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.

cnpopo wrote:
The point I was making is everyone can choose to play or not to play. If you don't like playing against grav centurians, or tactical squads or pink grots then that is your choice. Claiming you have the rules on your side has no merit however, as the above quote says games must be agreed upon which was my original point.

Except that's not what we have with LOW. There's a common idea that LOW require special permission that isn't required for any of those other units, and it's absolutely not true.

cnpopo wrote:

I have more then opinion on my side. Page 116 clearly says in bold "players must agree on how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use". So I have rules on my side.

The point I was making is everyone can choose to play or not to play. If you don't like playing against grav centurians, or tactical squads or pink grots then that is your choice. Claiming you have the rules on your side has no merit however, as the above quote says games must be agreed upon which was my original point.

Great, can you also point me to the page where it shows the FOC for "no Lords of War, except maybe baneblades because they're only tanks, and Ghazz is probably ok too, oh yeah, and Knight Titans are pretty cool even though they have D weapons (but it's ok because they're only close combat D weapons) so I'll allow them too, but you can't use your Warhound because in my opinion titans shouldn't be in 40k"?

Of course you can introduce any house rules you want, but that requires an established group, and a lot of back and forth to find something everyone is happy with. For narrative games people often change up the FOC, or introduce additional rules, which is also fine. For pick up games and non-narrative games it's generally accepted that the standard FOC is used. And the standard FOC as printed in the rules has Lords of War.

I take it if you're so flexible with the printed FOC you wouldn't mind if I turned up with 10 Heavy Support units? Or would you instead be showing me the page in the rule book which says I can't?

Melevolence wrote:
But the people who plug their ears and simply repeat "Rules say I can!" like a 5 year old really bug me. Maybe other people's game groups are either so large they can afford to alienate players left and right. Our group is fairly small, roughly 20 of us. But we are all on good terms, like each other, and do what we can to have an enjoyable game eacgh and every time we put models on the table. Just because the rules say I can do this or that, doesn't mean I need to be a jack off and do it despite knowing it will ruin the experience for the other players.

Do you take a loose attitude to the rules in all the games you play or just 40k? For most people the rules are pretty important (maybe it's different in your group). Also, how about looking at it from the other point of view, and realising you might be spoiling my experience and being a 'jack off' by refusing to play against my titan just because you might not have fun or because you believe that Lords of War shouldn't be in 40k?

I also think it's much more childish to decide not to play against Lords of War without even trying it, which from your post it seems your group are doing, and the attitude a lot of anti-LOW people here seem to take.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:


Of course you can introduce any house rules you want, but that requires an established group, and a lot of back and forth to find something everyone is happy with. For narrative games people often change up the FOC, or introduce additional rules, which is also fine. For pick up games and non-narrative games it's generally accepted that the standard FOC is used. And the standard FOC as printed in the rules has Lords of War.

I take it if you're so flexible with the printed FOC you wouldn't mind if I turned up with 10 Heavy Support units? Or would you instead be showing me the page in the rule book which says I can't?

The rule book makes it perfectly clear that 10 heavy support units are totally legal.

Banning unbound and only taking "standard FOC" is just as much a house rule as banning LoW.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
I take it if you're so flexible with the printed FOC you wouldn't mind if I turned up with 10 Heavy Support units? Or would you instead be showing me the page in the rule book which says I can't?

The line:

"players must agree on how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use"

Simultaneously says you can and you can't.

Of course this makes 40k crap for pickup games, but I feel like over recent times we've established that 40k is in it's entirety crap for pickup games.

If you actually read through the "choosing your army - army selection methods", it basically says (paraphrased) you must agree on an army selection method, these are 2 methods (battle forged vs unbound), though you can agree on other restrictions and requirements. We then go on to discuss how to construct armies using the battle forged system.

It's actually quite sloppily written because GW likes to write their rules as a discussion instead of just writing them as rules.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The line:

"players must agree on how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use"

Simultaneously says you can and you can't.

Of course this makes 40k crap for pickup games, but I feel like over recent times we've established that 40k is in it's entirety crap for pickup games.

It also says you don't have to have a points limit, and that players don't need to stick to the same points limit. Would it be reasonable to turn up to a game and expect to have 1000 points more than my opponent? FOC and points limit could always be ignored without this permission, but unless I'm missing something, these two things are considered pretty important by most players. I've always found the FOC to be considered pretty sacrosanct in the games I have played, and it would be very unreasonable for me to bring a list which deviates from this. Either the FOC is important or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

I

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
f you actually read through the "choosing your army - army selection methods", it basically says (paraphrased) you must agree on an army selection method, these are 2 methods (battle forged vs unbound), though you can agree on other restrictions and requirements. We then go on to discuss how to construct armies using the battle forged system.

It's actually quite sloppily written because GW likes to write their rules as a discussion instead of just writing them as rules.

It actually says Battleforged and Unbound are the main ways of selecting your army, and then goes on to devote pages to telling you how to use Battleforged. This would suggest to me that Battleforged is the standard way for selecting armies. And Battleforged lets you use Lords of War. If the intention wasn't to allow Lords of War in standard games, why are they in the main book for 7th but not 6th?

In my experience most people who outright ban LoW are those who have built a powerful army that is now not that op because LoW invalidate most Waatc lists, LoW are the natural extension to 40k there's only so many power armor variations you can rock before your fan base gets bored. I say bring it on if your Titan kills me then next time I'll bring my own or find a counter. No different than flyers, MCs, SCs etc..

If I showed up to a game with a 500 dollar Warhound and my opponent refuses to play because "Thats OP" I'd be angry and rightfully so its a game you don't wanna lose spend more money thats the game you play, you want supreme balance you play chess, bottom line.

If a dude brings a Revenant and kills my army by turn 2 I'm gonna poke fun at his super unit giving him the win but I sure as hell wouldn't refuse to play him in game of toy soldiers because his toy is bigger than mine.

