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.

 jasper76 wrote:
Lords of War are liabilities...so of course I play with them!

yup, basically you put all your eggs in a very big basket that will probably blow up given the amount of attention it will get.

There is a significant difference between Lord of War and super heavies. They are not one and the same. Most super heavies are Lords of War, but not all Lords of War are super heavies.

Similarly, there isn't a huge difference between a Morkanaut and an Imperial Knight in terms of their size or role.

Ripetides and Landraiders aren't significantly different in terms of size on the table or point value.

I have played since 3rd edition, and it is laziness that fuels groups to disregard the slot entirely or block all super heavies. Not all LOW or supers are equal. They also do not immediately lead to an unbalanced game. You can find more than enough unbalanced game play in regular games. It is about discussing what you are looking for with your group and moving on from there.

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.

Yes I do, cause they're neat models

 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.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Also as Da Butcha implies, there already is a natural balancing factor for LoWs: terrain.
If you bring one to a cityfight board and cant get decent LoS with it for the majority of the game, its your own fault.

I fully agree with this.
Today I played against a 1500 Ork-army with a Stompa that contained a Big Mek with Da Fixer Uppa and a KFF.

I won because he couldn't target my important units due to LoS, I won on VP's.
But I had nothing that could kill this 12HP model with a 5++ that keeps repairing itself.
The game was all about trying to kill the Stompa while staying away from it.

A game like that can be entertaining if it's one out of ten games, but for me it was the first game in four months.
Perhaps I will field my Tesseract Vault next time to explain why that game wasn't fun for me; maybe he'll understand

WayneTheGame wrote:


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.

Good, I'm glad 7th put the onus on the refusing player to justify why. The anti-LoW people in this thread seem to feel that a valid argument is "I don't like it" or "It doesn't fit into my vision of 40k". Personally I expect a stronger argument from someone refusing to play the core rules.

With the D-nerf the vast majority of LoW are perfectly fine for 40k, whether a PUG or pre-arranged [although I've never played against a Transcendent C'tan, but would like to], and are, if anything, a big liability. It may force you to change your list up a little in order to cater for it, but that's part of being a good general. If the LoW dies early, it's pretty certain the controlling player will lose.

Also, before saying that something is overpowered, I suggest getting in a few games against LoWs rather than basing your decision on internet hysteria. If you have played against LoWs in 7th and find them too powerful and game ruining, then fair enough, but lots of people oppose them without even playing them.

If you have a job, wife, and especially kids, apocalypse games just aren't going to happen. I think it's brilliant that I can use my Warhound Titan now, and I don't care if I win or lose [mostly lose] as long as I can put it on the table and see my baby blow something up.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


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.

Good, I'm glad 7th put the onus on the refusing player to justify why. The anti-LoW people in this thread seem to feel that a valid argument is "I don't like it" or "It doesn't fit into my vision of 40k". Personally I expect a stronger argument from someone refusing to play the core rules.

With the D-nerf the vast majority of LoW are perfectly fine for 40k, whether a PUG or pre-arranged [although I've never played against a Transcendent C'tan, but would like to], and are, if anything, a big liability. It may force you to change your list up a little in order to cater for it, but that's part of being a good general. If the LoW dies early, it's pretty certain the controlling player will lose.

Also, before saying that something is overpowered, I suggest getting in a few games against LoWs rather than basing your decision on internet hysteria. If you have played against LoWs in 7th and find them too powerful and game ruining, then fair enough, but lots of people oppose them without even playing them.

If you have a job, wife, and especially kids, apocalypse games just aren't going to happen. I think it's brilliant that I can use my Warhound Titan now, and I don't care if I win or lose [mostly lose] as long as I can put it on the table and see my baby blow something up.

I don't know, I think for a game made for fun, if you find something un-fun, then you don't have to do it. That's the most valid argument I can find.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


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.

Good, I'm glad 7th put the onus on the refusing player to justify why. The anti-LoW people in this thread seem to feel that a valid argument is "I don't like it" or "It doesn't fit into my vision of 40k". Personally I expect a stronger argument from someone refusing to play the core rules.

