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.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:


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

It was a poor example on my part, to which I admitted.

A more sensible example would be turning down a game with a revenant titan in it because I don't feel like being a punching bag. Is that better?

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

My point was that you don't get to determine what is an acceptable reason for declining the game.

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.

I made some poor examples and admitted they were poor. I haven't contradicting myself because I maintain the same position that people have the right to decline a game with LoW in it, and indeed, for any other reason they see fit. There are certainly more wackier reasons, but convincing someone they're childish for turning down a game doesn't exactly speak a whole lot about the maturity level of that person.

As for fluff, or a collection of models, absolutely. gakky conversions, poor or no paint jobs, proxies, and a custom army with awful fluff your opponent prattles on about are plenty good reasons to decline a game. They may not have a bearing on how the game is played, but they have an effect on the enjoyment of the game through immersion and story telling.

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.

A blanket ban on FW/LoW is a tough call, because its infinitely easier to tell someone you don't want to play against LoW, rather than provide a list of the models you find acceptable to play against. Same goes for FW. While I disagree with the blanket ban thing on principle, I can see how its appealing to people. But if that's the decision a player has come to based from experience, who's to tell them otherwise?

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.

This is a two way street. You can't claim its a waste of time discussing something because you disagree, when you are being equally as uncompromising in your position.

To re-iterate my original stance; play the game how you want. Its totally reasonable to decline a game because you don't want to play against FW or LoW for a variety of reasons, the same way it acceptable to turn down any game for a number of reasons. You may not like some of those reasons, or disagree with them entirely, but them's the breaks.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

Yes, it can. And I think TAC is dead - there was recently another thread where we opened this can of worms, but there really isn't such a thing as TAC in 7th edition because there are so many armies out there. There's not "one ring army to rule them all" - rather, you bring what you like and use it to the best of your abilities. This means, of course, that sometimes you suffer crushing defeats and other times uncontested victories, but c'est la guerre.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

The reason it's hyperbole is because the reasons that lead to the conclusion "don't like" are massively different. I don't like Broccoli and I don't like Hyundais, however the two are not comparable.

You are free to think declining LoW is an odd request, that's your prerogative, but it is silly to think the reasons behind declining aren't valid because it's the same as declining tactical marines.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

The reason it's hyperbole is because the reasons that lead to the conclusion "don't like" are massively different. I don't like Broccoli and I don't like Hyundais, however the two are not comparable.

You are free to think declining LoW is an odd request, that's your prerogative, but it is silly to think the reasons behind declining aren't valid because it's the same as declining tactical marines.

Actually, I think the reasons behind declining it aren't valid because they're not actually good reasons. They boil down to "don't like," at which point I'm like "okay, fair enough." But the in-between stages are usually wrong.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

Yes, it can. And I think TAC is dead - there was recently another thread where we opened this can of worms, but there really isn't such a thing as TAC in 7th edition because there are so many armies out there. There's not "one ring army to rule them all" - rather, you bring what you like and use it to the best of your abilities. This means, of course, that sometimes you suffer crushing defeats and other times uncontested victories, but c'est la guerre.

And I would rather not play a game with a predetermines outcome because it is not fun. Thats the most important part of this game, to have fun. If someone is not having fun then there is no point in playing.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

Yes, it can. And I think TAC is dead - there was recently another thread where we opened this can of worms, but there really isn't such a thing as TAC in 7th edition because there are so many armies out there. There's not "one ring army to rule them all" - rather, you bring what you like and use it to the best of your abilities. This means, of course, that sometimes you suffer crushing defeats and other times uncontested victories, but c'est la guerre.

And I would rather not play a game with a predetermines outcome because it is not fun. Thats the most important part of this game, to have fun. If someone is not having fun then there is no point in playing.

Right. I think it's unfortunate that people let the outcome of a game determine the amount of fun they've had with it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

Yes, it can. And I think TAC is dead - there was recently another thread where we opened this can of worms, but there really isn't such a thing as TAC in 7th edition because there are so many armies out there. There's not "one ring army to rule them all" - rather, you bring what you like and use it to the best of your abilities. This means, of course, that sometimes you suffer crushing defeats and other times uncontested victories, but c'est la guerre.

