Do you play with Lords of War?

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.

**Wayniac**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The problem now is that rather than choosing to include that sort of thing in a game, you have to talk about excluding it.

I think this about sums up one of the major issues. Usually, you have a standard set of core rules and then have extras that you can pick. 40k has the opposite approach: Include everything and put the burden on you for denying it. It's a known fact that it's often harder to exclude something than include it, because excluding something that already is included puts more emphasis on why that thing should be excluded since the default is to have it included.

Add in things like making Ghazghkull a LoW and it becomes a very slippery slope (if you exclude LoWs, you exclude Ghazghkull, if you allow Ghazghkull then you allow LoW), which I honestly think is done on purpose to further blur the line and get LoWs to be accepted in normal games.

**Wayniac**

zephoid wrote:
LoW just bring another level of power to a game that is already too strong on the alpha strike. If i take out my lynx i can kill nearly half an army on the first turn with the TL Sonic Lance. Is that fun for me? No, i just fired a hellstorm template. Is it fun for them? No, they lost nearly half their army. Everything that was wrong with taking 5 riptide lists is encompassed by taking a Stormsword (less range and more vulnerable, but MUCH cheaper).

When they were FW rules and you needed permission to use them, it was them asking permission to use it. Few would flat out refuse except when taking obviously OP units. Now that they are part of the game, you have to be the 'bad guy' when you refuse to play against LoWs.

40k is getting more complex as the editions go on. But is that complexity improving the game? Not really. 40k used to be a pretty set game, then you added in FW units if you wanted to spice things up. Now you have allies, multiple FOCs, summoning, detachments, suppliments, LoWs, unbound armies, ect. Does ANY of that improve the game in ways that 4th or 5th edition couldn't already do in friendly games? No. It just makes the game that much more broken for any type of competitive play. Not to say that 40k has ever been balanced, but at least you used to be able to develop tactics to fight x army. Now you can play the game with a half dozen different factions in one 'army'. It can go from horridly bad to broken beyond your wildest dreams. But, as was inevitable, mixing and matching the best of armies turns out to make competitive play incredibly un-fluffy. Not to mention Eldar summoning Slaanesh demons and stupidity like that. It just seems GW has given up even trying to write a balanced ruleset and just said 'feth it, throw it all in and leave it'. Thats my take on 7th.

Exalted. This in a nutshell. If you refuse something that's normally allowed, it makes *YOU* the "bad guy" for refusing something legal; at that rate might as well refuse to play Tau or Daemons or whatever broken thing is out there. Options should have remained just that, options to be used in special scenarios or large battles. They didn't need to be thrown into the main book as something that is okay for regular games.

**Wayniac**

tyrannosaurus wrote:
Jaceevoke wrote:
Why should anyone have to explain themselves to you, or anyone in general, about why they don't want to do something? Thats something I just will never understand, why people think they have the right to force someone to explain themselves. If someone doesn't want to play a game with you, or play it the way you want it to be played they are well within their rights regardless of their reason. I run LoW's a lot in my lists, and when someone says they don't want to play against it I'm fine with it. If they try to explain why, I just tell them I don't care, I have no right to judge them so why should they feel the need to justify themselves?

It's not that simple, as they are breaking the rules of the game. When someone breaks the rules of the game I feel they need to justify themselves. If you were playing chess and your opponent threw his queen at your king to knock it over, you would probably want an explanation. Similarly, refusing to follow the published FOC is breaking the rules.

I'd also like to ask [and this is directed at all those happy to refuse to play against LoW] If you play other games, do you take the same attitude into those, or is it just 40k where you feel comfortable picking and choosing which rules you follow?

Most other games don't have the huge imbalance that 40k does. If you play someone with a Colossal or Gargantuan in Warmahordes, it's not going to obliterate half your army on the first turn because it's superpowered. 40k needs these kinds of discussions because in most cases dropping a LoW on the table determines the outcome of the game.

**Wayniac**

TheSilo wrote:
My point is not about balance, it's about whether these models contribute to the game. Are they fun? Do they increase the narrative immersion? Do they inhibit casual gamers? Without any restrictions they hurt the 40k experience, and there's plenty of precedent and experience with reasonable restrictions that would improve everyone's overall experience. Just limit the larger models and LoW to battles of 2,500 points or more. It's an easy fix and prevents casual and younger gamers from getting alienated by someone showing up and plopping a warhound titan on the table.

