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.

Personally as long as it is kepted toned down i think super heavies like baneblades is fine.

What i absolutely will not play however is that dumb c'tan with double withering wave nonsense. just no bloody way.

 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.

WayneTheGame wrote:


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.

Based upon your response I'm pretty sure you haven't played against a LoW in 7th, Plus, the grossest imbalances are definitely not from LoW, but instead from 'standard' units.

'Fun' is very subjective, but I I think the games I have had most fun with are those I played with my Warhound Titan. They were fairly quick [maybe 15 minutes to complete my turn?], had lots of explosions, and looked amazing on the table.

If you dislike the game so much you feel you have to ban and modify rules, is it really the game for you? Especially if you're forcing your opponent to follow your vision of what 40k should be.

I think just like with other things, players need to communicate. Playing big models IS fun, but only if both parties agree to said models being used. One of my last games was a waste of time for me because he was fielding a Knight, and I wasn't informed, so my list was no prepared for such an inclusion. Had I known, I would have built things to counter it. It was a slaughter, and in the end, I had no fun whatsoever.

Now, of course, he was annoyed that I was annoyed. His excuse was 'Well, I payed for it, I'm going to play it'. And thats not a totally irrational thought. But when you are ruining the experience for the other players, for you're own selfish reasons, then...well...I don't know what to say too you. At least inform your opponent "I plan on using a LoW/Super Heavy'. You don't have to tell me WHICH, but set the expectation I'll be seeing one hit the field.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Since I moved away from my gaming group, I've had to resort to pick up games. The few times I had them, the conversation went something like this.

Want to play a game?
How many points?
Book missions or something else?
Tournament-Competitive, fluffy, something else?
Forge World ok?
Escalation or Stronghold assault?
Cool, let's play.

For this addition, I'd add "No Lords of War, ok?" My answer will be "No thanks". If I miss out on some games because of it, no loss.

How about you both just follow the rules in the rulebook? Surely for PUGs the best thing to do is follow the rules as published?

Beyond the first two questions you're moving into house rule territory which suits regular gaming groups much better than PUGs, and the Forge World and Escalation questions are meaningless as they're part of standard 40k.

I also wanted to address the argument put forward that LoWs have been banned to help protect new entrants to the game. Surely house ruling against LoW and refuding to allow the player to follow the published rules is going to cause more disillusionment than allowing the new player to have a go at taking down a titan? Also, what if the new player has bought, built and painted their own LoW and then turns up excited to find out they can't use it? Finally, having to play against some of the more broken 'normal' units is going to be more frustrating for the new player than playing against the very killable Low?

I don't recall seeing anything in the 7th rulebook about Forgeworld. Can you guide me to that page?

As far as the OP - I'm very torn. The old grognard in me says "NO!" but honestly, I haven't played in a REAL game with any so IDK.

I am very much a "play the rules as is" kind of guy, so our group hasn't modified the maelstrom missions or really modified anything in 7th yet. We are of the stand-point of trying to give the game 6 months or a year of raw (not the acronym) play. In other words, let's see how "broken" the rules actually are before we start to house rule every single little thing. Honestly, so far, I'm loving the game, right out of the box.

 Thud wrote:
Nope.

LoWs are not a part of the game I fell in love with many moons ago, and they're not a part of the game I want to play.

Well... I say LoWs, but if an Ork player wants to use Maggie, I'm not about to say no.

and there's the rub. we can run around saying "no lords of war" but the fact is that as 7th edition continues to roll out we're going to see more Independant HQ characters to become Lords of war. eventually objecting to LoWs is going to be outright rediculas.

BrianDavion wrote:
and there's the rub. we can run around saying "no lords of war" but the fact is that as 7th edition continues to roll out we're going to see more Independant HQ characters to become Lords of war. eventually objecting to LoWs is going to be outright rediculas.

We all know what GW is doing.
"If you don't object to Thrakka, you probably won't object to play against a Stompa!"

But I'm smart, I see through that.
I played against a proxied Stompa, I won the game by VP's and I did not really like/enjoy that game.
I am perfectly fine with LoW's if they are special, sometimes I like to take on a machine that is 60% of your points.
But most games I don't feel like having the entire game based around one Superheavy, hoping to be out of LoS for most of the game.

