Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 gmaleron wrote:
Why is another thread like this still up? Really people I dont care how much you hate the idea of LoW, get over it they are in the game and they are not going anywhere. Just because you do not like it doesnt mean another player should be forced to change up their list or what models they want because you say so.

So the other player should play a game he would get absolutely no enjoyment in playing? Regardless, the actual written rules are clear. Both players have an equal say in how the armies are chosen and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models being used. If both players can't agree, then they both walk away and no one is more at fault than the other. Just stop pretending that the rulebook says that you get to take whatever you want and your opponent can't do anything about it because the rules say otherwise.

If someone showed up to a pick up game with a reaver, I'd politely tell him "no thanks" and look for another game. Neither of us is wrong, it's just that that's not the kind of game I find enjoyable and my time's too precious to spend playing a game I don't enjoy.

well is that player turning up to the FLGS with a TAC style list, or some list like the affore mentioned necron CC army.

if your bringing a very specific list you should have pre arranged your game.

IF you have a TAC army, well that A in the middle is for ALL. and if i was turning up to a FLGS etc with the intent on a random game with random players and random armies guess what id be taking. a list that should be fun against anything.

now we know there is a couple of SH that are in the light atm. Reaver, revenant, Ctan. but outside of them, none are particulary obnoxious. and TAC lists should be able to deal with them.

So im sorry if my TAC list with a converted CSM baneblade, or fellblade or my warhound (without turbolasers) somehow disturbs your idea of what should not be, but if you want i can swap any one of them for 3 helldrakes or other obnoxios lists that are just as legal.

so for me, if your bringing a bad list that is designed to take on something particular, make sure you have your single opponent lined up. or make your list more open and varied


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
If someone showed up to a pick up game with a reaver, I'd politely tell him "no thanks" and look for another game. Neither of us is wrong, it's just that that's not the kind of game I find enjoyable and my time's too precious to spend playing a game I don't enjoy.

just want to mention here, those that think a 1500 pt game against a reaver will take 3 hours... not likely, youll either kill it, be killed by it, or out manouver it in very short time. and their turn would be really quick

 Ghaz wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
Why is another thread like this still up? Really people I dont care how much you hate the idea of LoW, get over it they are in the game and they are not going anywhere. Just because you do not like it doesnt mean another player should be forced to change up their list or what models they want because you say so.

So the other player should play a game he would get absolutely no enjoyment in playing? Regardless, the actual written rules are clear. Both players have an equal say in how the armies are chosen and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models being used. If both players can't agree, then they both walk away and no one is more at fault than the other. Just stop pretending that the rulebook says that you get to take whatever you want and your opponent can't do anything about it because the rules say otherwise.

If you read my whole post you would see that I actually said that it was a friendly game you can do exactly what you just said. please be sure to include all information instead of nitpicking, I am only saying that in regards to people who refuse it based on personal reasons.rules wise it doesn't matter, you can take a Lord of War if you choose to, whether you agree on it or not is up to you and your opponent. the same can be said in regards to the person you're facing, it's not fair for him to always have to do what you want in a game.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
well is that player turning up to the FLGS with a TAC style list, or some list like the affore mentioned necron CC army.

if your bringing a very specific list you should have pre arranged your game.

IF you have a TAC army, well that A in the middle is for ALL. and if i was turning up to a FLGS etc with the intent on a random game with random players and random armies guess what id be taking. a list that should be fun against anything.

now we know there is a couple of SH that are in the light atm. Reaver, revenant, Ctan. but outside of them, none are particulary obnoxious. and TAC lists should be able to deal with them.

So im sorry if my TAC list with a converted CSM baneblade, or fellblade or my warhound (without turbolasers) somehow disturbs your idea of what should not be, but if you want i can swap any one of them for 3 helldrakes or other obnoxios lists that are just as legal.

so for me, if your bringing a bad list that is designed to take on something particular, make sure you have your single opponent lined up. or make your list more open and varied


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
If someone showed up to a pick up game with a reaver, I'd politely tell him "no thanks" and look for another game. Neither of us is wrong, it's just that that's not the kind of game I find enjoyable and my time's too precious to spend playing a game I don't enjoy.

just want to mention here, those that think a 1500 pt game against a reaver will take 3 hours... not likely, youll either kill it, be killed by it, or out manouver it in very short time. and their turn would be really quick

A waste of time is still a waste of time. Life's too short. (IMO. To each his own.)

 gmaleron wrote:

A single poll that not everybody on here or who plays the game voted on shows that most palyers prefer 4th/5t edition, that is a very small % and should not be taken into account for the majority of 40k players.