Pretty much this. My very first game of 40k, back in 2nd edition circa 1996 or 1997, was against someone playing Space Wolves with a Warhound Titan which in those days weren't even official as they were made by Armorcast; being a newbie I believed the guy I questioned if it was legal and he said something like "Of course it's legal, they give you a datafax". It was not a fun game having my regular Space Marines wiped out by the Vulcan Cannons and whatever else the Warhound could do (to say nothing of the 2nd edition Space Wolf cheese with Assault Cannon + Cyclone Missile Launcher Wolfguard Terminators). It nearly soured me on playing completely; I just never played that guy again. IIRC I told the store owner that I wasn't thinking of playing again (the guy was supposed to be running the store's 40k nights) and when he asked why I basically stated that playing something like that isn't fun or enjoyable.

That was nearly 20 years ago, and is still true today. That crap belongs in Epic and large games, not any old battle just because it has rules.

**Wayniac**

TheSilo wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
TheSilo wrote:
My point is not about balance, it's about whether these models contribute to the game. Are they fun? Do they increase the narrative immersion? Do they inhibit casual gamers? Without any restrictions they hurt the 40k experience, and there's plenty of precedent and experience with reasonable restrictions that would improve everyone's overall experience. Just limit the larger models and LoW to battles of 2,500 points or more. It's an easy fix and prevents casual and younger gamers from getting alienated by someone showing up and plopping a warhound titan on the table.

Pretty much this. My very first game of 40k, back in 2nd edition circa 1996 or 1997, was against someone playing Space Wolves with a Warhound Titan which in those days weren't even official as they were made by Armorcast; being a newbie I believed the guy I questioned if it was legal and he said something like "Of course it's legal, they give you a datafax". It was not a fun game having my regular Space Marines wiped out by the Vulcan Cannons and whatever else the Warhound could do (to say nothing of the 2nd edition Space Wolf cheese with Assault Cannon + Cyclone Missile Launcher Wolfguard Terminators). It nearly soured me on playing completely; I just never played that guy again. IIRC I told the store owner that I wasn't thinking of playing again (the guy was supposed to be running the store's 40k nights) and when he asked why I basically stated that playing something like that isn't fun or enjoyable.

That was nearly 20 years ago, and is still true today. That crap belongs in Epic and large games, not any old battle just because it has rules.

Just the other day I was playing a 750 point mission against the Tau. The guy played a riptide and a Farsight Bomb.

Yes, and that shows that GW can't balance worth crap, but has nothing to do with Lords of War. The Riptide is undercosted and OP, and Deathstars in general are garbage. If the game was balanced better they wouldn't be a problem, but they're nothing compared to most LoWs (which are also way OP and unbalanced)

**Wayniac**

gmaleron wrote:
Then don't play the game if this bothers you so much, Tyrannosaurs is right when he says they are in the core rules and just because you don't like it you really don't have a leg to stand on when you tell people that you dont want to play it. Also if you are ever entering a tournament or even a game store, and you need to be prepared to potentially fight this because it is in the core rules, I respect your opinion, just realize that it may adversely affect you more often than not as you may come off as TFG if you give the argument of "they don't belong in standard 40k games". Instead of just saying that, adapt to the New World Edition off the game and learn to beat it because it's not going away.

While your argument is technically valid, you are basically demonstrating why it's a bad thing and why GW was fething stupid to ever put it in the core rules to begin with. It was done deliberately to "force" acceptance of LoWs in standard games of 40k, for exactly the reason you're so vehemently arguing.

Your argument isn't helping your cause, despite being factually correct.

**Wayniac**

tyrannosaurus wrote:
I find this attitude towards the rules very strange. For some reason 40k players have assumed the right to choose which rules to follow. However when playing other games it seems the rules are sacrosanct. All of the issues surrounding PUGs have been artificially created by those who, for whatever reason, refuse to adhere to the rules.

Follow the rules. No problems.

