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.

The arguments for superheavies are refusing to open their eyes to what the other side is saying. They aren't listening. The issue for many has nothing to do with being unable to win against them, but with finding games involving them to not be particularly enjoyable.

I see statements about winning against superheavies being easy because just play objectives or just use a bunch of melta. The issue with superheavies isn't only about whether they are difficult to beat or whether there are ways to beat them, it is about the process of beating them not being fun for some. I suspect many here could win every game against such a unit, but not find the game enjoyable either because of the way they are forced to build their list in order to win, or because of the way they are forced to play in order to win. If list building, and game play lose their enjoyment (win or lose) what is the point? One side seems to be saying "too bad, if you don't like it don't play" which is an incredibly juvenile and short-sided mindset. If a large portion of players don't like the game as is and leave, there won't be a game left to play in time.

As has been said here repeatedly, we are really talking about playing 2 different games even though they are both 40k and use the same rules. You ban certain superheavies, or even all of them and the game is completely different. Yes those units can't be used, but many others become viable and or very effective. Tactics change. The game is just diferent. Some prefer one, some the other, some are equally happy with both, some will refuse to play one or the other. Just let it be. No one is a bad dude because they have a way they prefer to play the game. If someone wants to play different than you, just move on. There is no point in trying to insist they play your way or in demeaning them for not choosing to play according to your terms.

GW is not trying to make a game that works well, they are trying to sell as many models, and as many expensive models as possible. Because of this, it is up to the players to craft for themselves a game that they like.

 Ghaz wrote:
And you're wanting your opponent to give up any enjoyment he might get out of the game just so you can field your super heavy. What are you giving up in that case?

It's not always about "I gave up something, so you have to as well".

But it is.
It is like back when you hade to get your opponent's "Permission" To take Logan, Vulkan or any Special Character.
I can not recount all of the games I hade to use Logan as a "Generic Wolf Lord" and had no Choice in the matter.

Then it was Flyers

Now it is Lords of War...

I haven't joined on with the 7th edition train, so I can only comment so much, but my main issue with the inclusion of super-heavies into standard games of 40k is the continual dilution of units in terms of battlefield effectiveness...units that you pay a substantial amount of money for. It all goes back to the arguments people make in favor of games like WMH or Infinity- it's not that their models are cheaper (they usually really aren't), but the models themselves have notable levels of usefulness.

Obviously this is a little different in 40k, which I think it one of its selling points- people want the feeling of a battle versus a skirmish. But look at a 3rd edition army versus a 7th: with the newer editions the model numbers for armies have increased dramatically. The models you pay a lot of money for are now less and less useful than before, sometimes bordering on becoming obsolete. Super-heavies may not break the game in terms of being over-powered, but they represent a trend of GW shoehorning absolutely everything (especially bigger and bigger units) they can into 40k with the sole purpose of generating more revenue, and the consequence being that you buy $30-$50 squads of troops that do little other than serve as cannon fodders for the massive gribblies dictating the flow of the game.

 Anpu42 wrote:
So it becomes His Way or the High Way and is become the "Hero"
If a LoW war player did that we become the "Villain"

Currently this is not a two way street. The response keeps being that We [The Low Players] are always wrong.

Why do we keep having to go back to the victim thing? Is it not enough to say people don't enjoy the game the same way you do so you don't have to play them at all?

No one has to be the hero or villain at all, that's just silly. If that is the case then it sound like your entire gaming group is nothing but TFG's

You show up for a game, your opponent says they don't want to play against X, you do want to play with X so you either find another opponent or discuss a compromise where you can still play with X, if you can't find a compromise that still lets you play with X then you find another opponent.

No heroes and villains. No one has to be right or wrong.

 Accolade wrote:
I haven't joined on with the 7th edition train, so I can only comment so much, but my main issue with the inclusion of super-heavies into standard games of 40k is the continual dilution of units in terms of battlefield effectiveness...units that you pay a substantial amount of money for. It all goes back to the arguments people make in favor of games like WMH or Infinity- it's not that their models are cheaper (they usually really aren't), but the models themselves have notable levels of usefulness.

