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.

 BoomWolf wrote:
So...the superheavies (even "light" ones like baneblade) don't fit in a 2000 point game in your eyes, thematically...and the game revolves around them and that's bad....

Yet 1000 point armies featuring abbadon, swarmlord, chapter masters on left and right, etc, are completely fine and fit the scale? and DONT shape the game around them? heck, even Anu'va who is practically useless, cheap and hardly effects the game is out of scale-the dude is the supreme leader of the entire tau empire! what is he doing on the frontline with a handful of fire warriors fighting against random space marines?

I don't have any hard fast rules as to what scale I like. It's just typically a few dozen guys split in to a handful of units with a few tanks or monsters backing them up. I'm not trying to take some moral high ground or anything and I'm fully aware other people can and do like other things, I'm just saying that's what I find entertaining.

Yes, I fully accept that in 1000pt games without taking LoW you can have HQ choices that also have too great of an influence. I'm not a big fan of them either. I might give my opponent a funny look if they bring a 400pt HQ to a 1000pt game.

I fail to see a semblance of logic here. what IS the "proper scale" of the game? because the games I played never made any sense "scale wise" with anything in it. there are always at the very least the HQs who are almost always fluff-wise far, FAR beyond the place they "should" be in a big war, fighting alongside just a handful of mooks compared to the armies they supposedly command.
Nearly every named HQ and half the unnamed ones fall under the category of "why are you even here"

And I have always been an advocate for reducing the number of super characters we have in armies or limiting them. I don't mind the occasional big bad dude, I just don't like it being the norm.

Also, I never said "proper scale", I simply referred to the scale I like to play. Part of the reason I play 40k over all the other games that people play is because most those games are small skirmish games, I don't like the scale of such small skirmish games. Some people do, that's fine.

Is the game in any way less revolving around ANY deathstar in the game? is the farsight bomb, the centurionstar, warlock council, etc NOT centerpieces of the army, and by extension the entire game?

No I don't like deathstar units either.

do you want to ban these as well?

We're starting to get back in to the ugly discussion here, "ban" is such a harsh word. Do I avoid playing against those armies? Yes, yes I do. I'm not an arsehole about it though, I simply avoid them. Luckily my local meta seems, in general, to be against deathstar armies and I don't see them come up that often.

Can't high AV tanks spammed to take almost all your points render much of your opponents army useless? (IG can have everything except 120 point to be pure tanks) don't termispam do much the same with rendering low AP units nearly useless?

Well 7th has made things worse for what I like. In regards to IG, yeah, you can spam tanks, and yeah, it does render much of your opponent's army useless (though even Leman Russes have 10 or 11 rear armour), but the lack of scoring meant it wasn't really a viable every-day army, I knew 2 people who had IG armoured companies and they only ever played them for poops and giggles, they had more standard armies to play standard games. I will be honest, I have no played with or against an IG armoured army in 7th edition, so I can't comment much on how that game plays.

As for Termi spam. They don't render low AP units nearly useless, cheap low AP attacks is a viable way of taking out termies. They significantly reduce the effectiveness of AP3-4 weapons, but they don't render them nearly useless, it's just sort of wasted points. Compare that to an army that comprises mostly of models with an AV no lower than 12 and mostly 13 or 14, anything lower than S6/7 is useless and what is S6/7 usually isn't taken in large enough quantities to be meaningful.

The point is simple, nothing you said in your "why LoW are ill-suited for the scale" actually is unique to them. every single one of them applies to half the things that are actually played, all the time, by everyone, and nobody seems to mind.

I never said it was unique to them. Doesn't mean it doesn't apply to them and they are some of the worst (in some cases THE worst) offenders.

I'm quite sure your own armies fall under the very same definitions as well.

Not really, I certainly could construct some deathstar armies out of the models I own, but for the most part, no, I don't. I don't even actively try to do it, but just the way I construct my armies I rarely end up with more than 25% of my points in a single model and typically no even a single unit. I have a baneblade that I've almost never used.

But thank you for going in to such an in depth analysis of what I do and don't enjoy. It's good to know what I find fun is under such scrutiny (sarcasm)

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
And after the person said yeah I can modify my list I'd just keep adding anti-superheavy stuff (varies depending on the army) and wipe the floor with them and next time suggest we do something different

I'm kind of at a loss of words here. Up to this I could relate to your point and see why you don't like a single model/unit defining your game. It's arguable since some super-heavies don't do that, while other regular units also have the power making the entire game revolve around them (most death stars, for example).