With the D-nerf the vast majority of LoW are perfectly fine for 40k, whether a PUG or pre-arranged [although I've never played against a Transcendent C'tan, but would like to], and are, if anything, a big liability. It may force you to change your list up a little in order to cater for it, but that's part of being a good general. If the LoW dies early, it's pretty certain the controlling player will lose.

Also, before saying that something is overpowered, I suggest getting in a few games against LoWs rather than basing your decision on internet hysteria. If you have played against LoWs in 7th and find them too powerful and game ruining, then fair enough, but lots of people oppose them without even playing them.

If you have a job, wife, and especially kids, apocalypse games just aren't going to happen. I think it's brilliant that I can use my Warhound Titan now, and I don't care if I win or lose [mostly lose] as long as I can put it on the table and see my baby blow something up.

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?

 Jaceevoke wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


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.

Good, I'm glad 7th put the onus on the refusing player to justify why. The anti-LoW people in this thread seem to feel that a valid argument is "I don't like it" or "It doesn't fit into my vision of 40k". Personally I expect a stronger argument from someone refusing to play the core rules.

With the D-nerf the vast majority of LoW are perfectly fine for 40k, whether a PUG or pre-arranged [although I've never played against a Transcendent C'tan, but would like to], and are, if anything, a big liability. It may force you to change your list up a little in order to cater for it, but that's part of being a good general. If the LoW dies early, it's pretty certain the controlling player will lose.

Also, before saying that something is overpowered, I suggest getting in a few games against LoWs rather than basing your decision on internet hysteria. If you have played against LoWs in 7th and find them too powerful and game ruining, then fair enough, but lots of people oppose them without even playing them.

If you have a job, wife, and especially kids, apocalypse games just aren't going to happen. I think it's brilliant that I can use my Warhound Titan now, and I don't care if I win or lose [mostly lose] as long as I can put it on the table and see my baby blow something up.

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?

well, they should explain themselves here since it's a discussion forum. In a store I agree with you (even though there are no stores in my country and all the games I play are with friends)

 MWHistorian wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


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.

Good, I'm glad 7th put the onus on the refusing player to justify why. The anti-LoW people in this thread seem to feel that a valid argument is "I don't like it" or "It doesn't fit into my vision of 40k". Personally I expect a stronger argument from someone refusing to play the core rules.

With the D-nerf the vast majority of LoW are perfectly fine for 40k, whether a PUG or pre-arranged [although I've never played against a Transcendent C'tan, but would like to], and are, if anything, a big liability. It may force you to change your list up a little in order to cater for it, but that's part of being a good general. If the LoW dies early, it's pretty certain the controlling player will lose.

Also, before saying that something is overpowered, I suggest getting in a few games against LoWs rather than basing your decision on internet hysteria. If you have played against LoWs in 7th and find them too powerful and game ruining, then fair enough, but lots of people oppose them without even playing them.

If you have a job, wife, and especially kids, apocalypse games just aren't going to happen. I think it's brilliant that I can use my Warhound Titan now, and I don't care if I win or lose [mostly lose] as long as I can put it on the table and see my baby blow something up.

I don't know, I think for a game made for fun, if you find something un-fun, then you don't have to do it. That's the most valid argument I can find.

Well there are logical arguments based on factors such as the size of the game space compared to movement and weapon capability, the variability of possible results with high cost, high capability units, and the difficulty of balancing a game with more opposing principles.

I have a warhound titan. I only use it in friendly games, even though my local escalation league allows taking a LoW. The thing is, so far I've only had moderate success with it. I've never had anyone complain to me about how it was overpowered.

Despite that, I'm against Lords of War being in the basic rules. In friendly games you could usually bring super-heavies anyway, so it doesn't really add anything. On the other hand, allowing them in a competitive scene allows people to abuse the superheavies that are OP.

I think LoW are fine. The stompa featured in the new ork codex is dead killy and even 'arder, but it'll take more than half of your points in a 1500 game, so if you want to play using one, you really have to build around it. That and Destroyer weapons seem to be moving towards melee-only, which I am more than fine with!