Maybe if 40k's rules were balanced. Other games, in case you haven't noticed, don't have gross imbalances between units so that if you take a LOW you can smash half an enemy's army because the LOW is that powerful. 40k is the only game where the rules are so bloated, so broken and so unbalanced that if you play it as written you open the floodgates to anything and everything and can have a fun game or 4 hours of garbage.

The reason other games have rules that are "sacrosanct" is because those games are balanced, so you don't need to ban things or modify the rules to make things fair.

**Wayniac**

Sir Arun wrote:
Its funny how you cant go by the "if it's not in the codex, I wont be playing against it" either.

Sure, while the rules for Baneblades and Warhounds are in Escalation, the rules for the 800 point stompa are in the new Ork codex...and by that logic you will also deny an Ork player a game if he wants to just play with a looted wagon. Clever, GW

That's mostly why I don't like LoWs, they've played it so that some LoWs are decent, and some are OP, but the line between them is blurred so the person who doesn't want to play against a Stompa or a Titan looks like TFG for banning LoW because it screws over the guy doing a fluffy Goff army with Ghazghkull

**Wayniac**

40k is meant to be a "social game" that you agree beforehand with your opponent what type of game you want and what you want to use, so saying "It's in the rules" really doesn't mean much because GW's rules are, more than any other game out there right now barring perhaps some of the more abstract historical rules, basically just a set of guidelines. Otherwise, some rules don't even work or make sense (see psychic powers) so you have to clarify things. 40k is unique among games as you're basically required to talk with your opponent before the game to make sure you both have the same expectations and that the game isn't going to be one-sided where one or more person doesn't have any fun.

Are LoW in legal books? Yes. Should you play one "Just because" without letting your opponent know? Likely not. Is your opponent TFG for refusing to play with you because you did the above? Maybe. Are *you* TFG for trying to bully them into accepting a Lord of War just because "it's in the rules"? Yes.

**Wayniac**

TheSilo wrote:
This game is based on the consent of both players, not the wishes of one player.

Exactly this. It doesn't matter what "the rules" say if you're being a donkey cave about it; your opponent isn't obligated to play with what you field. As azrael13 said this ultimately circles back to the fact in 40k not all choices are balanced (ergo someone doesn't want to waste time playing a lopsided game) and 40k alone requires you to have these kinds of discussions with your opponent due to the chance of having a lopsided game being no fun for either party.

People seem to wonder why every 40k discussion ultimately ends with GW hatred and/or a discussion on balance; this is why. Everything ultimately stems from the fact that balance isn't paid any attention in 40k, and as a result you need to sit down and talk with your opponent about the kind of game you want to determine if anything you field might lessen the enjoyment either of you have, all of which ultimately lies on GW's shoulders. Whenever you wonder why there seems to be so much GW hatred and why people always "hijack" threads to talk about balance, look to this thread as the reason why.

**Wayniac**

Kilkrazy wrote:
For making them "mandatory" in the core rulebook.

Everyone was happy when they were in Apocalypse. People who wanted to play with them bought Apocalypse and played Apocalypse games. People who didn't want to play with them didn't.

I disagree with the new system because I think it is a bad policy of game design, not just for toeraggery.

This. The problem isn't superheavies, it's making superheavies anything but optional "opponent's permission" (and I liked when special characters were permission only, too) because of what this thread has illustrated: It makes it harder to get rid of them, when they unbalance the game. Couple that with bullgak like making some special characters LoW and you blur the line even more, to where now you can't just say ban LoW because what if somebody has a fluffy Goff army with Ghazghkull? Okay so you allow Ghaz but not titans, that makes you biased.

I really think that decisions such as making some characters LoW was a deliberate atempt to ingrain the idea that LoW are allowed for regular games, because of what I said above. It's now much harder to justify banning them as either you ban them outright or ban some but not others and once you get to that line, what's to stop you from saying no Riptides? No Wraithlords? No flyers? No Space Marines or Eldar or Tau?

That was just what GW wanted; to make people who want to ban overpowered, unbalanced things from the game appear to be the bad guy. Before, it was reasonable to agree no flyers or superheavies, because they unbalanced the game. Now both of those things are in the core rules, so it's about as reasonable as saying that you hate Dark Eldar so you won't play against them, or ATSKNF is broken so you won't play against Marines. Just another example of GW's kitchen sink and "Anything you buy you should be able to use in a game" mentality.

