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.

Kangodo wrote:

 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

HUR HUR ill play 3 of the most powerful LOW in a game to try stop people wanting to play the basic ones..... totally lame mate.

now to say if you cant deal with a cultist driven baneblade i think you have a problem.
now if i was running a dual turbolaser warhound id understand a little more trepidation, but thats still only 2 units targetable per turn. not goin to be too hard to avoid really...

We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

The game got more variety through FW and LoW. Unfortunately there are still people who will somehow abuse this fact.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

 Darkseid wrote:

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

I think that's key.

I had a bad time trying to have games with people who did not like the game the way I like it.

But often what happens is that you can't find people with the same vision and you accept playing with people with different visions - at which point you should do so consciously, ready to make concessions, or not at all.

I read it that he's talking about this thread rather than those he plays with.

 Darkseid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

The game got more variety through FW and LoW. Unfortunately there are still people who will somehow abuse this fact.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

Games shouldn't require negotiation before the game just to have a fair session. You should be able to show up, explain your army, list and have a bash.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

The game got more variety through FW and LoW. Unfortunately there are still people who will somehow abuse this fact.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

Games shouldn't require negotiation before the game just to have a fair session. You should be able to show up, explain your army, list and have a bash.

And if you're needing to negotiate every little thing you're probably playing the wrong people (or are the wrong people). Being able to show up, plop and army on the table and then roll should be acceptable but some people like to start creating all sorts of limitations and then claim they're playing 40k "correctly" when what they're playing is a homebrew of 40k.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

The game got more variety through FW and LoW. Unfortunately there are still people who will somehow abuse this fact.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

Games shouldn't require negotiation before the game just to have a fair session. You should be able to show up, explain your army, list and have a bash.

Before 6th edition, Super-heavies/GC/Flyers were Apocalypse only, with a single exception being a Battle Mission of 1500 pts vs 3 Baneblades. If you wanted to use Forgeworld, you needed your opponents permission.
In 6th edition, Forgeworld was more of a let your opponennt know you are bringing this as a matter of courtesy. Flyers became part of the normal rules, and shortly into 6th SHV/GCs became legal in normal games.
7th edition basically threw all that out and said bring whatever. If your opponent doesn't like it they are not Forging the Narrative hard enough. The way the rules are now designed, not only do you need to agree with your opponent what sources will be allowed, you also need to agree on how you can build your army.

 Happyjew wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

The game got more variety through FW and LoW. Unfortunately there are still people who will somehow abuse this fact.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

Games shouldn't require negotiation before the game just to have a fair session. You should be able to show up, explain your army, list and have a bash.

Before 6th edition, Super-heavies/GC/Flyers were Apocalypse only, with a single exception being a Battle Mission of 1500 pts vs 3 Baneblades. If you wanted to use Forgeworld, you needed your opponents permission.
In 6th edition, Forgeworld was more of a let your opponennt know you are bringing this as a matter of courtesy. Flyers became part of the normal rules, and shortly into 6th SHV/GCs became legal in normal games.
7th edition basically threw all that out and said bring whatever. If your opponent doesn't like it they are not Forging the Narrative hard enough. The way the rules are now designed, not only do you need to agree with your opponent what sources will be allowed, you also need to agree on how you can build your army.

Which is a fundamental issue with 40k. You shouldn't need to negotiate army lists with your opponent but because of Gee Dubs new "Do whatever you want" philosophy of design some may very well have to. I personally expect better from such an expensive ruleset but price doesn't always indicate quality.

 Happyjew wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

To me this sounds more like a problem with your 'friends' and not the game.

The game got more variety through FW and LoW. Unfortunately there are still people who will somehow abuse this fact.

I'm surprised how opponents just can't communicate their preferences, to find an mutually enjoyable game.

Games shouldn't require negotiation before the game just to have a fair session. You should be able to show up, explain your army, list and have a bash.

Before 6th edition, Super-heavies/GC/Flyers were Apocalypse only, with a single exception being a Battle Mission of 1500 pts vs 3 Baneblades. If you wanted to use Forgeworld, you needed your opponents permission.
In 6th edition, Forgeworld was more of a let your opponennt know you are bringing this as a matter of courtesy. Flyers became part of the normal rules, and shortly into 6th SHV/GCs became legal in normal games.
7th edition basically threw all that out and said bring whatever. If your opponent doesn't like it they are not Forging the Narrative hard enough. The way the rules are now designed, not only do you need to agree with your opponent what sources will be allowed, you also need to agree on how you can build your army.