However, doing this would make you the person who is ruining the game, hands down, way more than that imaginary revenant player. This leads me to the point where you have proven to me that you'd rather ruin your opponent's game than play a game in a different way than you feel the game should be played, which was my point in the first place.

Oh, and

If there comes a time when big stuff is genuinely "standard" and your typical game just has LoW running around...

I can field a super-heavy with just the rulebook and my codex and buy the corresponding model from my local GW store without ever needing to know about the existence of forgeworld. The time is now.

 Jidmah wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
And after the person said yeah I can modify my list I'd just keep adding anti-superheavy stuff (varies depending on the army) and wipe the floor with them and next time suggest we do something different

I'm kind of at a loss of words here. Up to this I could relate to your point and see why you don't like a single model/unit defining your game. It's arguable since some super-heavies don't do that, while other regular units also have the power making the entire game revolve around them (most death stars, for example).

However, doing this would make you the person who is ruining the game, hands down, way more than that imaginary revenant player. This leads me to the point where you have proven to me that you'd rather ruin your opponent's game than play a game in a different way than you feel the game should be played, which was my point in the first place.

Well if what they find fun is fielding a big baddy and they don't mind me tailoring, they shouldn't mind me having fun by killing the big baddy, unless the only reason they took the big baddy is to dominate me and destroy my fun

To be fair to me, the order in which that imaginary discussion would have taken place was probably wrong. I wouldn't have asked if I could modify my list until further down, and if it came down to list tailoring it would be more of a negotiation than me just taking all the superheavy killers I can... so that hypothetical game would never actually take place where I tailor specifically to kill the LoW.

Oh, and

If there comes a time when big stuff is genuinely "standard" and your typical game just has LoW running around...

I can field a super-heavy with just the rulebook and my codex and buy the corresponding model from my local GW store without ever needing to know about the existence of forgeworld. The time is now.

There's 1 codex that has a LoW in it. I can deal with that. What I'm talking about is when it actually becomes standard within gaming groups, and so far it's not standard in my area even if it is in other areas.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


There's 1 codex that has a LoW in it. I can deal with that. What I'm talking about is when it actually becomes standard within gaming groups, and so far it's not standard in my area even if it is in other areas.

Just a small nitpick. There are 2 codecies with LoW. Orks (Stompa and Ghazgul) and Space Wolves (Santa Claws and his Slay).

Edit: There is also the Horus Heresy Legion Army Lists with LoW (Super Heavies, Primarchs, etc); however, that's a whole separate discussion.

Three if you count Draigo from the new GK codex some people are already holding in their hands.

 Jidmah wrote:
Three if you count Draigo from the new GK codex some people are already holding in their hands.

Curse early releases making me a liar!

Ok, my mistake, lol. I forgot about GW's poor attempts to make superheavies more accepted by making what should be a HQ a LoW

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Ok, my mistake, lol. I forgot about GW's poor attempts to make superheavies more accepted by making what should be a HQ a LoW

I don't disagree with your opinion, for what it's worth.

At the end of the day:

When it comes to the reality of the game, whether you like GW or dislike GW I think you have to admit the rules aren't written brilliantly and different people like different things so you have to accept you'll be negotiating games with people.

When it comes to wishlisting for 40k rules, I want to see GW come out with a tiered system of rules. Obviously still have the "you can play however you like if you want to go off script", but include different army construction rules for different play styles. They could even include different play styles as supplements like they did with Apoc with things like smaller scale games. Even thinking back to Epic 40k rules, maybe I'm just suffering from nostalgia but I seem to recall having a much wider array of mission options and a greater emphasis on the different ways the game can be played.

Other people might disagree with me on that, I just think 40k is best off not trying to be all-encompassing, not everyone likes the same things and I think the best way for that to flourish is if the rules reflect that.

Of course I doubt GW would get on board with that.

Side A. "All styles of play are valid, I just happen to not enjoy a certain style and will not play that.
Side B. "Too bad, you have to and you'll like it, so shut up and go away!"

Tyrannosaurus would have me play a game I don't enjoy? I've played against LOW and don't find them fun. That's just an opinion, I'm not right or wrong, I just have different ideas of fun than you. But it sounds like you'd force me to play or get out.
One of the reason I got out is people like you.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Side A. "All styles of play are valid, I just happen to not enjoy a certain style and will not play that.
Side B. "Too bad, you have to and you'll like it, so shut up and go away!"

