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.

Yes, and LOW used to be an option and now they aren't.

How many times does this need to be pointed out for people to comprehend?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is there a lack of basic English comprehension?

Options are things that can be accesses or not as people wish.

Things that are automatically included are not options.

LOW (and flyers, etc) used to be options. They are now included as standard rules. They are not options any more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is very, very simple.

If you like LOW they are a great option.

If you don't like LOW they are a great option you can ignore them.

They're still optional force org slot items, you're only FORCED to bring 1 HQ and two troops.

Them just adding more optional items to the Force Org chart is adding more options to army building, its not taking any options away.

And yes It does appear to be a lack of basic English comprehension.

Or are you being forced to play only lists with LOW now?

Anything outside the compulsory 1 HQ and 2 Troops is optional, just as it had been

Yes I am being forced to play lists that potentially include FOW which didn't use to happen.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes I am being forced to play lists that potentially include FOW which didn't use to happen.

Oh if we're going off hypothetical and potential situations, why play at all? There's the potential to always play against something you don't like if we're going based off of that.

I guess I should quit then since one day I may potentially go against something in 9th edition I dont like.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
They're still optional force org slot items, you're only FORCED to bring 1 HQ and two troops.

Them just adding more optional items to the Force Org chart is adding more options to army building, its not taking any options away.

And yes It does appear to be a lack of basic English comprehension.

Or are you being forced to play only lists with LOW now?

Anything outside the compulsory 1 HQ and 2 Troops is optional, just as it had been

Anything at all is optional, unbound is a thing.

I don't play any more because GW have fethed up the game to such a degree and made it so expensive that it is not worth it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't play any more because GW have fethed up the game to such a degree and made it so expensive that it is not worth it.

Ok?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't play any more because GW have fethed up the game to such a degree and made it so expensive that it is not worth it.

Ok?

I know where this will go next; so I'll pre-empt you...

Just because people like KK and myself no longer play does not make our opinions on the complete and utter fustercluck this game has become any less valid. Most companies would be incredibly interested to know why people have left their product.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes I am being forced to play lists that potentially include FOW which didn't use to happen.

So you're ignoring the rules stating you must agree on what models etch you will play with?

You are now more forced to play an optional game than you were before 7th.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't play any more because GW have fethed up the game to such a degree and made it so expensive that it is not worth it.

Ok?

I know where this will go next; so I'll pre-empt you...

Just because people like KK and myself no longer play does not make our opinions on the complete and utter fustercluck this game has become any less valid. Most companies would be incredibly interested to know why people have left their product.

You are absolutely entitled to an opinion, you are completely correct that the reasons you are no longer a player, and therefore a customer, should be incredibly important and of great interest to GW.

However, lacking first hand experience of the product as it is right now does somewhat undermine the authority of your opinion.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't play any more because GW have fethed up the game to such a degree and made it so expensive that it is not worth it.

Ok?

I know where this will go next; so I'll pre-empt you...

Just because people like KK and myself no longer play does not make our opinions on the complete and utter fustercluck this game has become any less valid. Most companies would be incredibly interested to know why people have left their product.

You are absolutely entitled to an opinion, you are completely correct that the reasons you are no longer a player, and therefore a customer, should be incredibly important and of great interest to GW.

However, lacking first hand experience of the product as it is right now does somewhat undermine the authority of your opinion.

Couldnt have said it better myself.

Because after twenty plus years I couldn't possibly know bad rules when I see them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes I am being forced to play lists that potentially include FOW which didn't use to happen.

So you're ignoring the rules stating you must agree on what models etch you will play with?

* You don't have a choice if you want to participate in a tournament that allows them.

you have a choice of not participate in said tournament. I'm sure you know this since you run tournaments.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Because after twenty plus years I couldn't possibly know bad rules when I see them.

Things are usually not the exact same after 20 years. Nor what was relevant 20 years ago necessary relevant now.

It might give you insight on how it used to be, but it may not be relevant to how it is now.

