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.

My Response to a Chaos Marine Force with a War Hound:
"Well out comes my Plasma SPAM, 33+ Plasma Weapons sound Good?"

 Frankenberry wrote:
I don't get why people need instructions on how to converse with other people, it's like they'd rather complain.

How to talk to a possible 40k opponent, distilled:

You: Yo, down for some 40k?
Them: Sure. Points?
You: 1250 sounds good.
Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys.
You: Pretty cool stuff man, love the paint. What's that?
Them: Oh, it's a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT. Basically a super-heavy transport.
You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against super-heavy units. Would you mind maybe not fielding it?
Them: Eh, I guess. Let's play.

DONE. Holy crap, people don't have to make an enormous issue about people being TFG's because they want to field the 1200 dollar model they bought and painted. Jesus, it's like people forgot how to be people or something.

You: Yo, down for some 40k?
Them: Sure. Points?
You: 1250 sounds good.
Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys.
You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against forgeworld stuff. Would you mind maybe not fielding it?

Would that be an issue for you? Or would you be fine and re-arrange your army to AM?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Super Heavies need substantial house ruling in order to integrate them into standard low point level games. GW may have irresponsibly made them legal but the game still breaks if Warhounds start thrashing around in 1850 point games. The games become silly and dumb.

So instead of going back and forth over their legality, how about discussing how you house rule them so that they can be a part of standard games?

If you want to maintain that they are fine as they are and they should not be house ruled and just played as is then the conversation stops here and people simply won't play against super heavies in normal 40k games. There are bad apples in the LoW roster and they have to be dealt with if you actually want to see LoW in standard games.

to be fair though a NON Turbo laser destructor Warhounds not THAT bad.... and at 750 pts.... that can be locked in combat..

So since everyone fields them with turbo laser destructors then you are saying that they indeed are that bad. Are you suggesting that LoW should be house-ruled that certain weapons can't be picked?

My chaos warhound has a plasma blast gun and vulcan megabolter. Cos both weapons look awesome.

QFT


Admittedly they are magnetized so i can swap them to whatevers... but thats the normal loadout

 Jidmah wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
I don't get why people need instructions on how to converse with other people, it's like they'd rather complain.

How to talk to a possible 40k opponent, distilled:

You: Yo, down for some 40k?
Them: Sure. Points?
You: 1250 sounds good.
Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys.
You: Pretty cool stuff man, love the paint. What's that?
Them: Oh, it's a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT. Basically a super-heavy transport.
You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against super-heavy units. Would you mind maybe not fielding it?
Them: Eh, I guess. Let's play.

DONE. Holy crap, people don't have to make an enormous issue about people being TFG's because they want to field the 1200 dollar model they bought and painted. Jesus, it's like people forgot how to be people or something.

You: Yo, down for some 40k?
Them: Sure. Points?
You: 1250 sounds good.
Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys.
You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against forgeworld stuff. Would you mind maybe not fielding it?

Would that be an issue for you? Or would you be fine and re-arrange your army to AM?

That would be annoying, but born out of ignorance more than anything. My dislike of expensive LoW is not born out of me not knowing what they are.

But yeah, it would be annoying, but if they genuinely don't want to play against it I wouldn't get all uppity about it, I would just restructure them as regular IG. I have a small DKOK army in the making and it fits in nicely with my Cadian army either as allies or as an expansion within the IG codex.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
I don't get why people need instructions on how to converse with other people, it's like they'd rather complain.

How to talk to a possible 40k opponent, distilled:

You: Yo, down for some 40k?
Them: Sure. Points?
You: 1250 sounds good.
Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys.
You: Pretty cool stuff man, love the paint. What's that?
Them: Oh, it's a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT. Basically a super-heavy transport.
You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against super-heavy units. Would you mind maybe not fielding it?
Them: Eh, I guess. Let's play.

DONE. Holy crap, people don't have to make an enormous issue about people being TFG's because they want to field the 1200 dollar model they bought and painted. Jesus, it's like people forgot how to be people or something.

