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.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I feel that "core" 40k is just a concept dreamed up by a portion of the player base to have a reason to exclude things they don't want to play against.

Frankly I feel one must be blind to pretend that dataslates, unbound and FW are part of the expectations of every 40K gamer, let alone a majority.
I don't think people need a reason to exclude things they don't want to play against, after all they've already got the fluff bunny vs evil competition guy, the old-size GW vs huge robots, Eldar OP, and so many other things........

Maybe they just like collecting those excuses though.

My concept was just there to name that and to explain why it makes sense - I wouldn't miss the opportunity to see new models.

If people don't want to play against certain things that's fine. But please, for the love of the Emperor, just admit it's your personal feelings and not some unspoken rule in the community.

Exactly. 40k doesn't have a "core" that is only some basic game. If it's legal to play in 40k then it is 40k. You don't have to play with or against those things, but they are still 40k regardless.

I like Forge World.

I just like the models. I think the Hornets look better than Vypers and they are better. I like the Shadow Specters model. I like the lines of the Phoenix Bomber.

Not everybody power games. FW is accepted at our FLGS and nobody has a problem with it. Just make sure you have a copy of the rules and yes sometimes we do get burned when facing a new unit. We learn and adapt. We do not throw hissy fits over plastic toy soldiers. The game is about having fun and feeling challenged.

At our game store we choose not to play LoW for now. This stance may chance to non-codex LoW as to enable Logan and Ghaz without putting the C'Tan or Titans on the table. It is working fine so far.

Nothing I like more than trying to think my way out when my back is against the wall. Steamrolling people is not fun for anyone.

People just have to be mature about this and discuss it like civilized people, There is a way to reach some middle-ground but everyone must make some compromises.

morgoth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Your turn.

In order to be considered a 40K player, you need to play 40K.
In order to play 40K, you need the BRB, and one Codex, and some miniatures.
Therefore, 100% of the 40K players know of the BRB and at least one Codex.

I can play a fully legal army without a codex using FW, as many FW books have completely self contained army lists, they just have a book title of "Imperial Armour" instead of "Codex".

 TheCustomLime wrote:

If people don't want to play against certain things that's fine. But please, for the love of the Emperor, just admit it's your personal feelings and not some unspoken rule in the community.

Definitely, but it does look like some unspoken rule with all the people pretending it is ... or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
I like Forge World.

I just like the models. I think the Hornets look better than Vypers and they are better. I like the Shadow Specters model. I like the lines of the Phoenix Bomber.

Not everybody power games. FW is accepted at our FLGS and nobody has a problem with it. Just make sure you have a copy of the rules and yes sometimes we do get burned when facing a new unit. We learn and adapt. We do not throw hissy fits over plastic toy soldiers. The game is about having fun and feeling challenged.

At our game store we choose not to play LoW for now. This stance may chance to non-codex LoW as to enable Logan and Ghaz without putting the C'Tan or Titans on the table. It is working fine so far.

Nothing I like more than trying to think my way out when my back is against the wall. Steamrolling people is not fun for anyone.

People just have to be mature about this and discuss it like civilized people, There is a way to reach some middle-ground but everyone must make some compromises.

Yup, house rules. rule. or something.
I just find it sad when some people are all like "Hey why you don't want me play FW ?" and at the same time "No LoW here mister !".

I think people can have legitimate reasons not to enjoy LOW while playing with their resin crack. There is a difference between DKoK and a dual shard list.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think people can have legitimate reasons not to enjoy LOW while playing with their resin crack. There is a difference between DKoK and a dual shard list.

But you can't just blanket say "No LoW" because LoW =/= Super heavies. And really you only have a problem with specific super heavies. There are super heavy vehicles which are NOT LoW, and then there are non-super heavies which are LoW.

Surely you aren't suggesting Draigo and Logan "I"maridingmahwolfchariot!" Grimnar are to be excluded because you could take a Titan in their place?