I was still playing up to a few months ago.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Because after twenty plus years I couldn't possibly know bad rules when I see them.

Frankly, no.

Not in the same way that someone who's played those rules will.

Just like I can respect someone's opinion on music, videogames, movies, whatever, but in the final analysis I'm going to pay more attention to the person who has heard, played or viewed the thing in question than someone who, irrespective of their experience in the area, or that their criticisms appear to be well founded, hasn't.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I was still playing up to a few months ago.

Again, have you played against a LOW in 7th yet?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
LOW (and flyers, etc) used to be options. They are now included as standard rules. They are not options any more.

Except they didn't used to be options, they used to not exist at all. All of those "optional" rules that required special permission from your opponent were generally considered "not real 40k" and permission was rarely granted. Putting them in the standard rules makes them options in the sense that you can finally choose to include them in your army if you want. The only "option" that was denied was the ability to veto your opponent's army choices, and that's not something that should exist at all.

The butthurt is strong with this thread....
Don't worry, all those who are quitting 40k. I am willing, and able, to pick up ALOT of your slack. There are many more like me. You will not be missed.

 gregor_xenos wrote:
The butthurt is strong with this thread....
Don't worry, all those who are quitting 40k. I am willing, and able, to pick up ALOT of your slack. There are many more like me. You will not be missed.

Actually, according to GW's own financial reports, there aren't many more like you. GW is busy losing sales volume and market share, which means that people like you are not making up for all the people who are leaving GW games.

 Sigvatr wrote:
* You don't have a choice if you want to participate in a tournament that allows them.

Likewise before Seventh I did not have the choice to participate in a tournament that DID allow them. Because they weren't legal in 40k.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Just because people like KK and myself no longer play does not make our opinions on the complete and utter fustercluck this game has become any less valid. Most companies would be incredibly interested to know why people have left their product.

1. Your opinion is not any less valid.
2. I lied, it is less valid because you don't have any experience with the current rules.
3. "complete and utter fustercluck" is an opinion. One without any basis because you don't play anymore.
4. Why? Why would they be interested? It might be a nice trivia to know for them, but nothing is going to change. They are not going to change the entire rulebook within a year because you don't like their product anymore.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, and LOW used to be an option and now they aren't.

Yes, they are.

Before they weren't an option.
The BRB gave no permission to play them, so you can't play them.
Now the BRB gives you permission, so you can play them.
That means it IS an option now.

The BRB allows me to field a LoW.
The BRB allows you to ban a LoW.
You should be happy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 gregor_xenos wrote:
The butthurt is strong with this thread....
Don't worry, all those who are quitting 40k. I am willing, and able, to pick up ALOT of your slack. There are many more like me. You will not be missed.

Actually, according to GW's own financial reports, there aren't many more like you. GW is busy losing sales volume and market share, which means that people like you are not making up for all the people who are leaving GW games.

Time will tell... But please, continue to sell your armies cheap. I will strip them, paint them, and turn a nice profit.

The thing is nobody has to play against LoW if they don't want to, for whatever reason. Everybody has the right to refuse to play against anyone for any reason, whether that person feels it's justified or not. Hell you don't even have to give a reason if you don't want to. That person can judge you based on that, which is entirely within their rights too.

LoW, Serpent Spam, Flyer Spam, Daemon Factory, Factions you don't like the look of, Opponent is from Birmingham, You once slept with their sibling - you can refuse any game for any reason and if you give an explanation and you believe it's reasonable and your opponent takes it badly then you're probably better off not playing with them anyway.

I'm going to make the assumption that we all play this game for fun and if you don't think a certain game is going to be fun it's a waste of your time and possibly theirs. You may have played against a LoW previously, you may have looked at the rules and extrapolated, you may think it only works at higher point levels or you just might think the model looks stupid. Whatever the case it's your choice and the world will not end if you don't play against it.

Obviously amongst those you know well and friends there will probably be a more detailed interaction, but then you have a greater likelihood of reaching an acceptable common ground or compromise.