You: Yo, down for some 40k?
Them: Sure. Points?
You: 1250 sounds good.
Them: Word. I'm running Forgeworld Imperial Guard, check out my Death Korps guys.
You: Ah, well hey man, I'm not super keen on playing against forgeworld stuff. Would you mind maybe not fielding it?

Would that be an issue for you? Or would you be fine and re-arrange your army to AM?

I shouldn't have to do that, in fact I'd kindly decline and move on to another person. But, in reality, I'd probably already have the dex and have to spend a stupid amount of time proxying models, so yeah, I guess that's doable if you want to ruin the entire game.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
If it's legal and people won't play you if you bring it, then they're TFG. It's like saying "I won't play you if you bring drop pods because I don't like them"...

This is ridiculous, there's no comparison what so ever to a DP list and bringing a reaver Titan to a 2000 point game.

The fact that this discussion is so heated shows that there's something deeply wrong in 40k.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:That would be annoying, but born out of ignorance more than anything. My dislike of expensive LoW is not born out of me not knowing what they are.

But yeah, it would be annoying, but if they genuinely don't want to play against it I wouldn't get all uppity about it, I would just restructure them as regular IG. I have a small DKOK army in the making and it fits in nicely with my Cadian army either as allies or as an expansion within the IG codex.

I can see why one doesn't like facing a big LoW, but the CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT is definitely not one of those. It's basically four chimeras in one model, has no real killing power (IIRC the best it can do is four lascannons) and isn't hard to kill at all. I think it's just as fair to be annoyed when someone declines a LoW for no reason. Most LoW in the 300-400 class are like that, they are basically slightly stronger versions of regular models, very similar in strength and survivability to Imperial Knights, which most people seem to have no issues with whatsoever.

Frankenberry wrote:I shouldn't have to do that, in fact I'd kindly decline and move on to another person. But, in reality, I'd probably already have the dex and have to spend a stupid amount of time proxying models, so yeah, I guess that's doable if you want to ruin the entire game.

So, why is that person different from the person declining the LoW?

By the BRB a LoW is completely legal as a part of any Detachment.
By refusing to play against a LoW is refusing to play a Legal Unit.

It is still about the attitude. If someone showed up with a Reaver hoping to play with it and I refused, I would be TFG that ruined his day.
Now I have never fought a Reaver, but I have a Gargant. In that game [it was a 2 on 1] the Gargant Focused all of its fire on me and ignored the All Dreadnaught Army. I did not have a good time in that game because of the Gargant, but because the other guy was being a .
I do know that I can take one down if I took the right List. I know there are no Un-killable units out there, so there is always a chance.

 Jidmah wrote:
I can see why one doesn't like facing a big LoW, but the CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT is definitely not one of those. It's basically four chimeras in one model, has no real killing power (IIRC the best it can do is four lascannons) and isn't hard to kill at all. I think it's just as fair to be annoyed when someone declines a LoW for no reason. Most LoW in the 300-400 class are like that, they are basically slightly stronger versions of regular models, very similar in strength and survivability to Imperial Knights, which most people seem to have no issues with whatsoever.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:That would be annoying, but born out of ignorance more than anything. My dislike of expensive LoW is not born out of me not knowing what they are.

Of course, "expensive" is a relative term and my definition may vary from others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:
By refusing to play against a LoW is refusing to play a Legal Unit.

By refusing your opponent's refusal you are refusing a legal request to refuse to play against an agreed upon force

The "legal" discussion doesn't really get you far when GW's own rulebook basically states "do whatever the feth you want, the rules are more what you call guidelines than actual rules".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
By refusing to play against a LoW is refusing to play a Legal Unit.

By refusing your opponent's refusal you are refusing a legal request to refuse to play against an agreed upon force

The "legal" discussion doesn't really get you far when GW's own rulebook basically states "do whatever the feth you want, the rules are more what you call guidelines than actual rules".

So what then is the point of the CAD then?
Why don't we all just play Unbound and just move on?