And I would rather not play a game with a predetermines outcome because it is not fun. Thats the most important part of this game, to have fun. If someone is not having fun then there is no point in playing.

Right. I think it's unfortunate that people let the outcome of a game determine the amount of fun they've had with it.

The outcome has nothing to do with it. Having no chance at all does. The game is not fun unless you can actually do stuff. If all my army does is serve as target practice, than I might as well have not played. Obseve that I said predetermined outcome not loss. If you will win or will lose every time the game gets boring and dull. If there is not chance at all than it's just sitting for an hour and a half rolling dice.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

Yes, it can. And I think TAC is dead - there was recently another thread where we opened this can of worms, but there really isn't such a thing as TAC in 7th edition because there are so many armies out there. There's not "one ring army to rule them all" - rather, you bring what you like and use it to the best of your abilities. This means, of course, that sometimes you suffer crushing defeats and other times uncontested victories, but c'est la guerre.

And I would rather not play a game with a predetermines outcome because it is not fun. Thats the most important part of this game, to have fun. If someone is not having fun then there is no point in playing.

Right. I think it's unfortunate that people let the outcome of a game determine the amount of fun they've had with it.

The outcome has nothing to do with it. Having no chance at all does. The game is not fun unless you can actually do stuff. If all my army does is serve as target practice, than I might as well have not played. Obseve that I said predetermined outcome not loss. If you will win or will lose every time the game gets boring and dull. If there is not chance at all than it's just sitting for an hour and a half rolling dice.

I find it hard to believe that your army is so inflexible that it literally has a 0% chance of winning a dice game. I just recently lost a game to a friend of mine and I was using a Warhound Titan at 1500 points. His biggest unit was a Land Raider and 5 terminators in it. He won by running onto objectives, and my D-weapon only rolled a few sixes for its hits, so he got quite a few saves on some tough models. His Chapter Master with the Shield Eternal tanked pretty much everything.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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.

I don't think it's ridiculous hyperbole. I find people who refuse to play against LoW to be making as odd of a request as people who refuse to play against Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras. And it's usually for the same reason, i.e., "don't like" which means I can give them a look as askance as I want, even if they aren't actually wrong.

How so? Playing against tac marines is normal, playing against most LoW means I lose. No contest. With LoW an extra level is added that many things cannot counter. Can your army defeat a revnent titian and a whole other army? Most TAC lists can't.

Yes, it can. And I think TAC is dead - there was recently another thread where we opened this can of worms, but there really isn't such a thing as TAC in 7th edition because there are so many armies out there. There's not "one ring army to rule them all" - rather, you bring what you like and use it to the best of your abilities. This means, of course, that sometimes you suffer crushing defeats and other times uncontested victories, but c'est la guerre.

And I would rather not play a game with a predetermines outcome because it is not fun. Thats the most important part of this game, to have fun. If someone is not having fun then there is no point in playing.

Right. I think it's unfortunate that people let the outcome of a game determine the amount of fun they've had with it.

The outcome has nothing to do with it. Having no chance at all does. The game is not fun unless you can actually do stuff. If all my army does is serve as target practice, than I might as well have not played. Obseve that I said predetermined outcome not loss. If you will win or will lose every time the game gets boring and dull. If there is not chance at all than it's just sitting for an hour and a half rolling dice.

I find it hard to believe that your army is so inflexible that it literally has a 0% chance of winning a dice game. I just recently lost a game to a friend of mine and I was using a Warhound Titan at 1500 points. His biggest unit was a Land Raider and 5 terminators in it. He won by running onto objectives, and my D-weapon only rolled a few sixes for its hits, so he got quite a few saves on some tough models. His Chapter Master with the Shield Eternal tanked pretty much everything.

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

Well fair enough again. I would say you to change your army by making it less inflexible, because LoW are here and here to stay, but I know I'll just get the "NO YOU CHANGE YOUR ARMY!" response. FWIW, you'll have to adapt eventually, or stop playing the game. But I can't make you.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

Well fair enough again. I would say you to change your army by making it less inflexible, because LoW are here and here to stay, but I know I'll just get the "NO YOU CHANGE YOUR ARMY!" response. FWIW, you'll have to adapt eventually, or stop playing the game. But I can't make you.

