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.

If the game was well written and had solid balance, there would be minimal complaints about Lords of War, SHVs, whatever imo. It would just boil down to refusing them if you didn't feel like playing that type of game due to playing those lists too often lately, or just wanting a certain kind of game... whatever. No reasonable person begrudges you for turning down a a game like that.

I love my baneblades and the idea of superheavies but the're so poorly balanced that I can't rationalise including them as they further skew the already terrible balance normally. Especially when they're forced in to encourage sales rather than to improve the game. That's the part that really gets me and is part of why you'll see me and many others in the "why I left GW and where I went to" thread.

Superheavies/LoW - good in theory, bad with GWs incompetent implementation into an incompetently written game.

I tend to think the only good implementation of superheavies in 40k is to limit them to a certain % of your whole army and/or whatever % you want in an Apoc game and/or limited to special scenarios. But that's just me As I've mentioned in previous threads on the matter I simply don't like big expensive models in small games unless it's some special scenario that revolves around it. I also think in a rock-paper-scissors game it's hard to balance things with reasonably high AV that consume most your points, either you have the anti-armour to kill it and it's a cake walk or you don't.

Titans work better in Epic, not just because the scale is more appropriate but also because the way Epic had a "firepower" system where you might have special weapons that were more likely to do damage, but anything could do damage to a war machine, the only question was how much firepower you had determined how many dice you'd roll and thus how much damage you could potentially do.

 Yonan wrote:
If the game was well written and had solid balance, there would be minimal complaints about Lords of War, SHVs, whatever imo. .

If the game was well written and had solid balance, there wouldn't be any complaints with fielding a LoW because it wouldn't be grossly unbalanced to field one, they would likely be like Colossals/Gargantuans in Warmachine/Hordes: A lot of points in one unit that has interesting tactical application, but simply fielding one doesn't give you a huge advantage.

I just hate feeling like I am TFG for wanting to pull out my Shadowsword.

I played the other week against a guy who was not equiped to face knights. To still use them and not be tfg telling him he had to face them or be branded tfg, I was like sure, np. I put them on the table anyway. One was standing and inert while the other was set up with the waist up laying on the ground next to the legs. terraign that looked cool. My couple hundred doller investment still got used. I still got kudos for my paint job and he knows I have them and to prepare for them in possible future games.

Baneblades are fine imo. Most LoW are ok-ish balance-wise with a few exceptions such as the T-Ctan and / or Reavers.

"Balance-wise" in terms of other LoW. LoW still should not be part of regular 40k games.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Baneblades are fine imo. Most LoW are ok-ish balance-wise with a few exceptions such as the T-Ctan and / or Reavers.

"Balance-wise" in terms of other LoW. LoW still should not be part of regular 40k games.

Superheavy vehicles and giant monsters arent the only LoW though.

Blanket statements like that would also remove the usability of Ghaz, Logan, Draigo and all subsequent codexes which will probably have important characters as LoW

So Draigo, Logan and Ghaz shouldnt be in normal games then?

I am not familiar with their new rules and cannot comment on those.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am not familiar with their new rules and cannot comment on those.

They're all basically the same as when they were HQs, with slight tweaks here and there, except they now take a LoW slot instead of HQ

Anpu42 wrote:I just hate feeling like I am TFG for wanting to pull out my Shadowsword.

And I just hate feeling like I am TFG for telling you to put it back away



(though I don't feel like TFG for for doing such things so whatever, lol. You really should worry less about being called TFG, it's a label that gets applied far too liberally and needlessly, especially on Dakka.)

EVIL INC wrote:...To still use them and not be tfg telling him he had to face them or be branded tfg, I was like sure, np...

...One was standing and inert while the other was set up with the waist up laying on the ground next to the legs. terraign that looked cool...

I don't understand these 2 sentences.

I was pointing out the same thing you were. if you try to use the model there will be someone who calls you tfg and if you ask someone else not to use it, someone will call you tfg. Just pointing out that it is a label that many wil use, especially here , to try to make whoever is disagreeing with you look like the bad guy.

The second one is a demonstration of how we used my two knights for terrain in a game. Those were the poses (I do not have them glued at the waist so I was able to take the top half off one and sit it on the table seperate from the legs to show "battle damage while the one I left together was considered dead but intact. This to demonstrate that you dont have to leave them out ofthe game altogether.