This 40k=SRS busness nonsense needs to stop

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Either the FOC is important or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

But that's how the rules are written. It's simultaneously important and not important.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It actually says Battleforged and Unbound are the main ways of selecting your army, and then goes on to devote pages to telling you how to use Battleforged. This would suggest to me that Battleforged is the standard way for selecting armies. And Battleforged lets you use Lords of War. If the intention wasn't to allow Lords of War in standard games, why are they in the main book for 7th but not 6th?

The fact you are using terms like "suggest to me" and "intention" shows how poorly written it is.

If we're arguing a "rules as written", then I think it's a bit of a pointless argument because the rules clearly state you can make up your own restrictions and requirements.

If we're arguing what the intention was, sure, I know that GW intend LoW to be used in standard games because they are trying to sell more LoW models.

But at the end of the day I think what is important is what happens in reality, and that entirely depends on your local meta (even if you don't know what the meta is and are just showing up for a pickup game). I have only played a few pickup games in the past couple of editions, but the few I have played have involved me bringing vastly more points worth of models and then negotiating the armies that will actually be used (which often means leaving out things my opponent doesn't think they can deal with and one time borrowing models from someone else in the store). I agree it's a crap way to play, but it's crappily written rules where "standard game" has become a bit of an oxymoron because everyone seems to have different standards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

2x210 wrote:
In my experience most people who outright ban LoW are those who have built a powerful army that is now not that op because LoW invalidate most Waatc lists, LoW are the natural extension to 40k there's only so many power armor variations you can rock before your fan base gets bored. I say bring it on if your Titan kills me then next time I'll bring my own or find a counter. No different than flyers, MCs, SCs etc..

Not really, my opposition to LoW has nothing to do with them defeating my super powerful army. Yeah, I do like to fine tune my lists, but not as much as many people because I can never be bothered retooling my models every time the rules change so I have a lot of sub-optimal units.

But the reason I don't like playing LoW has nothing to do with not being able to beat them, it has everything to do with it changing the game in a way I perceive as negative. That is, big models in smaller games mean the focus of the game is shifted to that one model. I do not find this a good progression of the game.

LoW, IMO, should be limited to specific scenarios where they are more appropriate.

Kangodo wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Most answers to lords of war, are the same things you use to answer tanks or MCs to begin with.
What is the difference, offinsive-wise between killing a tank squad, and killing a single big tank?

Well, you should play against a Stompa with a KFF-Mek in it to understand the difference
A dozen HP's, 5++, IWND and some Meks to keep repairing it.

And then gets killed by a unit of hammernators in a single turn. Multiple high-strength low-AP weapons will kill a stompa, even if you have the maximum number of meks in there. Your opponent needs to coordinate the attack, of course, but a stompa is far from unkillable. And just because you can roll 9 repair rolls per turn, that's still an average of 3 HP restored. And if averages fail you, 1000+ points simply explode.

I'd argue that a monolith or landraider is harder to kill than a stompa. Never mind two or three of those.

2x210 wrote:
In my experience most people who outright ban LoW are those who have built a powerful army that is now not that op because LoW invalidate most Waatc lists, LoW are the natural extension to 40k there's only so many power armor variations you can rock before your fan base gets bored. I say bring it on if your Titan kills me then next time I'll bring my own or find a counter. No different than flyers, MCs, SCs etc..

If I showed up to a game with a 500 dollar Warhound and my opponent refuses to play because "Thats OP" I'd be angry and rightfully so its a game you don't wanna lose spend more money thats the game you play, you want supreme balance you play chess, bottom line.

If a dude brings a Revenant and kills my army by turn 2 I'm gonna poke fun at his super unit giving him the win but I sure as hell wouldn't refuse to play him in game of toy soldiers because his toy is bigger than mine.

This 40k=SRS busness nonsense needs to stop

Heres a good example of the problems that occurs with bringing LoW's to a game, its not so much the LoW itself thats the problem, its the attitude that players whom bring LoW's with them thats the main problem.

Just because the rules allows you to be a douchebag, dosent change that at the end of the day you behaved like a douchebag.

Bishop F Gantry wrote:

2x210 wrote:
In my experience most people who outright ban LoW are those who have built a powerful army that is now not that op because LoW invalidate most Waatc lists, LoW are the natural extension to 40k there's only so many power armor variations you can rock before your fan base gets bored. I say bring it on if your Titan kills me then next time I'll bring my own or find a counter. No different than flyers, MCs, SCs etc..

If I showed up to a game with a 500 dollar Warhound and my opponent refuses to play because "Thats OP" I'd be angry and rightfully so its a game you don't wanna lose spend more money thats the game you play, you want supreme balance you play chess, bottom line.

If a dude brings a Revenant and kills my army by turn 2 I'm gonna poke fun at his super unit giving him the win but I sure as hell wouldn't refuse to play him in game of toy soldiers because his toy is bigger than mine.

This 40k=SRS busness nonsense needs to stop

Heres a good example of the problems that occurs with bringing LoW's to a game, its not so much the LoW itself thats the problem, its the attitude that players whom bring LoW's with them thats the main problem.

Just because the rules allows you to be a douchebag, dosent change that at the end of the day you behaved like a douchebag.

Thing is, 'you can't play what you want so that I can play what I want' is being an equal douchebag. Idrally you will find a middle ground, but if you don't, trying to push your version of 40k over the other guy's is not the right answer.

So what if it averages 3 HP repaired every turn between IWND and the repairs?
It costs so much points, that I have enough of my own anti-tank in that field to have a more than decent chance to take out all 12 hull points in a single turn.

Its 770 points BEFORE you count the whatever gives it CFF and the repair dudes. when decked-out its probably around 1000 points.

5++ with AV 13/13/12 makes it not enough to withstand a barrage of 2 hammerheads and 6 double-fusion suits, and I've got that much at dedicated anti-tank at mere 1200 (and they all still cost far less than that stompa), before counting random "can hurt tanks" units I have floating around like Ralai and EMP fire warriors

Stompa you say? bring it on I say. I'll take it apart, just like I am taking apart knights, just like I took down a Tvault. and I didn't even need any superheavies or airplanes to take any of them out, just a distraction (single decked out riptide, if any) and a good application of concentrated firepower.

