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.

 ashikenshin wrote:

you listed two options there, play the game or not play. But, there is another option: tell your opponent you don't want to play against him if he uses a LoW.

Player 1- "Sorry, I won't play against you if you are using a LoW."
Player 2- "Ok, I guess we won't be playing then."

How is that any different from not playing?

 ashikenshin wrote:

but they are optional, HQ and Troops are mandatory in battle forged lists. Not everybody has to have a LoW in order to play.

Seems the meaning of optional and mandatory are really not understood here.

You are confusing being an option in the FoC with being an option in the core rules.

Like AllSeeingSkink said, they are just as optional as a Tactical Squad.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 ashikenshin wrote:

Seems the meaning of optional and mandatory are really not understood here.

Thats what I'm getting here too

The only Mandatory part of the Force Org is 1 HQ and 2 Troops, or if unbound, nothing.

Hence anything you add on to that list, is an option.

That's not the sort of option we are talking about though.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 ashikenshin wrote:

Seems the meaning of optional and mandatory are really not understood here.

Thats what I'm getting here too

The only Mandatory part of the Force Org is 1 HQ and 2 Troops, or if unbound, nothing.

Hence anything you add on to that list, is an option.

That's not the sort of option we are talking about though.

Then pray tell what type of option are you talking about? Either it keeps changing depending on the argument or the goalposts for 'options' keeps moving further and further...

sure i do,

we even have fun and remain friends after using LOW's....

even though i personally have never feilded a LOW... I have the stompa and baneblade just to paint them and because they are cool... i might even use the stompa some time.


somehow ( I must be cheating) I have beaten my opponents every single time they brought a LOW... (so 6 games IIRC, played a couple baneblade variets, the vulcan MB one and the str 10 ap1 ignore cover mega blast one, trancendant Ctan, stompa, reaver titan, warhound titan)

heck, my pre 7th edition orks walked through a reaver + warhound + two baneblades when I had no LOWS in an apoc game... because LOW's SUCK in CC, especially against PK nobs and orks who dont care that it cost them 30 boyz to take out your titan (blowing up the titans kills my boys more then the titan itself!)


its almost like investing 50%+ of your amry in one model that generally cannot earn its points back, unless I ALSO am stupid enough to put all my points into one or two units, is a bad idea tactically...

 Sigvatr wrote:
Nope, it's not. Apocalypse was clearly seperated from Standard 40k whereas Escalation was designed to be an add-on to the game.

In December 2013? Whereas 7th was released less than a half year later?

And I think that using Escalation as an example is really bad, seeing as that was only released a few months before 7th.
That means they were already working on the BRB and created Escalation to either:
a) Sell an additional book that is "mostly" useless within a few months.
b) Sell a book that summarizes the Lord of Wars so people have an easy reference for 7th.

PhantomViper wrote:
No, they aren't optional. They are one of the options of your army so you can use them in your army or not, but since a game requires two people to play and you can't control your opponents army (other than deciding not to play), that makes them mandatory instead of optional.

I don't think mandatory is the correct word for it.
With a CAD only a HQ and two Troops are mandatory, LoW's aren't.

Previously you had options. People that liked to play with LoWs could play them in Escalation or Apocalypse. People that didn't like to play with LoWs played using just the core 40k rules. That option was removed for the people that didn't like to play with LoWs in 7th edition, hence those people have fewer options now.

So previously you had to ask your opponent if he wants to play with LoW's.
And now you have to ask your opponent if he doesn't want to play with LoW's.
Not a big difference, right?

christ... its like people forget the time when forgeworld and special characters required opponents permission....


special characters are OP!!!!!!!!!

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 ashikenshin wrote:

Seems the meaning of optional and mandatory are really not understood here.

Thats what I'm getting here too

The only Mandatory part of the Force Org is 1 HQ and 2 Troops, or if unbound, nothing.

Hence anything you add on to that list, is an option.

That's not the sort of option we are talking about though.

Then pray tell what type of option are you talking about? Either it keeps changing depending on the argument or the goalposts for 'options' keeps moving further and further...