As far as people suggesting that those who dislike playing against LoWs should find another game, just remember that next time you complain about anything that you consider OP or you find yourself up against a "WAAC" player, just because something is in the rules doesn't mean someone has to like it or play against it.

 gregor_xenos wrote:
Time will tell... But please, continue to sell your armies cheap. I will strip them, paint them, and turn a nice profit.

Who said anything about selling? My armies aren't going anywhere after all the work I've put into them. And your desire and ability to make a profit from GW's decline doesn't mean that they're a successful business.

Kangodo wrote:
3. "complete and utter fustercluck" is an opinion.

No, it's fact. 40k is an example of spectacularly bad game design, the kind of thing 101 classes use as a warning for their students. Listing everything that is objectively wrong with the game would require writing an entire textbook, which I'm tempted to do just so people like you have to stop saying "it's just an opinion".

4. Why? Why would they be interested? It might be a nice trivia to know for them, but nothing is going to change. They are not going to change the entire rulebook within a year because you don't like their product anymore.

They should be interested because it isn't just one player leaving. When the overall trend is a declining number of players any sensible company should be concerned about the fact that quite a few of those lost customers are leaving because they are unhappy with the rules.

 Sigvatr wrote:

* You don't have a choice if you want to participate in a tournament that allows them.

 ashikenshin wrote:
you have a choice of not participate in said tournament. I'm sure you know this since you run tournaments.

If you want to take part in a tournament, not taking part isn't really an option


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

Likewise before Seventh I did not have the choice to participate in a tournament that DID allow them. Because they weren't legal in 40k.

I'm confused...O_o

hehe well you have the option to man up?

Also the option to not participate is there. You may want to do something but wanting and doing are two different things.

 Peregrine wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
3. "complete and utter fustercluck" is an opinion.

No, it's fact. 40k is an example of spectacularly bad game design, the kind of thing 101 classes use as a warning for their students. Listing everything that is objectively wrong with the game would require writing an entire textbook, which I'm tempted to do just so people like you have to stop saying "it's just an opinion".

But even that list would be just your list of stuff you don't like in the main.

I've seen you criticise people for using hyperbole within minutes of posting something along the lines of "a baby could write better rules by smearing it's own faeces on some paper" or words very similar, and this is somewhere up there with that.

There are some functional issues in the game, potentially serious ones if you play someone as apparently unreasonable as you are/pretend to be. But I bet you'd run out of legitimate gameplay issues by the end of the first section and fill the rest of the textbook with your particular brand of impotent rage-based ranty goodness.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, it's fact. 40k is an example of spectacularly bad game design, the kind of thing 101 classes use as a warning for their students. Listing everything that is objectively wrong with the game would require writing an entire textbook, which I'm tempted to do just so people like you have to stop saying "it's just an opinion".

Perhaps you should, to make it actually a fact as defined in the dictionary

Unbiased actual evidence, no anecdotes, no opinions, just the facts

If you're actually going to call that a fact Because until you prove that factually, what he said is true, it is just an opinion

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

 Sigvatr wrote:
I'm confused...O_o

Yeah, let's rephrase that: Before 7th edition I had to live with the fact that I couldn't bring a LoW to a tournament.
Now he has to live with the fact that other people can bring a LoW to a tournament.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, it's fact. 40k is an example of spectacularly bad game design, the kind of thing 101 classes use as a warning for their students. Listing everything that is objectively wrong with the game would require writing an entire textbook, which I'm tempted to do just so people like you have to stop saying "it's just an opinion".

It's not great.
Though it's not as bad as people make it out to be.

There are a lot of faults with GW, their testing is bad and they often write unclear rules.
But stuff like LoW's if not one of the "utter fusterclucks".

They should be interested because it isn't just one player leaving. When the overall trend is a declining number of players any sensible company should be concerned about the fact that quite a few of those lost customers are leaving because they are unhappy with the rules.

But they are not all leaving because of the rules.
I would dare to claim that most people are leaving due to the price-increase.