Obviously this is a little different in 40k, which I think it one of its selling points- people want the feeling of a battle versus a skirmish. But look at a 3rd edition army versus a 7th: with the newer editions the model numbers for armies have increased dramatically. The models you pay a lot of money for are now less and less useful than before, sometimes bordering on becoming obsolete. Super-heavies may not break the game in terms of being over-powered, but they represent a trend of GW shoehorning absolutely everything they can into 40k with the sole purpose of generating more revenue, and the consequence being that you buy $30-$50 squads of troops that do little other than serve as cannon fodders for the massive gribblies dictating the flow of the game.

Units do have their usefulness. A squad of guardians spread out around an objective make a great objective secured unit and they can take heavy weapons platforms to pop off bright lance shots at tanks. Just because your infantry cant hurt a super heavy doesnt mean its useless. This is part of whats going wrong at my FLGS. They think the only way to win is brute force. They HAVE to table the opponent. I win on the objectives because i play the objectives. Just because you cant hurt something with every unit in your book doesn't mean it's a useless unit. Instead of brute forcing everything, learn to play to the advantages of every unit to overcome the disadvantages of them.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And you're wanting your opponent to give up any enjoyment he might get out of the game just so you can field your super heavy. What are you giving up in that case?

It's not always about "I gave up something, so you have to as well".

But it is.
It is like back when you hade to get your opponent's "Permission" To take Logan, Vulkan or any Special Character.
I can not recount all of the games I hade to use Logan as a "Generic Wolf Lord" and had no Choice in the matter.

Then it was Flyers

Now it is Lords of War...

No it's not. Please point out a single rule that says your opponent has to give up something if he asks you to give up something. You want your opponent to give up any choice on what rules are being used in the game. What are you giving up?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
So it becomes His Way or the High Way and is become the "Hero"
If a LoW war player did that we become the "Villain"

Currently this is not a two way street. The response keeps being that We [The Low Players] are always wrong.

Why do we keep having to go back to the victim thing? Is it not enough to say people don't enjoy the game the same way you do so you don't have to play them at all?

No one has to be the hero or villain at all, that's just silly. If that is the case then it sound like your entire gaming group is nothing but TFG's

You show up for a game, your opponent says they don't want to play against X, you do want to play with X so you either find another opponent or discuss a compromise where you can still play with X, if you can't find a compromise that still lets you play with X then you find another opponent.

No heroes and villains. No one has to be right or wrong.

How else to I express this problem then?
I show up with a Baneblade. My Opponent says "No I won't play against that!"
I have no recourse, but to put my Baneblade away or not to play.
If I try to push the issue in any way, I become TFG even though he was the one who forced me to change my list.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And you're wanting your opponent to give up any enjoyment he might get out of the game just so you can field your super heavy. What are you giving up in that case?

It's not always about "I gave up something, so you have to as well".

But it is.
It is like back when you hade to get your opponent's "Permission" To take Logan, Vulkan or any Special Character.
I can not recount all of the games I hade to use Logan as a "Generic Wolf Lord" and had no Choice in the matter.

Then it was Flyers

Now it is Lords of War...

Well I think of it like this...

There are 2 types of people who don't like X (where X is whatever).

1. Those who don't like it because they are ignorant.
2. Those who don't like it for legitimate reasons.

People from group 1. will eventually come round. People from group 2 will eventually either concede or give up and quit.

Given 40k is a diminishing community rather than a growing community, when people start giving up and quitting because they don't like something, I don't consider that a good thing.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And you're wanting your opponent to give up any enjoyment he might get out of the game just so you can field your super heavy. What are you giving up in that case?

It's not always about "I gave up something, so you have to as well".

But it is.
It is like back when you hade to get your opponent's "Permission" To take Logan, Vulkan or any Special Character.
I can not recount all of the games I hade to use Logan as a "Generic Wolf Lord" and had no Choice in the matter.

Then it was Flyers

Now it is Lords of War...

No it's not. Please point out a single rule that says your opponent has to give up something if he asks you to give up something. You want your opponent to give up any choice on what rules are being used in the game. What are you giving up?

That Rule that says you are supposed to negotiate what you both want to play that keeps being thrown around here.
Both players are supposed to agree on what is allowed and not allowed. With LoW What choice is being given, None. So I am being ask to give something up as part of the Negotiation. During a Negotiation usually Both side make concession to each other. My concession if is I have to give up my LoW, what is his concession. Or do I not understand what a Negotiation is?

 Anpu42 wrote:
How else to I express this problem then?
I show up with a Baneblade. My Opponent says "No I won't play against that!"
I have no recourse, but to put my Baneblade away or not to play.
If I try to push the issue in any way, I become TFG even though he was the one who forced me to change my list.

