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.

Which is one of the reasons GW is hemorrhaging customers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The divide is only being caused by those who are unwilling to compromise, who thinks their 'fun' trumps everyone elses fun by giving biased choices.

The only divide is the one that is being made by the players, GW simply put all cards on the table, its the players who are saying some cards are valid and some arent .

How can GW be 'fracturing the player base' by giving more options how to play? They're saying everything is fair game, and leaving the 'dividing' to the players unwilling to compromise

They are not giving more options for how to play, they are giving fewer.

Really, by putting more items in the FOC, and making Unbound which is use whatever you want, is less options now? You're going to have to explain to me how more = less.

 slowthar wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
How can GW be 'fracturing the player base' buy giving more options how to play? They're saying everything is fair game, and leaving the 'dividing' to the players unwilling to compromise

It has nothing to do with how many options there are -- most people would generally say more options means for more possibilities which means more potential fun.

The issue is that by attaching a points-value to each, it implies a level of effectiveness proportionate to that value. When the effectiveness of a unit is out of whack compared to its points cost, it can potentially ruin the game by making it unbalanced.

Not that I think LOW are necessarily unbalanced. In fact, I'd be happy to try playing against one if my friend had it. If it absolutely destroyed me, I'd probably either ask that he didn't play it anymore or we'd have to enter lengthy negotiations on how to make it balanced. Of course, this could be true with anything -- riptides, wave serpents, etc.

What people are saying is GW's fault is that things aren't more balanced out of the box. It would appear that with a little more effort, they could be better balanced, but GW doesn't seem interested or compelled to act.

See thats fine, and I agree with that, some LOW are undercosted for what they do, some are over; but thats true for everything in this game, and balance is a whole nother can of worms

But issuing blanket statements such as LOW are bad because X is undercosted for what it does, is a bit silly

I seriously don't get the LoW hate. Just because the rules are included in the rulebook doesn't mean you suddenly have to play with them. If you really, really hate fighting them for whatever reason, just tell your opponent. It's not that hard. Most people I know would be nice enough to remove it from their list.

If you dislike lords of war because of the 6th edition rules I would seriously advise giving them another shot. Destroyer weapons have been nerfed by now. They're still good, but they're no longer OMGWTFBBQ good. Give 'em a chance and see if you like them more now. If you don't, hey, at least you tried! And if it turns out you actually don't mind them so much after all, you now have more variety in your games!

People really need to stop freaking out.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

 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.

But they were popular. Lots of people had Superheavies and many felt bad for not being able to take them in normal games.
Now I can sometimes decide to use them in a game of WH40k without having to wait for our biennial Apocalypse.

Could your three options please be any more biased?
I absolutely hated playing against Imperial Guard, I would rather fight Imperial Knights than the IG.
But they were in the rules, so I had to deal with it and I couldn't ask people to NOT play them since they didn't have another army.
Luckily I can always ask my opponent to take a step back with LoW's and contrary to your statement that will not make me a 'TFG'.

But it seems you don't like to play against them.
Perfect solution: Don't play them! It's that easy.

 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.

So you are here to tell me that everyone was happy?
Well, I was quite happy with my 150 euro model that I only fielded once every 18 months. There are no words to express that awesome feeling of buying a model and than never playing with it.

No, we're here to tell you that it's GW fault for making a problematic game. If they were better at making rules, they'd make LOW fun so that everyone would want to play with and against them. Instead they create a sharp divide in the already fractured player base.

Have you played against a titan in 7th? They are actually much more balanced and every time i put my revenant on the field I lose because of the amount of hull points they strip from it. Now that you can take invulnerable saves and cover saves against them most armies shouldn't have a problem adapting to using cover unless you are like a crap ton of players out there who just want clear line of sight to everything on the board. Then you deserve to get stomped for not using terrain.

 Mumblez wrote:
I seriously don't get the LoW hate. Just because the rules are included in the rulebook doesn't mean you suddenly have to play with them. If you really, really hate fighting them for whatever reason, just tell your opponent. It's not that hard. Most people I know would be nice enough to remove it from their list.

If you dislike lords of war because of the 6th edition rules I would seriously advise giving them another shot. Destroyer weapons have been nerfed by now. They're still good, but they're no longer OMGWTFBBQ good. Give 'em a chance and see if you like them more now. If you don't, hey, at least you tried! And if it turns out you actually don't mind them so much after all, you now have more variety in your games!

People really need to stop freaking out.

No one's freaking out.
Also, have you even read this thread? There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Mumblez wrote:
I seriously don't get the LoW hate. Just because the rules are included in the rulebook doesn't mean you suddenly have to play with them. If you really, really hate fighting them for whatever reason, just tell your opponent. It's not that hard. Most people I know would be nice enough to remove it from their list.