Tyrannosaurus would have me play a game I don't enjoy? I've played against LOW and don't find them fun. That's just an opinion, I'm not right or wrong, I just have different ideas of fun than you. But it sounds like you'd force me to play or get out.
One of the reason I got out is people like you.

It's actually worse than that.

You need to write a 1500 word essay on the reasons that you won't play against LoW, in triplicate. It must then be peer reviewed by every member of your FLGS, then submitted to your local GW sales manager.

You will then be asked to atttend a weekend seminar titled "Why your way of fun is wrong".

 MWHistorian wrote:
Side A. "All styles of play are valid, I just happen to not enjoy a certain style and will not play that.
Side B. "Too bad, you have to and you'll like it, so shut up and go away!"

Tyrannosaurus would have me play a game I don't enjoy? I've played against LOW and don't find them fun. That's just an opinion, I'm not right or wrong, I just have different ideas of fun than you. But it sounds like you'd force me to play or get out.
One of the reason I got out is people like you.

Mission accomplished /twirls moustache

Side A: How about we try out some LOW today for a change? This cool new 7th edition makes them standard now and I want to give it a go.
Side B: i refuse to play against LOW under any circumstance because GW.

See? I can make it seem like the person wanting to play with LOW is the reasonable one.

Also the idea that it doesn't fit the scale is bull. Wraithknights, flyers and knight titans are just fine I take it?

 kronk wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Side A. "All styles of play are valid, I just happen to not enjoy a certain style and will not play that.
Side B. "Too bad, you have to and you'll like it, so shut up and go away!"

Tyrannosaurus would have me play a game I don't enjoy? I've played against LOW and don't find them fun. That's just an opinion, I'm not right or wrong, I just have different ideas of fun than you. But it sounds like you'd force me to play or get out.
One of the reason I got out is people like you.

It's actually worse than that.

You need to write a 1500 word essay on the reasons that you won't play against LoW, in triplicate. It must then be peer reviewed by every member of your FLGS, then submitted to your local GW sales manager.

You will then be asked to atttend a weekend seminar titled "Why your way of fun is wrong".

This literally made my laugh out loud. Have an exalt, whatever the hell that means

LoW are inconsistent.

Some, like the Baneblade, are about as strong as their points' worth of Leman Russ tanks.

Some, like Transcendent C'tans, are severely undercosted units that should only see the table in the absolutely most competetive of games.

The problem is that to the rules, these two are equivalent in the slots they take.

This thread, to me, implies lots of problems. To those of you who were happy over the LoW slot being added, why is this? What stopped you from using a Baneblade before? If your opponent is OK with facing a Baneblade, surely she will be OK with this regardless of what the rulebook says? And from the other perspective, surely your opponent won't be happier to have a Revenant demolish her casual army regardless of if the rulebook permits it or not? You could argue that it makes it easier to 'force' the unit onto your opponent in a pick-up game, but I would not be happy with having a unit 'forced' onto me and I doubt anyone would. Its status as fully legal in any game might be an attempt to lend it credibility but it does not change the unit and therefore does not really change the situation.

Say you are in the former situation. You bring a balanced IG list spearheaded by a Baneblade to your FLGS where you find an opponent and offers an 1750 point game. She gives you her list and asks to take a look at yours. She spots the Baneblade and either 1. Reasons that the Baneblade is fine, and you two play the match and hopefully have fun, or 2. reasons that the Baneblade is too tough/too shooty/whatever for her solely fluff-driven and rather weak list to fight. Now you have two options. You can either adjust your list by removing the Baneblade and replacing it, such as with Leman Russ tanks, or you can politely decline and look for another opponent who is more comfortable taking on your list.

You can argue that the Baneblade is functionally very similar to the same points value in Leman Russ tanks but there is no gaurantee she will agree to this since the units, while perhaps similar, are far from identical. And while you might convince her to play the game anyway, you must be really careful with how much you argue, since it can look very petty if you take it too far.

Everyone does not like the same thing. To some, taking on a Baneblade at 1000 points is a good fight, for others, it's a nightmare. Someone declining to face a list they feel they simply can't handle is not petty. They want enjoyment out of this game just like you do.