I'm not sure if the goal posts keep moving or simply people are on different pages, so to speak, as to what we are discussing.

What you describe is optional parts of the force organisation chart. Options of units when building your army. What (I believe at least, as it's the most logical) we are talking about is optional rules. LOW are part of the core rules, the same way the rules for rapid fire weapons are part of the core rules.

They are optional only in the sense they are optional if you want to change the core rules. You could just as equally say the rapid fire rules are optional... you could simply not take rapid fire weapons (which is similar to saying only 1HQ and 2 Troops is mandatory and everything else is optional), but what we are talking about is more like if you don't want to play with the rapid fire rules you have to also get your opponent not to take them and/or change the rules as a substitute for rapid fire weapons.

PhantomViper wrote:

 ashikenshin wrote:

you listed two options there, play the game or not play. But, there is another option: tell your opponent you don't want to play against him if he uses a LoW.

Player 1- "Sorry, I won't play against you if you are using a LoW."
Player 2- "Ok, I guess we won't be playing then."

How is that any different from not playing?

Well, the other player has the option to not play you. He isn't forced to play you.

 ashikenshin wrote:

but they are optional, HQ and Troops are mandatory in battle forged lists. Not everybody has to have a LoW in order to play.

Seems the meaning of optional and mandatory are really not understood here.

You are confusing being an option in the FoC with being an option in the core rules.

Like AllSeeingSkink said, they are just as optional as a Tactical Squad.

Yes, tactical squads are optional too, I play Tau and my opponent plays IG. Where are the Tactical Squads there?

Kangodo wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
No, they aren't optional. They are one of the options of your army so you can use them in your army or not, but since a game requires two people to play and you can't control your opponents army (other than deciding not to play), that makes them mandatory instead of optional.

I don't think mandatory is the correct word for it.
With a CAD only a HQ and two Troops are mandatory, LoW's aren't.

Again: people aren't talking about FoC options, they are talking about core rules options.

Kangodo wrote:

Previously you had options. People that liked to play with LoWs could play them in Escalation or Apocalypse. People that didn't like to play with LoWs played using just the core 40k rules. That option was removed for the people that didn't like to play with LoWs in 7th edition, hence those people have fewer options now.

So previously you had to ask your opponent if he wants to play with LoW's.
And now you have to ask your opponent if he doesn't want to play with LoW's.
Not a big difference, right?

Big difference: previously you could say that you just wanted to play core 40k and since that is the default way to play, people that came to the store had their lists prepared to play core 40k. Now you have to say you wan't to play the same core 40k but without LoW's, or Fortifications, or whatever, which means that the chance that your opponent had those types of units in their list not only increases, but other people will reply with "but why?", and then you end up with these types of threads and an even more fractured community...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ashikenshin wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 ashikenshin wrote:

you listed two options there, play the game or not play. But, there is another option: tell your opponent you don't want to play against him if he uses a LoW.

Player 1- "Sorry, I won't play against you if you are using a LoW."
Player 2- "Ok, I guess we won't be playing then."

How is that any different from not playing?

Well, the other player has the option to not play you. He isn't forced to play you.

You do realise that that was exactly what I said?

and again "core 40k" for the past 7editions,

has ALWAYS HAD THINGS LIKE THIS>


special characters in the previous editions are the LOW of now... with people whining and complaining about having to face calgar/abbadon/ect instead of stompas/baneblades....


just like people complained and QQ"ed about vortex grenades...
oddly those are sort of back now, but no one minds.

the world didnt end when special characters stopped being "permission only" and it hasnt now that LOW are no longer that either.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 ashikenshin wrote:

Seems the meaning of optional and mandatory are really not understood here.

Thats what I'm getting here too

The only Mandatory part of the Force Org is 1 HQ and 2 Troops, or if unbound, nothing.

Hence anything you add on to that list, is an option.

That's not the sort of option we are talking about though.

Then pray tell what type of option are you talking about? Either it keeps changing depending on the argument or the goalposts for 'options' keeps moving further and further...