Ok, cheers for clarifying! Maybe I'm just tired as it's well past my bed time but I read your post like 3 times and couldn't figure out what those sentences meant

 Anpu42 wrote:
I just hate feeling like I am TFG for wanting to pull out my Shadowsword.

Oddly enough still: the "rule of cool" would still work.
Is the Shadowsword well painted and put together?
Even picky me has a hard time saying no to play against a good looking army no matter how outgunned I may be.
TFG's tend to have what looks like incomplete armies since they are usually the netlist of the week hastily assembled.

Seems TFG just means "Guy who does/plays something I dont like" these days.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Seems TFG just means "Guy who does/plays something I dont like" these days.

Pretty much.
To me, TFG is still based on actions and attitudes rather than list.

DO IT TO IT wrote:
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.

When 'crons finally get their new codex I expect to see the Transcendant C'tan adjusted a bit.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Seems TFG just means "Guy who does/plays something I dont like" these days.

Pretty much.
To me, TFG is still based on actions and attitudes rather than list.

TFG: the guy who wants to have his brand of fun at your expense.
Who fully expects you take whatever BS he dishes out because "It is in the rules and I have a loud voice, so you must do what I say!!!"

It is my spare time too, life is short, I have no time for being someone's chew-toy: take a walk princess.

I'd say yea, but it looks like I'm the sole provider of figures for my group, currently (I'm still convincing my friends to pick up the hobby), so the figures I get are the figures we play. If I made the SH dip, however, I'd try to make it fair. Otherwise I'll likely be stuck playing World of Darkness wishing my shelf decorations were on the table...

 Talizvar wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Seems TFG just means "Guy who does/plays something I dont like" these days.

Pretty much.
To me, TFG is still based on actions and attitudes rather than list.

TFG: the guy who wants to have his brand of fun at your expense.
Who fully expects you take whatever BS he dishes out because "It is in the rules and I have a loud voice, so you must do what I say!!!"

It is my spare time too, life is short, I have no time for being someone's chew-toy: take a walk princess.

I get it now, your spare time request must trump tfg s spare time requests. Which doesn't change who the tfg is at all btw.

Cant we just compromise and not play and be done with it. Because your idea of fun appereantly is not the same as the guy in front of you.

 Jidmah wrote:

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?

Jesus fething christ, I never said anyone is any sort of way if they don't want to play against FW. Read my fething post why don't you instead of just inventing a reason to argue.

My whole fething point is that people need to learn how to communicate rather than inventing insults and ways to exclude others because some irrational fear of interacting with other human fething beings.

 Peregrine wrote:


If you say you're not going to play against tactical squads people are going to think you're being unreasonable (or even TFG), and you're going to have a hard time finding anyone interested in playing with you. But if you refuse to play against LoW those same people will support you and accuse your opponent of being unreasonable (or even TFG) for bringing a LoW without begging for special permission first. There's a clear double standard here where most, if not all, non-LoW codex options are assumed to be included by default but you need special permission for LoW/FW/etc.

This /thread.

if you're going to bring the argument that the rulebook states you should discuss how the armies are selected, then we might as well all tear out the pages in the rulebook which show Battleforged FOCs/CADs, the main *quote* way of selecting an army. It's just as reasonable for me to turn up expecting to be able to use 8 Heavy slots as it is for you to refuse to play against LOW. Either CAD/FOC is redundant or it isn't, you can't have it both ways [well, you can, but it's incredibly hypocritical].

If 40k was a well written game you'd have a good point - no other popular tabletop game I can think of has players with such wildly different ideas of what is required for it to be fun. 40k *isn't* a well written game however, and it's only getting worse with unbound, base-lining of super heavies and what not. You can have some fun in 40k still but it requires some fixing and customizing of the rules - the problem here is GW for fracturing the playerbase, not the players that modify the game differently to how you want to play it.

I don't know about other tabletop-games, but TCG's have that same problem.
Even though it's legal, people will refuse to play you if you bring certain cards.
You simply don't walk into a FLGS with your top-tier Vintage deck and go 1-on-1 against a standard deck.
And that has never been an issue, people understood that most opponents don't want to play against certain things.
I don't understand why this would suddenly be such a problem in 40k?

Kangodo wrote:
I don't know about other tabletop-games, but TCG's have that same problem.
Even though it's legal, people will refuse to play you if you bring certain cards.
You simply don't walk into a FLGS with your top-tier Vintage deck and go 1-on-1 against a standard deck.
And that has never been an issue, people understood that most opponents don't want to play against certain things.
I don't understand why this would suddenly be such a problem in 40k?