 Anpu42 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
By refusing to play against a LoW is refusing to play a Legal Unit.

By refusing your opponent's refusal you are refusing a legal request to refuse to play against an agreed upon force

The "legal" discussion doesn't really get you far when GW's own rulebook basically states "do whatever the feth you want, the rules are more what you call guidelines than actual rules".

So what then is the point of the CAD then?
Why don't we all just play Unbound and just move on?

Guidelines.

EDIT: But when I read the rules, that's how they read to me. You have to agree on how you organise your forces, here's some guidelines, you have to decide if you want other restrictions.

There are many ways you can pick an army, and these are discussed in detail in the Choosing Your Army section. Both players will need to agree whether they will use a points limit, and any other restrictions they will place upon their army selection. In some cases, the mission may also specify certain restrictions or requirements.

There are many other types of restrictions and requirements that players might agree on for their armies.

 Anpu42 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
By refusing to play against a LoW is refusing to play a Legal Unit.

By refusing your opponent's refusal you are refusing a legal request to refuse to play against an agreed upon force

The "legal" discussion doesn't really get you far when GW's own rulebook basically states "do whatever the feth you want, the rules are more what you call guidelines than actual rules".

So what then is the point of the CAD then?
Why don't we all just play Unbound and just move on?

Because at the end of the day this is merely a game, and games are meant to be fun for both sides and played in good spirit.

There is obviously a large difference between a LoW characters that are recently coming out, and previous LoW super-heavies. Any TAC army can handle the Ork, SW, or GK LoW character, not easily, but they are almost assuredly able to. Most can probably handle Baneblades and the like at higher point values. The point being that the larger the point range you have to work with the more likely it is that you have enough of SOMETHING to handle it.

Is it possible to take a Warhound Titan at 1000 points? Yes, is it legal? Yes. Are you being a sporting player if you show up and EXPECT as though it is your birthright that people play against you? Nooope. Saying someone should be obliged to battle you is very funny, but already undermining the point of the hobby which is to have fun. As with all things in life it will take some compromise, but hey its possible.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Why should we tell them about LoW? I mean, they don't inform us they're bringing Abaddon... Why do we have to inform them we're taking Gazghull?

Because we are talking about SHV's and GMC's and not about Ghazghkull.
You don't have to tell me that you suddenly decided to field a Reaver Titan.
But I will pack my things and go play someone else.

I think that mentality is very obtuse. It's a slippery slope to start deciding if you'll play someone based on what they bring. Why not just accept they're part of the game, and build your TAC list against it?

Well, fielding lascannon and melta weapons take a few points to field and are not very effective when facing horde armies.
So if you build you list accordingly assuming a Reaver Titan will be across the table, the green horde will be laughing through the whole game.
I have to say it is a valid decision that if the rock-paper-scissors formulation of opposing army lists look too one-sided why play the game?
No-one is obligated to sit through what would be an obvious beating, even GW has a rule "our weapons are useless" to disengage from a hopeless fight: why not the player?

<edit> After coming across too many players that are into playing the game where the more overwhelming the win, the better: got no time for you, unless we agree to play our "A" lists and meet again.

Yes, I know that.
To me using that makes it is a crutch for those who are afraid of facing the unknown.
I want to ask the following questions to anyone who declines to play against a "Legal" List: [NOTE: The Quotes on Legal are there to denote a list that falls within the CAD FOC, not part of A Players Agreements]
Have you ever faced a Reaver Titan or the like?
If no, then how do you know you won't enjoy the game?
If Yes, what made the game unenjoyably for you?
The same can be said for Unbound, Flyers and Fortifications.

Quickjager wrote:
Are you being a sporting player if you show up and EXPECT as though it is your birthright that people play against you? Nooope. Saying someone should be obliged to battle you is very funny, but already undermining the point of the hobby which is to have fun.

Hit the nail on the head right there.
I do not know how many times I have seen players of this nature.