I'm not sure if the goal posts keep moving or simply people are on different pages, so to speak, as to what we are discussing.

What you describe is optional parts of the force organisation chart. Options of units when building your army. What (I believe at least, as it's the most logical) we are talking about is optional rules. LOW are part of the core rules, the same way the rules for rapid fire weapons are part of the core rules.

They are optional only in the sense they are optional if you want to change the core rules. You could just as equally say the rapid fire rules are optional... you could simply not take rapid fire weapons (which is similar to saying only 1HQ and 2 Troops is mandatory and everything else is optional), but what we are talking about is more like if you don't want to play with the rapid fire rules you have to also get your opponent not to take them and/or change the rules as a substitute for rapid fire weapons.

They're options, unless you're actually being forced to field those items. Yes you're allowed by the rules to take them, but no where in the rules are you told you must take a LOW or this or that. Hence optional. The rules are provided because something may be used, not that it must be used.

Theres some odd definitions of optional around here. The rules are a guideline, not orders. Something being a part of the core rules doesnt mean you have to use them. If your army doesnt have a flyer, you're not using those rules.

 easysauce wrote:
and again "core 40k" for the past 7editions,

has ALWAYS HAD THINGS LIKE THIS>


special characters in the previous editions are the LOW of now... with people whining and complaining about having to face calgar/abbadon/ect instead of stompas/baneblades....


just like people complained and QQ"ed about vortex grenades...
oddly those are sort of back now, but no one minds.

the world didnt end when special characters stopped being "permission only" and it hasnt now that LOW are no longer that either.

No one is saying that the world is ending, stop being condescending.

Yes, in the past people complained when special characters stopped being permission only, and I know of players that quit because of it. This rollback of special options into the core rules is just another reason why people have stopped playing, only difference is that now GW has no one new coming in to replace those that are leaving.

As much as I know I'm going to regret entering in to the semantics argument this thread is sidetracking to, people aren't really consistent on the term "optional" and it's annoying me.

LOW as a ruleset was optional. It is not now. That is what people who are saying they were an option and now they are not mean. Saying "LOW used to be an option and now it's not" is effectively shorthand for "The LOW ruleset used to be optional and now it's not."

Of course they're still "optional" in your FOC. Everything except for 1HQ/2Troops is.

So, to extend the lousy car metaphor, the LOW ruleset was an option, and is now standard. That's what people are (potentially) complaining about.

Yes the rules are in the edition now, but that doesnt mean its not an optional thing to take in your army.

The rules for it are in the book yes, but its still an option to take it.

Lousy car metaphor. Base car (rulebook) didnt used to have option to LOW, was aftermarket addon (Escalation). Now standard option offered at dealer, when you get base car, you dont have to take the LOW option on it. but its there if you do

 slowthar wrote:
As much as I know I'm going to regret entering in to the semantics argument this thread is sidetracking to, people aren't really consistent on the term "optional" and it's annoying me.

LOW as a ruleset was optional. It is not now. That is what people who are saying they were an option and now they are not mean. Saying "LOW used to be an option and now it's not" is effectively shorthand for "The LOW ruleset used to be optional and now it's not."

Of course they're still "optional" in your FOC. Everything except for 1HQ/2Troops is.

So, to extend the lousy car metaphor, the LOW ruleset was an option, and is now standard. That's what people are (potentially) complaining about.

Ok, but saying: The game has less options now is not shorthand to saying: the game has less optional rulesets or is it? If short handing makes confusion then it's not short hand, it's being ambiguous and not conveying your point across very well. Car analogy is still flawed.

The optional discussion is really pointless.
Since when do we call it 'optional' if you have to beg your opponent to play Apocalypse so you can field a SHV?

To me 'optional' is when the core game gives me the option to play something or not play something.
Even troops are now an option with 7th Edition as we gained access to Unbound-armies. I love that!

PhantomViper wrote:
Again: people aren't talking about FoC options, they are talking about core rules options.

So you want the option to not have it in your BRB or what are you saying?