For example, a typical list of mine could look something like this:

Kharn
10 Khorne Chosen
26 cultists
10 CSM + Rhino
12 CSM
10 Melta-Raptors
Chaos Vindicator
Defiler
Forgefiend
7 havocs with 3 lascannons and a missile launcher

Seems like a decently balanced list, yes? It may seem like a small army, but the infantry gets really expensive with VotLW, special weapons, melee weapons on the Chosen et cetera.

Thanks to the Lascannons and the Melta-Raptors, this list would stand a chance against previously mentioned Baneblade list. I would expect its guns to cause massive casualties on my expensive infantry units, and I would expect a decisive defeat, but I would accept the challenge.

Conversely, if you bring a Revenant or Transcendent C'tan, I would politely decline or request that you replace the LoW with something else. I can accept a harsh challenge at times, but massacres are not exciting.

As it is often pointed out, this is not a problem inherent to LoW. I would be just as quick to refuse a serpentspam list. But LoW are certainly part of the problem. I maintain that they are best suited for Apocalypse, and that they should be allowed in normal games on a case-per-case basis. If your opponent would not have fun fighting a Baneblade 'illegally' brought to the battlefield (That is, if LoW did not exist) then why would she enjoy it if it suddenly becomes legal?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Side A. "All styles of play are valid, I just happen to not enjoy a certain style and will not play that.
Side B. "Too bad, you have to and you'll like it, so shut up and go away!"

Tyrannosaurus would have me play a game I don't enjoy? I've played against LOW and don't find them fun. That's just an opinion, I'm not right or wrong, I just have different ideas of fun than you. But it sounds like you'd force me to play or get out.
One of the reason I got out is people like you.

Mission accomplished /twirls moustache

Side A: How about we try out some LOW today for a change? This cool new 7th edition makes them standard now and I want to give it a go.
Side B: i refuse to play against LOW under any circumstance because GW.

See? I can make it seem like the person wanting to play with LOW is the reasonable one.

Also the idea that it doesn't fit the scale is bull. Wraithknights, flyers and knight titans are just fine I take it?

Not "because of GW" but because we don't find it fun. Answer my original question: do you want us to play games we don't find to be fun? If so, why bother playing it?
Edit: Also, Tyrano, if you were really interested in the success of 40k, you wouldn't be chasing players like me away, you'd be trying to find a way for everyone to have fun. People like you are why I'll never go back to 40k.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Also the idea that it doesn't fit the scale is bull. Wraithknights, flyers and knight titans are just fine I take it?

I don't know why you think that. Wraithknights I don't mind in 2k games, in 1k they are a bit big but I can live with it. I don't particularly love Knight Titans either, 1 or 2 I think is fine but I don't like the idea of an army for several of the reasons I've already outlined in this thread.

Fliers, no, I don't like the way they are handled in 40k. They are horribly out of scale and poorly represented IMO. I love planes, I was collecting model aircraft since as long as I can remember and that led me to an engineering degree that focused on aircraft. I love aircraft and I even love the silly aircraft in the 40k universe, but yes, the way GW have handled them is not "just fine" IMO.

Epic handled aircraft better than 40k does IMO. Also if you like aircraft, a game like Aeronautica Imperialis is awesome. As for 40k, I think aircraft that aren't just close support gunships should instead be represented by sudden quick pass strikes called in at key times of the battle, not dancing around a battlefield the size of a football field.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Epic handled aircraft better than 40k does IMO. Also if you like aircraft, a game like Aeronautica Imperialis is awesome. As for 40k, I think aircraft that aren't just close support gunships should instead be represented by sudden quick pass strikes called in at key times of the battle, not dancing around a battlefield the size of a football field.

To be fair most 40k aircraft shouldn't have difficulty "dancing" around a battlefield the size of a football field. An A10 Thunderbolt 2 can make a complete 360 degree turn inside an American football field. Also given that average Apoc games rarely qualify as even battalion level operations, they shouldn't be seen in Apoc by your reasoning. 40k is played at platoon/company level operations. In the U.S. military those level of operations often have dedicated air support flying halo over head for the duration of the operation.

Everything fits within the confines of warfare. Just because the bad guys don't have tanks and air support doesn't mean you shouldn't.

Games of 40k come down to one question with one answer. Do you want to play a game? Yes or No. Then like adults (or children that wish to become one) you proceed to talk it out on what the game is going to be like. Saying you get to use a LOW no matter what is like saying you get to play Eternal War missions no matter what. Both are perfectly legal within the rules. Both will require your opponent to be willing to agree. What I am trying to say is don't be a brat. Because eventually you won't get games not because what you bring to the table or what you refuse to play against but because you are a brat.