2x210 wrote:In my experience most people who outright ban LoW are those who have built a powerful army that is now not that op because LoW invalidate most Waatc lists, LoW are the natural extension to 40k there's only so many power armor variations you can rock before your fan base gets bored. I say bring it on if your Titan kills me then next time I'll bring my own or find a counter. No different than flyers, MCs, SCs etc..

If I showed up to a game with a 500 dollar Warhound and my opponent refuses to play because "Thats OP" I'd be angry and rightfully so its a game you don't wanna lose spend more money thats the game you play, you want supreme balance you play chess, bottom line.

If a dude brings a Revenant and kills my army by turn 2 I'm gonna poke fun at his super unit giving him the win but I sure as hell wouldn't refuse to play him in game of toy soldiers because his toy is bigger than mine.

This 40k=SRS busness nonsense needs to stop

This. Exactly my attitude and experience. Glad to see I'm not alone.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

But at the end of the day I think what is important is what happens in reality, and that entirely depends on your local meta (even if you don't know what the meta is and are just showing up for a pickup game). I have only played a few pickup games in the past couple of editions, but the few I have played have involved me bringing vastly more points worth of models and then negotiating the armies that will actually be used (which often means leaving out things my opponent doesn't think they can deal with and one time borrowing models from someone else in the store). I agree it's a crap way to play, but it's crappily written rules where "standard game" has become a bit of an oxymoron because everyone seems to have

LoW, IMO, should be limited to specific scenarios where they are more appropriate.

The only problems are created by people playing games developer. It is impossible to reach a consensus as to how 40k 'should' be played. Check out the tournament discussion if you don't believe me. PUGs only become difficult when the main ways as outlined in the rule book are ignored and people try to impose their vision of 40k on others. Actually, the only discussion that needs to take place is the points limit. Everything else is laid out in black and white in the book.

I also think it's BS that vet gamers in a club/shop feel entitled to impose their attitudes to 40k on others. Luckily my local club is run by a guy who is really positive about the way 40k is going (and has a no GW bashing policy on the forums and FB page) and this attitude has filtered down to everyone else. I would have no problem rocking up with my Warhound. I've also been at a club where GW was a dirty word due to bitterness from the older players, most people had moved to War Machine to 'stick it' to GW, and 40k forum posts would be greeted with snide remarks. There was also several house rules intended to restrict the ''silliness' of 40k (this was 6 or 7 years ago!) such as no special characters (which the 40k players all ignored lol). I can imagine how they would treat LOW and unbound.

Tekron wrote:

The rule book makes it perfectly clear that 10 heavy support units are totally legal.

Banning unbound and only taking "standard FOC" is just as much a house rule as banning LoW.

100% agree. I also have no problems with unbound. The vast majority of list abuse can be done with multiple CAD anyway, so unbound seems to be more for awesome, fluffy armies that I would love to play against. I plan to do a full Repentia in Landraiders list one day...

 tyrannosaurus wrote:


Do you take a loose attitude to the rules in all the games you play or just40k? For most people the rules are pretty important (maybe it's different in your group). Also, how about looking at it from the other point of view, and realising you might be spoiling my experience and being a 'jack off' by refusing to play against my titan just because you might not have fun or because you believe that Lords of War shouldn't be in 40k?

Rule #1: Make sure both people have fun. If you are going to bring a LoW to a game and the opponent doesn't wish to because they won't enjoy playing against it you are literally breaking The Most Important Rule. If in the same vein prevents you having fun because you are only having fun playing with your big toys, go find an opponent who will have fun playing against one.

2x210 wrote:
In my experience most people who outright ban LoW are those who have built a powerful army that is now not that op because LoW invalidate most Waatc lists, LoW are the natural extension to 40k there's only so many power armor variations you can rock before your fan base gets bored. I say bring it on if your Titan kills me then next time I'll bring my own or find a counter. No different than flyers, MCs, SCs etc..

If I showed up to a game with a 500 dollar Warhound and my opponent refuses to play because "Thats OP" I'd be angry and rightfully so its a game you don't wanna lose spend more money thats the game you play, you want supreme balance you play chess, bottom line.

If a dude brings a Revenant and kills my army by turn 2 I'm gonna poke fun at his super unit giving him the win but I sure as hell wouldn't refuse to play him in game of toy soldiers because his toy is bigger than mine.

This 40k=SRS busness nonsense needs to stop

O look, a nice little summary of how gak 40k is.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
The only problems are created by people playing games developer. It is impossible to reach a consensus as to how 40k 'should' be played. Check out the tournament discussion if you don't believe me. PUGs only become difficult when the main ways as outlined in the rule book are ignored and people try to impose their vision of 40k on others. Actually, the only discussion that needs to take place is the points limit. Everything else is laid out in black and white in the book.

You seem to be ignoring the fact people "play games developer" because they find GW's rules severely lacking.

The rulebook literally encourages you to "play games developer".

I also think it's BS that vet gamers in a club/shop feel entitled to impose their attitudes to 40k on others. Luckily my local club is run by a guy who is really positive about the way 40k is going (and has a no GW bashing policy on the forums and FB page) and this attitude has filtered down to everyone else.

This is somewhat a separate discussion to talking about LoW specifically. I've never felt like gamers in my area have ever been imposing their attitudes on 40k. Whether for or against, I've never had any heated discussion or any discussion where I felt someone was trying to impose their attitude one way or another. People talk positively about GW and people talk negatively about GW, as the years roll by GW is increasingly irrelevant in my FLGS and people spend less time talking about it.

Whether you're for or against GW doesn't preclude you from discussing the merits of the 40k rules.

I would have no problem rocking up with my Warhound. I've also been at a club where GW was a dirty word due to bitterness from the older players, most people had moved to War Machine to 'stick it' to GW, and 40k forum posts would be greeted with snide remarks. There was also several house rules intended to restrict the ''silliness' of 40k (this was 6 or 7 years ago!) such as no special characters (which the 40k players all ignored lol). I can imagine how they would treat LOW and unbound.

Now you're just trying to impose a negative connotation on people who don't want to play with whatever GW "intends" you to play with.

Even if you are using the GW RAW, it still says you have to agree on requirements and restrictions for what forces are being taken. Why is it so much of a stretch to realise that many people don't like LoW in their "standard games" and thus it gets chalked up on the "restricted" list?