**Wayniac**

ausYenLoWang wrote:
how the hell were you "reasonably" allowed to ban flyers at any point? When did this happen? i must have missed a whole section of 6th ed?

Before 6th edition IIRC they were optional in a supplement, just like Escalation/LoW was.

**Wayniac**

MWHistorian wrote:
LOW weren't popular for several reasons, one of them being that many players didn't like playing with or against them. But they were always optional before. Now that they're in the core books and as optional as tac squads, it means an aspect of the game that many players don't find fun is a larger part of the game, so the game itself becomes unfun. You have three choices.
1. You can play anyways at a diminished level of enjoyment.
2. Refuse to play against LOW and look like TFG.
3. Stop playing 40k and find a game that fits better with what you find enjoyable.

I'm not the only one to choose option 3 and GW really needs to take a long look at that.

Exalted. This is exactly it. You can do #1 and "deal with it", or do #2 and look like the jerk for refusing to play with a "core" part of the game; as I said this whole LoW are core thing is I think deliberate to blur the line and make it harder to ban things, because if you ban one core thing you can ban any core thing, and that can get silly e.g. saying "I don't think superheavies belong in standard games of 40k" is now just as stupid as saying "I don't like Tau and refuse to play them". People who didn't think that superheavies belong in the scale of a typical 40k game (i.e. NOT 28mm Epic) can now be told to suck it up, because GW says that superheavies *do* belong in any size game.

**Wayniac**

An option means something that is not allowed by default. LoW are no longer an "option" because other than the fact that you don't have to play anyone for any reason in a 2-player game, they are now "included by default" and not an option.

For myself and a lot of people, it's not even necessarily the idea that LOW are overpowered (although some are), it's the fact that LOW represent the shift of 40k to something we don't like. I remember when 40k was a platoon/company level game, and Titans had no place except MAYBE for some huge Games Day-esque mega battle (I recall one WD had a picture of a scratch-built Warlord Titan for some Heresy type of mega battle). Now, those of us who prefer 40k to be a company-level game are told to shut up and deal with the guy who goes and buys a titan and then wants to use it.

**Wayniac**

Baragash wrote:
In principle I'm in favour of fliers, LoW, fortifications and probably whatever else wants to be thrown in.

For me the problem is that 40k at it's core is a skirmish game trying to pretend it's a battle game. Not only that, it's a skirmish game built on rules that never conceived of units of this scale at their inception. Consequently, trying to fit these "epic" units into the game effectively means dropping in a load of units turned up to 11 in a game that only runs to 10 ("D" is basically a S>10 concept).

If GW built rules appropriate to the scale of game* they want us to buy models for, I suspect there would be less resistance to these units amongst the player base.

*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*

Exactly this. A large-scale game doesn't need the level of minutiae that 40k has, while a skirmish/company level game does. 40k has basically shoehorned large battles into a rulesset that isn't designed for them, and wonder why there's an issue.

**Wayniac**

For me here's the gist of the problem.

Before: Someone wanting to field a LoW had to ask permission to do so, and risked being TFG if they demanded to be able to play one just because they bought it, because LoW were an optional extra that could be used if both players wanted, but easily removed and ignored from the game.

Now: Someone wanting to field a LoW can do so whenever they want, and the person who doesn't like playing against LoWs risks being TFG if they refuse to play, because LoW are a core part of the rules and refusing to play them is about the same as refusing to play Eldar, or Tau, or Space Marines i.e. you can refuse to play anyone for any reason, but run the risk of being the jerk for doing so. LoWs can't as easily be removed and ignored from the game (see: Ghazghkull as a LoW).

That's the gist of the problem. On the surface it might look like more options, but it's really not. It legitimized the stance of the people that wanted to field LoWs in ordinary (read: non-Apoc) games and took a dump on the people who felt that LoW didn't belong in the scale that normal games of 40k are meant to represent.

In 7th edition, refusing to play against a Lord of War is no different than saying "I don't like Tau" or "Eldar are OP", which is borderline ridiculous, when before refusing to play against a LoW was saying "I don't think these belong in the scale that 40k represents", which was generally reasonable.