I think eventually people will be less worried about facing an army that includes a LoW. GW definitely wants them to become more accepted, since they're moving other units to that slot as well. I realize they're most likely doing this to make more money by selling their large kits, but I honestly couldn't care less: I love the idea behind LoW units and I love playing against them too. I just wanna krump one of each, just so I can tell people I've krumped each LoW at least once before. I need them bragging rights!

 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?

 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?

On your first point I feel, and this is most likely just my line in the sand, that there is a difference between a house-rule (or whatever term fits best) and cheating/breaking the rules. For instance going along with your chess analogy I would not be happy, to say the least, if my opponent decide mid game to break a rule or cheat. But if they were to ask prior to the game starting if they change a rule like say being able to throw their queen to take out a king, I most likely would go with it at least once just to try it out. And if I found that I didn't hate the rule I would probably play that way again with them if it makes them happy.

To answer your question I don't but I'm fine with others doing just that. For instance if I was playing Warmachine/Hordes and my opponent said they didn't want to play with colossal's/gargantuan's or one of the more powerful casters, I'd go along with it if I could. Personally I don't really feel comfortable changing games rules, because I have no training in game design. But what right do I have to impede on someone else enjoyment of the game, if I can still enjoy the game?

 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.

 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?

And this is one of the reasons I left 40k with 7th, because things I don't find fun are now a part of the core game.
As for "is it just 40k?" Well, yes. It is. Other games have better rules that can support such things as super heavy. Warmachine has super heavies but I've never heard of anyone refusing to play against them because they're not over powered and you don't have to build a list just to take one out.

Like LoW or super-heavies, include them in games.

Don't like LoW or super-heavies, don't include them in games.

Play in a public setting, be prepared for people not to care about how you don't like the rules.

Don't like the game, don't fething play it.

Not every single post about questionable 40k rules or FoC shenanigans requires a twenty-seven page explanation as to why people quit 40k.

As for the LoW: I'm stoked that I can use my 140 dollar kit I bought a year ago. I don't care that it's possible to deploy it in a 750 point match, because that's what the rules say. Does it suck for people who don't have one, sure. But that's not my problem, that's theirs.

My issue is not so much that LoW and larger models are balanced or unbalanced. You could probably design a well balanced 20 wound model, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the game.

There used to be requirements where IG couldn't even field a colonel (T3, W3, Ld9) in battles less than 2,000 points. Dominant named characters had similar restrictions at 1000, 1500, or 2000, because it was important for the scale of the game that you didn't have Marneus Calgar leading a scouting force.

The new large base models and the Lords of War simply don't fit the scale and ruleset of 40k. Most of them are copied from the days of Epic 40k, which had streamlined rules and smaller models. The land raider has always been a larger model, and in game turns it has 4 hull points to a leman russ' 3 hull points. But the baneblade has 12 hull points and is more than four times the size of the leman russ! The wraithknight and riptide are three times the size of a wraithlord! You put those things on the table and they look like a joke, you have to remove entire pieces of terrain (since they all have ignore cover anyways) or else they fall over. The game turns into one player lining up a bubble around the monster and pouring fire into it. That might make for a good movie scene in Godzilla or Pacific Rim, but in gameplay it's just a chore.

 TheSilo wrote:
My issue is not so much that LoW and larger models are balanced or unbalanced. You could probably design a well balanced 20 wound model, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the game.

There used to be requirements where IG couldn't even field a colonel (T3, W3, Ld9) in battles less than 2,000 points. Dominant named characters had similar restrictions at 1000, 1500, or 2000, because it was important for the scale of the game that you didn't have Marneus Calgar leading a scouting force.

The new large base models and the Lords of War simply don't fit the scale and ruleset of 40k. Most of them are copied from the days of Epic 40k, which had streamlined rules and smaller models. The land raider has always been a larger model, and in game turns it has 4 hull points to a leman russ' 3 hull points. But the baneblade has 12 hull points and is more than four times the size of the leman russ! The wraithknight and riptide are three times the size of a wraithlord! You put those things on the table and they look like a joke, you have to remove entire pieces of terrain (since they all have ignore cover anyways) or else they fall over. The game turns into one player lining up a bubble around the monster and pouring fire into it. That might make for a good movie scene in Godzilla or Pacific Rim, but in gameplay it's just a chore.