If you dislike lords of war because of the 6th edition rules I would seriously advise giving them another shot. Destroyer weapons have been nerfed by now. They're still good, but they're no longer OMGWTFBBQ good. Give 'em a chance and see if you like them more now. If you don't, hey, at least you tried! And if it turns out you actually don't mind them so much after all, you now have more variety in your games!

People really need to stop freaking out.

No one's freaking out.
Also, have you even read this thread? There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.

If you dont think people arent freaking out, then you havent read the thread yourself.

 MWHistorian wrote:
There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.

Well, maybe it is. I mean, if you just blanket refuse to play LOW without even a discussion, maybe you are TFG.

I'd like to think from the history of your posts that you're a little more open-minded than that and, in real life, would be open to the idea.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Superheavies were an optional extra for some years and a lot of players disliked them and refused to play with them.

While Games Workshop has now force fed them into the core rules, I think it was a bad idea and has led to this bickering about what it is reasonable to allow or not.

It is obvious that lots of players still don't want to play with LoW (or Imperial Armour, etc). It is equally obvious that lots of players do want to play with these things and are upset that the other players are refusing to play.

People cannot be forced to play games they don't like, so I don't know what these rules changes have achieved other than to splinter the player base, cause discontent and possibly to drive people away from the game.

This is all GW's fault.

Its not GW's fault. Its the player bases fault for not adapting. Human beings in general are very adaptable but the inability to adapt to a rules change that allows new units on the field is amazing. This is the way the game is going. The game is fresh again and with 7th the D weapons got a little bit more balanced.

It seems to me like people wanted to keep the "Special Permission" required to play superheavies and now that the "Special Permission" is no longer required there is a huge outcry. If people still want to ban superheavies I say ban things like Demonology and Fateweaver and Riptides and wraithknights and flyers in general. Nothing with higher armor then 10 on any side. Nothing with re-rollable saves or invulnerable saves. cant have armor save better then 3+. Now build your army. How limited are you with the restrictions I just mentioned. Nor more fateweaver with demonology? good bye chaos demons. no more vehicles? good bye pretty much all armies. The minute you start limiting options by banning them is the moment you stagnate the game.

All I can say at this point is adapt or get out. The game will be much better without all this biggotry over superheavies.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
If you dont think people arent freaking out, then you havent read the thread yourself.

The problem with assuming people are freaking out is that you are assuming a tone that may not be present.

 slowthar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.

Well, maybe it is. I mean, if you just blanket refuse to play LOW without even a discussion, maybe you are TFG.

I'd like to think from the history of your posts that you're a little more open-minded than that and, in real life, would be open to the idea.

Yes, I'm TFG because I don't want to play a game that I don't find to be fun.
I've played them before and games with LOW isn't the kind of game I like to play. I'm not right or wrong in this opinion. But to be called TFG for not wanting to play something that isn't fun for me is what's wrong with 40k. (One of several things.)

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
If you dont think people arent freaking out, then you havent read the thread yourself.

The problem with assuming people are freaking out is that you are assuming a tone that may not be present.

Or that tone cant be conveyed across text as easily as spoken word, you're assuming that the tone isnt there, when it actually is.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Yes, I'm TFG because I don't want to play a game that I don't find to be fun.
I've played them before and games with LOW isn't the kind of game I like to play. I'm not right or wrong in this opinion. But to be called TFG for not wanting to play something that isn't fun for me is what's wrong with 40k. (One of several things.)

Have you played against one in 7th? Thats not a c'tan? Since the real issue is the c'tan

 Xerics wrote:
All I can say at this point is adapt or get out. The game will be much better without all this biggotry over superheavies.

Do you even comprehend why people don't want superheavies in typical (<2000pt games) and/or why people don't want to play huge games where they'd find superheavies more acceptable?

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Mumblez wrote:
I seriously don't get the LoW hate. Just because the rules are included in the rulebook doesn't mean you suddenly have to play with them. If you really, really hate fighting them for whatever reason, just tell your opponent. It's not that hard. Most people I know would be nice enough to remove it from their list.

If you dislike lords of war because of the 6th edition rules I would seriously advise giving them another shot. Destroyer weapons have been nerfed by now. They're still good, but they're no longer OMGWTFBBQ good. Give 'em a chance and see if you like them more now. If you don't, hey, at least you tried! And if it turns out you actually don't mind them so much after all, you now have more variety in your games!

People really need to stop freaking out.

No one's freaking out.
Also, have you even read this thread? There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.

I genuinely think you're freaking out and in denial about it.