Wow love the hypocrisy here:

My opponent wants to use their expensive centerpiece LOW, then they are donkey-caves if they force me to play it.

But I'm a reasonable adult if I tell said opponent I don't wanna play them and force them to change their list.

So apparently LoW players should restrict their fun whenever it might interfere with another but the inverse doesn't apply?

2x210 wrote:
Wow love the hypocrisy here:
My opponent wants to use their expensive centerpiece LOW, then they are donkey-caves if they force me to play it.
But I'm a reasonable adult if I tell said opponent I don't wanna play them and force them to change their list.
So apparently LoW players should restrict their fun whenever it might interfere with another but the inverse doesn't apply?

It's not hypocrisy and it's quite simple:
Do you *really* want to field that LoW? Than find yourself another opponent.
The reverse also applies: Really don't want to play a LoW? Find yourself another opponent.

The inherent problem with all of this is that the "no LOW" ban is perfectly fine up to a point. Then the Imperial Knights screw things up because they are a codex in their own right.

Plus in some instances there is rank hypocrisy, and frankly its laughably annoying, especially regarding the Imperial knights. Every week i see people using multiple riptides/wraithknights/other MCs and numerous other things that are quite powerful, and they do moan about it. Yet when i suggested me using one knight for a campaign i get blagged off as a "power gamer" despite the fact, as a few have pointed out the Knight isn't that good. Que me laughing when one person fields 2 R'varna and 2 normal riptides in an army....

Each community deals with things differently, that is a given however giving things a chance to work seems too much for some. Turning up randomly with an army of knights would be going too far but having a lulz game with 3 of them on their own? that sounds fun.

But of course i'm using my common sense, that is dangerous isn't it?

2x210 wrote:
Wow love the hypocrisy here:

My opponent wants to use their expensive centerpiece LOW, then they are donkey-caves if they force me to play it.

But I'm a reasonable adult if I tell said opponent I don't wanna play them and force them to change their list.

So apparently LoW players should restrict their fun whenever it might interfere with another but the inverse doesn't apply?

I'll ask you the same question I asked the other guy. Should we then play a game I don't find to be fun? If so, what's the point? The rulebook says both players have to agree. If they don't, then find another player.

If someone, at any point, feels 'this is not going to be fun' (such as due to the presence of LoW) then they are 100% free to walk away, and vice versa. You can't judge anyone for this, since who are you to decide what others find fun? And if you find it petty, well, would you want to play with someone who's petty anyway?

2x210 wrote:
Wow love the hypocrisy here:

My opponent wants to use their expensive centerpiece LOW, then they are donkey-caves if they force me to play it.

But I'm a reasonable adult if I tell said opponent I don't wanna play them and force them to change their list.

So apparently LoW players should restrict their fun whenever it might interfere with another but the inverse doesn't apply?

Nope never said they had to change anything. A simple thank you but no thank you will suffice. Hence if either of us will not have fun it is best to simply walk away. But yah keep creating victims to simple questions with simple solutions. Best not to make compromise. Better shout and point fingers for not complying with what you want to do.

Sometimes I show up to my FLGS with 1500 pts and other people brought 1850pts. I say I've 1500 and they say they only want to play 1850. That is cool no big deal. I don't however run crying about the injustice of somebody choosing to not playy legal army list.

I play play Necrons. There are people that don't like playing Necrons. I've been refused games. Its cool though I understand. If you don't want to play me its no big deal. Won't even hold a grudge. Its cool being a reasonable human being in a community driven by social interaction. I recommend you give it a go.

2x210 wrote:
Wow love the hypocrisy here:

My opponent wants to use their expensive centerpiece LOW, then they are donkey-caves if they force me to play it.

But I'm a reasonable adult if I tell said opponent I don't wanna play them and force them to change their list.

So apparently LoW players should restrict their fun whenever it might interfere with another but the inverse doesn't apply?

Yeah, totally.

Like, I asked my girlfriend to play 40k with me, but she said no. What a hypocrite, amirite?

 BrotherGecko wrote:

2x210 wrote:
Wow love the hypocrisy here:

My opponent wants to use their expensive centerpiece LOW, then they are donkey-caves if they force me to play it.

But I'm a reasonable adult if I tell said opponent I don't wanna play them and force them to change their list.