My previous post aside, I remember those rules, and liked them very much. It certainly made more sense to see a restriction on say, Calgar to a 1500/2k point game rather than "FIELD HIM WHENEVER TO SMITE THE ENEMIES OF THE IMPERIUM AND FORGE A NARRATIVE."

If a LoW (even a Tranny C'Tan) takes out half your army in the first turn; then you sir Fail at deployment.

Lets take HIM for example. (assume Initaitive was stolen by crons)
Tranny moves up 18" going over say 1 tank and 2 guys in a unit.... (Im no math hammerer; but they've probably had it.)
During shooting phase he drops flamestorm D on another tank and 7 dudes (tank and @ 5 guys croaked)... then fires the 6D6 shots at a large unit (quite possibly wiping it)...
So that's around 2 tanks and 12 dudes... Is that half your army at 1850? Of course; IF you deploy like a smart player, you'll start in the back of your deployment zone when you see something like a Tranny in a list.

Ive played with the Tranny.... Hell; I played a Tranny AND a VAULT in an 1850 list.... (lost both LoWs 2 out of 3 games *still got 1st*)
They are Expensive in points and cash... rightly so.

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Some of them aren't any issue. If you can deal with 3 Leman Russ tanks, a Baneblade won't present any greater threat or challenge.

Except 3 Leman Russes have 9 HPs while a Baneblade has 12 and better armor. Also, the firepower of 3 non-Pask Russes is less than that of one Baneblade.

Yeah, but Baneblades cost more than three Leman Russ tanks put together and have the problem of all of your eggs being in one basket. If the Baneblade goes down, which it will if your opponent has any sense, that's a lot of points gone. If your Leman Russ dies... who cares? You should have at least 4 more.

That said I'll be definitely be fielding one. I want to field my Baneblade damn it. Big Fat Meanie hasn't seen any action at all and I've had her for half a year.

 TheSilo wrote:
My issue is not so much that LoW and larger models are balanced or unbalanced. You could probably design a well balanced 20 wound model, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the game.

There used to be requirements where IG couldn't even field a colonel (T3, W3, Ld9) in battles less than 2,000 points. Dominant named characters had similar restrictions at 1000, 1500, or 2000, because it was important for the scale of the game that you didn't have Marneus Calgar leading a scouting force.

At least the argument has moved beyond "I don't like it so I won't play it" [I, literally, cannot argue with that logic ] 40k/Rogue Trader started off as a skirmish game. It gradually grew bigger and bigger, adding in larger units. Recently they added flyers [which, apparently, were going to break the game], and then superheavies. The game has evolved, and you can either pretend it hasn't [I would suggest playing an earlier edition rather than forcing others to adhere to your idea of the rules] or move with the times.

There's a fallacy being perpetuated on these forums that it's really difficult to have a game of 40k because of the need to establish a contract of which rules to play. If this situation does exist at all, it's only because, for whatever reason [I would suggest the fact that the game has been around so long coupled with the influence of internet forums] some people pick and choose what rules to play. It's really simple to arrange a game, just play the rules in the rule book.

It's no fallacy, we've had to take steps at our club in order to to try and maintain some semblance of parity between the younger players with limited experience and model collections and those who are decidedly keen on winning, and have full time incomes and little to spend it on.

Trying to keep the game fun for everyone, to maintain the club and it's long term survival by keeping people interested via not getting kerb stomped every other week and simultaneously trying to allow people the freedom to do their hobby the way they want is a fething nightmare.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
My issue is not so much that LoW and larger models are balanced or unbalanced. You could probably design a well balanced 20 wound model, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the game.

There used to be requirements where IG couldn't even field a colonel (T3, W3, Ld9) in battles less than 2,000 points. Dominant named characters had similar restrictions at 1000, 1500, or 2000, because it was important for the scale of the game that you didn't have Marneus Calgar leading a scouting force.

