you are banning a whole slot out of the FoC i can just say no Heavy Supports right?
You can, but most people will think you're being significantly more unreasonable. If it's just games with mates, then really who gives a frak.
As of 7th edition Banning LoW slot is exactly like banning any other slot in the FoC. Welcome to the new 40k. It is not more unreasonable anymore.
I wasn't talking about the rules, I was talking about what people will find reasonable. What is in the rules and what people will find reasonable are 2 different (though admittedly not unrelated) things. I do think LoW in smaller games will be banned in a lot of groups and a lot of games as a regular thing despite what the rules say.
I do think LoW being part of the core rules will serve to fracture the community more than anything. GW will get a bit more money out of each individual customer but the total number of customers will drop as the community gets more divided, at least IMO.
But yeah, banning Heavy Supports is fine, I have no problem with it, discuss it with your opponent and see what they say. I'd be happy to try some games with different FOC slots banned. But I still think more people will find banning LoW more reasonable than banning any other FOC slot.
I have said this before but GW is not fracturing the 40k community. The 40k community is fracturing the 40k community because people are not adapting to a core rulebook change. It is GW's game and they can do what they like with it. The community is causing itself to be fractured.
Automatically Appended Next Post: People don't like LoW because they are new. The reaction was the same with special characters. After a while people will get their own LoW's because frankly everyone has the money for it. If you play 40k then you have the money for it. Maybe not right this instant but eventually you will have saved enough for one. But once people all have their LoW's it will be commonly accepted just as Special characters are today.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/24 17:47:50
Xerics wrote: I have said this before but GW is not fracturing the 40k community. The 40k community is fracturing the 40k community because people are not adapting to a core rulebook change. It is GW's game and they can do what they like with it. The community is causing itself to be fractured.
I didn't assign any particular blame, if you read what I said...
"I do think LoW being part of the core rules will serve to fracture the community more than anything"
Whether you say the community is fracturing itself or GW is fracturing the community or GW is causing the community to fracture itself, the outcome is the same.
People don't like LoW because they are new.
It staggers me how many of these conversations you have been involved with and yet you still fall back on "people don't like it because it's new/they're scared/they won't adapt". That's not the reasons many people don't like LoW and if you still don't understand that after being directly told it I'm not really sure what else to say. But hell, I'll say it again:
I don't like LoW because they are ill suited to the game size I typically play (less than 2000 pts) and for various reasons I have no desire to play larger games where they are better suited.
After a while people will get their own LoW's because frankly everyone has the money for it. If you play 40k then you have the money for it. Maybe not right this instant but eventually you will have saved enough for one. But once people all have their LoW's it will be commonly accepted just as Special characters are today.
Maybe. I think it's totally possible that the people who don't like LoW are the same people who think 6th and 7th edition are a mess and will probably just move on to better games so those remaining will all be ones who love LoW.
That, IMO, will be a shame though. And as I said previously, it will be GW getting more money per head out of a smaller community, not something I personally consider as being good for the game.
As for the money thing, yeah, GW are definitely pushing people who can't afford expensive hobbies out. I started gaming when I was 10, even adjusted for inflation I probably wouldn't have been able to afford to play with today's prices, definitely not if we start saying everyone needs a LoW to play.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/24 18:17:25
Xerics wrote: I have said this before but GW is not fracturing the 40k community. The 40k community is fracturing the 40k community because people are not adapting to a core rulebook change. It is GW's game and they can do what they like with it. The community is causing itself to be fractured.
I didn't assign any particular blame, if you read what I said...
"I do think LoW being part of the core rules will serve to fracture the community more than anything"
Whether you say the community is fracturing itself or GW is fracturing the community or GW is causing the community to fracture itself, the outcome is the same.
People don't like LoW because they are new.
It staggers me how many of these conversations you have been involved with and yet you still fall back on "people don't like it because it's new/they're scared/they won't adapt". That's not the reasons many people don't like LoW and if you still don't understand that after being directly told it I'm not really sure what else to say. But hell, I'll say it again:
I don't like LoW because they are ill suited to the game size I typically play (less than 2000 pts) and for various reasons I have no desire to play larger games where they are better suited.