Polls don't need to include every single person to have validity. Samples of around 2000 are used and accurately reflect the opinions (within a few percentage points) of nearly 300,000,000 people in the United States during elections. The poll I'm referring to had nearly 700 responses. I'm fairly certain the 40k fanbase isn't remotely near as large as the population of the US and that the sample size is large enough to give a reasonably accuarate response.

Perhaps only a certain group of gamers were drawn to the poll and were oversampled and it means nothing, but other data supports the poll. Dropping sales for GW while other tabletop game companies grow is one example of this. A bunch of people here saying they don't want to play against them, at least not in frequent random games further supports this. There is plenty of evidence tha the game is losing popularity if you care to see it, and one question that should be asked is why? I can tell with certainty that superheavies in normal games is part of that decline.

--

Here's the funny thing about this depate. If two people show up at a game store to play a wargame and one pulls out warmachine and the other pulls out fantasy they don't get mad at each other for wanting to play different games. Different companies and rules and clearly different games. This conversation is basically about the same idea though. The two sides want to play different games. Eliminate super heavies from the game and options that otherwise wouldn't be viable are. Either way somebody doesn't get to use something they want to. That's fine. They like different flavors fo 40k and shouldn't get ticked at each other for wanting to play different flavors. Just move on to someone who likes the same version you do.

--

Refusing to play against tac squads is not the same thing as refusing to play against super heavies. For one thing every single unit in the game that can harm anything can harm tac squads (unless there is some obscure specialty thing out there I don't know about) but not so with superheavies. So a big part of what you want to bring will be useless against one, but not the other. No comparison, but as some have pointed out there may be a good reason not to play against them and there is nothing wrong with saying no thanks to playing against MEQ for the 16th time in a row.

Super Heavies need substantial house ruling in order to integrate them into standard low point level games. GW may have irresponsibly made them legal but the game still breaks if Warhounds start thrashing around in 1850 point games. The games become silly and dumb.

So instead of going back and forth over their legality, how about discussing how you house rule them so that they can be a part of standard games?

If you want to maintain that they are fine as they are and they should not be house ruled and just played as is then the conversation stops here and people simply won't play against super heavies in normal 40k games. There are bad apples in the LoW roster and they have to be dealt with if you actually want to see LoW in standard games.

col_impact wrote:
Super Heavies need substantial house ruling in order to integrate them into standard low point level games. GW may have irresponsibly made them legal but the game still breaks if Warhounds start thrashing around in 1850 point games. The games become silly and dumb.

So instead of going back and forth over their legality, how about discussing how you house rule them so that they can be a part of standard games?

If you want to maintain that they are fine as they are and they should not be house ruled and just played as is then the conversation stops here and people simply won't play against super heavies in normal 40k games. There are bad apples in the LoW roster and they have to be dealt with if you actually want to see LoW in standard games.

to be fair though a NON Turbo laser destructor Warhounds not THAT bad.... and at 750 pts.... that can be locked in combat..

I'm so glad my local meta is a "bring whatever and I'll try to beat it" style of play. The game is much more fun when you allow unbound and super heavies. Everyone brings their best lists and nobody cries about anything being OP. We all realize that if the game is that much of a blowout we should've probably brought a different list. My normal TAC list can handle hordes, reavers and anything in between. I would actually prefer an opponent throw nothing but a reaver down at 1,500. As long as we don't play purge, it will be a quick game and I'll easily win on points. I don't see the difference between asking someone not to bring a reaver and asking someone to bring a better list so they don't get annihilated by any army that isn't fluffy bunny of the year material.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Super Heavies need substantial house ruling in order to integrate them into standard low point level games. GW may have irresponsibly made them legal but the game still breaks if Warhounds start thrashing around in 1850 point games. The games become silly and dumb.

So instead of going back and forth over their legality, how about discussing how you house rule them so that they can be a part of standard games?