No I won't have to adapt, because plenty of people do't play with LoW. I'm not going to make you change your army, I will just politely decline to play with you.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

Well fair enough again. I would say you to change your army by making it less inflexible, because LoW are here and here to stay, but I know I'll just get the "NO YOU CHANGE YOUR ARMY!" response. FWIW, you'll have to adapt eventually, or stop playing the game. But I can't make you.

No I won't have to adapt, because plenty of people do't play with LoW. I'm not going to make you change your army, I will just politely decline to play with you.

Which is unfortunate, because the game would've been enjoyable for both of us. You don't even know what LoW I would've brought. Perhaps it was the amazing.... MALCADOR! Dun dun dunnn!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Perhaps it was the amazing.... MALCADOR! Dun dun dunnn!

As long as its not the Defender.

That thing is totally OP with its 5 heavy bolters in limited traverse hull positions.

Gods, imagine the horror of playing against a cheesy Macharius with it's twin linked battle cannon.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Gods, imagine the horror of playing against a cheesy Macharius with it's twin linked battle cannon.

Wait that's way better than my Malcador! It even has Armor 14?!? Oh my god, such op, much nerf needed.
EDIT: OHGOD WRONG THREAD

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Actually, I think the reasons behind declining it aren't valid because they're not actually good reasons. They boil down to "don't like," at which point I'm like "okay, fair enough." But the in-between stages are usually wrong.

Gah can we stop with this "boils down to don't like". Of course it boils down to don't like, IT HAS TO BOIL DOWN TO DON'T LIKE. EVERYTHING HAS TO BOIL DOWN TO DO/DON'T LIKE. It's a hobby for feths sake, of course everything boils down to do and don't like.

It's annoyingly dismissive of the REASONS people do and don't like to keep saying "it boils down to don't like" because it's fething obvious that things boil down to don't like or do like.

Ok, now we've got that out of the way. We get down to brass tacks where you simply disregard the actual reasons people don't like them.

Who are you to judge that the reasons are wrong? I don't like expensive LoW plainly and simply because...

a) I don't like games which revolve heavily around a single model and since I typically play < 2000pts, taking an expensive LoW means the game will revolve heavily around one model.

b) It looks stupid to me because it seems horribly out of scale, it looks completely out of scale to have 20 dudes running around the feet of a behemoth machine of war and call it a battle. It looks stupid to me when you have a 6x4 table (or 4x4 in small games) which is occupied largely by a giant tank or walker. If you have a Warhound on each side of the table it looks less like a battlefield and more like 2 dudes standing in my living room.

c) I don't think they make for good games, they feel shoehorned in to the game to sell larger more expensive kits.

d) For the most part they detract further from the already pathetic balance of 40k.

If someone doesn't want to play against tactical marines, sure, it comes down to "don't like", but the reasons are so blatantly different that it's hardly the same. Not even to get in to the logistical problem that tactical marines have always been an integral part of the game, you'd have to severely modify the rules to ignore them, LoW in common games have only existed for a few short years and are just a tacked on non-essential addition to the FOC. They are not remotely the same.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Gods, imagine the horror of playing against a cheesy Macharius with it's twin linked battle cannon.

Wait that's way better than my Malcador! It even has Armor 14?!? Oh my god, such op, much nerf needed.

Edit: and it isn't the number of actual models, but rather the number of possible models.

Invisibility could affect every model involved in the game (possibly). Gorechild can only ever effect, in any realm of possibility, Kharn.

If I didn't just come from reading that thread, I'd be super confused.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

Well fair enough again. I would say you to change your army by making it less inflexible, because LoW are here and here to stay, but I know I'll just get the "NO YOU CHANGE YOUR ARMY!" response. FWIW, you'll have to adapt eventually, or stop playing the game. But I can't make you.

No I won't have to adapt, because plenty of people do't play with LoW. I'm not going to make you change your army, I will just politely decline to play with you.

Which is unfortunate, because the game would've been enjoyable for both of us. You don't even know what LoW I would've brought. Perhaps it was the amazing.... MALCADOR! Dun dun dunnn!