Why do you even care about the whole TFG nonsense? If that stuff gets to you this much, you're even more insecure than me and that is no small feat. Besides, I just read a page ago that you quit 40K recently. You quit the game because it was no longer enjoyable for you, why care whether or not in a hypothetical situation involving a LoW you'd be considered TFG if it's never going to happen?

Yes, I've read the thread from the beginning. I've posted before in it as well. People are losing their minds because rules from escalation were moved to the main rulebook and updated so they weren't so ridiculous. I don't see anything wrong with that myself.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 slowthar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.

Well, maybe it is. I mean, if you just blanket refuse to play LOW without even a discussion, maybe you are TFG.

I'd like to think from the history of your posts that you're a little more open-minded than that and, in real life, would be open to the idea.

Yes, I'm TFG because I don't want to play a game that I don't find to be fun.
I've played them before and games with LOW isn't the kind of game I like to play. I'm not right or wrong in this opinion. But to be called TFG for not wanting to play something that isn't fun for me is what's wrong with 40k. (One of several things.)

You do realize the only time anyone has called you TFG in this whole thread was on this page as a joke? You're referring to yourself as TFG. Jeez, man.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
If you dont think people arent freaking out, then you havent read the thread yourself.

The problem with assuming people are freaking out is that you are assuming a tone that may not be present.

Or that tone cant be conveyed across text as easily as spoken word, you're assuming that the tone isnt there, when it actually is.

Erm, no, I assumed nothing about tone. Note how I said "may not be present". I didn't use an absolute term like "is not present". You saying "when it actually is" are the person assuming there is a tone.

People might be freaking out, I tend to think they're probably not. Unless you can point me to something that conclusively shows people freaking out, you should stop assuming tone where there's a good chance no such tone exists.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
All I can say at this point is adapt or get out. The game will be much better without all this biggotry over superheavies.

Do you even comprehend why people don't want superheavies in typical (<2000pt games) and/or why people don't want to play huge games where they'd find superheavies more acceptable?

So far from what I have seen they are apparently overpowered and unkillable. But they arent either of those. Everytime i bring my revenant titan to the board i lose the game in VP's. Learn to use cover (now that 7th changed the D-weapons) and find soneone who has superheavies so you can practice againt them rather then crying about it. They aren't unkillable roflstomping machines.

 Mumblez wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Mumblez wrote:
I seriously don't get the LoW hate. Just because the rules are included in the rulebook doesn't mean you suddenly have to play with them. If you really, really hate fighting them for whatever reason, just tell your opponent. It's not that hard. Most people I know would be nice enough to remove it from their list.

If you dislike lords of war because of the 6th edition rules I would seriously advise giving them another shot. Destroyer weapons have been nerfed by now. They're still good, but they're no longer OMGWTFBBQ good. Give 'em a chance and see if you like them more now. If you don't, hey, at least you tried! And if it turns out you actually don't mind them so much after all, you now have more variety in your games!

People really need to stop freaking out.

No one's freaking out.
Also, have you even read this thread? There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.

I genuinely think you're freaking out and in denial about it.

Why do you even care about the whole TFG nonsense? If that stuff gets to you this much, you're even more insecure than me and that is no small feat. Besides, I just read a page ago that you quit 40K recently. You quit the game because it was no longer enjoyable for you, why care whether or not in a hypothetical situation involving a LoW you'd be considered TFG if it's never going to happen?

Yes, I've read the thread from the beginning. I've posted before in it as well. People are losing their minds because rules from escalation were moved to the main rulebook and updated so they weren't so ridiculous. I don't see anything wrong with that myself.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 slowthar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.

Well, maybe it is. I mean, if you just blanket refuse to play LOW without even a discussion, maybe you are TFG.

I'd like to think from the history of your posts that you're a little more open-minded than that and, in real life, would be open to the idea.

Yes, I'm TFG because I don't want to play a game that I don't find to be fun.
I've played them before and games with LOW isn't the kind of game I like to play. I'm not right or wrong in this opinion. But to be called TFG for not wanting to play something that isn't fun for me is what's wrong with 40k. (One of several things.)

You do realize the only time anyone has called you TFG in this whole thread was on this page as a joke? You're referring to yourself as TFG. Jeez, man.

You're making a whole lot of incorrect assumptions there. I'm in this conversation because I offer a viewpoint that you're apparently unfamiliar with. As someone who's left the game over this issue (among others) I think I have something to add that's important.

 Xerics wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
All I can say at this point is adapt or get out. The game will be much better without all this biggotry over superheavies.

Do you even comprehend why people don't want superheavies in typical (<2000pt games) and/or why people don't want to play huge games where they'd find superheavies more acceptable?