 Grey Templar wrote:


Surely you aren't suggesting Draigo and Logan "I"maridingmahwolfchariot!" Grimnar are to be excluded because you could take a Titan in their place?

What if I exclude them for other reasons? Namely one having awful fluff and the other an awful model. Is that better?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think people can have legitimate reasons not to enjoy LOW while playing with their resin crack. There is a difference between DKoK and a dual shard list.

But you can't just blanket say "No LoW" because LoW =/= Super heavies. And really you only have a problem with specific super heavies. There are super heavy vehicles which are NOT LoW, and then there are non-super heavies which are LoW.

Surely you aren't suggesting Draigo and Logan "I"maridingmahwolfchariot!" Grimnar are to be excluded because you could take a Titan in their place?

I think Grimnar is to be excluded because santa's sled.

You could, but that would be silly and childish.

Certainly just as childish as someone saying he won't allow seer council psyker spam or Riptides because they're "broken"

You'd also want to note Draigo's fluff got way toned down.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I think people can have legitimate reasons not to enjoy LOW while playing with their resin crack. There is a difference between DKoK and a dual shard list.

But you can't just blanket say "No LoW" because LoW =/= Super heavies. And really you only have a problem with specific super heavies. There are super heavy vehicles which are NOT LoW, and then there are non-super heavies which are LoW.

Surely you aren't suggesting Draigo and Logan "I"maridingmahwolfchariot!" Grimnar are to be excluded because you could take a Titan in their place?

No. I am just giving my 2 cents on why some people have that attitude. My personal opinion is that LoW is an okay idea with bad execution but, at the same time, a blanket ban is stupid. Baneblades or Santa Grimnar won't break the game like dual shard will.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You could, but that would be silly and childish.

Certainly just as childish as someone saying he won't allow seer council psyker spam or Riptides because they're "broken"

You'd also want to note Draigo's fluff got way toned down.

How is any of that childish?

 Grey Templar wrote:
You could, but that would be silly and childish.

Really? what if I settled for brown bag ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

No. I am just giving my 2 cents on why some people have that attitude. My personal opinion is that LoW is an okay idea with bad execution but, at the same time, a blanket ban is stupid. Baneblades or Santa Grimnar won't break the game like dual shard will.

IMO, if you've have enough dual shard or beast star for the moment, just state it, I think that's fine.
Even dumb builds you can be tired of, they don't need to be competitive.

It smacks of a little kid crying "Wahhhhhh thats not fair!"

Especially since now that super heavies are 100% part of the normal game. It did have some justification when they weren't in the main rulebook, but now that they are disallowing them is no different than barring Heavy Support or Riptides or Wraithknights.

Not allowing LoW or Super Heavies is altering the basic rules, not disallowing optional rules(which is what they were before)

Thats fine if you want to do it. But realize what it means when you do that. Realize its no different than disallowing something as fundamental as Heavy Support or something thats "broken" like the Riptide.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats fine if you want to do it. But realize what it means when you do that.

You say it like it's some grim realisation like telling a person they've been eating people

Who the feth cares, GW write such piss poor rules that I have no problem admitting or realising I'm happy to change them. I've been altering GW's rules since I started playing in 2nd edition, it saddens me that people needed to be told they could take allies when we've been doing it forever at my local club

I understand the implications and the overall legality of the army list construction.

As for being childish and allegedly being similar to a kid crying, I strongly disagree.

Why would I spend a few hours playing a game with someone when I know the two lists are of very different balance levels? If anything, turning down a game against superheavies because I don't like the way they affect the game saves both myself the time and annoyance of dealing with it, and saves my opponent from playing against a frustrated or irritated player.

Don't confuse dictating to others how they should play with simply not wanting to play against a certain type of model. Same goes for Unbound, or Maelstrom; I know full well they're standard parts of the game, but nowhere am I forced to play against lists or in games that include those.