**Wayniac**

@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"?

**Wayniac**

Jaceevoke wrote:
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.

**Wayniac**

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.

**Wayniac**

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.

**Wayniac**

Xerics wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
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.

**Wayniac**

MWHistorian wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:

It's not hypothetical, LOW being included in the game is one of several reasons I left 40k.

Yes and you've been quite adept at dodging the question I've asked you 4 times in this thread. Which is why I dismiss the relevance of your quitting relating to LOW

Sorry, I've only been checking on and off with my phone. Ask me the question again and I'll do my best to answer it.

Have you played against a LOW in 7th?

No. I didn't like them in 6th (not due to power levels, that's a problem that's across the board.) and now they're more accepted. When I saw that something I didn't like becoming more common (like Knight armies) I realized that the game was becoming something I didn't want to play. Some people would love it, and that's fine. I think its a polarizing move on GW's part but you're not right or wrong for liking LOW.
They're fun once in a while for special occasions, but I rely on pickup games and I don't find fighting them to be my idea of a fun game.

Ah ha! You've played right into his trap! Now your argument is dismissed because you haven't played against one, so you cannot say that it's a bad thing to have in the game, ergo your argument is dismissed since you can't back it up with facts. That's the normal comeback.

(insert Yu-gi-oh "You've activated my trap card!" meme)

**Wayniac**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
I know right, I forgot this is the internet, where you dont have to know what you're talking about as long as others agree with you

Though it did confirm that the statement was due to a hypothetical than actual experience with said unit(s) in question.

You can't read the rules or look at them and know that you don't like it? Must have experience?

**Wayniac**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Well then we'd get in the situation where people would comlain they have to keep even more sets of rules around if everything was broken into optional supplements.

And then the same arguments of "I want to use my Flyer supplement, I want to use my LOW supplement, I want to use my Monstrous Creature Supplement" etc, would pop up if everything was modular and there were very basic core rules.

I still feel having everything in one source is the better way to go.

I disagree; I find it better overall to ask to use Flyers, LoW etc, than to have them included by default and have to have someone ask to not use them.

**Wayniac**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
kronk wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:

I would prefer to play with like-minded people than having others have arbitrary control over what I find fun.

So does EVERYONE in this thread. That isn't unique to your position.

We all have different ideas about what's fun.

True, but at what point is it ok for one persons idea of 'fun' to trump another person's idea of 'fun'. Or are people incapable of negotiating something both would find 'fun'?

Negotiating is part of the issue IMO; no other wargame requires the level of negotiation that 40k does. Most games you just set a point limit and know that whatever you do is going to be likely balanced. 40k though, you have Flyers, LoWs, Fortifications, casual or competitive, etc. all these extra things that you need to agree on to make sure you have a fun game. It seems like you'd need a checklist to give to prospective opponents:

1) Do you want to play casually or competitive? [ ] Casual [ ] Competitive
2) Do you want to play with Lords of War/Escalation? [ ] Yes [ ] No
3) Do you want to play with Flyers? [ ] Yes [ ] No

and so on to make sure that you or your opponent are playing games that are mutually agreeable.

**Wayniac**

NecronLord3 wrote:
A member of our group came up with a check list for pickup games:

1. How many points?
2. Unbound armies or battleforged only?
3. Will we allow multiple primary detachments?
4. Will we allow multiple allied detachments?
5. Are data slates legal?
6. If so, which ones- formations? Characters? Tetrain?
7. Lords of war?
8. If so, which ones?
9. Allies- will we allow come the apocalypse to ally?
10. Psychic phase- will we comp war charges or powers? If so which ones and how?
11. What set of faqs will we follow?
12. Terrain- will we still use area terrain?
13. Strong point assault- yes or no?
14. Which fortifications and pieces of terrain from strong point assault are legal if so?
15. Which set of supplemental terrain rules from strong point assault will we use?
16. Then finally are you willing to play X army?
17. Random mission out of the book?
18. Are you willing to play maelstrom missions?

Read more: http://warhammer40knwi.hyperboards.com/action/view_topic/topic_id/1774#ixzz38Vc8Bab6

And IMO the fact 40k is the only "wargame" that needs such a thing is the most distressing thing of all.