5th edition didn't need forgeworld permission, that was people misinterpreting the rules for it in order to avoid doing what they could facing it.

I mean it's like how SC's were permission only in 3rd, sure back then but its standard now.

 Daba wrote:
I read it that he's talking about this thread rather than those he plays with.

Indeed I was.

But he said, and I quote

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

His game could not have become no longer enjoyable just due to forum trolls. right ?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
5th edition didn't need forgeworld permission, that was people misinterpreting the rules for it in order to avoid doing what they could facing it.

From IA Apocalypse (the original first edition).

The question of 'is it official?' continues to come up regularly from 40K players about Imperial Armour models and rules. By the above question I take players to mean, a) can they use their model and the rules for it in tournaments, b) use them without their opponent's consent, like codex rules. I'll address the tournament question first.

a) a few paragraphs about it being up to the tournament organiser.

b) Opponent's consent. As far as we are concerned Codexes and the rulebook are official, everything else is up to the players to use or ignore at will. The only thing that matters is that both players know this before they start, and both players agree that's the way they want to play the game.

So basically Warwick Kinrade of Forgeworld was saying "Rulebook and Codexes legal, no questiosn about it. Everything else is optional and both players need to agree to use the rules".

So yes, in 5th edition you did need your opponents permission.

morgoth wrote:
But he said, and I quote

 MWHistorian wrote:
We got some elitists in here. "You don't play LOW? How dare you? You're playing the game wrong. If you don't play the way I like, even though you won't have fun, you're doing it wrong."

This is a big part of why I left 40k. The game has just become something I no longer find enjoyable. (For me.)

And yes, that's an opinion and yes, that's really the most important reason. Fun. If the game isn't fun, don't play it. There's no other reason to play a game.

His game could not have become no longer enjoyable just due to forum trolls. right ?

Sorry, let me clarify. The "You don't play Low so you're playing it wrong" crowd are elitists, but they don't diminish my fun. Additions to the game that throw it further out of balance or change the game completely are what diminish my enjoyment of the game.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Sorry, let me clarify. The "You don't play Low so you're playing it wrong" crowd are elitists, but they don't diminish my fun. Additions to the game that throw it further out of balance or change the game completely are what diminish my enjoyment of the game.

I think I know what you mean, you'd like to keep on playing the old 40K where that SM captain with his 2+ save and his bike was a god and there was nothing above.
No tanks to care about, no big robots, no Titans, just the old game with its old (very warped) balance and its old squad+sergeant style.

I don't like that game. I can see where there's a huge difference between that game and the current 40K.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Sorry, let me clarify. The "You don't play Low so you're playing it wrong" crowd are elitists, but they don't diminish my fun. Additions to the game that throw it further out of balance or change the game completely are what diminish my enjoyment of the game.

I think I know what you mean, you'd like to keep on playing the old 40K where that SM captain with his 2+ save and his bike was a god and there was nothing above.
No tanks to care about, no big robots, no Titans, just the old game with its old (very warped) balance and its old squad+sergeant style.

I don't like that game. I can see where there's a huge difference between that game and the current 40K.

I never said that. Where are you reading that from? You have a very active imagination there. If you're going to read my posts, you should at least put a little effort into understand them.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Sorry, let me clarify. The "You don't play Low so you're playing it wrong" crowd are elitists, but they don't diminish my fun. Additions to the game that throw it further out of balance or change the game completely are what diminish my enjoyment of the game.

I think I know what you mean, you'd like to keep on playing the old 40K where that SM captain with his 2+ save and his bike was a god and there was nothing above.
No tanks to care about, no big robots, no Titans, just the old game with its old (very warped) balance and its old squad+sergeant style.

I don't like that game. I can see where there's a huge difference between that game and the current 40K.

Strawman argument of the century.

Not wanting to play Apocalypse isn't the same as not wanting to play against mech armies that have been popular for over a decade.

