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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 zedsdead wrote:
LoWs are here to stay.

I think in anything outside of Competitive games such as Pickups and Casuals its always "Polite" to let an opponent know you intend on bringing LoWs to a game.

Thats just me.

you dont have too... and it would be within your rights not to say anything.

I like having friends..

Because you lose friends using Wraithknights or Baneblades? Get real.

I don't need your permission to bring them, and you don't need my permission to bring yours.

Cool your jets... the friends comment was a joke.

i never said you need permission... im just the sort who thinks its polite to let my opponent know im bringing my 3 baneblades.

The only thing you need to let them know is you're following the point limit. Simple as that.

Look.. its simple. In pick ups or casuals i am going to tell my opponent i have a LoW to play. He can simply say cool or refuse to play ( never had an opponent refuse). Its a casual so who cares.. i want my opponents gaming experiance to be as enjoyable as mine ( while beating his pants off ).

At our club we have all sorts of gamer types. Some guys arent fluff bunnies but they bring non optimised lists or lists of the stuff they have. I would walk over these players if they didnt know i had a Low or a couple. Whats the fun in that ?

90% of my games are pre setup.. so i mention the LoWs.. no biggie.
The other 9% are at a LGS. Some of those players are ok with them. Some not. It varies so i usually bring an alt list... no biggie
The last 1% are against braggers... they dont need to know what im bringing

so no.. you dont "need" permission ( never said you do)
I think its just polite to "mention" it. (notice i didnt say ask permission)

I don't think id ever do anything more than like a 66/33 split pointswise of knights and then either guard or Mechanicus. Both because it would inevitably be a much stronger list, able to actually contest objectives and win games, and because my opponents would be much more fun.

Nothing goes together like imperial knights and glorious formations of sydonian dragoons.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then you need my permission to use your "fluffy" units.

See how that works?

Of course, it goes both ways. I never implied the opposite.

When I play, I play for fun. I don't want to play my less-than-competitive list against your "best" list. I'll be steam rolled in 2 turns. That to me isn't fun. I also think for someone who wants competitive, it wouldn't be fun for them either to just destroy me without any effort.

I think one of the main parts of the game is agreeing on what kind of game you're going to play.

I love LoWs, so I don’t mind seeing them.

Its really a case by case bases, really the only LoW that are cheesy and broken are the bane blade variants.

I went with "other" since 1 LOW (<600pts) in a 1500pts is fine, and I expect it to be backed up by two tanks of up to 200pts each. A general list should have a variety of offensive options and ways to defend them. For 2k games I'd still rather not see more than 2 LOW and tanks. This is just because too heavy of a skew makes it so your opponent doesn't have a game to play unless they brought the same type of skew or the hordiest of hordes. And there's no fun to be had when one player is autowinning and the other has no option to compete.

Heck I felt a little bad for taking a brigade with longstrike and 3 hammerheads vs sicarian 3 preds deredo and guilliman just because it came down to first turn wins. Another time I played 50PL csm vs csm, brought a knight (didn't realize pl doesn't scale right for renegade, and for that I'm sorry and GW should be less lazy about updates) and got whined at for having the knight. Never mind that it was my melta raptors that killed his one and only heavy weapon that was left unprotected in the rear.

So yeah, some LOW or skew is ok in 1.5-2K games but massive skew is just not fun unless you're doing a narrative mission imo.

so for those arguing against skewed lists, how are custodes ok and IKs not? Custodes are also insanely hard nuts to crack, do I need permission to play a custodes army too? and what about a IG heavy armor list?

BrianDavion wrote:
so for those arguing against skewed lists, how are custodes ok and IKs not? Custodes are also insanely hard nuts to crack, do I need permission to play a custodes army too? and what about a IG heavy armor list?

This is honestly what made me stop caring about fielding LoW anymore. You go up against enough guard armor you dont really care if people complain about seeing a primarch on the table.

The only units i really am iffy about playing are usually specific forge world models, like the fire raptor, sicaren, or that one chaos dread that has access to a mortal wound cannon.

When people complain about LoW it turns into a case of, do you wanna fight the Plasma scion list? because i can go get the plasma scion list.

BrianDavion wrote:
so for those arguing against skewed lists, how are custodes ok and IKs not? Custodes are also insanely hard nuts to crack, do I need permission to play a custodes army too? and what about a IG heavy armor list?