Two choices:
-You play a match including LoW's
-You play a match excluding LoW's

Before 7th/Escalation we had to play them in Apocalypse.

Big difference: previously you could say that you just wanted to play core 40k and since that is the default way to play, people that came to the store had their lists prepared to play core 40k. Now you have to say you wan't to play the same core 40k but without LoW's, or Fortifications, or whatever, which means that the chance that your opponent had those types of units in their list not only increases, but other people will reply with "but why?", and then you end up with these types of threads and an even more fractured community...

So?
Player A hates LoW's and player B loves LoW's.
Player A used to be happy and player B felt bad because he could only play them in Apocalypse, which to many players is once a year or never.
Player B is now happy because he can field them legally and player A is grumbling because he has to ask his opponent not to play a LoW.

What you are saying is basically "The old situation was better because I was happy with it. feth the rest."
That is selfish and I'm not really interested in discussing that.

 slowthar wrote:
LOW as a ruleset was optional. It is not now. That is what people who are saying they were an option and now they are not mean. Saying "LOW used to be an option and now it's not" is effectively shorthand for "The LOW ruleset used to be optional and now it's not."

Of course they're still "optional" in your FOC. Everything except for 1HQ/2Troops is.

This is a far better way of putting it. Yes, those who oppose including the superheavies (and fliers and allies) in the core rules are talking about optional rulesets, not optional units in your FOC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:
Player A hates LoW's and player B loves LoW's.
Player A used to be happy and player B felt bad because he could only play them in Apocalypse, which to many players is once a year or never.
Player B is now happy because he can field them legally and player A is grumbling because he has to ask his opponent not to play a LoW.

You are just looking at it through the window of only what was available previously and what is available now. There is a 3rd option, what GW have never done.

Include LoW in the core rulebook or as an expansion to the core rules in a separate book, state it's part of "additional rules" and suggest they are best suited to large scale games so discuss it with your opponent. An example might be warplanes in Bolt Action: http://www.warlordgames.com/rules-warplanes-in-bolt-action/

Then also have a separate game which we call "Apocalypse", which runs a completely different rule system that is better suited to excessively large battles and includes LOW by default. Basically 28mm scale Epic 40k.

EDIT: updated because I fail at links, lol

Kangodo wrote:
The optional discussion is really pointless.
Since when do we call it 'optional' if you have to beg your opponent to play Apocalypse so you can field a SHV?

And why would you have to beg your opponent to play Apocalypse? Maybe because your opponent didn't find the format fun for everyday games?

Now imagine how that opponent of yours will feel when GW "forces" him to play that format... Do you think that that will make him more or less likely to just quit the game entirely?

As it was before, people that liked LoWs played Apocalypse, people that didn't played "core" 40k. Shouldn't the fact that such a small amount chose to play Apocalypse regularly mean that LoWs just weren't that popular with the general 40k playing community? Why should those players see their favoured way to play the game be forcefully changed when the previous editions allowed both groups of players to co-exist without any problems?

Kangodo wrote:

To me 'optional' is when the core game gives me the option to play something or not play something.

Even troops are now an option with 7th Edition as we gained access to Unbound-armies. I love that!

You always had the option to play the game like that. The fact that you didn't find opponents that shared your favourite way of playing is an indication that maybe you were in the minority though.

Kangodo wrote:

So you want the option to not have it in your BRB or what are you saying?

Two choices:
-You play a match including LoW's
-You play a match excluding LoW's

Before 7th/Escalation we had to play them in Apocalypse.

Yes, they should have been kept as separate options.

Kangodo wrote:

Big difference: previously you could say that you just wanted to play core 40k and since that is the default way to play, people that came to the store had their lists prepared to play core 40k. Now you have to say you wan't to play the same core 40k but without LoW's, or Fortifications, or whatever, which means that the chance that your opponent had those types of units in their list not only increases, but other people will reply with "but why?", and then you end up with these types of threads and an even more fractured community...