Maybe it's because I play Blood Angels? I am already feeling punished if I want an enjoyable list.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

How about you both just follow the rules in the rulebook? Surely for PUGs the best thing to do is follow the rules as published?

Because if you do that currently, the whole psychic phase clutches it's chest and falls over.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 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.

So I am wrong for following the rules of the game despite peoples personal feelings on the matter? I do not see this as a bad thing at all and it is not "forcing" anyone to play with Low's because you still have a right to choose wether to play or not so stating I am saying whats "wrong" with this does not make any sense whatsoever. All I am saying is guess what its not going away, and you can refuse it if you want but saying "I don't like it so I should not have to play it" is not a valid argument. As I already stated, instead of complaining about it adapt your strategy to be able to confront if you happen to play it.

 Ravenous D wrote:


For you people defending it, you got to see it as a cash grab, and you must see that people are leaving the hobby in droves. Its your willful ignorance why the hobby is continuing the go that the way it is, you're the sycophants that just take it tell GW they are doing a great job.

So everyone who has a different opinion on the matter is ignorant and your response to it is to label everyone who has one with an ignorant statement...bravo.

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

 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

 Ravenous D wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
From what I have gathered reading this thread is honestly a lot of the same when it comes to FW: We don't like it because it OP, doesn't fit into the game ect. Here is the thing, if you refuse to play someone with a legal list who wants to bring a LoW that he bought, built and painted then YOU are coming off more as TFG then he is. I really do not understand the LoW hate and I am not trying to step on anyones toes here but it seems like the gamers from the older editions are the ones leading the charge. Well guess what, Warhammer like life changes, it evolves and things are added and taken away. You don't have to like it but telling someone "sorry I don't want to play you because you have a LoW and I feel that it ruins the game" does not help your case one bit.

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?

Bingo, that is the problem entirely.

Ive been at this hobby for a long time now and every game Ive seen with super heavies outside of apoc go like this:
1) The super heavy murders everything while the other guy shakes his head at why he bothered to play against it
2) The super heavy blows up turn 1 or 2 and the game is over in 45 minutes leaving both players wondering why they bothered to play with/against it.


That hasn't changed. All the stupid rules (allies, formations, multiple detachments) in 40k really need to be in an optional category or in 3000pts+. The game is already suffering from people sick to death of having games go south from factors they have no control of, super heavies just strain that even more especially now that GW is forcing them on you like it should be accepted, and moving other normal units into the LoW slots to normalize it. They aren't fun, I don't find them fun, they provide no challenge or they are completely over bearing.

For you people defending it, you got to see it as a cash grab, and you must see that people are leaving the hobby in droves. Its your willful ignorance why the hobby is continuing the go that the way it is, you're the sycophants that just take it tell GW they are doing a great job.

this sounds like 5th/6th ed apoc where D weapons were really nasty, 7th wrecked that pretty badly to be honest


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gangrel767 wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Since I moved away from my gaming group, I've had to resort to pick up games. The few times I had them, the conversation went something like this.

Want to play a game?
How many points?
Book missions or something else?
Tournament-Competitive, fluffy, something else?
Forge World ok?
Escalation or Stronghold assault?
Cool, let's play.

For this addition, I'd add "No Lords of War, ok?" My answer will be "No thanks". If I miss out on some games because of it, no loss.

How about you both just follow the rules in the rulebook? Surely for PUGs the best thing to do is follow the rules as published?

Beyond the first two questions you're moving into house rule territory which suits regular gaming groups much better than PUGs, and the Forge World and Escalation questions are meaningless as they're part of standard 40k.

I also wanted to address the argument put forward that LoWs have been banned to help protect new entrants to the game. Surely house ruling against LoW and refuding to allow the player to follow the published rules is going to cause more disillusionment than allowing the new player to have a go at taking down a titan? Also, what if the new player has bought, built and painted their own LoW and then turns up excited to find out they can't use it? Finally, having to play against some of the more broken 'normal' units is going to be more frustrating for the new player than playing against the very killable Low?