At least the argument has moved beyond "I don't like it so I won't play it" [I, literally, cannot argue with that logic ] 40k/Rogue Trader started off as a skirmish game. It gradually grew bigger and bigger, adding in larger units. Recently they added flyers [which, apparently, were going to break the game], and then superheavies. The game has evolved, and you can either pretend it hasn't [I would suggest playing an earlier edition rather than forcing others to adhere to your idea of the rules] or move with the times.

There's a fallacy being perpetuated on these forums that it's really difficult to have a game of 40k because of the need to establish a contract of which rules to play. If this situation does exist at all, it's only because, for whatever reason [I would suggest the fact that the game has been around so long coupled with the influence of internet forums] some people pick and choose what rules to play. It's really simple to arrange a game, just play the rules in the rule book.

As a separate issue, I've never played a game of 40k that had fewer than three rules disputes, so it's not as simple as "just play the rules in the rule book." Of course you can find a friend and make up your own rules, you could play a real time strategy game with pennies, you could shoot spitballs at the models instead of rolling...you can do anything you want. But we have an agreed upon ruleset precisely because it is meant to enable people to show up and have a good time.

When first introduced, flyers did break the game. They were incredibly awkward to use, flying in during the opponent's shooting phase, getting shot at before starting their strafing run, and flying off to return and do the same in the following enemy turn. You had imperial marauders dropping ten blast templates in a turn. They were goofy. Since then they've basically been turned into specialized skimmers, much more like the original rules before flyers, and work decently well. I think most of the flyers are a little too large on the table, they're unwieldy to move and transport, but overall they're reasonable additions. Superheavies were added at the same time, with the original Imperial Armour book, and they have always been an oddball in the game, introducing very complicated rules for a single model, and never really finding a place on the table. Even if I were interested in buying and fielding flyers or superheavies, I am physically prohibited because I take the subway to my local store (not having a car). Point is, we're at a point where there are models people can't field because they literally don't fit into a bag any more.

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.

 TheSilo wrote:
I don't understand the proliferation of massive models and lords of war. I started in 3rd, and at that time you would once in a while get a glimpse in White Dwarf of a custom built titan set up for Games Day or a Thunderhawk as part of a diorama. But nowadays people are trying to field these things in regular 40k battles, not just 30,000 point megabattles. And frankly, I don't get it. Imperial Knights, Wraith Knights, Riptides, Baneblades...these things barely fit onto the table, they don't seem to fit into 40k the game. Is it really fun to carry around one massive tank to the store, put it on the table, roll the die, and then pick it up again having never moved it? There's no strategy in it.

It's the same reason why it's more fun when Rogue Squadron didn't let you play as the Death Star. When Battlefield 1942 didn't let you fly the Enola Gay. When people take these massive point sinks, the game stops being a battle and becomes an arcade game.

Well I don't see the point myself. Play apocalypse. thats where they belong. It just does. Warhammer 40K is like fighting a conventional war. Once it goes nuclear i mean... Only the Enola Gay matters really as a target.

 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.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


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.

Good, I'm glad 7th put the onus on the refusing player to justify why. The anti-LoW people in this thread seem to feel that a valid argument is "I don't like it" or "It doesn't fit into my vision of 40k". Personally I expect a stronger argument from someone refusing to play the core rules.

With the D-nerf the vast majority of LoW are perfectly fine for 40k, whether a PUG or pre-arranged [although I've never played against a Transcendent C'tan, but would like to], and are, if anything, a big liability. It may force you to change your list up a little in order to cater for it, but that's part of being a good general. If the LoW dies early, it's pretty certain the controlling player will lose.

Also, before saying that something is overpowered, I suggest getting in a few games against LoWs rather than basing your decision on internet hysteria. If you have played against LoWs in 7th and find them too powerful and game ruining, then fair enough, but lots of people oppose them without even playing them.

If you have a job, wife, and especially kids, apocalypse games just aren't going to happen. I think it's brilliant that I can use my Warhound Titan now, and I don't care if I win or lose [mostly lose] as long as I can put it on the table and see my baby blow something up.

Exactly.

People whine as a natural rule. I don't want to play a super heavy every game. But if someone has one and wants to play it, whatever, go for it. You bought, assembled, and painted it, enjoy.

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. Trying to run down his jump-jet riptide with my guardsmen was the opposite of fun.

 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)