So?
Player A hates LoW's and player B loves LoW's.
Player A used to be happy and player B felt bad because he could only play them in Apocalypse, which to many players is once a year or never.
Player B is now happy because he can field them legally and player A is grumbling because he has to ask his opponent not to play a LoW.

What you are saying is basically "The old situation was better because I was happy with it. feth the rest."
That is selfish and I'm not really interested in discussing that.

If LoWs are such wonderful additions to the game, then why didn't Player B find more players that liked them like he did? Why was it necessary for him to force his preferred play style on players that didn't like LoWs in their day to day games? What you are saying could also easily be construed as "The new situation is better because I wan't to play with my expensive toys. feth what my opponents think."

What I'm saying is that the old situation was better because it allowed for both play styles to exist separately while the new situation just serves to further divide the community and will make more players quit the game.

Because before 7th edition D weapons were overpowered and not fun?

Old situation wasn't better for some people but it was for you.


(note: I don't own any LoWs)

For me here's the gist of the problem.

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

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

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

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

 ashikenshin wrote:
Ok, but saying: The game has less options now is not shorthand to saying: the game has less optional rulesets or is it?

The point I was making is that it is shorthand for saying "the game has less optional rulesets" to the people saying there's less options. To the other side, it was being interpreted as "the game has less optional units."

Obviously it's semantics, but it seemed like there was 3 pages of discussion driven by a lack of clarity on what the other side meant more than on actual content of the argument.

If short handing makes confusion then it's not short hand, it's being ambiguous and not conveying your point across very well.

Yes. That's why I felt the shorthand needed clearing up. I'm pretty much neutral, but I find the conversation interesting and want it to continue more productively.

Car analogy is still flawed.

Yeah that's why I called it lousy

That being said, it's less lousy than I thought initially.

To further elaborate, the lousy car metaphor here is that in last year's model, the LOW ruleset was offered as an option that you could purchase as part of your lousy car. In this year's model, it is no longer an option but instead comes as standard equipment. Some people want the ability to play without that option (the LOW ruleset), and thus are annoyed that it was added as standard equipment.

(Meanwhile the brits are annoyed that everything with us damned yanks has to come down to a damn car metaphor )

Yet, as pointed out, you can play without low...given the army construction rules exactly state this.

To defeat the lousy car analogy presented above, you can speak to the manufacturer and agree on what is standard.

 slowthar wrote:
(Meanwhile the brits are annoyed that everything with us damned yanks has to come down to a damn car metaphor )

As an Australian who loves cars, owns a '71 big block Corvette and has spent several years working on a team that builds race cars... I fething hate car analogies I find them a useless abstraction because 99% of the time it's sufficient to explain a situation in wargaming by simply explaining the wargaming situation itself instead of abstracting it with cars when cars share very little similarity to toy soldiers.

Sorry, needless use of analogies is one of my pet peeves. Too often it just sidetracks a discussion to the validity of the analogy instead of actually just settling the topic at hand... like right now

PhantomViper wrote:
You always had the option to play the game like that. The fact that you didn't find opponents that shared your favourite way of playing is an indication that maybe you were in the minority though.

And you now have the option to ask your opponent NOT to play with Lords of War. It is that simple!
If I am really in the minority than you won't have any issue finding a game without LoW's, right?

If LoWs are such wonderful additions to the game, then why didn't Player B find more players that liked them like he did?

Because they weren't legal.

Why was it necessary for him to force his preferred play style on players that didn't like LoWs in their day to day games? What you are saying could also easily be construed as "The new situation is better because I wan't to play with my expensive toys. feth what my opponents think."

Nope. What I am saying is, mark my words, the following: "GW decided to include Lords of War in regular 40k. Nothing you say is going to change it, no matter how much you complain about it."

If LoW's are so hated then you won't have any issue finding players that want to play without them, right?

What I'm saying is that the old situation was better because it allowed for both play styles to exist separately while the new situation just serves to further divide the community and will make more players quit the game.

Aah yes, they existed separately and I could just walk into any FLGS and find someone to play with my SHV.
You are not going to tell me you actually believe that?