If you want to maintain that they are fine as they are and they should not be house ruled and just played as is then the conversation stops here and people simply won't play against super heavies in normal 40k games. There are bad apples in the LoW roster and they have to be dealt with if you actually want to see LoW in standard games.

to be fair though a NON Turbo laser destructor Warhounds not THAT bad.... and at 750 pts.... that can be locked in combat..

So since everyone fields them with turbo laser destructors then you are saying that they indeed are that bad. Are you suggesting that LoW should be house-ruled that certain weapons can't be picked?

They are technically part of the everyday game so in a nuetral environment you may face them. If you dont like them, feel free to ask an opponent to not use it. If they agree, your set. If not, you have the option to not play.
This may affect whether or not you want to join in on tournaments or leagues where they are allowed because in those you are agreeing to play against them by joining if the league or tourney allows them.

Toofast wrote:
. I would actually prefer an opponent throw nothing but a reaver down at 1,500.

Totally agree. A game where three-quarters of your army can do absolutely nothing useful is the best game.

Well the units not able to hurt the reaver could still claim objectives and secondary ones. just a matter of playing towards obliterating the enemy or playing towards winning the objectives.

personally, I preferred when they were optional that were not part of the base game and were instead an optional extra. Of course, that is only my personal preference.
I have seen where this has changed the lay of the land in shops where some players dont play "public" games such as tournies and such near as much while others you rarely saw before are showing up for them much more often. I am one of those you see less now.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, the case is absolutely NOT closed because we're talking about player policies, not RAW. In theory the rules say that you have to agree about everything. In practice what this really means is that a lot of players expect advance notification/begging for permission/etc for certain categories of units/armies (LoW, unbound, etc) but simultaneously expect that if they want to use other categories of units/armies (tactical squads, for example) their opponent is obligated to let them do it and is TFG if they refuse to play.

So did you ever encounter someone that refused to play against Tactical Squads?
It's a bad move when you have to make up random scenarios that never happen if you want to make a point.

1) Why is it your opponent's job to keep track of which awful army you're going to be playing and give you advanced warning so you can bring a terrible list and still have a chance of winning? Shouldn't it be your job to inform your opponent in advance that you want to bring a terrible list and try to find someone willing to accommodate your request?

Because around here we make 'appointments' on a Facebook-group to play with someone, then we travel half an hour to play that guy.
It's not about a chance of winning, it's about playing a normal list and playing against a Reaver Titan.

2) Why don't you expect to face a Reaver titan? It's part of the rules, complaining about not expecting one makes about as much sense as complaining that you didn't expect to face a Rhino.

Only RAW. But in the real world people don't expect a Reaver Titan every single game.
It's not a rule, but it's decent behaviour.
If you bring something of which you know that 9 out of 10 people would want a warning, you simply give them that warning.
Otherwise you're not going to end up making a lot of friends.

It's like going to the cinema.
When you go out, you usually prefer to know which film you are going to see. I don't think anyone prefers a cinema where they only show random movies.

col_impact wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Super Heavies need substantial house ruling in order to integrate them into standard low point level games. GW may have irresponsibly made them legal but the game still breaks if Warhounds start thrashing around in 1850 point games. The games become silly and dumb.

So instead of going back and forth over their legality, how about discussing how you house rule them so that they can be a part of standard games?

If you want to maintain that they are fine as they are and they should not be house ruled and just played as is then the conversation stops here and people simply won't play against super heavies in normal 40k games. There are bad apples in the LoW roster and they have to be dealt with if you actually want to see LoW in standard games.

to be fair though a NON Turbo laser destructor Warhounds not THAT bad.... and at 750 pts.... that can be locked in combat..

So since everyone fields them with turbo laser destructors then you are saying that they indeed are that bad. Are you suggesting that LoW should be house-ruled that certain weapons can't be picked?

i smell an "everyone" here....
i doubt that EVERYONE uses them as such. and you can get better value from a reaver with 8 such shots for less points...

I couldn't care less what people field when we play; I prefer a challenge even if it's so lopsided that I couldn't possibly win. If someone wants to take a Reaver, fine, I'll kill him them the same as if they fielded a whole army. My Guard don't run from a fight.