Childish? Hardly. My time is precious, and I'd rather save both myself and my opponent the frustration and play with someone who's looking for the same thing in a game.

Its certainly gakky, but that's how it goes when you have such a terribly balanced and written game.

It's childish because you don't get to exclude a model based on "I don't like how it looks" or "I don't like its fluff".

The thing is that some models are broken, and this is wholly independent of their status as a Lord of War or super-heavy. As stated before, Games Workshop is by far worse than Forge World at making insanely broken rules. They seem to be learning, though.

40k is 40k. That includes Forge World, super-heavies, Lords of War, Riptides, Heldrakes, Wave Serpents, Land Raider Crusaders, Scout Bikes, Wraithlords, Dreadnoughts, Farseers, The Swarmlord, and the Transcendent C'tan. The logic of banning FW/LOW because some things are broken is the same as banning Monstrous Creatures because Riptides exist, or banning Dedicated Transports because Wave Serpents exist.

EDIT:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Surely you aren't suggesting Draigo and Logan "I"maridingmahwolfchariot!" Grimnar are to be excluded because you could take a Titan in their place?

What if I exclude them for other reasons? Namely one having awful fluff and the other an awful model. Is that better?

That's the part being referred to as "childish".

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
It's childish because you don't get to exclude a model based on "I don't like how it looks" or "I don't like its fluff".

Why not?

Who are you to tell someone they have to play a game against something they don't want to play against?

If someone had an ork army of nothing but gakky conversions, I'd refuse that game based on 'I don't like how it looks'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:


That's the part being referred to as "childish".

Again, why?

I'd argue playing a game of toy man dollies is childish I don't really see refusing to play someone based on aesthetics as being any more childish than wargaming is in general. Elitist? Perhaps. Selfish? Perhaps. Childish? Eh, not really.

Because you are forcing someone to change their army (or refusing to play them outright) just because you personally don't like a model. That's just absurd.

As people (myself included) have said in this thread before, everyone has the right to refuse anything. Whether or not they are justified in their refusal is another matter.

"I won't play against your Tyranids until you modify them to suit my visual tastes. I don't understand how Tyranids carrying guns makes sense, so I won't play you unless your only shooting comes from Biovores, Zoanthropes, Exocrines and Raveners" or "I refuse to play against your Dreadnoughts because they have stubby legs". Come on, now.

An entire army of "gakky conversions" is different to a Grey Knight army with a single model whose fluff you don't like, or a Space Wolves army with a single model who looks ridiculous (or more, if Stormwolves are involved).

EDIT: By that logic, Skink, any sort of game at all (except maybe chess) is childish. I'm talking about the kind of "I won't play with you because I don't like your shirt!" childish.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Because you are forcing someone to change their army (or refusing to play them outright) just because you personally don't like a model. That's just absurd.

Never did I say anything about forcing my opponent to change their army. In fact, I made it expressly clear that I would simply turn down the game. As I also pointed out, it is gakky, but it saves both people the time and effort of playing a game one or both of them won't enjoy.

As people (myself included) have said in this thread before, everyone has the right to refuse anything. Whether or not they are justified in their refusal is another matter.

Who deems if its justified or not? You?

"I won't play against your Tyranids until you modify them to suit my visual tastes. I don't understand how Tyranids carrying guns makes sense, so I won't play you unless your only shooting comes from Biovores, Zoanthropes, Exocrines and Raveners" or "I refuse to play against your Dreadnoughts because they have stubby legs". Come on, now.

Admittedly a hyperbolic example, on both our parts, but if someone really, really, hates Tyranids both in fluff and design, who are you to judge them for turning down a game? Accept that some people like different parts of this game. It may seem odd, but there's no point in telling them otherwise.

An entire army of "gakky conversions" is different to a Grey Knight army with a single model whose fluff you don't like, or a Space Wolves army with a single model who looks ridiculous (or more, if Stormwolves are involved).