It's a problem because you are making the assumption that all people who bring super heavies do it in an attempt to stomp their opponent. The vast majority of LoW are actually much more of a liability than an asset, and from reading numerous threads like this, those who bring super heavies do it because they look amazing, for fluff reasons, because they want to use their legal model they spent a lot of money on, or a combination of the three, but not to gain an unfair advantage. Again after reading a lot of threads on the subject, it seems that it's the more competitive players who have a problem with them in the fear that they may affect their ability to win [YMMV].

A lot of anti-LoW posts are made in ignorance, as if you have actually played against them, you will realise the vast majority aren't a problem. On the other hand Knights are superheavies and LoW in all but name, are very competitive units [winner of BAO ran one], have D-weapons, but are generally considered to be fine. Again, hypocrisy.

But your arguments don't change the fact that the rules say that it is up to both players to decide how they're going to select their armies and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use. No amount of arguing for or against is going to change that.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


If you say you're not going to play against tactical squads people are going to think you're being unreasonable (or even TFG), and you're going to have a hard time finding anyone interested in playing with you. But if you refuse to play against LoW those same people will support you and accuse your opponent of being unreasonable (or even TFG) for bringing a LoW without begging for special permission first. There's a clear double standard here where most, if not all, non-LoW codex options are assumed to be included by default but you need special permission for LoW/FW/etc.

This /thread.

if you're going to bring the argument that the rulebook states you should discuss how the armies are selected, then we might as well all tear out the pages in the rulebook which show Battleforged FOCs/CADs, the main *quote* way of selecting an army. It's just as reasonable for me to turn up expecting to be able to use 8 Heavy slots as it is for you to refuse to play against LOW. Either CAD/FOC is redundant or it isn't, you can't have it both ways [well, you can, but it's incredibly hypocritical].

Again with the all or nothing attitude. What's wrong with using them as guidelines instead of some etched in stone law? Just because you don't agree with all the aspects of the FOC/CAD doesn't mean you need to burn them in a fire and spend each and every game working from the ground up to construct your army. You take the CAD/FOC, then you add restrictions or allowances as you see fit and agree with your opponent. This is actually how the rules are worded, they basically say agree on "other" restrictions and requirements, the RAW are basically telling you "here's the starting point, now you can change it as you see fit" (paraphrased).

You can totally have it both ways without it being hypocritical (sorry, "incredibly hypocritical"). The only way it's hypocritical is if you view the rules as a dichotomy of either following them all or throwing them all out the window. Even the ACTUAL laws we live by aren't like that, or do you feel it's "incredibly hypocritical" for someone to abhor rape and murder but then break the speed limit on their way home from work?

It's just as reasonable for me to turn up expecting to be able to use 8 Heavy slots as it is for you to refuse to play against LOW.

Sure it is.... but good luck getting a game. I recommend you also bring a list that is closer to the FOC/CAD if you expect people to play against you.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Yea, but then you're just being TFG

Do you have any idea what a TFG is?
And I'm such a thing because I have better things to do than spend three hours on something I don't like?
Maybe you are unaware, but maybe you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion
You cannot force someone to do something against their will.

But sure, go ahead and break forum-rules, game-rules, store-rules and national law because you HAVE to play with that Titan.

Actually, I've broken none of those things. I would seriously try and relax though. Life is too short to get mad at the internet...

You really are quite insufferable.

The very definition of TFG, lol.

The TFG is the guy who shows up with a rule of cool fluffy bunny list and expects everyone else to play down to his level. It's like a football team asking their opponents to play their second string because it isn't "fair". Sure, you have the right to turn down games. However, the person turning down the game is the TFG. I'll say this again, 40k is inherently competitive. Why are people who build an army that's meant to win games in a competitive game looked at as TFG? I guess Nick Saban is TFG for starting Cooper and Yeldon against WVU. He should've played their backups to make it more fun for the other team. To whoever said it's competitive players that don't like titans, I strongly disagree. It's the casual players who expect everyone else to play down to their level so they don't have to figure out how to put a decent list together or buy some new models once in awhile. My group is full of competitive players and we enjoy the challenge that comes with facing stuff like revenants, reavers and c'tans. I hang out/play games 2 or 3 days a week and have yet to see anyone turn a game down no matter how ridiculous the list is. I've seen a list of nothing but 2 c'tans going unbound. I've seen 7 obsec wave serpents. The other guy puts a list together that he thinks will do well and they play the game. You get better at this game by challenging yourself, not turning down every game where the opponent has a better list or one "OP" model on the table.