I don't have any problems with LoW in the context of special scenarios or odd situations, but I don't think they should be in standard games and the (poorly written) 40k rules encourage me to play games with the restrictions or allowances I desire.

If you want to play stompy stompy with your Warhound, that's fine, I'm not stopping you, you just won't be playing it against me (unless you feel like coming up with a fun and interesting scenario as to why a Warhound is taking part in a battle of 100 or so people on something not much bigger than a football field).

It's pretty damn bad to run around derping casual people in the face with a Transcendent C'tan, but at the same time it's also quite unfair to dictate what particular units your opponent can or can't take beyond what the rulebooks already lay out (but both parties can agree to limits on either side, of course).

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone who is clearly at a considerable disadvantage, without the models needed to amend that situation, to (politely) say that they don't feel like they could provide an exciting game at all and decline the game, but it can't be handled as if it's some sort of malicious fault of the other player. Only if one is willing to play against the enemy's current list do I think they should ask if the other player would like to change their list for the sake of having a more exciting battle. If yes, then great: hopefully the two parties both get a more enjoyable game. If not, however, then the game should still be played.

Admitting defeat beforehand and declining is dignified and should always be acceptable. But saying 'I'll only play you if you do X/Y/Z (these being things not laid out in the rules)' is no better (and despote my hatred of the damn thing, I'd say much worse) than placing the Transcendent C'tan on the table in the first place.

And there are other ways to counter an unsporting player without being able to counter their unsporting list...


Hrm so at 2k points, unbound, against a Transcendent C'tan and a bunch of Tau stuff designed to stomp casuals, huh? I think I'd take...



Comes to 2000pts exactly


Now a much better solution would be for the game to get some more balancing work done to it, but I doubt that'll happen before anyone's next game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
The only problems are created by people playing games developer. It is impossible to reach a consensus as to how 40k 'should' be played. Check out the tournament discussion if you don't believe me. PUGs only become difficult when the main ways as outlined in the rule book are ignored and people try to impose their vision of 40k on others. Actually, the only discussion that needs to take place is the points limit. Everything else is laid out in black and white in the book.

You seem to be ignoring the fact people "play games developer" because they find GW's rules severely lacking.

The rulebook literally encourages you to "play games developer".

I also think it's BS that vet gamers in a club/shop feel entitled to impose their attitudes to 40k on others. Luckily my local club is run by a guy who is really positive about the way 40k is going (and has a no GW bashing policy on the forums and FB page) and this attitude has filtered down to everyone else.

This is somewhat a separate discussion to talking about LoW specifically. I've never felt like gamers in my area have ever been imposing their attitudes on 40k. Whether for or against, I've never had any heated discussion or any discussion where I felt someone was trying to impose their attitude one way or another. People talk positively about GW and people talk negatively about GW, as the years roll by GW is increasingly irrelevant in my FLGS and people spend less time talking about it.

Whether you're for or against GW doesn't preclude you from discussing the merits of the 40k rules.

I would have no problem rocking up with my Warhound. I've also been at a club where GW was a dirty word due to bitterness from the older players, most people had moved to War Machine to 'stick it' to GW, and 40k forum posts would be greeted with snide remarks. There was also several house rules intended to restrict the ''silliness' of 40k (this was 6 or 7 years ago!) such as no special characters (which the 40k players all ignored lol). I can imagine how they would treat LOW and unbound.

Now you're just trying to impose a negative connotation on people who don't want to play with whatever GW "intends" you to play with.

Even if you are using the GW RAW, it still says you have to agree on requirements and restrictions for what forces are being taken. Why is it so much of a stretch to realise that many people don't like LoW in their "standard games" and thus it gets chalked up on the "restricted" list?

I don't have any problems with LoW in the context of special scenarios or odd situations, but I don't think they should be in standard games and the (poorly written) 40k rules encourage me to play games with the restrictions or allowances I desire.

If you want to play stompy stompy with your Warhound, that's fine, I'm not stopping you, you just won't be playing it against me (unless you feel like coming up with a fun and interesting scenario as to why a Warhound is taking part in a battle of 100 or so people on something not much bigger than a football field).

Let me tell you a true story about something that actually happened:

There is a player in my area who sinks a lot of his income into his tyranid and IG army. He literally has every model, including baneblades, the nid bio-titan and that freaking huge wall terrain FW used to make. He has a basement dedicated to Warhammer 40k and a huge amount of gaming tables and terrain, so his place is usually the place where apocalypse games are held. When in 5th the Grey Knight codex was released, one other player sold his current army, bought everything the GK codex had to offer, and painted it up (not unusual for him, he does this every couple of months - said GK army was replaced by Khorne-themed CSM half a year later). The first player flipped through the codex and decided that NFW were completely overpowered as they supposedly slaughter monstrous creatures by the dozen - thus he banned all Grey Knights from playing at his place.

The GK player was then no longer invited to games and told that he could come again when he moved onto his next army. When the next big apoc game came around, and he started deploying a couple of land raiders and storm ravens, the first player told him to remove those from the board. When the GK player argued that his units would probably catch a destroyer template and die, the first one insisted that he wouldn't play against grey knights. He then inquired for what reason he would prevent him from playing an official codex while playing a game based on unofficial books (apocalypse). He pointed to the exact same rules you are pointing at, and told the grey knight player that every game would require his permission and that he wouldn't give permission for the game until all grey knight units were removed from the table.

Edited Quote wrote:Even if you are using the GW RAW, it still says you have to agree on requirements and restrictions for what forces are being taken. Why is it so much of a stretch to realise that many people don't like Grey Knights in their "standard games" and thus it gets chalked up on the "restricted" list?

I don't have any problems with Grey Knights in the context of special scenarios or odd situations, but I don't think they should be in standard games and the (poorly written) 40k rules encourage me to play games with the restrictions or allowances I desire.

If you want to play stompy stompy with your Grey Knights, that's fine, I'm not stopping you, you just won't be playing it against me.

Do you see what you're doing?