So far from what I have seen they are apparently overpowered and unkillable.

No, that's not the reason many people don't like them. It's not the reason I don't like them. It might be the reason some people don't like them, but most knowledgeable people don't think like that at all.

The reason I don't like them is they don't fit well in to the size of game I like to play. Placing a huge chunk of your points in to a single model I find leads to boring games. It might be entertaining on rare occasions to play a game of "bring down the behemoth" (or "try to ignore the behemoth" as the case may be), but as a regular thing, no, I don't like it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
All I can say at this point is adapt or get out. The game will be much better without all this biggotry over superheavies.

Do you even comprehend why people don't want superheavies in typical (<2000pt games) and/or why people don't want to play huge games where they'd find superheavies more acceptable?

So far from what I have seen they are apparently overpowered and unkillable.

No, that's not the reason many people don't like them. It's not the reason I don't like them. It might be the reason some people don't like them, but most knowledgeable people don't think like that at all.

The reason I don't like them is they don't fit well in to the size of game I like to play. Placing a huge chunk of your points in to a single model I find leads to boring games. It might be entertaining on rare occasions to play a game of "bring down the behemoth", but as a regular thing, no, I don't like it.

And yet Imperial Knights are perfectly acceptable right? Because there is an actual Codex for them? By not allowing superheavies into a game you are stagnating the growth of the game by limiting options available to players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if you are going to quote me please quote everything not just pick and choose that which suits your argument.

Or wraith knights or riptides or mork/gorkanauts or land raiders or ...

 ashikenshin wrote:
Or wraith knights or riptides or mork/gorkanauts or land raiders or ...

Why not just ban every model and codex except for vanilla tactical marines with no options available to them and make the game perfectly balanced and boring.

 Xerics wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
All I can say at this point is adapt or get out. The game will be much better without all this biggotry over superheavies.

Do you even comprehend why people don't want superheavies in typical (<2000pt games) and/or why people don't want to play huge games where they'd find superheavies more acceptable?

So far from what I have seen they are apparently overpowered and unkillable.

No, that's not the reason many people don't like them. It's not the reason I don't like them. It might be the reason some people don't like them, but most knowledgeable people don't think like that at all.

The reason I don't like them is they don't fit well in to the size of game I like to play. Placing a huge chunk of your points in to a single model I find leads to boring games. It might be entertaining on rare occasions to play a game of "bring down the behemoth", but as a regular thing, no, I don't like it.

And yet Imperial Knights are perfectly acceptable right? Because there is an actual Codex for them? By not allowing superheavies into a game you are stagnating the growth of the game by limiting options available to players.

I never said anything one way or another about Imperial Knights. FWIW, I don't like deathstars units either. But no, I don't have as much problem with Imperial Knights as I have problem with, say, a Stompa. Though I still don't particularly want to see it in small games.

"stagnating growth", I disagree that superheavies grow the game at all... unless you mean grow the amount of points that are suitable for playing the game, in which case, yeah, I want that type of growth stagnated.

Also if you are going to quote me please quote everything not just pick and choose that which suits your argument.

Is there something else you wanted me to address? The rest of your post was simply elaborating on the premise you gave in your first sentence. Since it was that premise that I disagreed with, the rest of your post seemed superfluous and thus I removed it. I directly stated that being overpowered was not the reason I (and many others) disliked superheavies... once I stated that, what relevance did the rest of your post have that you would liked me to have responded to it?

 Xerics wrote:

 ashikenshin wrote:
Or wraith knights or riptides or mork/gorkanauts or land raiders or ...

Why not just ban every model and codex except for vanilla tactical marines with no options available to them and make the game perfectly balanced and boring.

If GW balanced those units, far fewer people would have an issue with them at all. The lack of balance is a big problem. Balancing the game would bring more options to the table because the units you don't see as often, either for being too weak or too powerful, would see play time and you'd have a greater variety of army lists and play styles.

Example: Warmachine has large models, but no one gripes about them as being OP or refusing to play against them. They fit the scale, aren't OP or over costed. They're a fun addition to the game like LOW is supposed to be.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

 ashikenshin wrote:
Or wraith knights or riptides or mork/gorkanauts or land raiders or ...

Why not just ban every model and codex except for vanilla tactical marines with no options available to them and make the game perfectly balanced and boring.

If GW balanced those units, far fewer people would have an issue with them at all. The lack of balance is a big problem. Balancing the game would bring more options to the table because the units you don't see as often, either for being too weak or too powerful, would see play time and you'd have a greater variety of army lists and play styles.