Toofast wrote:
The TFG is the guy who shows up with a rule of cool fluffy bunny list and expects everyone else to play down to his level. It's like a football team asking their opponents to play their second string because it isn't "fair". Sure, you have the right to turn down games. However, the person turning down the game is the TFG. I'll say this again, 40k is inherently competitive. Why are people who build an army that's meant to win games in a competitive game looked at as TFG?

For the love of all that is good in this fething world can we stop using the term "TFG". No one has to be "TFG", it's entirely possible for 2 people to have a mutual disagreement on what they will find fun without either being TFG. The only TFG is the guy who acts like TFG.

It's the casual players who expect everyone else to play down to their level so they don't have to figure out how to put a decent list together or buy some new models once in awhile. My group is full of competitive players and we enjoy the challenge that comes with facing stuff like revenants, reavers and c'tans. I hang out/play games 2 or 3 days a week and have yet to see anyone turn a game down no matter how ridiculous the list is. I've seen a list of nothing but 2 c'tans going unbound. I've seen 7 obsec wave serpents. The other guy puts a list together that he thinks will do well and they play the game. You get better at this game by challenging yourself, not turning down every game where the opponent has a better list or one "OP" model on the table.

God forbid someone wants to enjoy the game differently to you

I don't play games 2 or 3 days a week. When I do get around to playing a game I want it to be a game I will enjoy. This has nothing to do with challenging myself, this has nothing to do with me thinking expensive LOW models are OP'd, it has everything to do with me not wanting to play with/against them in standard games because it's not what I find fun.

You mention football... even football is a game where you have different levels of play. You have various professional levels. You have amateur competitive play with people playing at A grade, B grade through to however many grades they can make with the number of people who want to play. You then also have people who just like to have a casual game in the park. Out here we play Aussie rules football and you'll often see a few people in a park just kicking the ball between them.

Isn't it wonderful how football can be enjoyed on so many levels? Too bad 40k isn't like that and you're labelled "TFG" for wanting to participate in the way you find fun.

Toofast wrote:
The TFG is the guy who shows up with a rule of cool fluffy bunny list and expects everyone else to play down to his level. It's like a football team asking their opponents to play their second string because it isn't "fair". Sure, you have the right to turn down games. However, the person turning down the game is the TFG. I'll say this again, 40k is inherently competitive. Why are people who build an army that's meant to win games in a competitive game looked at as TFG? I guess Nick Saban is TFG for starting Cooper and Yeldon against WVU. He should've played their backups to make it more fun for the other team. To whoever said it's competitive players that don't like titans, I strongly disagree. It's the casual players who expect everyone else to play down to their level so they don't have to figure out how to put a decent list together or buy some new models once in awhile. My group is full of competitive players and we enjoy the challenge that comes with facing stuff like revenants, reavers and c'tans. I hang out/play games 2 or 3 days a week and have yet to see anyone turn a game down no matter how ridiculous the list is. I've seen a list of nothing but 2 c'tans going unbound. I've seen 7 obsec wave serpents. The other guy puts a list together that he thinks will do well and they play the game. You get better at this game by challenging yourself, not turning down every game where the opponent has a better list or one "OP" model on the table.

And hey guess what, "TFG" you don't have to play against! It's amazing! It's like people have a choice to do things! Just like you choose to play 2 C'tans, I or anyone else can say "Nooooope, not feeling like playing that!" Even your football analogy is flawed as the above poster proved. Improving one self is only a good argument when the rules are clear and balanced; otherwise there will always be that one combo that will prove to be over the top to the actual balanced list.

1000-point game

Blood Angel compromising a TAC list; it very much fails to have much in the way to take on AV14, short of Assault and Assault-bikes with Melta, maybe MAYBE it has Dante in it with a pair of meltas for some nice AT-alphastrike.
vs.
IG with a Warhound Titan and the remaining 250-ish points are there to fulfill the requirements.

Blood Angel wants to play a Maelstrom mission to balance out the fight. IG wants to play a Kill-point variant. Who is TFG?

Do you know why you have stuff like that going in your play group? Because you agreed to it. It's great but guess what. We could do that before 7th, but now that it is a BRB rule people are trying to force it on someone else. Blaming casuals for asking people to play to their level? That is frankly disgusting, if we had your way no one new would come to the game.