After a while people will get their own LoW's because frankly everyone has the money for it. If you play 40k then you have the money for it. Maybe not right this instant but eventually you will have saved enough for one. But once people all have their LoW's it will be commonly accepted just as Special characters are today.
Maybe. I think it's totally possible that the people who don't like LoW are the same people who think 6th and 7th edition are a mess and will probably just move on to better games so those remaining will all be ones who love LoW.
That, IMO, will be a shame though. And as I said previously, it will be GW getting more money per head out of a smaller community, not something I personally consider as being good for the game.
As for the money thing, yeah, GW are definitely pushing people who can't afford expensive hobbies out. I started gaming when I was 10, even adjusted for inflation I probably wouldn't have been able to afford to play with today's prices, definitely not if we start saying everyone needs a LoW to play.
You dont need a LoW to play. This seems to be a major misconception. I have had warhound running away from eldar troops. FOOT ELDAR HAD A TITAN RUNNING AWAY FROM THEM. If you want to get more specific 2 squads of guardians with bright lances, 1 squad of 10 storm guardians, 1 wraithlord (not a wraithknight a wraithlord) and an avatar. you do not need a LoW. You just need to know how to fight against them which you won't get if all you do is complain about them rather then doing some theorycrafting and practicing against them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/24 22:48:41
I was just replying to your comment that "But once people all have their LoW's it will be commonly accepted".
I know you don't need one to fight against one, that was never my argument as to why I don't want them, that was your argument as to why you (mistakenly) think people don't want to play against them.
Here, let me state it again because you seem to have quite a short memory.
I don't like LoW because they are ill suited to the game size I typically play (less than 2000 pts) and for various reasons I have no desire to play larger games where they are better suited.
The reason I don't like LoW has nothing to do with me thinking I also need one to play, it has nothing to do with being scared of them, it has nothing to do with me not wanting to adapt to change, it has nothing to do with me not knowing how to defeat one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/24 23:12:07
I think that is one of the major problems here is the matter od scale. we are currently playing at the 2,000 to 2,500 point range and I do not really see a problem at this level and we want to get to fivek point level.
at a 1500 point or even a 1850 point game it would be pushing the bounderies. I would play against it a few times but it would be either a lopsided win or lose. I would need to try it to see if I liked it and I can always say no after that.
unbound lists actually scare me far more than low as facing 2000 points of riptides would not be fun, but then again facing 2000 points of gun line guard infantry isn't fun either.
I am also lucky in that my group loves LOW and we are always trying to figure out how to get them into a game even before escalation.
my 2cents play the game you like and forget the rest. when sixth came out there were tourneys where you could not play fliers or fortifications and they were all the argument. over time the scene has settled down and they are excepted, I have yet to face a flier heavy army and I cant remember the last time I faced fortifications other than in a couple of apoc games. i know that every store is different and all of that give the game some time to settle down and see what comes around in time.
we pay way to much to play this game not to have fun.
I was just replying to your comment that "But once people all have their LoW's it will be commonly accepted".
I know you don't need one to fight against one, that was never my argument as to why I don't want them, that was your argument as to why you (mistakenly) think people don't want to play against them.
Here, let me state it again because you seem to have quite a short memory.
I don't like LoW because they are ill suited to the game size I typically play (less than 2000 pts) and for various reasons I have no desire to play larger games where they are better suited.
The reason I don't like LoW has nothing to do with me thinking I also need one to play, it has nothing to do with being scared of them, it has nothing to do with me not wanting to adapt to change, it has nothing to do with me not knowing how to defeat one.
Then don't play against them. Is this a real life situation you're constantly coming in conflict with?
2500 points
1500 points
1250 points
1000 points 
3000
4000 
)
I find them a useless abstraction because 99% of the time it's sufficient to explain a situation in wargaming by simply explaining the wargaming situation itself instead of abstracting it with cars when cars share very little similarity to toy soldiers.