I don't recall seeing anything in the 7th rulebook about Forgeworld. Can you guide me to that page?

As far as the OP - I'm very torn. The old grognard in me says "NO!" but honestly, I haven't played in a REAL game with any so IDK.

I am very much a "play the rules as is" kind of guy, so our group hasn't modified the maelstrom missions or really modified anything in 7th yet. We are of the stand-point of trying to give the game 6 months or a year of raw (not the acronym) play. In other words, let's see how "broken" the rules actually are before we start to house rule every single little thing. Honestly, so far, I'm loving the game, right out of the box.

sure for FW being allowed go to the army selection page and it tells you to go to ANY book published by GW.

I'd play against one, and after that specific instance I'd either figure out if I can build an army that can face that specific sorta one, and be fun...or not, and make a decision after that.

No reason to put myself into a corner.

Also...Ghazghkull is one I want to play...and I doubt anyone's going to feel nice about me getting one, and saying no to them gettin one.

That and maybe the new books will have 'playable' LoW that aren't army-balance breaking.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The whole point of GW's approach to providing pic'n'mix rules for forging a narrative is to be able to take whatever bits you want and weave them into your game.

Thus it's fine to reject LoW if you don't like them.

Where does it talk about 'pick & mix' rules in the rulebook? ... ...

Follow the rules. No problems.

It doesn't talk about pic'n'mix in 40K but that clearly is in the spirit of the game. Wargamers have always fiddled with the rules of games if they thought it improved things.

I have no problem with rejecting certain sections of rules. The game still "works" if you simply delete for example Flyers.

Equally I have no problem with modifying or replacing sections. The turn sequence is the most obvious candidate for replacement with a more interesting version. ATM I am thinking about card activation as a possible enhancement.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Why should someone play against it if they don't find it to be fun?

Because it's in the rules? The "I don't like it so I'm going to ignore the rules" argument is so flimsy it's laughable. If it was an optional rule then fine, refuse to play against it if you don't like it. LoW are now in the core rules. Ghazkull is now a LoW. Do you refuse to fight against him or are you again going to force people to adhere to your interpretation of the rules and allow him but not others?

Is it fun to play a horde army and sit doing nothing for 30 minutes while your opponent moves all of their models? No, but does that mean I should refuse to play against orks?

You say they don't belong in 40k, I say they do and are a great addition. And I've got the rules on my side.

Since you "have the rules on your side", refer to page 116 where in black bold writing it says "players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

If a player chooses not to play LoW or a super heavy, then they have the rules on their side.

cnpopo wrote:


Since you "have the rules on your side", refer to page 116 where in black bold writing it says "players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

If a player chooses not to play LoW or a super heavy, then they have the rules on their side.

It then goes on to say the two main ways of selecting armies are Battle-forged and Unbound, and provides rules for using those. If you're not allowing LoW, then you're house ruling, because you're not using either of the two main ways which have rules provided. Battle-forged without LoW is not Battle-forged, it is something else.

Of course players can choose to select armies in another way, or create their own missions, or introduce house rules, but that approach doesn't suit PUGs. I've arranged a number of 'narrative' games, [although always using the FOC to avoid disagreements] with special victory conditions, but these took a lot of negotiation and discussion. I wouldn't turn up to a game with a list of my own house rules, or a narrative mission, and expect my opponent to just agree to them. That would be unreasonable, just like refusing LoW is unreasonable.

Only if both teams have one and they around around the same value

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
It then goes on to say the two main ways of selecting armies are Battle-forged and Unbound, and provides rules for using those. If you're not allowing LoW, then you're house ruling, because you're not using either of the two main ways which have rules provided. Battle-forged without LoW is not Battle-forged, it is something else.

Of course players can choose to select armies in another way, or create their own missions, or introduce house rules, but that approach doesn't suit PUGs. I've arranged a number of 'narrative' games, [although always using the FOC to avoid disagreements] with special victory conditions, but these took a lot of negotiation and discussion. I wouldn't turn up to a game with a list of my own house rules, or a narrative mission, and expect my opponent to just agree to them. That would be unreasonable, just like refusing LoW is unreasonable.