The look of shock and anger when I say, "Nah, I do not feel like playing against a force like that, I brought my balanced army today."
You can see them considering showering me with ridicule, try to bully me into it... quite interesting the range of emotion.
Then the look of anxiety when I say, "Tell you what, I will bring my more competitive list and we can meet-up and play a "proper" game another time, Ok?"
Usually they start trying to weasel out of it because they were looking for a victim to stomp on.

At this point for the next game he does not need to tell me a blessed thing, the gloves are off and bring it on.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Spoiler:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
By refusing to play against a LoW is refusing to play a Legal Unit.

By refusing your opponent's refusal you are refusing a legal request to refuse to play against an agreed upon force

The "legal" discussion doesn't really get you far when GW's own rulebook basically states "do whatever the feth you want, the rules are more what you call guidelines than actual rules".

So what then is the point of the CAD then?
Why don't we all just play Unbound and just move on?

Guidelines.

EDIT: But when I read the rules, that's how they read to me. You have to agree on how you organise your forces, here's some guidelines, you have to decide if you want other restrictions.

There are many ways you can pick an army, and these are discussed in detail in the Choosing Your Army section. Both players will need to agree whether they will use a points limit, and any other restrictions they will place upon their army selection. In some cases, the mission may also specify certain restrictions or requirements.

There are many other types of restrictions and requirements that players might agree on for their armies.

Yes, I know that.
To me using that makes it is a crutch for those who are afraid of facing the unknown.
I want to ask the following questions to anyone who declines to play against a "Legal" List: [NOTE: The Quotes on Legal are there to denote a list that falls within the CAD FOC, not part of A Players Agreements]
Have you ever faced a Reaver Titan or the like?
If no, then how do you know you won't enjoy the game?
If Yes, what made the game unenjoyably for you?
The same can be said for Unbound, Flyers and Fortifications.

Reaver specifically, no, but over the years I've played plenty of games where an army (or both) consisted primarily of 1 model. It can be fun, definitely, the times I have done it we haven't done it as a "standard game", we usually make up a scenario or use one if one is available (Epic had 1 or 2 fun scenarios that revolved around a titan being taken on by a swarm of smaller things). But I don't want to be playing against them regularly in standard mission type games with my TAC list (not because I'm incapable of adapting, but because it pushes the stupidity of rock-paper-scissors too far for TAC games IMO and because I don't think they fit the scale of the type of game I typically like to play).

Yes, I've played against fliers, no I don't like them in 40k (good concept, dislike the implementation). I haven't played against an Unbound army and I don't need to play against an Unbound army to form an opinion on it. I have played with and against fortifications, I don't have a huge problem with the concept of fortifications, but again I think they're poorly implemented. Yes I've played with and against allies long before the allies rules existed and yes I still don't like them being part of the core game.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. Would you please read my posts before responding to them? The fact that nobody protests about tactical squads is the whole point! There is near-unanimous agreement that tactical squads are allowed and in the unlikely event that you dare to disagree and refuse to allow your opponent to use them you will instantly be labeled TFG and shunned from the community.

I did read it, and you keep coming up with a hypothetical situation where someone labels another as TFG for refusing Tactical Squads.
So my question - again - is: "Have you ever encountered such a situation?"
People don't complain about Tactical Squads because two Tactical Squads don't invalidate most lists I have ever played with or against in my life.
Reaver Titans do such a thing!

A list with a Reaver titan IS a normal list. The fact that you don't like how 7th edition works doesn't mean that the "normal" game is one that obeys all of your bizarre house rules about army construction.

According to the Oxford dictionary normal means: "Conforming to a standard, usual, typical or expected."
Please don't confuse 'legal' with 'normal', because 'normal' is what the majority says it is.

Well then that's their problem for not understanding how the game works. The Reaver is a legal choice, if you are surprised by one then it's entirely your fault.

It's only a legal choice if your opponent agrees per the BRB.
And seeing as the majority of people don't expect a Reaver Titan it's also not normal to play against it, according to the definition of the word 'normal'.

 MWHistorian wrote:
The fact that this discussion is so heated shows that there's something deeply wrong in 40k.