 Jidmah wrote:

Spoiler:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
The only problems are created by people playing games developer. It is impossible to reach a consensus as to how 40k 'should' be played. Check out the tournament discussion if you don't believe me. PUGs only become difficult when the main ways as outlined in the rule book are ignored and people try to impose their vision of 40k on others. Actually, the only discussion that needs to take place is the points limit. Everything else is laid out in black and white in the book.

You seem to be ignoring the fact people "play games developer" because they find GW's rules severely lacking.

The rulebook literally encourages you to "play games developer".

I also think it's BS that vet gamers in a club/shop feel entitled to impose their attitudes to 40k on others. Luckily my local club is run by a guy who is really positive about the way 40k is going (and has a no GW bashing policy on the forums and FB page) and this attitude has filtered down to everyone else.

This is somewhat a separate discussion to talking about LoW specifically. I've never felt like gamers in my area have ever been imposing their attitudes on 40k. Whether for or against, I've never had any heated discussion or any discussion where I felt someone was trying to impose their attitude one way or another. People talk positively about GW and people talk negatively about GW, as the years roll by GW is increasingly irrelevant in my FLGS and people spend less time talking about it.

Whether you're for or against GW doesn't preclude you from discussing the merits of the 40k rules.

I would have no problem rocking up with my Warhound. I've also been at a club where GW was a dirty word due to bitterness from the older players, most people had moved to War Machine to 'stick it' to GW, and 40k forum posts would be greeted with snide remarks. There was also several house rules intended to restrict the ''silliness' of 40k (this was 6 or 7 years ago!) such as no special characters (which the 40k players all ignored lol). I can imagine how they would treat LOW and unbound.

Now you're just trying to impose a negative connotation on people who don't want to play with whatever GW "intends" you to play with.

Even if you are using the GW RAW, it still says you have to agree on requirements and restrictions for what forces are being taken. Why is it so much of a stretch to realise that many people don't like LoW in their "standard games" and thus it gets chalked up on the "restricted" list?

I don't have any problems with LoW in the context of special scenarios or odd situations, but I don't think they should be in standard games and the (poorly written) 40k rules encourage me to play games with the restrictions or allowances I desire.

If you want to play stompy stompy with your Warhound, that's fine, I'm not stopping you, you just won't be playing it against me (unless you feel like coming up with a fun and interesting scenario as to why a Warhound is taking part in a battle of 100 or so people on something not much bigger than a football field).

Let me tell you a true story about something that actually happened:

There is a player in my area who sinks a lot of his income into his tyranid and IG army. He literally has every model, including baneblades, the nid bio-titan and that freaking huge wall terrain FW used to make. He has a basement dedicated to Warhammer 40k and a huge amount of gaming tables and terrain, so his place is usually the place where apocalypse games are held. When in 5th the Grey Knight codex was released, one other player sold his current army, bought everything the GK codex had to offer, and painted it up (not unusual for him, he does this every couple of months - said GK army was replaced by Khorne-themed CSM half a year later). The first player flipped through the codex and decided that NFW were completely overpowered as they supposedly slaughter monstrous creatures by the dozen - thus he banned all Grey Knights from playing at his place.

The GK player was then no longer invited to games and told that he could come again when he moved onto his next army. When the next big apoc game came around, and he started deploying a couple of land raiders and storm ravens, the first player told him to remove those from the board. When the GK player argued that his units would probably catch a destroyer template and die, the first one insisted that he wouldn't play against grey knights. He then inquired for what reason he would prevent him from playing an official codex while playing a game based on unofficial books (apocalypse). He pointed to the exact same rules you are pointing at, and told the grey knight player that every game would require his permission and that he wouldn't give permission for the game until all grey knight units were removed from the table.

Edited Quote wrote:Even if you are using the GW RAW, it still says you have to agree on requirements and restrictions for what forces are being taken. Why is it so much of a stretch to realise that many people don't like Grey Knights in their "standard games" and thus it gets chalked up on the "restricted" list?

I don't have any problems with Grey Knights in the context of special scenarios or odd situations, but I don't think they should be in standard games and the (poorly written) 40k rules encourage me to play games with the restrictions or allowances I desire.

If you want to play stompy stompy with your Grey Knights, that's fine, I'm not stopping you, you just won't be playing it against me.

Do you see what you're doing?

I'm not really sure as to the point of your story. It's a very specific situation where everyone is playing at one dude's house and he is dictating rules.

It's his house, he can dictate whatever rules he likes. That's the crappy situation you get when you place all the power in to the hands of a single person (which might have been a necessity or whatever, but it's still a very very specific situation). The same crappy situation can occur when you place all the power in GW's hands, too.

Do you see what you're doing?

Are you suggesting what I'm doing is the same as that other player? If it is, I'm either slightly insulted or you're slightly lacking in comprehension, one of the two.

I'm not telling someone they can't play with their titan in a 2000pt game, they can, just not against me in a standard game. They can still play against other people. They are still welcome to play them in Apoc games. They are still welcome to come up with an interesting scenario outside of the "standard game" which explains why a titan is on the field and we can have different objectives that reflect that oddity.

And ya know what? How many people actually own JUST a titan? I know a few people who own expensive FW titans and they also own large armies to go alongside them. They're more than welcome to put aside the titan and still play a game. At the VERY least if they show up for a 2000pt game with a Warhound, they must also have 1000pts of more typical army to go along with it, so I'm fine just playing a 1000pt game.

Don't pretend that your story of an eccentric GW collector banning a faction in his own home is anything remotely like what I'm talking about.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You seem to be ignoring the fact people "play games developer" because they find GW's rules severely lacking.

But I don't. I like them as written. I should go with your conjured house rules over my rule book?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
you're just trying to impose a negative connotation on people who don't want to play with whatever GW "intends" you to play with.

Absolutely. Glad you picked up on it. The majority of anti-LOW people seem to be anti-GW, with LOW just another example of the "gak they keep forcing us to put up with blah blah blah."

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Even if you are using the GW RAW, it still says you have to agree on requirements and restrictions for what forces are being taken. Why is it so much of a stretch to realise that many people don't like LoW in their "standard games" and thus it gets chalked up on the "restricted" list?