Dude..
"players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
Are you just ignoring that line?

There is nothing unreasonable to refusing LoW: If you don't enjoy them, you can ask people not to play them.
It's a freaking game, you cannot force people to play against something they don't like.
Or do you force people to go to concerts and films they don't like?

Kangodo wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
and there's the rub. we can run around saying "no lords of war" but the fact is that as 7th edition continues to roll out we're going to see more Independant HQ characters to become Lords of war. eventually objecting to LoWs is going to be outright rediculas.

We all know what GW is doing.
"If you don't object to Thrakka, you probably won't object to play against a Stompa!"

But I'm smart, I see through that.
I played against a proxied Stompa, I won the game by VP's and I did not really like/enjoy that game.
I am perfectly fine with LoW's if they are special, sometimes I like to take on a machine that is 60% of your points.
But most games I don't feel like having the entire game based around one Superheavy, hoping to be out of LoS for most of the game.

Maybe it's because I play Blood Angels? I am already feeling punished if I want an enjoyable list.

in fairness though isn't a big part of the game taking a list to suit your stragety and how you want to play? what if they other guy enjoys having a single giant unit as the lynchpin of his stragety (as someone who runs an Imperial Knight, it's a risky stragety BTW as if it dies early you're NOT recovering)?

Honestly with the power creep we're seeing in 40k, dreadknights, wraithknights, etc...out there, does a LOW mean THAT much?

Now I agree some of the 700+ points lords of war are honestly a bit clunky, I'm hoping we'll see more thinks like Knights. ~400 point minis seems like a good area to focus on for LOWs

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

cnpopo wrote:


Since you "have the rules on your side", refer to page 116 where in black bold writing it says "players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

If a player chooses not to play LoW or a super heavy, then they have the rules on their side.

It then goes on to say the two main ways of selecting armies are Battle-forged and Unbound, and provides rules for using those. If you're not allowing LoW, then you're house ruling, because you're not using either of the two main ways which have rules provided. Battle-forged without LoW is not Battle-forged, it is something else.

Of course players can choose to select armies in another way, or create their own missions, or introduce house rules, but that approach doesn't suit PUGs. I've arranged a number of 'narrative' games, [although always using the FOC to avoid disagreements] with special victory conditions, but these took a lot of negotiation and discussion. I wouldn't turn up to a game with a list of my own house rules, or a narrative mission, and expect my opponent to just agree to them. That would be unreasonable, just like refusing LoW is unreasonable.

No, given you are allowed to apply any restrictions, using a GW rule to apply these restrictions is not a "house rule"

Battle-forged simply requires you to adhere to detachments. NOthing more, nothing less. You can have an entirely BF army with no LOW slot, doesnt mean it isnt BF (Inquisition, from memory, knight detachments, etc)

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.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
sure for FW being allowed go to the army selection page and it tells you to go to ANY book published by GW.

Thank you. I was looking for specific verbiage about "Forgeworld", like in previous BRBs, but this will suffice. Thanks again!

So it's play LOW or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it.

That's not very healthy for the hobby.

 MWHistorian wrote:
So it's play LOW or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it.

That's not very healthy for the hobby.

I thought we've established a few pages ago that you definitely have to discuss the inclusion of LoW units with your local store/club. I could be mistaken.

Basically, it comes down to what you prefer: if you go to a store in search of a PUG, you should most likely accept the existence of LoW units and move on. Alternatively, you could ask your opponent to not field a LoW and maybe play a lower points value - if he is bringing a LoW-specific list, he's obviously gonna be 'a few' points short of the game you were looking to play without the big beastie.

If you play with a specific group of friends, sit down with 'em for a meal or something and discuss what they think of LoW units in general. If most of you don't find facing lords of war fun, just agree to 'ban' them. If it's a closed group you're part of it won't matter much for new players and even if new folks end up joining you guys, you could always explain to them that the group agrees that LoW units aren't great fun. I don't think that doing this makes you TFG or something!