No, there is nothing wrong in 40k.
The issue is that some people consider it unreasonable if I don't want to play against something that I do not want to play against.
Wait.. Let's rephrase that: The issue is that some people consider it unreasonable if I would like to be informed before a game if the opponent is fielding units that are generally considered to be not normal for a game of WH40k because they change the way a normal game is played.

So in short:
-Do I mind playing against SHV's? No.
-Would I like to be informed well before the game? Yes.
-Do I like to play against SHV's all the time? No.
-Is there a problem with that? No, because it's a game. That we play for our amusement.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Reaver specifically, no, but over the years I've played plenty of games where an army (or both) consisted primarily of 1 model. It can be fun, definitely, the times I have done it we haven't done it as a "standard game", we usually make up a scenario or use one if one is available (Epic had 1 or 2 fun scenarios that revolved around a titan being taken on by a swarm of smaller things). But I don't want to be playing against them regularly in standard mission type games with my TAC list (not because I'm incapable of adapting, but because it pushes the stupidity of rock-paper-scissors too far for TAC games IMO and because I don't think they fit the scale of the type of game I typically like to play).

I feel the same, one every once in a while is a blast [and yes the pun was intended], but I would not want to play against them all of the time.
This goes to the guy showing up with his Reaver. It will probably be an every once in a while game so I would have no issue with it. Now if that is all he brought every time to every game, I would see an issue, mostly because it would get boring after a few times.

Yes, I've played against fliers, no I don't like them in 40k (good concept, dislike the implementation).

I like them as long as there are not buckets of them and I know in advance so I can bring some AAA even if it is just Flakk Missiles.

I haven't played against an Unbound army and I don't need to play against an Unbound army to form an opinion on it.

They can be fun if you are facing a good Balanced/Fluffy list like an all Dreadnaught or my Loganwing Terminator Wolf Guard Army.

I have played with and against fortifications, I don't have a huge problem with the concept of fortifications, but again I think they're poorly implemented. Yes I've played with and against allies long before the allies rules existed and yes I still don't like them being part of the core game.

We have found them just clumsy enough during the List building Phase that by the time I think about one I don't have the points left unless I build the list around it.

 MWHistorian wrote:
The fact that this discussion is so heated shows that there's something deeply wrong in 40k.

Not at all. Human beings engaging in a heated discussion on a specific topic in no way illustrates anything wrong with the topic in question. Human beings can have a heated discussion on ANY topic.

short of tabling your opponent, in missions that use "cards" to generate points, you will most likely lose with a reaver at 1500 points, I cannot imagine you having any significant scoring models to take objectives beyond the reaver which of course would not have Objective secured.

an army of grots would probably defeat you.

 Orblivion wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
The fact that this discussion is so heated shows that there's something deeply wrong in 40k.

Not at all. Human beings engaging in a heated discussion on a specific topic in no way illustrates anything wrong with the topic in question. Human beings can have a heated discussion on ANY topic.

The discussion is about fundamental differences in a game that makes a deep divide in the player base.
That doesn't happen to this level in most other games. (successful ones, anyways.) Not the argument itself that's unusual, but the nature of it. The question is, what sort of game is 40k supposed to be?

Kangodo wrote:
No, there is nothing wrong in 40k.

Well, yeah, there is something wrong with 40k, players just have to make the best of it or stop playing it, lol.

LordBlades wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Except it's nothing alike because anyone playing 40k likely finds a tactical squad acceptable while you know full well lots of people don't find expensive superheavies acceptable.

While tactical squad might be a bit of a stretch, there are many other things some people (on this forum at least) find not acceptable: fliers,mass AV13, more than x Wave Serpents below y points, more than x Rpitides below y points etc. So where do you draw the line?