Yes, an entire army of gakky conversions is different to an army of stock GW models. Again, a poor example on my part, and while I'd personally play against Santa Grimnar, I assure you it would detract from my enjoyment of the game with such a stupid looking model flying about.

Getting back to the topic on hand about FW, and I guess partly by extension, LoW, I fail to see how its being childish to turn down a game because of the inclusion of either or both of those elements. Some people like different things, and playing against a poorly balanced giant thing (either underpowered or overpowered) can result in a fairly un-fun game for either or both players. Turning down the game rather than having an unpleasant game sounds like a mature thing to do.

Don't waste your breath [finger muscles?] Frozen Ocean, you won't convince the anti-LoW crowd who's arguments pretty much boil down to "Don't like".

Anyway, the whole LoW argument will become redundant very soon [if it isn't already]. How many "Should flyers be in 40k?" threads do you see these days? LoW are becoming increasingly accepted, and when 8th drops and people realise they aren't going anywhere it'll become a non-argument.

Anti-Low is just because some people don't like playing against them. They are perfectly legal, it's just that not everyone likes to face them.

Yeah, I personally love LoW but I won't argue with the anti-LoW crowd. They don't really have an argument beyond "I don't like it" to which I can only say "Fair enough, but you're missing out" and then go on having a blast with the gaming group here in Harrisburg, Titans and all.

If you don't like LoW, just say you don't like LoW.
You don't need a reason.
You don't need an excuse.
LoW are not more imbalanced than other things, you just don't want to deal with them.

And that's fine.
You have the right to play any kind of 40K you like.
You don't need a justification to not want to play some things.

Blacksails wrote:Never did I say anything about forcing my opponent to change their army. In fact, I made it expressly clear that I would simply turn down the game. As I also pointed out, it is gakky, but it saves both people the time and effort of playing a game one or both of them won't enjoy.

If you wouldn't enjoy a game because Draigo was in it, then your enjoyment is extremely delicate.

Blacksails wrote:Who deems if its justified or not? You?

No, Ghandi. Unless discussion is what a forum is for, I'm not sure.

Blacksails wrote:

"I won't play against your Tyranids until you modify them to suit my visual tastes. I don't understand how Tyranids carrying guns makes sense, so I won't play you unless your only shooting comes from Biovores, Zoanthropes, Exocrines and Raveners" or "I refuse to play against your Dreadnoughts because they have stubby legs". Come on, now.

Admittedly a hyperbolic example, on both our parts, but if someone really, really, hates Tyranids both in fluff and design, who are you to judge them for turning down a game? Accept that some people like different parts of this game. It may seem odd, but there's no point in telling them otherwise.

You can't accuse me of using hyperbole when you are retracting your own statements and contradicting yourself. You said you wouldn't play against Draigo or Logan Grimnar, and now you're saying that you would (but you'd hate it). That is no more ridiculous than what I just said. Some people don't like things about 40k, but turning down a game because of a model, or even fluff? Things that have no bearing on how the game actually plays.

Blacksails wrote:Getting back to the topic on hand about FW, and I guess partly by extension, LoW, I fail to see how its being childish to turn down a game because of the inclusion of either or both of those elements. Some people like different things, and playing against a poorly balanced giant thing (either underpowered or overpowered) can result in a fairly un-fun game for either or both players. Turning down the game rather than having an unpleasant game sounds like a mature thing to do.

We didn't say that turning down LOW was childish. We said turning down/excluding models you personally do not like the appearance and/or fluff of is childish. Having an actually unpleasant experience with a game just because it has a character you don't like in it is childish. Plenty of people don't like Marneus Calgar's fluff, but that shouldn't matter in a game, apart from maybe taking particular amusement from killing him. Turning down units because you believe their rules will impact the game in an unpleasant way is fine. The issue is with people saying that flatly refusing all LOW and Forge World content, regardless of what it actually is, which is not fine.

tyrannosaurus wrote:Don't waste your breath [finger muscles?] Frozen Ocean, you won't convince the anti-LoW crowd who's arguments pretty much boil down to "Don't like".