I don't have any problems with LoW in the context of special scenarios or odd situations, but I don't think they should be in standard games and the (poorly written) 40k rules encourage me to play games with the restrictions or allowances I desire.

If you want to play stompy stompy with your Warhound, that's fine, I'm not stopping you, you just won't be playing it against me (unless you feel like coming up with a fun and interesting scenario as to why a Warhound is taking part in a battle of 100 or so people on something not much bigger than a football field).

Only if you come up with a scenario why the head of your space marine chapter is personally leading a scouting party. Sorry you don't think they should be in standard games, but clearly the intention is that they are (as you admitted earlier). If you think the rules are so poorly written, and the game isn't going in the direction you want, is it the game for you?

Also, I don't take my Warhound to win games (I assume that's what you mean by stompy stompy?), I take it because it looks amazing on the table (got it commission painted) it cuts down the time it takes to move my models and therefore the game time, and it realises a boyhood dream of mine to own and play a titan (sparked by the Games Day display of yesteryear with the scratch built titan). The people I have played it against all agree it looks awesome, was a lot of fun, and really sped the game up. I wouldn't want to play it every game (I want to use my other toys!) but I do want to give her a runout now and again, and I'm perfectly entitled to do so as LOW are now standard. I also wouldn't impose any restrictions on my opponent. If they want to use unbound, LOW, whatever, if it's in the rules and it makes them happy then game on.

It's a shame you've decided that you would never play me. How about instead of a flat refusal, you agree to give it a go before passing judgement? Sounds more reasonable to me. If you still hate it then we can try without. Or, you could just refuse to play me for daring to want to use a perfectly legal list with a LOW because...still not sure actually.

Oh, but that's exactly what the other guy was doing. He didn't tell the guy to lose his grey knights. He just didn't want to play against them. The nid/IG guy was perfectly fine with him playing his Grey Knights against other people at the store (because you simply don't go to some person's place and not play him).

And yes, I'm saying that you're exactly the same as that guy from my story. You are forcing people to drop certain parts of the game, for no other reason but your personal opinion. You are just as entitled to tell them to drop their super-heavy as he was entitled to tell a player to drop all his grey knight units - after all, that codex still had inquisition units he could use instead, right?

If you feel insulted by this... maybe rethink what you're doing to a person has gone through the trouble of buying, building, painting and transporting a titan to a store.
How would you feel about an opponent pointing at random parts of your army and telling you to remove them? How about all your lascannons and meltas?

 Jidmah wrote:
And yes, I'm saying that you're exactly the same as that guy from my story. You are forcing people to drop certain parts of the game, for no other reason but your personal opinion. You are just as entitled to tell them to drop their super-heavy as he was entitled to tell a player to drop all his grey knight units - after all, that codex still had inquisition units he could use instead, right?

If you can't see how it's different to tell someone that I don't want to play against a titan in a standard game (while still leaving the possibility of playing against them in a different capacity)... then I'm sorry, that's your problem not mine. It is not the same.

I'm still more than happy to play against the person and the person is more than welcome to play against other people. I'm not forcing them to do anything.

It's no different than them telling me they don't want to play against me if I won't let them use their titan, which I'm totally fine with as well.

If you feel insulted by this... maybe rethink what you're doing to a person has gone through the trouble of buying, building, painting and transporting a titan to a store.

You may have missed the second option to me being insulted. Here's a hint, it's far more likely the other thing than me being insulted

How would you feel about an opponent pointing at random parts of your army and telling you to remove them? How about all your lascannons and meltas?

Honestly? I'm fine with it. As long as it's done in a friendly manner and I can do the same to them.

I've played plenty of games that were negotiations of what we will play with. It's one of several things that can be done to keep the game fresh and interesting, negotiate forces and objectives outside of the rules. It's sad that 40k ends up as a negotiation even for pick up games, but it is what it is and whether you love GW or hate GW that's what it is. I'd love for GW to write better rules and actually define "standard game rules" and "skirmish game rules" and "tank battle rules". They don't, so we have to make the best of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You seem to be ignoring the fact people "play games developer" because they find GW's rules severely lacking.

But I don't. I like them as written. I should go with your conjured house rules over my rule book?

You can do what you please. People are taking this crap way too seriously. You can do whatever the hell you want.

It's a shame you've decided that you would never play me. How about instead of a flat refusal, you agree to give it a go before passing judgement? Sounds more reasonable to me. If you still hate it then we can try without. Or, you could just refuse to play me for daring to want to use a perfectly legal list with a LOW because...still not sure actually.

Again, you take stuff way too seriously. I've specifically said why I don't like playing with LoW models in my typical games (~2000pts), because they don't fit the scale of the games I want to play.

Yep... your army is a perfectly legal army. It's also perfectly legal, according to the rules as written in the 40k rulebook for me to try and reach a different agreement that is more in line with what I would enjoy.

What makes your legal army more important than my legal request to want to agree to different restrictions than those outlined by the FOC?

Answer? None. You are acting as if this is ME refusing YOU. Stop taking stuff so personally. It's 2 people deciding they don't agree to the terms of a game. You're refusing me as much as I'm refusing you.

People fail to come to agreements on games all the time. Just the other day I was in my local GW and someone approached someone else about a game, they only had about 900 pts of models, the other person had 1500pts of models and wanted to play a 1500pt game, so he refused. Someone else came along and did have a 1500pts army and so they played instead. The person with the 900pt army may or may not have gotten a game that afternoon, I don't know, I left the store soon after.

OH THE HORROR SOMEONE DIDN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON HOW TO PLAY THE GAME!!! Get over it, it happens.

Just because I show up with 2000pts of models and you show up with 2000pts of models doesn't mean we MUST have a 2000pt game following the standard objectives. We can agree to smaller amounts, we can tailor our lists, we can come up with a new scenario, or God forbid we can decide that we can't agree on a way to have mutual fun with it so we don't play a game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
And yes, I'm saying that you're exactly the same as that guy from my story. You are forcing people to drop certain parts of the game, for no other reason but your personal opinion. You are just as entitled to tell them to drop their super-heavy as he was entitled to tell a player to drop all his grey knight units - after all, that codex still had inquisition units he could use instead, right?