 MWHistorian wrote:

I never said that. Where are you reading that from? You have a very active imagination there. If you're going to read my posts, you should at least put a little effort into understand them.

My bad then, where do you draw the line ?

Is it Wraith Knights ?
Revenants ?
What about Baneblades ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Strawman argument of the century.

Not wanting to play Apocalypse isn't the same as not wanting to play against mech armies that have been popular for over a decade.

It's fundamentally the exact same thing: refusing to adapt to new paradigm shifting units.

When I first played my Eldar mech close to a decade ago, people I played against whined because it broke their paradigm. Even today I get that kind of reaction from people.
That's highly similar to "WK or Revenants or Baneblades broke my game".

Ask yourself: is it a super heavy.
If you say yes, then it's a No-Go.

 Musashi363 wrote:
Ask yourself: is it a super heavy.
If you say yes, then it's a No-Go.

Pretty much.
Yes, I could beat them. A SH would hurt from my SOB's melta heavy list.
It's the style of game a SH creates that I don't like.

Luckily my group of friends is laid back on this. As long as it's all fun and jokes, you could field a Titan and we wouldn't care. Hell, the CSM player of our group one day said "I want to play [Khorne Chaos Lord from Siege of Vraks which name I can't recall]" and we were like "sure, no problem mate, as long as it fits the points limit you can field whatever you want".
I personally can't field anything from FW since they haven't made a model for Bran Redmaw yet, but as soon as they make it I'll buy it.

If someone complains because you play something that's FW, and if said miniature isn't too gamebreaking, then they're not worth your time. This is still a game, where you should simply had fun. That's why I can't stand WAAC players.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Musashi363 wrote:
Ask yourself: is it a super heavy.
If you say yes, then it's a No-Go.

Pretty much.
Yes, I could beat them. A SH would hurt from my SOB's melta heavy list.
It's the style of game a SH creates that I don't like.

What style of game is that?

 PunkNeverDie110 wrote:
Luckily my group of friends is laid back on this. As long as it's all fun and jokes, you could field a Titan and we wouldn't care. Hell, the CSM player of our group one day said "I want to play [Khorne Chaos Lord from Siege of Vraks which name I can't recall]" and we were like "sure, no problem mate, as long as it fits the points limit you can field whatever you want".
I personally can't field anything from FW since they haven't made a model for Bran Redmaw yet, but as soon as they make it I'll buy it.

If someone complains because you play something that's FW, and if said miniature isn't too gamebreaking, then they're not worth your time. This is still a game, where you should simply had fun. That's why I can't stand WAAC players.

This is what I've been saying. In a close group of like-minded people, 40k works great. A load of fun without much thinking.
It's the PU games that I rely on that make 40k unplayable for me.
Most FW isn't game breaking and adds a lot of variety and cool factor into the game.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Which is a fundamental issue with 40k. You shouldn't need to negotiate army lists with your opponent but because of Gee Dubs new "Do whatever you want" philosophy of design some may very well have to. I personally expect better from such an expensive ruleset but price doesn't always indicate quality.

Exactly. LoW is not an exception. A Chaos Space Marine elite melee army facing off against a grav-tank based Eldar army sounds like an awesome and exciting fight fluffwise but gamewise it will likely end up a one-sided predictable slaughter.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 PunkNeverDie110 wrote:
Luckily my group of friends is laid back on this. As long as it's all fun and jokes, you could field a Titan and we wouldn't care. Hell, the CSM player of our group one day said "I want to play [Khorne Chaos Lord from Siege of Vraks which name I can't recall]" and we were like "sure, no problem mate, as long as it fits the points limit you can field whatever you want".
I personally can't field anything from FW since they haven't made a model for Bran Redmaw yet, but as soon as they make it I'll buy it.

If someone complains because you play something that's FW, and if said miniature isn't too gamebreaking, then they're not worth your time. This is still a game, where you should simply had fun. That's why I can't stand WAAC players.

This is what I've been saying. In a close group of like-minded people, 40k works great. A load of fun without much thinking.
It's the PU games that I rely on that make 40k unplayable for me.
Most FW isn't game breaking and adds a lot of variety and cool factor into the game.