I really am starting to see that. Furthermore, I type everything by breathing on my keyboard. It's very exhausting, but also very good exercise.

EDIT:

morgoth wrote:
If you don't like LoW, just say you don't like LoW.
You don't need a reason.
You don't need an excuse.
LoW are not more imbalanced than other things, you just don't want to deal with them.

And that's fine.
You have the right to play any kind of 40K you like.
You don't need a justification to not want to play some things.

Exactly. Just stop acting like LOW/FW/superheavies aren't part of 40k and that there is concrete evidence to support this. Admitting that the reason is "I don't like it/want to play against it" is much more acceptable.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Don't waste your breath [finger muscles?] Frozen Ocean, you won't convince the anti-LoW crowd who's arguments pretty much boil down to "Don't like".

Yes, the arguments boil down to "don't like because reasons" and "do like because reasons". Ya know, kind of the same thing to which ALL arguments boil down in the end

morgoth wrote:
If you don't like LoW, just say you don't like LoW.
You don't need a reason.
You don't need an excuse.
LoW are not more imbalanced than other things, you just don't want to deal with them.

And that's fine.
You have the right to play any kind of 40K you like.
You don't need a justification to not want to play some things.

Except, as has been pointed out by Peregrine before, that's not the case. It's seen by some as perfectly acceptable to refuse to play against LoW, but the same logic doesn't apply when it comes to other units. If someone at a club refused to play against someone because they don't like tactical marines, this would be considered ridiculous, and would require justification. However refusing to play against LoW for the same reasons, despite being as legal as tactical marines, is considered by some to be fine, and not requiring justification.

The worst part about turning down a model because of its fluff is that some people use 'special characters' to represent their OWN characters.

Like, if someone wanted to use Draigo to represent "Fredrick Fredricksson VII, Earl of Fredrick" or whathaveyou.

I would refuse to play them, and then assault them with my rulebook.

I have a rather distasteful history with the Earl.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Except, as has been pointed out by Peregrine before, that's not the case. It's seen by some as perfectly acceptable to refuse to play against LoW, but the same logic doesn't apply when it comes to other units.

Wha? Yes it does. The same logic applies to anything you don't want to play against.

If someone at a club refused to play against someone because they don't like tactical marines, this would be considered ridiculous, and would require justification.

My response to this is "well, duh". The reason it would be considered ridiculous is because it would be an extremely odd request. Very few people would start 40k if they had such a disdain for tactical marines that they didn't want to play against them. If you don't want to play against tactical marines, sure, whatever, don't, but it's ridiculous hyperbole to compare refusal to play against tactical marines as being the same as refusal to play against expensive LOW choices.

However refusing to play against LoW for the same reasons, despite being as legal as tactical marines, is considered by some to be fine, and not requiring justification.

I personally don't like expensive LOW models. When I started 40k, they were for all intents and purposes non-existent. They were in Epic, where they fit the scale and also the rules are better written to account for them... but they did not exist in regular 40k. Tactical Marines have been around pretty much forever.

LOW might be as legal as tactical marines because GW tells us so, but it is unnecessary hyperbole to pretend turning down LOW is the same as turning down tactical marines. Sure, in the end it might come down to "Don't like because reasons", but then so does every other argument ever, don't pretend the "reasons" part is the same.

If someone doesn't want to play against tactical marines, ok fine, but the immediate question that comes up is why on earth did you start 40k in the first place? Tactical marines have always been an integral part of the game, they are troops and the game has always (well at least up until Unbound) been an integral part of the game, my first game involved tactical marines and I'm guessing that's true of a lot of people because they've been in every starter set for over 2 decades. It's not the same thing as not wanting to play against expensive LOW.