On the other hand you will definitely be able to walk into a FLGS and play a game without LoW's now.
While I am also able to walk into a FLGS and play a game wíth LoW's.

If this is going to divide the community than the community isn't that great to start with.
Either the majority of players enjoy playing with LoW's and were unable to do it, which means the change is good because you give them what they want.
Or the majority of players doesn't enjoy LoW's and that means the new addition is irrelevant because you won't find an opponent that fields LoW's.

I have a warhound I got for a campaign I was doing, Ive used it a couple times for fun but I definitely don't use it every game.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I have a warhound I got for a campaign I was doing, Ive used it a couple times for fun but I definitely don't use it every game.

no, dude. You are doing it wrong. You have LoW you HAVE to use it now since it's mandatory.

@Kangodo you're missing the entire point. It's easier to allow than disallow; that in fact is part of the entire problem with 40k as a game: The "kitchen sink" everything-by-default approach instead of a core set with optional addons. LoW as an option was fine, because it required the person wanting to field it to ask. As much as it seems that way this is not the same thing as having a person who does *not* want to face a Lord of War to ask not to field it.

Do you not get the difference between "Can I use a Lord of War?" and "Could you not use a Lord of War"?

WayneTheGame wrote:
@Kangodo you're missing the entire point. It's easier to allow than disallow; that in fact is part of the entire problem with 40k as a game: The "kitchen sink" everything-by-default approach instead of a core set with optional addons. LoW as an option was fine, because it required the person wanting to field it to ask. As much as it seems that way this is not the same thing as having a person who does *not* want to face a Lord of War to ask not to field it.

Do you not get the difference between "Can I use a Lord of War?" and "Could you not use a Lord of War"?

So where are these hypothetical LOW coming from you're 'forced' to play against now? Has anyone actually ran across this situation IRL or are we just prophesising doom?

As to you're question, there isnt much of a difference, If I want to play with my Warhound, I'm still gonna ask a person I'm setting up a game with if they mind me using it. If they say no, then that's that.

Does the Rules need to have a section on proper social interaction between two humans now so people dont get the deer in the headlights look when talking about their plastic mans? Honestly. Or is there a rule in the book that states you're not allowed to talk before hand about what kindof game you want to play, or you have to play no questions asked.

The black and white rigidness of this entire premise is the main problem.

WayneTheGame wrote:
@Kangodo you're missing the entire point. It's easier to allow than disallow; that in fact is part of the entire problem with 40k as a game: The "kitchen sink" everything-by-default approach instead of a core set with optional addons. LoW as an option was fine, because it required the person wanting to field it to ask. As much as it seems that way this is not the same thing as having a person who does *not* want to face a Lord of War to ask not to field it.

Oh really? Tell that to everyone with Forgeworld models
It took years and clear rulings that they were allowed before people stopped complaining or banning them by default.

It seems that people are contradicting themselves.
Either the majority loves LoW in which case the new rulings are better.
Or the majority hates LoW in which case you will not have any problem finding a game without them.

All these changes accomplish one thing: There is finally a legal framework to field these models.
The problem before was that people who loved LoW had no RAW to allow them into regular 40k.

Do you not get the difference between "Can I use a Lord of War?" and "Could you not use a Lord of War"?

Sure, I do! But how about these quotes:"
"I won't play unless you allow me to field a SHV."
"I won't play if you insist on fielding a SHV."

WayneTheGame wrote:
@Kangodo you're missing the entire point. It's easier to allow than disallow; that in fact is part of the entire problem with 40k as a game: The "kitchen sink" everything-by-default approach instead of a core set with optional addons. LoW as an option was fine, because it required the person wanting to field it to ask. As much as it seems that way this is not the same thing as having a person who does *not* want to face a Lord of War to ask not to field it.

Do you not get the difference between "Can I use a Lord of War?" and "Could you not use a Lord of War"?

Perhaps I am just being dense, but really why is the difference? To me it seems that it essentially boils down to the same thing, one player asking another player to change something to get more enjoyment from the game.