This is very much my experience as well. 40k works very well for small and close knit playgroups that engage in lots of self direction/self selection. It's increasingly becoming a nightmare however for larger groups, local leagues, pickup games, and events.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I never said that. Where are you reading that from? You have a very active imagination there. If you're going to read my posts, you should at least put a little effort into understand them.

My bad then, where do you draw the line ?

Is it Wraith Knights ?
Revenants ?
What about Baneblades ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Strawman argument of the century.

Not wanting to play Apocalypse isn't the same as not wanting to play against mech armies that have been popular for over a decade.

It's fundamentally the exact same thing: refusing to adapt to new paradigm shifting units.

When I first played my Eldar mech close to a decade ago, people I played against whined because it broke their paradigm. Even today I get that kind of reaction from people.
That's highly similar to "WK or Revenants or Baneblades broke my game".

Fundamentally it is similar. In practice, it is completely different. Most transports (Wave Serpents aside) don't upset the power balance in nearly the same way as using apocalypse stuff in regular 40k. And honestly, Stronghold Assault does some incredibly stupid things too. Have fun playing against 3 Sicaran tanks hiding behind 9 Void Shields.

"The Game" (tm) used to allow you to take nothing but Lone Wolves (before the new SW codex came out). Do you really want to play a version of 40k where you're facing off against 30 or so Terminators with Chainfists that you literally cannot kill without giving your opponent Victory Points? There's a reason that many gaming groups are saying "no" to Apoc units in regular 40k - they upset the power balance and many players have no desire to play against them.

FW factors into this because many people associate FW with the titan models - at least in my area, the problem isn't with FW as much as it's with units that were formerly restricted to Apoc. Units like Blight Drones, Hornets, Contemptors, etc. aren't bad at all and I would love to play against a full DKoK army. But, I don't see anything more obnoxious than someone winning a GT with some of those horribly cast Armorcast models from the early 90's.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 PunkNeverDie110 wrote:
Luckily my group of friends is laid back on this. As long as it's all fun and jokes, you could field a Titan and we wouldn't care. Hell, the CSM player of our group one day said "I want to play [Khorne Chaos Lord from Siege of Vraks which name I can't recall]" and we were like "sure, no problem mate, as long as it fits the points limit you can field whatever you want".
I personally can't field anything from FW since they haven't made a model for Bran Redmaw yet, but as soon as they make it I'll buy it.

If someone complains because you play something that's FW, and if said miniature isn't too gamebreaking, then they're not worth your time. This is still a game, where you should simply had fun. That's why I can't stand WAAC players.

This is what I've been saying. In a close group of like-minded people, 40k works great. A load of fun without much thinking.
It's the PU games that I rely on that make 40k unplayable for me.
Most FW isn't game breaking and adds a lot of variety and cool factor into the game.

This is very much my experience as well. 40k works very well for small and close knit playgroups that engage in lots of self direction/self selection. It's increasingly becoming a nightmare however for larger groups, local leagues, pickup games, and events.

Exactly. Pickup games are a giant hassle of what can and cannot be used. half the time the local TO tries to cater to both groups, some tournaments are unbound, some aren't. Some allow super heavies, some limit it to one. Guess what has happened? The populations split so bad, you cant get enough to get a tournament going for either rule set. No tournaments for 2 months now, and MABYE 2 people show up for pickup games on games nights. Down from a peak of 20+ just in mid 6th, which was already pissing people off with allies/flyers.

40k is a write off in our area now. Hopeing infinity picks up here, warmahordes is ok, but a little variety is fun.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Fundamentally it is similar. In practice, it is completely different. Most transports (Wave Serpents aside) don't upset the power balance in nearly the same way as using apocalypse stuff in regular 40k. And honestly, Stronghold Assault does some incredibly stupid things too. Have fun playing against 3 Sicaran tanks hiding behind 9 Void Shields.

"The Game" (tm) used to allow you to take nothing but Lone Wolves (before the new SW codex came out). Do you really want to play a version of 40k where you're facing off against 30 or so Terminators with Chainfists that you literally cannot kill without giving your opponent Victory Points? There's a reason that many gaming groups are saying "no" to Apoc units in regular 40k - they upset the power balance and many players have no desire to play against them.