If you can't see how it's different to tell someone that I don't want to play against a titan in a standard game (while still leaving the possibility of playing against them in a different capacity)... then I'm sorry, that's your problem not mine. It is not the same.

Why? Where is the difference?

The Grey Knight player also had the chance to still play. He just had to drop everything but henchmen, assassins, valkyries and inquisitors. The other player even offered him to have some of his IG to replace the Grey Knights.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

How would you feel about an opponent pointing at random parts of your army and telling you to remove them? How about all your lascannons and meltas?

Honestly? I'm fine with it. As long as it's done in a friendly manner and I can do the same to them.

So, since you started removing stuff from my army, I can remove stuff from your army that I don't like? Nice. That'll make stomping all over you even easier than if you'd just have allowed the titan.

In case you wondered, that's sarcasm. The titan or LoW are not the problem. People are. If you're refusing a 100% legal list for no reason whatsoever, you are one of those people.

 Jidmah wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
And yes, I'm saying that you're exactly the same as that guy from my story. You are forcing people to drop certain parts of the game, for no other reason but your personal opinion. You are just as entitled to tell them to drop their super-heavy as he was entitled to tell a player to drop all his grey knight units - after all, that codex still had inquisition units he could use instead, right?

If you can't see how it's different to tell someone that I don't want to play against a titan in a standard game (while still leaving the possibility of playing against them in a different capacity)... then I'm sorry, that's your problem not mine. It is not the same.

Why? Where is the difference?

The Grey Knight player also had the chance to still play. He just had to drop everything but henchmen, assassins, valkyries and inquisitors. The other player even offered him to have some of his IG to replace the Grey Knights.

Well for one you didn't mention all that. You said "The GK player was then no longer invited to games and told that he could come again when he moved onto his next army."

The way you've described it, the guy was ousted from games as he no longer had an army which he could play with. That's different to telling someone they can't use a titan because, at least in my observations, anyone I know who owns a titan also owns an actual army to go with it.

If all they genuinely owned to play with was a titan (or multiple) and nothing else to go with it, sure, I'd play with them. I'd still try and come up with ways to make it more interesting though instead of just lining up my models (the vast majority of which can't even hurt a titan) and attempting to have a standard game. I'd offer up scenarios, maybe tailor a list to play against the titan, one thing I've done with mates before was to play a game of one big monstrosity vs a large army of pawns... see how many turns it takes to bring down the monstrosity, or make an objective that the monstrosity has to get to certain point on the battlefield, or make it an objective to see how many of the pawn units can get past the monstrosity and off the other side of the table.

These sorts of things I find fun... I'm not ousting someone for bringing a LoW... I simply have no interest in playing a standard 2000pt game against an army that consists primarily of 1 or 2 models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

How would you feel about an opponent pointing at random parts of your army and telling you to remove them? How about all your lascannons and meltas?

Honestly? I'm fine with it. As long as it's done in a friendly manner and I can do the same to them.

So, since you started removing stuff from my army, I can remove stuff from your army that I don't like? Nice. That'll make stomping all over you even easier than if you'd just have allowed the titan.

In case you wondered, that's sarcasm.

Actually, no, I didn't notice it was sarcasm because what I'm talking about has nothing to do with winning or losing. I'm fine with it if someone says they don't want to play against a portion of my army because they have something more fun in mind.

The titan or LoW are not the problem. People are. If you're refusing a 100% legal list for no reason whatsoever, you are one of those people.

Oh FFS, I've given my reasons, get over it. If that's some backhanded way of calling me "TFG", I'll say that wanting me to play in a way I won't find entertaining and being too close minded to the idea of trying to come up with a better way that we can both have fun... well that sounds much more like "TFG" behaviour than what I'm talking about. Sorry, not "TFG", "those people"

Yes, I have better things to do with my time than play games I don't enjoy. But I'm more than willing to negotiate a game more to our mutual liking, if you can't manage that, too bad I guess.

Oh wow, can this thread get any more hostile?
It's clear that some people just don't like playing against SHV's and GMC's and that is perfectly fine.
All I recommend is that you at least try it and there is always the middle-ground of sometimes allowing them in your games and other times play without them.

I think it's time for me to cut and run from this discussion.

Talking to you guys about this I feel like the discussion at the local club/FLGS would be going something like this:

Dude with Revenant: Hey there, Skink, want to play a 2000pt game?
Skink: Sure
DWR: Cool, here's my list.
Skink: Oh, I'm not a fan of big expensive models in small games, mind if we play without the Revenant? Do you have other models instead?
DWR: No, we must play with my Revenant.
Skink: Ok, how about a 1000pt game instead?
DWR: No, we must play with my Revenant, otherwise you're refusing me!
Skink: Umm, ok, well, if you're really adamant about using the Revenant, how about I modify my list a little bit?
DWR: No, use the list you have there against my Revenant!!
Skink: Ok, well, in order to keep things entertaining for both of us, how about we come up with some special scenario to make it more interesting?
DWR: NO! We must play a standard game of 2000pts with my Revenant!
Skink: Err, ok, well, I don't think this will be fun for me, lets just agree to disagree and we won't play a game, I'm sure someone else will want to play you.
DWR: YOU ARE REFUSING MY LEGAL LIST!! YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER TFG!!!

No, you have not provided a reason.

You keep saying that you don't think the game is fun against a LoW (why?), that you don't think a LoW belongs into 2000 point games (why?) and that it's in general not ok to bring a LoW to game (why?).

"I don't want to play against LoW." is not a reason, so I want to know what made you think this way. If there is no reason behind it, you're simply denying your opponent an enjoyable game for no reason. Because people actually enjoy using their big toyz outside the once-a-year apocalypse game.

I know a couple of people like you who were all up in arms when people started bringing their bane blades and stompas to regular games because those belong to apoc and have no place in 40k. 90% of those games ended with "Huh... that wasn't so bad." The tenth game had one of the LoW someone fittingly described as "the trinity" in them.

TL;DR: What's your problem with LoW?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think it's time for me to cut and run from this discussion.