Well, if I know you have Low, I'm pretty sure that I will know what your army has. And I am talking about something like, oh I don't know, titains. I'll play with titains in apoc, no where else. There may have been a small misundertanding, when I am talking about LoW and losing I am talking about the things that should not belong in a normal game (think every edition until 7th).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

Well fair enough again. I would say you to change your army by making it less inflexible, because LoW are here and here to stay, but I know I'll just get the "NO YOU CHANGE YOUR ARMY!" response. FWIW, you'll have to adapt eventually, or stop playing the game. But I can't make you.

No I won't have to adapt, because plenty of people do't play with LoW. I'm not going to make you change your army, I will just politely decline to play with you.

Which is unfortunate, because the game would've been enjoyable for both of us. You don't even know what LoW I would've brought. Perhaps it was the amazing.... MALCADOR! Dun dun dunnn!

Well, if I know you have Low, I'm pretty sure that I will know what your army has. And I am talking about something like, oh I don't know, titains. I'll play with titains in apoc, no where else. There may have been a small misundertanding, when I am talking about LoW and losing I am talking about the things that should not belong in a normal game (think every edition until 7th).

Who are you to decide what belongs in a normal game? Like, that's just your opinion, man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Gods, imagine the horror of playing against a cheesy Macharius with it's twin linked battle cannon.

Wait that's way better than my Malcador! It even has Armor 14?!? Oh my god, such op, much nerf needed.

Edit: and it isn't the number of actual models, but rather the number of possible models.

Invisibility could affect every model involved in the game (possibly). Gorechild can only ever effect, in any realm of possibility, Kharn.

If I didn't just come from reading that thread, I'd be super confused.

I sorry.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Pretty much, as long as you don't do something like spend 3/4 of your points on a LoW instead of having any army at all.

Well fair enough again. I would say you to change your army by making it less inflexible, because LoW are here and here to stay, but I know I'll just get the "NO YOU CHANGE YOUR ARMY!" response. FWIW, you'll have to adapt eventually, or stop playing the game. But I can't make you.

No I won't have to adapt, because plenty of people do't play with LoW. I'm not going to make you change your army, I will just politely decline to play with you.

Which is unfortunate, because the game would've been enjoyable for both of us. You don't even know what LoW I would've brought. Perhaps it was the amazing.... MALCADOR! Dun dun dunnn!

Well, if I know you have Low, I'm pretty sure that I will know what your army has. And I am talking about something like, oh I don't know, titains. I'll play with titains in apoc, no where else. There may have been a small misundertanding, when I am talking about LoW and losing I am talking about the things that should not belong in a normal game (think every edition until 7th).

Who are you to decide what belongs in a normal game? Like, that's just your opinion, man.

Yes it is, your point being...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yes it is, your point being...

That your opinion is silly. That's why I reserve the right to look at you askance. That's what I've been saying this whole thread. "Don't like X" is a valid reason to not want to see X. But I will still think of you as silly, and still put you in the same pidgeonhole as someone who won't play with Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yes it is, your point being...

That your opinion is silly. That's why I reserve the right to look at you askance. That's what I've been saying this whole thread. "Don't like X" is a valid reason to not want to see X. But I will still think of you as silly, and still put you in the same pidgeonhole as someone who won't play with Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras.

Not really. A titan is something that makes the game not fun for me, tac marines don't. A titan dramatically shifts the game.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yes it is, your point being...

That your opinion is silly. That's why I reserve the right to look at you askance. That's what I've been saying this whole thread. "Don't like X" is a valid reason to not want to see X. But I will still think of you as silly, and still put you in the same pidgeonhole as someone who won't play with Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras.

Not really. A titan is something that makes the game not fun for me, tac marines don't. A titan dramatically shifts the game.

Right but it's the same argument. When I'm using an all-Vanquisher Tank unbound army, I'd rather face a Titan than Tactical Marines. So I'll just turn down every game against tactical marines, because having a 0% chance of winning is unfun.

^ Same pidgeonhole.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yes it is, your point being...