Well you do have some recourse, if you think they're not wanting to play against it because they're ignorant and you REALLY want to play with it, you can ask them if they'd be willing to play against it if they change up their list or if they're willing to play a different scenario.

If they simply don't want to play it because it would not create the sort of game they want to play, don't play the game... no one has to be TFG. If you both don't want to play against each other then you both don't want to play against each other, no need for one person to feel like they're the victim.

If you can't find anyone else to play against at all, that sucks, but you just have to accept that no one is playing the same game as you want to play. I own miniatures from various games I've tried to get people in to and now they're just sitting collecting dust because no one wants to play them.

If it makes you happy you can console yourself with the fact the people who don't like expensive LoW will eventually quit and you can enjoy 40k with like minded people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Both side make concession to each other. My concession if is I have to give up my LoW, what is his concession. Or do I not understand what a Negotiation is?

So we cut the LoW in half and give half to both sides?

If they're scared they won't be able to deal with it, you can let them change their list to deal with it. So he's conceding to play against your LoW and you're conceding that you're probably going to get destroyed for the benefit of teaching them that the LoW isn't actually all that hard to beat. Or you could offer to swap armies to show how easy it is to beat your LoW.

If it's someone like me who simply doesn't like playing standard games where most the points is tied up in a single model, you could offer to NOT play a standard game.

If at the end of the day you simply want to play with your LoW and they simply don't, there is no middle ground and you don't play a game. There doesn't have to be a TFG at all. If there's no middle ground, there's no middle ground and you both equally don't play a game against each other.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
How else to I express this problem then?
I show up with a Baneblade. My Opponent says "No I won't play against that!"
I have no recourse, but to put my Baneblade away or not to play.
If I try to push the issue in any way, I become TFG even though he was the one who forced me to change my list.

Well you do have some recourse, if you think they're not wanting to play against it because they're ignorant and you REALLY want to play with it, you can ask them if they'd be willing to play against it if they change up their list or if they're willing to play a different scenario.

If they simply don't want to play it because it would not create the sort of game they want to play, don't play the game... no one has to be TFG. If you both don't want to play against each other then you both don't want to play against each other, no need for one person to feel like they're the victim.

If you can't find anyone else to play against at all, that sucks, but you just have to accept that no one is playing the same game as you want to play. I own miniatures from various games I've tried to get people in to and now they're just sitting collecting dust because no one wants to play them.

If it makes you happy you can console yourself with the fact the people who don't like expensive LoW will eventually quit and you can enjoy 40k with like minded people.

No, no one has to be TFG and it should not be that way, but many do make it that guy. I have been the victim of it many time.
I have been playing Space Wolves since 1998. When the 5th edition Space Wolf Codex came out I decided to play at the local LGS.
Before I even unpacked my first box I put my new Codex on the table was immediately labeled TFG, WAAC Player and Bandwagon Player.
This is what seems to be happening to LOW Players.
This seems be the same thing, but against a series of units.
This is why I do not play at my Local [Not-So] Friendly Game Store.

By some of the "Logic" I have been seeing here every one would have been in there right to deny my use of my 5th Edition Codex: Codex.

Well I'm sorry for you if your local gaming group is a bunch of d-bags. But that more comes down to your local gaming group being a bunch of d-bags than someone's God given right to not play a game they won't find fun

I stopped playing at one particular store in the late 90's because most of the people who frequented the store were obnoxious. There was no problem with me wanting to play a different game to them, they were just all obnoxious so I stopped playing there.

Sometimes in this life you come across people you don't want to interact with. So you just avoid them.

I see this as a separate issue to people who genuinely know what a LoW is and genuinely don't want to play against it because they won't find it fun.

 Janthkin wrote:
People don't have to agree with you. They don't have to do it in a store, and they don't have to do it on the internet. But if someone doesn't agree with you, the appropriate response (certainly on Dakka; usually in life) is not to start ranting at each other nor to start through around claims of extortion. Drop it, and go enjoy some other part of the forum.

Edit: Just in case I was insufficiently clear, we're done with discussing accusations of "TFG"-dom and extortion. If you don't have anything to say on the topic without discussing that, you don't need to be posting in this thread.

You know, I feel some of you missed this.

Rather than issue a WHOLE BUNCH of warnings and suspensions for continued idiocy in this thread, I'm just going to kill it.