If your group feels LoW units are fun to use and face, give 'em a chance yourself. You might find that in the new ruleset with the changes to Destroyer weapons and whatnot they aren't nearly as bad as before. And if it turns out you still hate 'em, at least no one can blame you for not trying! Giving LoW units a chance and still disliking them still doesn't make you TFG.

40K like any other game has rules, but in the end it's your local scene that determines things. After all, there's no point to running lords of war if not everyone is having fun with/againt 'em.

I would love too.

I already have 7 Baneblades, 3 Macharius, and several malcadors waiting for war.

I've had 1 or 2 battles with my heavy weights onces with a Baneblade, once with a Shadowsword (before the New D stuff). While they did do a lot of damage, they were not "all powerful". But I don't have battles to often anyways.

Other players at my store still refuse to fight things like that. especially this one Tau-dar guy who never loses. I think he's afraid he would lose to the firepower a Baneblade-grade war machine would bring to the table, might hurt his precious riptides....

 MWHistorian wrote:
So it's play LOW or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it.

That's not very healthy for the hobby.

So it's play tactical squads or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it?

That's not very healthy for the hobby.

 Engine of War wrote:
I would love too.

I already have 7 Baneblades, 3 Macharius, and several malcadors waiting for war.

I've had 1 or 2 battles with my heavy weights onces with a Baneblade, once with a Shadowsword (before the New D stuff). While they did do a lot of damage, they were not "all powerful". But I don't have battles to often anyways.

Other players at my store still refuse to fight things like that. especially this one Tau-dar guy who never loses. I think he's afraid he would lose to the firepower a Baneblade-grade war machine would bring to the table, might hurt his precious riptides....

That's what I call a armoured company, 10+ super hevey battle tanks.

 Peregrine wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
So it's play LOW or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it.

That's not very healthy for the hobby.

So it's play tactical squads or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it?

That's not very healthy for the hobby.

Yep.

Refusing to play someone for fielding Tactical Squads is every bit as legitimate, just likely a damn sight more minority viewpoint.

The fact that this discussion is happening at all isn't healthy for Games Workshop

The hobby doesn't give a feth.

jhe90 wrote:

 Engine of War wrote:
I would love too.

I already have 7 Baneblades, 3 Macharius, and 4 malcadors waiting for war.

I've had 1 or 2 battles with my heavy weights onces with a Baneblade, once with a Shadowsword (before the New D stuff). While they did do a lot of damage, they were not "all powerful". But I don't have battles to often anyways.

Other players at my store still refuse to fight things like that. especially this one Tau-dar guy who never loses. I think he's afraid he would lose to the firepower a Baneblade-grade war machine would bring to the table, might hurt his precious riptides....

That's what I call a armoured company, 10+ super heavy battle tanks.

I forgot to mention a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT, brand new Knight (scratch built and custom), and plenty of the little Leman Russ tanks of every kind, alongside artillery and lighter armored units like Chimeras. Its not an armored company. Its an Armored Nightmare for anyone in the way.
If I remember right.

3 Baneblades, 2 Shadowsword, 1 Stormblade, 1 Banehammer. 1 Macharius (battle cannons), 1 Vulcan Macharius, 1 Vanquisher Macharious, 1 Malcador Defender, 2 Malcador infernus (One is a Pyro, Other is Cryo hehehe), 1 Malcador Annihilator.

I already have 3 Baneblade grade machines ready for construction. hope to have a Stormsword and another Shadowsword ready. the 3rd might become a Banesword.

Now if only peeps would let me play.... some fear me so much they don't want apoc. They fear being crushed by the sheer weight of armor and firepower. but im happy to build them and collect them. its fun!

 Peregrine wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
So it's play LOW or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it.

That's not very healthy for the hobby.

So it's play tactical squads or get out, even though the rules say you're supposed to discuss with your opponent about what kind of game you want to play where both can enjoy it?

That's not very healthy for the hobby.

I was addressing the guy that said I didn't have a right to refuse a game with LOW because it's in the rules. I never said "tactical squads or get out." I never told anyone to leave. The other guy did. But don't let facts get in the way of a uselessly snarky post, right?