FW factors into this because many people associate FW with the titan models - at least in my area, the problem isn't with FW as much as it's with units that were formerly restricted to Apoc. Units like Blight Drones, Hornets, Contemptors, etc. aren't bad at all and I would love to play against a full DKoK army. But, I don't see anything more obnoxious than someone winning a GT with some of those horribly cast Armorcast models from the early 90's.

So really, you don't want to play anything else than the 40K you already know and are pissed every time there's something new that actually changes the game ?

morgoth wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Fundamentally it is similar. In practice, it is completely different. Most transports (Wave Serpents aside) don't upset the power balance in nearly the same way as using apocalypse stuff in regular 40k. And honestly, Stronghold Assault does some incredibly stupid things too. Have fun playing against 3 Sicaran tanks hiding behind 9 Void Shields.

"The Game" (tm) used to allow you to take nothing but Lone Wolves (before the new SW codex came out). Do you really want to play a version of 40k where you're facing off against 30 or so Terminators with Chainfists that you literally cannot kill without giving your opponent Victory Points? There's a reason that many gaming groups are saying "no" to Apoc units in regular 40k - they upset the power balance and many players have no desire to play against them.

FW factors into this because many people associate FW with the titan models - at least in my area, the problem isn't with FW as much as it's with units that were formerly restricted to Apoc. Units like Blight Drones, Hornets, Contemptors, etc. aren't bad at all and I would love to play against a full DKoK army. But, I don't see anything more obnoxious than someone winning a GT with some of those horribly cast Armorcast models from the early 90's.

So really, you don't want to play anything else than the 40K you already know and are pissed every time there's something new that actually changes the game ?

That isn't the main objection. The main objection to all of this is that they create a situation whereby there are the "haves and have nots" who do want to play with the big stuff and those who don't. Moreover if both sides agreed to use them fine, however if one person does not have a LOW etc the game seemingly revolves around them killing it regardless of what said superheavy actually is.

FW does give you more options, but a few are a little dense when it comes to it, despite the harsh fact that we all know some of the FW units are actually better "balanced" than some codex units.


Overall its a waste of time to actually bother because you only encounter hypocrisy, I.E "you cannot use an IK but riptide/wraithknights are fine" . Given the fact that PUGs are quite common its easy to see why warmahordes is gaining popularity. At least i can turn up, use a colossal etc (similar to a 40k super-heavy) and due to the rather balanced nature of said game nobody complains about it, not to mention the far better community attitude. Not the sore arse, blown ego fest that 40k seems to be infested with.

carry on

 Art_of_war wrote:

That isn't the main objection. The main objection to all of this is that they create a situation whereby there are the "haves and have nots" who do want to play with the big stuff and those who don't. Moreover if both sides agreed to use them fine, however if one person does not have a LOW etc the game seemingly revolves around them killing it regardless of what said superheavy actually is.

FW does give you more options, but a few are a little dense when it comes to it, despite the harsh fact that we all know some of the FW units are actually better "balanced" than some codex units.


Overall its a waste of time to actually bother because you only encounter hypocrisy, I.E "you cannot use an IK but riptide/wraithknights are fine" . Given the fact that PUGs are quite common its easy to see why warmahordes is gaining popularity. At least i can turn up, use a colossal etc (similar to a 40k super-heavy) and due to the rather balanced nature of said game nobody complains about it, not to mention the far better community attitude. Not the sore arse, blown ego fest that 40k seems to be infested with.

carry on

But that's not true. A titan that costs 500 bucks is 2500 points, i.e. 5 points per buck, i.e. better priced than most things.
There's no "have nots" in this case.
Now if you talk about Eldar Hornets, which are awesome replacements to the Vypers, yeah there's a bit of have nots there, because they're a lot closer to 3 points per buck - like the WK.

But how is that different from regular 40K ? I mean, a Beast Pack is one point per buck.


It's a problem of community attitude, not of balance, not of haves and have nots.
WK and Riptides don't win games, IK are somewhat bs because they're among the only ones that can roll almost unbound while being BF, but otherwise they're rather balanced.

And that's really the point that I see every opponent to LoW and other things ignore.

And every last one of them seems to just be complaining because their army that used to do well now does nothing because they did not adapt to the newer stuff.