For a lot of people this illustrates the crux of the issue. Before, superheavies (and flyers before that) were optional things. With them being pushed as being part of the "core" game and able to be used in regular games, it blurs the line between what is acceptable an what isn't. That's precisely the issue. If you ban Lords of War, you ban things that aren't gamebreaking like Logan or Ghaz, so you just ban superheavies. But Imperial Knights are superheavies, so you ban superheavies except Knights. But then you get into a slippery slope. One of the concerns when the IK was released was the impact on tournaments, because you could field an "army" of just IKs; if a tournament banned them, they've now set a precedent to ban an army so what would be next, banning Tau or Eldar? Just look at the arguments here. Superheavies are "allowed", so you can't refuse to play them? If you refuse to play someone who plops down a Titan in a random game, are you TFG or is he TFG, or neither or both of you? If you refuse to play someone with a superheavy, how about someone with an IK "army"? How about an Eldar player with Wave Serpent Spam? This is a very dangerous path to be walking down, and the fact that it exists at all shows a very critical issue with the 40k rules.

That's the problem in a nutshell. The "everything in, pick what you want" approach just doesn't work because it reverses the social contract; instead of saying "I want to field my Titan" it's "I don't want to play against your Titan" which has a negative connotation. Allowed by default is bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Orblivion wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
The fact that this discussion is so heated shows that there's something deeply wrong in 40k.

Not at all. Human beings engaging in a heated discussion on a specific topic in no way illustrates anything wrong with the topic in question. Human beings can have a heated discussion on ANY topic.

The discussion is about fundamental differences in a game that makes a deep divide in the player base.
That doesn't happen to this level in most other games. (successful ones, anyways.) Not the argument itself that's unusual, but the nature of it. The question is, what sort of game is 40k supposed to be?

Exalted. The fact that this discussion always crops up and 40k is the only game that has such a divide in the community ("I should be allowed to field a Titan because it's just as legal as bringing a Tactical Squad" versus "I don't think superheavies belong in the game and don't have fun playing them") is proof that there's something terribly wrong with it.

It's a game that tries to cater to every possible combination of player and fails miserably because different people want different things, and typically the rules exist to smooth out the edges so multiple kinds of players can play each other. 40k doesn't do that and lets both extremes meet and argue.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Orblivion wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
The fact that this discussion is so heated shows that there's something deeply wrong in 40k.

Not at all. Human beings engaging in a heated discussion on a specific topic in no way illustrates anything wrong with the topic in question. Human beings can have a heated discussion on ANY topic.

The discussion is about fundamental differences in a game that makes a deep divide in the player base.
That doesn't happen to this level in most other games. (successful ones, anyways.) Not the argument itself that's unusual, but the nature of it. The question is, what sort of game is 40k supposed to be?

Different people, different answers.
For GW it is a game for "collectors of GW models".
I "think" it has been established that it is not a "proper" competitive game.
So I guess getting blown away by a Titan or a Baneblade is all in the name of good fun in the grimdark of 40k.

WayneTheGame wrote:
For a lot of people this illustrates the crux of the issue. Before, superheavies (and flyers before that) were optional things. With them being pushed as being part of the "core" game and able to be used in regular games, it blurs the line between what is acceptable an what isn't. That's precisely the issue. If you ban Lords of War, you ban things that aren't gamebreaking like Logan or Ghaz, so you just ban superheavies. But Imperial Knights are superheavies, so you ban superheavies except Knights. But then you get into a slippery slope. One of the concerns when the IK was released was the impact on tournaments, because you could field an "army" of just IKs; if a tournament banned them, they've now set a precedent to ban an army so what would be next, banning Tau or Eldar? Just look at the arguments here. Superheavies are "allowed", so you can't refuse to play them? If you refuse to play someone who plops down a Titan in a random game, are you TFG or is he TFG, or neither or both of you? If you refuse to play someone with a superheavy, how about someone with an IK "army"? How about an Eldar player with Wave Serpent Spam? This is a very dangerous path to be walking down, and the fact that it exists at all shows a very critical issue with the 40k rules.