Talking to you guys about this I feel like the discussion at the local club/FLGS would be going something like this:

Dude with Revenant: Hey there, Skink, want to play a 2000pt game?
Skink: Sure
DWR: Cool, here's my list.
Skink: Oh, I'm not a fan of big expensive models in small games, mind if we play without the Revenant? Do you have other models instead?
DWR: No, we must play with my Revenant.
Skink: Ok, how about a 1000pt game instead?
DWR: No, we must play with my Revenant, otherwise you're refusing me!
Skink: Umm, ok, well, if you're really adamant about using the Revenant, how about I modify my list a little bit?
DWR: No, use the list you have there against my Revenant!!
Skink: Ok, well, in order to keep things entertaining for both of us, how about we come up with some special scenario to make it more interesting?
DWR: NO! We must play a standard game of 2000pts with my Revenant!
Skink: Err, ok, well, I don't think this will be fun for me, lets just agree to disagree and we won't play a game, I'm sure someone else will want to play you.
DWR: YOU ARE REFUSING MY LEGAL LIST!! YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER TFG!!!

Colored parts are both biased and have nothing to do with LoW. In reality you'd get a "Sure, modify your list" and then start rolling warlord traits. You know, because people bringing LoW aren't automatically asshats.

 Jidmah wrote:
TL;DR: What's your problem with LoW?

Sorry I thought I was more clear, maybe I haven't been in this particular thread because we've had so many LoW discussions they all blur in to one.

I don't like LoW in standard games because I find them ill suited to the scale of game I typically play (2000pts and less).

The reason I find them ill suited is the game inevitably ends up revolving around them. Either killing them or avoiding them. I do not find this entertaining in a standard game. They also look kind of silly to me when you have a table which is only 3 or 4 times as long as the height of one of the models taking part in the battle, lol.

In a standard, 2000pt or less game, IMO they don't fit the scale of 40k, I do not find them fun to play with or against, I don't like how if you take almost all your points in Superheavies it renders much of your opponent's army useless. Even if they can still potentially win, I just don't find that an entertaining situation.

I think it can be entertaining as a one off thing or if you set up interesting scenarios or if the game is vastly larger than 2000pts (which I don't typically play anyway).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Colored parts are both biased and have nothing to do with LoW. In reality you'd get a "Sure, modify your list" and then start rolling warlord traits. You know, because people bringing LoW aren't automatically asshats.

Oh I agree most people aren't asshats in general which is odd that this thread is acting like everyone else is asshats.

And after the person said yeah I can modify my list I'd just keep adding anti-superheavy stuff (varies depending on the army) and wipe the floor with them and next time suggest we do something different

At the end of the day I just don't find it fun to play against them. If there comes a time when big stuff is genuinely "standard" and your typical game just has LoW running around... it'll probably be after 40k has become something I no longer enjoy I would have quit by then.

The reason I have stuck with 40k is partly the fluff, partly the aesthetic and partly because of the scale of the games, a few dozen infantry and maybe a couple of tanks/small walkers/monstrous creatures. I'm not really in to the behemoth with a few ants running around grabbing objectives style of play.

So...the superheavies (even "light" ones like baneblade) don't fit in a 2000 point game in your eyes, thematically...and the game revolves around them and that's bad....

Yet 1000 point armies featuring abbadon, swarmlord, chapter masters on left and right, etc, are completely fine and fit the scale? and DONT shape the game around them? heck, even Anu'va who is practically useless, cheap and hardly effects the game is out of scale-the dude is the supreme leader of the entire tau empire! what is he doing on the frontline with a handful of fire warriors fighting against random space marines?

I fail to see a semblance of logic here. what IS the "proper scale" of the game? because the games I played never made any sense "scale wise" with anything in it. there are always at the very least the HQs who are almost always fluff-wise far, FAR beyond the place they "should" be in a big war, fighting alongside just a handful of mooks compared to the armies they supposedly command.
Nearly every named HQ and half the unnamed ones fall under the category of "why are you even here"

Is the game in any way less revolving around ANY deathstar in the game? is the farsight bomb, the centurionstar, warlock council, etc NOT centerpieces of the army, and by extension the entire game? do you want to ban these as well?

Can't high AV tanks spammed to take almost all your points render much of your opponents army useless? (IG can have everything except 120 point to be pure tanks) don't termispam do much the same with rendering low AP units nearly useless?


The point is simple, nothing you said in your "why LoW are ill-suited for the scale" actually is unique to them. every single one of them applies to half the things that are actually played, all the time, by everyone, and nobody seems to mind.
I'm quite sure your own armies fall under the very same definitions as well.

Two players talking before a game and deciding whether or not they want to play each...? Whhhhhhattt?? Like two adults? That simply can not and will not do!

Bottom line is this. If you don't like them for what ever reason that you consider is a justification is fine. Just like when I see an irritating individual come up to me an ask for a game my answer is,"Naw man I'm good." But bbut buuuuut you refused him a legal game you say. An I say yup sure did. Didn't want to play him so I didn't.

A WAAC play comes sauntering up with LOW list I usually answer with,"Naw I'm good but thank you." Then usually they are adults and go, "okay cool man." That is all that happens. No sky falling no suspension of first amendment rights to a legal game of 40k...nothing at all happens. But this is the interwebz so we need to be hyper sensitive to situations that almost never happen or are rarely ever confrontational.

I don't play my Tesseract Vault. Why, because a lot of players can not afford to escalate to those levels of units. If they want to go up against it then I will oblige. When I want to run it I ask if it is okay.

But you know that is because I am an adult...

P.S. 40k is a social game and requires you to be you know...social.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Two players talking before a game and deciding whether or not they want to play each...? Whhhhhhattt?? Like two adults? That simply can not and will not do!

P.S. 40k is a social game and requires you to be you know...social.

But the rules don't say you can be an adult, the rules say I get to bring my Reaver Titan!

Also, talk to your opponent and figure out what kind of game you want. If you can't agree, move on to another player and shake the other guys hand anyway.

My free time is too rare to throw away 3 hours to a game I won't enjoy.

Best of luck!