I can see where people might be offended when someone puts a LoW on the table that isn't Draigo, or Ghaz, or some other random single model former-HQ unit. But in the end, it's your own fault if you build a competitive list that doesn't account for all of the possibilities; don't be upset that someone merely plays differently and beats you.

 Frankenberry wrote:
I prefer a challenge even if it's so lopsided that I couldn't possibly win..

That's not a challenge. It's an exercise in futility.

'Challenge' implies an actual contest.

 insaniak wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
I prefer a challenge even if it's so lopsided that I couldn't possibly win..

That's not a challenge. It's an exercise in futility.

'Challenge' implies an actual contest.

LoW's die just like everything else, why admit defeat before battle is even joined? Who knows, you might actually win. Oh wait, the Mathhammer guys say you'll lose, better not even try.

 Peregrine wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
The BRB tells you that your opponent must agree.
Case closed.

No, the case is absolutely NOT closed because we're talking about player policies, not RAW. In theory the rules say that you have to agree about everything. In practice what this really means is that a lot of players expect advance notification/begging for permission/etc for certain categories of units/armies (LoW, unbound, etc)

In practice what this really means is that you have to accept not everyone is going to find the same things fun as you find fun and you may either have to adapt your list or not play a person... especially if you take things that are more controversial like LoW rather than things that aren't remotely controversial like Tactical Marines.

but simultaneously expect that if they want to use other categories of units/armies (tactical squads, for example) their opponent is obligated to let them do it and is TFG if they refuse to play.

Whether or not you are "TFG" entirely depends on how much whinging and moaning you do. It's entirely possible for 2 people to mutually agree to not play a game without either being "TFG".

1) Why is it your opponent's job to keep track of which awful army you're going to be playing and give you advanced warning so you can bring a terrible list and still have a chance of winning? Shouldn't it be your job to inform your opponent in advance that you want to bring a terrible list and try to find someone willing to accommodate your request?

Why is everything turned into one side vs another? 2 players have to agree on a game that they will find fun. It's as much my job as my opponent's job to do that, sometimes that might involve compromise and sometimes that might involve finding another opponent.

2) Why don't you expect to face a Reaver titan? It's part of the rules, complaining about not expecting one makes about as much sense as complaining that you didn't expect to face a Rhino.

This is just a silly comparison. There are heaps of reasons why expecting to face a Rhino is different to expecting to face a Reaver.

Expecting special advance notice that a LoW will be present is more like demanding advance notice that your opponent will be using a tactical squad.

Except it's nothing alike because anyone playing 40k likely finds a tactical squad acceptable while you know full well lots of people don't find expensive superheavies acceptable.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Except it's nothing alike because anyone playing 40k likely finds a tactical squad acceptable while you know full well lots of people don't find expensive superheavies acceptable.

While tactical squad might be a bit of a stretch, there are many other things some people (on this forum at least) find not acceptable: fliers,mass AV13, more than x Wave Serpents below y points, more than x Rpitides below y points etc. So where do you draw the line?

col_impact wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Super Heavies need substantial house ruling in order to integrate them into standard low point level games. GW may have irresponsibly made them legal but the game still breaks if Warhounds start thrashing around in 1850 point games. The games become silly and dumb.

So instead of going back and forth over their legality, how about discussing how you house rule them so that they can be a part of standard games?

If you want to maintain that they are fine as they are and they should not be house ruled and just played as is then the conversation stops here and people simply won't play against super heavies in normal 40k games. There are bad apples in the LoW roster and they have to be dealt with if you actually want to see LoW in standard games.

to be fair though a NON Turbo laser destructor Warhounds not THAT bad.... and at 750 pts.... that can be locked in combat..

So since everyone fields them with turbo laser destructors then you are saying that they indeed are that bad. Are you suggesting that LoW should be house-ruled that certain weapons can't be picked?

My chaos warhound has a plasma blast gun and vulcan megabolter. Cos both weapons look awesome.

Kangodo wrote:
So did you ever encounter someone that refused to play against Tactical Squads?
It's a bad move when you have to make up random scenarios that never happen if you want to make a point.