That your opinion is silly. That's why I reserve the right to look at you askance. That's what I've been saying this whole thread. "Don't like X" is a valid reason to not want to see X. But I will still think of you as silly, and still put you in the same pidgeonhole as someone who won't play with Tactical Marines or Lictors or Chimeras.

Not really. A titan is something that makes the game not fun for me, tac marines don't. A titan dramatically shifts the game.

Right but it's the same argument. When I'm using an all-Vanquisher Tank unbound army, I'd rather face a Titan than Tactical Marines. So I'll just turn down every game against tactical marines, because having a 0% chance of winning is unfun.

^ Same pidgeonhole.

At this point you are just reaching. Your talking about some extreme examples here. What you are saying is the equivilant of "you want to stop child abuse, thus you want to not allow parents to discipline their kids." Just because it is the same idea does not mean it is the same thing.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

At this point you are just reaching. Your talking about some extreme examples here. What you are saying is the equivilant of "you want to stop child abuse, thus you want to not allow parents to discipline their kids." Just because it is the same idea does not mean it is the same thing.

But it really is. In my example, I'd probably try to make my army more flexible, instead of trying to bring 10 Vanquisher tanks to every game. Because I want people to be able to use their tactical marines against me. Such inflexibility on the part of an army creator makes me raise my eyebrows, look askance, and think they're silly.

It literally is a question of increasing the flexibility of your army, in both cases, and I will continue to pidgeonhole people who obstinately refuse to improve their army. Depending on other factors surrounding them, they get pidgeonholed into:

1) Financially unstable. Sometimes, you just can't afford to change up your army. This is regrettable.
2) Obstinate. Sometimes, people resist change because it's hard.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

At this point you are just reaching. Your talking about some extreme examples here. What you are saying is the equivilant of "you want to stop child abuse, thus you want to not allow parents to discipline their kids." Just because it is the same idea does not mean it is the same thing.

But it really is. In my example, I'd probably try to make my army more flexible, instead of trying to bring 10 Vanquisher tanks to every game. Because I want people to be able to use their tactical marines against me. Such inflexibility on the part of an army creator makes me raise my eyebrows, look askance, and think they're silly.

It literally is a question of increasing the flexibility of your army, in both cases, and I will continue to pidgeonhole people who obstinately refuse to improve their army. Depending on other factors surrounding them, they get pidgeonholed into:

1) Financially unstable. Sometimes, you just can't afford to change up your army. This is regrettable.
2) Obstinate. Sometimes, people resist change because it's hard.

So, I have to change my entire army just to beat one unit? What if I am not playing against it? What if the only LoW available to me is £155 and I don't like it? What if I prefer playing with my current army?
My army is fine against anything other than a titan or imperial knights. I prefer the tactical, unit based, fighting rather than having two giant units shoot at each other. What you are doing is putting people into groups that do not exist.

I highly doubt you are unable to make reasonable modifications to an existing list to deal with Knights or Titans.

If you cant kill a couple av13 walkers with a 4+ save and 6 hull points how do you expect to deal with half a dozen wave serpents or three LRBTs hiding behind an aegis line?

Seriously, knights are not that hard to kill. War hound titans are not that hard to kill. Baneblades are silly easy to kill. Revenant titans are made of tissue paper, they only have the rough equivalent of a 5+/4+ save.

Actually try facing some lords of war. Once you get past the mental image of them being invincible, they actually go down shockingly easy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I highly doubt you are unable to make reasonable modifications to an existing list to deal with Knights or Titans.

If you cant kill a couple av13 walkers with a 4+ save and 6 hull points how do you expect to deal with half a dozen wave serpents or three LRBTs hiding behind an aegis line?

Seriously, knights are not that hard to kill. War hound titans are not that hard to kill. Baneblades are silly easy to kill. Revenant titans are made of tissue paper, they only have the rough equivalent of a 5+/4+ save.

Actually try facing some lords of war. Once you get past the mental image of them being invincible, they actually go down shockingly easy.

So?
I've won every game against LoW's so far and I still think they aren't fun and I don't want to see them in every game.
Perhaps one in five games might be fine, but not really more than that.

Luckily I own three Transcendent C'tans, so it's not hard to convince people not to play LoW's too much