So apparently LoW players should restrict their fun whenever it might interfere with another but the inverse doesn't apply?

Nope never said they had to change anything. A simple thank you but no thank you will suffice. Hence if either of us will not have fun it is best to simply walk away. But yah keep creating victims to simple questions with simple solutions. Best not to make compromise. Better shout and point fingers for not complying with what you want to do.

Sometimes I show up to my FLGS with 1500 pts and other people brought 1850pts. I say I've 1500 and they say they only want to play 1850. That is cool no big deal. I don't however run crying about the injustice of somebody choosing to not playy legal army list.

I play play Necrons. There are people that don't like playing Necrons. I've been refused games. Its cool though I understand. If you don't want to play me its no big deal. Won't even hold a grudge. Its cool being a reasonable human being in a community driven by social interaction. I recommend you give it a go.

This. Very much this.

 Ashiraya wrote:
What stopped you from using a Baneblade before?

The common attitude that "optional" supplements are banned by default no matter how powerful or weak they are. Many/most people expect to play the game according to the core rulebook and there is very little hope of getting a game with house rules to bring in your own special snowflake army. Even people who don't have any strong preferences default to "do what GW says" and are reluctant to change anything. By putting LoW into the core rules the default is now that the Baneblade is legal, and you'll get to use it unless you're trying to play against someone who really strongly opposes it. And the burden of refusing a game is now on the person who wants to separate GW's rules into "allowed" and "not allowed" categories, not the person who just wants to use everything GW publishes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
What stopped you from using a Baneblade before?

The common attitude that "optional" supplements are banned by default no matter how powerful or weak they are. Many/most people expect to play the game according to the core rulebook and there is very little hope of getting a game with house rules to bring in your own special snowflake army. Even people who don't have any strong preferences default to "do what GW says" and are reluctant to change anything. By putting LoW into the core rules the default is now that the Baneblade is legal, and you'll get to use it unless you're trying to play against someone who really strongly opposes it. And the burden of refusing a game is now on the person who wants to separate GW's rules into "allowed" and "not allowed" categories, not the person who just wants to use everything GW publishes.

But that is just shifting the burden, it does not mean someone is more/less nice for wanting or not wanting to play with a Baneblade.

It all seems like deception to me, people thinking a unit suddenly is fun to play against because GW tells you to.

 Peregrine wrote:
The common attitude that "optional" supplements are banned by default no matter how powerful or weak they are. Many/most people expect to play the game according to the core rulebook and there is very little hope of getting a game with house rules to bring in your own special snowflake army. Even people who don't have any strong preferences default to "do what GW says" and are reluctant to change anything. By putting LoW into the core rules the default is now that the Baneblade is legal, and you'll get to use it unless you're trying to play against someone who really strongly opposes it. And the burden of refusing a game is now on the person who wants to separate GW's rules into "allowed" and "not allowed" categories, not the person who just wants to use everything GW publishes.

That quote seems almost copy-pasted from the old FW-discussions this board used to have
No wonder, since it's almost the same discussion with only FW changed into LoW.

 Ashiraya wrote:
But that is just shifting the burden, it does not mean someone is more/less nice for wanting or not wanting to play with a Baneblade.
It all seems like deception to me, people thinking a unit suddenly is fun to play against because GW tells you to.

But he is right! On Dakkadakka it's easy to have a pro/anti-discussion.
Most players that I know are neutral and just go by the BRB and are nervous about stuff that's not in the BRB.

Kangodo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The common attitude that "optional" supplements are banned by default no matter how powerful or weak they are. Many/most people expect to play the game according to the core rulebook and there is very little hope of getting a game with house rules to bring in your own special snowflake army. Even people who don't have any strong preferences default to "do what GW says" and are reluctant to change anything. By putting LoW into the core rules the default is now that the Baneblade is legal, and you'll get to use it unless you're trying to play against someone who really strongly opposes it. And the burden of refusing a game is now on the person who wants to separate GW's rules into "allowed" and "not allowed" categories, not the person who just wants to use everything GW publishes.

That quote seems almost copy-pasted from the old FW-discussions this board used to have
No wonder, since it's almost the same discussion with only FW changed into LoW.

Are you surprised? its the same discussion we also had on flyers, just change the word "LoW" to "Flyer" and most posts are pretty much identical.

And fortifications too. same argument.

There are a few bad apples in the ranks of the LOW. If you want people to broadly accept LOW what's the solution to the bad apples?