Example: Warmachine has large models, but no one gripes about them as being OP or refusing to play against them. They fit the scale, aren't OP or over costed. They're a fun addition to the game like LOW is supposed to be.

Have you actually played against a LOW in 7th?

Wasn't there something last edition about 1499 and below no LoW so you had to play 1500+...? Or am I misremembering? And is that now gone?


Where I play, not everyone can afford a LoW...so yeah we just talk about it before hand and usually don't bring them except big games. Seems easiest that way and no one seems bothered

I've actually played against a LoW and they are not as strong as people think, I fought against a Stompa with a Big Mek that had a KFF.
I can honestly say that he could have won the game if he had another unit.
It was too easy to dodge the big Stompa due to terrain and so I won by Victory Points.

Did I like it? Not sure. Mostly it just felt different.
And even though I would play against them, I wouldn't want every game to include a big unit like that.

 MWHistorian wrote:
No one's freaking out.
Also, have you even read this thread? There are many people that would call me TFG for refusing to play against LOW. The situation isn't as simple as you paint it to be.

So?
An important thing to remember for people that visit the internet is to learn not to care what people on the internet think about you.
What matters is how your friends and playgroup feels about it.

 slowthar wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
How can GW be 'fracturing the player base' buy giving more options how to play? They're saying everything is fair game, and leaving the 'dividing' to the players unwilling to compromise

It has nothing to do with how many options there are -- most people would generally say more options means for more possibilities which means more potential fun.

The issue is that by attaching a points-value to each, it implies a level of effectiveness proportionate to that value. When the effectiveness of a unit is out of whack compared to its points cost, it can potentially ruin the game by making it unbalanced.

Not that I think LOW are necessarily unbalanced. In fact, I'd be happy to try playing against one if my friend had it. If it absolutely destroyed me, I'd probably either ask that he didn't play it anymore or we'd have to enter lengthy negotiations on how to make it balanced. Of course, this could be true with anything -- riptides, wave serpents, etc.

What people are saying is GW's fault is that things aren't more balanced out of the box. It would appear that with a little more effort, they could be better balanced, but GW doesn't seem interested or compelled to act.

It is to do with the number of options.

Options are options.

If there are options you are not interested in you can ignore them regardless of how well balanced or not they might be.

Things that are compulsory are not options. You cannot ignore compulsory things regardless of how well balanced or not they might be.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 slowthar wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
How can GW be 'fracturing the player base' buy giving more options how to play? They're saying everything is fair game, and leaving the 'dividing' to the players unwilling to compromise

It has nothing to do with how many options there are -- most people would generally say more options means for more possibilities which means more potential fun.

The issue is that by attaching a points-value to each, it implies a level of effectiveness proportionate to that value. When the effectiveness of a unit is out of whack compared to its points cost, it can potentially ruin the game by making it unbalanced.

Not that I think LOW are necessarily unbalanced. In fact, I'd be happy to try playing against one if my friend had it. If it absolutely destroyed me, I'd probably either ask that he didn't play it anymore or we'd have to enter lengthy negotiations on how to make it balanced. Of course, this could be true with anything -- riptides, wave serpents, etc.

What people are saying is GW's fault is that things aren't more balanced out of the box. It would appear that with a little more effort, they could be better balanced, but GW doesn't seem interested or compelled to act.

It is to do with the number of options.

Options are options.

If there are options you are not interested in you can ignore them regardless of how well balanced or not they might be.

Things that are compulsory are not options. You cannot ignore compulsory things regardless of how well balanced or not they might be.

And how is this a LOW specific problem? I dont like waveserpent spam, its much worse than a LOW IMO

Ignoring options is your choice, the lack of options if of your own doing, not GW's

It isn't a LOW specific problem, though frankly Waverserpent spam was in the game in 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th editions so if you didn't like it you probably should have folded your tents many years ago.

Also the fact is not an LOW problem does not excuse LOW being added to the pile of problems.

I reiterate again for the third (?) time that GW have not added options, they have taken them away. How is that a good thing?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It isn't a LOW specific problem, though frankly Waverserpent spam was in the game in 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th editions so if you didn't like it you probably should have folded your tents many years ago.

Also the fact is not an LOW problem does not excuse LOW being added to the pile of problems.

I reiterate again for the third (?) time that GW have not added options, they have taken them away. How is that a good thing?

GW didnt take any options away, you not liking the options and not using them does not mean they're not there. They're adding more options, people dont like them, and they're taking the options away themselves.

Explain how you choosing not to like something means that GW is taking your options away?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Also the fact is not an LOW problem does not excuse LOW being added to the pile of problems.

Exactly, this is a thread specifically about LOW so we are talking about LOW.