Sigh. Would you please read my posts before responding to them? The fact that nobody protests about tactical squads is the whole point! There is near-unanimous agreement that tactical squads are allowed and in the unlikely event that you dare to disagree and refuse to allow your opponent to use them you will instantly be labeled TFG and shunned from the community.

It's not about a chance of winning, it's about playing a normal list and playing against a Reaver Titan.

A list with a Reaver titan IS a normal list. The fact that you don't like how 7th edition works doesn't mean that the "normal" game is one that obeys all of your bizarre house rules about army construction.

But in the real world people don't expect a Reaver Titan every single game.

Well then that's their problem for not understanding how the game works. The Reaver is a legal choice, if you are surprised by one then it's entirely your fault.

When you go out, you usually prefer to know which film you are going to see. I don't think anyone prefers a cinema where they only show random movies.

This analogy fails when you consider the fact that many people do play pickup games of 40k against random opponents.

I just have to say that I had someone refuse to play me because I was running Thousand Sons.

LordBlades wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Except it's nothing alike because anyone playing 40k likely finds a tactical squad acceptable while you know full well lots of people don't find expensive superheavies acceptable.

While tactical squad might be a bit of a stretch, there are many other things some people (on this forum at least) find not acceptable: fliers,mass AV13, more than x Wave Serpents below y points, more than x Rpitides below y points etc. So where do you draw the line?

You don't have to draw a hard line at all. Unless it's a tournament (in which case the "the line" is dictated to you) or you have agreed with your opponent to go in to a game entirely with fixed lists (which, frankly, 40k sucks for such games as much as I wish it didn't).

On this forum we tend to talk in absolutes too much (or at least Peregrine does ). In reality 40k isn't well suited to hard lines, hard stances, hard arguments, etc. It's best if you just discuss with your opponent what you do and don't like.

Some people don't like Riptides in small games, some people don't care, I think it's best to go in with the attitude that you might have to change your list to have a mutually agreeable experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
A list with a Reaver titan IS a normal list. The fact that you don't like how 7th edition works doesn't mean that the "normal" game is one that obeys all of your bizarre house rules about army construction.

These days I don't think there's much point talking about "normal". There's enough people that detest LoW that "normal" in one place is not "normal" in another and it seems to me that GW's capacity to impose "normal" on players is starting to fail.

Deciding you aren't going to play against expensive superheavies in small games may be a house rule, but it's hardly a "bizzare" one. Deciding you aren't going to allow tactical marines would be a "bizzare house rule".

Just because GW makes no distinction on whether a Reaver is allowed versus whether a Rhino is allowed doesn't suddenly mean the community isn't going to make their own distinctions.

If you are going to define "normal", then I'd say "normal" = "agree with your opponent".

It always is saddening to see that people seriously quote a portion of the book that tells them to ask their opponent first if he's interested in playing before starting the game.

I mean, come on people. You need a written rule for that?

Nobody needs to tell his opponent beforehand which list you're running. Why would there be? At the same time, it's perfectly fine to deny playing when facing a certain list, unit or model. For ANY reason actually.

Azoqu wrote:
I just have to say that I had someone refuse to play me because I was running Thousand Sons.

I once had someone refuse to play me because my Space Wolves were Primer Grey and not Space Wolf Grey back in 2nd.

I don't get why people need instructions on how to converse with other people, it's like they'd rather complain.

How to talk to a possible 40k opponent, distilled:

You: Yo, down for some 40k?
Them: Sure. Points?
You: 1250 sounds good.
Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys.
You: Pretty cool stuff man, love the paint. What's that?
Them: Oh, it's a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT. Basically a super-heavy transport.
You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against super-heavy units. Would you mind maybe not fielding it?
Them: Eh, I guess. Let's play.

DONE. Holy crap, people don't have to make an enormous issue about people being TFG's because they want to field the 1200 dollar model they bought and painted. Jesus, it's like people forgot how to be people or something.

I can understand how some people might feel a little hurt when they are told by their prospective opponent "nah, I don't really want to play against that" to their $1000 "investment".

Seriously? People get hurt because someone doesn't want to play a game with them?

Maybe they'd be better suited not interacting with the public then, because let me tell you, it doesn't get any better outside of the FLGS.

All I know for sure is that this thread speaks volumes for the addition of LoW into 40k.