In a tournament, you would be foolish to refuse to play an army, as there is prizes (and usually an entry fee) involved. In friendly games, no one is forcing you to play against something or someone. If you have a choice between playing a gainst an Eldar Serpent-spam army, or an AS army with an IK, you choose which of the two you would find more enjoyable. If no one wants to play against Serpent-spam, and that is all you ever bring, eventually you will no longer get games until you change your list up a bit.

That said, all games are a social contract. If I don't want to play against my buddies Corellian Corvette, in X-Wing there are two options. Tell him I don't want to play against it, or find somebody else to play. If I don't want to play against someone's Wood Elf Fantasy army because he painted the Elves bright pink, no one is forcing me too.

To answer a previous series of questions:
I've never played against a super-heavy outside of 5th edition Apocalypse. I don't refuse to, just nobody in my group actively uses them.
I would have no problem playing against a super-heavy LoW in a friendly game. If I don't enjoy it, I won't play against it in the future. I've no idea how I'll feel, but as long as the guy isn't a jerk, I'll probably enjoy it (even if I get tabled by turn 3) and play again, with a slightly different list.

WayneTheGame wrote:
For a lot of people this illustrates the crux of the issue. Before, superheavies (and flyers before that) were optional things. With them being pushed as being part of the "core" game and able to be used in regular games, it blurs the line between what is acceptable an what isn't. That's precisely the issue. If you ban Lords of War, you ban things that aren't gamebreaking like Logan or Ghaz, so you just ban superheavies. But Imperial Knights are superheavies, so you ban superheavies except Knights. But then you get into a slippery slope. One of the concerns when the IK was released was the impact on tournaments, because you could field an "army" of just IKs; if a tournament banned them, they've now set a precedent to ban an army so what would be next, banning Tau or Eldar? Just look at the arguments here. Superheavies are "allowed", so you can't refuse to play them? If you refuse to play someone who plops down a Titan in a random game, are you TFG or is he TFG, or neither or both of you? If you refuse to play someone with a superheavy, how about someone with an IK "army"? How about an Eldar player with Wave Serpent Spam? This is a very dangerous path to be walking down, and the fact that it exists at all shows a very critical issue with the 40k rules.

That's the problem in a nutshell. The "everything in, pick what you want" approach just doesn't work because it reverses the social contract; instead of saying "I want to field my Titan" it's "I don't want to play against your Titan" which has a negative connotation. Allowed by default is bad.

The slippery slope argument doesn't really fly with me because at the end of the day we're all gamers and we all just want to have fun. We'll never reach the point of banning everything because then there'd be no game

No one has to be "TFG", that term gets thrown around way too much, two people can come to an agreement about what they're wanting to do without either of them being "TFG". Only when you start acting douchy are you "TFG".

It's a dangerous road to be walking down in the sense of splitting the community up, but there's not much else that can be done about it. You either accept the force selection GW provides, don't accept it and change it or don't accept it and quit.

The debates are hardly a sign of impending doom. they're simply a sign on CHANGE, even a cursory examination of history has shown that change produces debate. often fairly intense debate, but time moves on and the debate eventually ends and what was once hotly debated is just accepted as the norm. the game'll shake itself out.

In the last 3 years GW's introduced two entirely new unit types to the scene (that until recently where reserved exclusivly for forge world and or apoc) it'll take some time for the community to shake out and adapt.

BrianDavion wrote:
The debates are hardly a sign of impending doom. they're simply a sign on CHANGE, even a cursory examination of history has shown that change produces debate. often fairly intense debate, but time moves on and the debate eventually ends and what was once hotly debated is just accepted as the norm. the game'll shake itself out.

In the last 3 years GW's introduced two entirely new unit types to the scene (that until recently where reserved exclusivly for forge world and or apoc) it'll take some time for the community to shake out and adapt.

Of course 40k will continue on, the question is does the community "shake out and adapt" = "severe fracturing of the community, many people quitting and the game as a whole being severely diminished".

In time people will ease up on most super heavies. Most people I know are already cool with ones like Baneblades, Stompas, Obelisks, etc. They are pretty sweet.

Now stuff like Revenants and Transcendent C'tans we tend to stay away from because they're a bit much.