I wouldn't say permission so much as communication. There's a difference between a known tank-off, or seige-like game and showing up with a tac list to find out after getting there and setting up the table that your opponent is playing all knights or not at all. If the only way to have fair play against a list is to build against it in particular then maybe you should let your opponent know ahead of time that your list is themed.

There probably isn't any way to put it in terms of absolutes. I woulnd't be against an opponent bringing 3preds 3rhino and 27berzerkers. Sure that's a lot of armor but it's still got more than 1 win condition and toughness. A knight lance means all S7 guns are near worthless no matter who you are, and it would take a ludicrous # of models to tie one up. Capturing objective markers might possibly make winning possible for super high body count lists but knights can kill infantry in droves even with anti-tank weapons.

As for custodes, they're annoying if that's the only type of unit being used (or worse with a cp farm ig) but not wholly unexpected. S6 and S7 weapons work against them. I don't think they were a good idea either. GW seems to care less about balance and more about hyping up pretty imperium models.

I don't want to ever be the position of telling my opponent in a friendly match that I don't like his models and he can't use them against me. Part of being a good sport is letting other people build the armies they want to build and enjoy their hobby the way they want to do so.

If it's a reasonable expectation that the LOW can be dealt with by the average army then I wouldn't try and stop you. If it was something that you brought just because it's OP then I'd be a bit irritated.

Tyel wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'd expect to be told ahead of time, especially if you're running a pure knight army.

Despite what Slayer is saying pure super heavy armies are not the same as a fluff army. Super heavy armies reduce the game down to a math check of "do I have enough lascannons to kill the enemy?" and leads to boring games unless you're prepared for them. When I bring a fluffy army it doesn't invalidate 80% of the enemy units because their weapons are too weak to do anything. Despite what Dakka will tell you massed lasgun fire does not routinely kill baneblades.

I'll reiterate that ONE super heavy is probably okay. ONLY super heavies I would want to know ahead of time.

I'd agree with this.
I don't like Knights because it just reduces the game down to list building.
In a tournament fine, its a skew that impacts the meta, adds an element that players have to factor in. In a friendly game though I don't think its conducive to having a fun game.

What edition are you guys playing? The basic gun of a fire warrior wounds a knight on a 5+ (with the focus fire stratagem the entire Tau army's basic weapons will be wounding a knight on a 4+). Knights almost never benefit from cover, so will have a 3+ save at best and have a degrading profile. Knights haven't been a "do you have enough lascanons?" match up for a long time.

And nobody was bringing Lascannons to deal with them in the first place. Everyone avoided Lascannons in general to kill them. Everyone took run arounds like Haywire or Gauss or Grav or D.

meleti wrote:
I don't want to ever be the position of telling my opponent in a friendly match that I don't like his models and he can't use them against me. Part of being a good sport is letting other people build the armies they want to build and enjoy their hobby the way they want to do so.

Well said, and I 100% agree.

I have no problem with 1 super heavy in a friendly game. I would still play against multiple but don't expect me to be happy about it unless I get a warning beforehand.
Take as many none super heavy LOW as you want.

 Mushkilla wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'd expect to be told ahead of time, especially if you're running a pure knight army.

Despite what Slayer is saying pure super heavy armies are not the same as a fluff army. Super heavy armies reduce the game down to a math check of "do I have enough lascannons to kill the enemy?" and leads to boring games unless you're prepared for them. When I bring a fluffy army it doesn't invalidate 80% of the enemy units because their weapons are too weak to do anything. Despite what Dakka will tell you massed lasgun fire does not routinely kill baneblades.

I'll reiterate that ONE super heavy is probably okay. ONLY super heavies I would want to know ahead of time.

I'd agree with this.
I don't like Knights because it just reduces the game down to list building.
In a tournament fine, its a skew that impacts the meta, adds an element that players have to factor in. In a friendly game though I don't think its conducive to having a fun game.

What edition are you guys playing? The basic gun of a fire warrior wounds a knight on a 5+ (with the focus fire stratagem the entire Tau army's basic weapons will be wounding a knight on a 4+). Knights almost never benefit from cover, so will have a 3+ save at best and have a degrading profile. Knights haven't been a "do you have enough lascanons?" match up for a long time.

I mean sure if you have about 290 pulse rifle shots a turn.

Also I didn't literally mean lascannons. Tyranids are going to have a hard time with knights if the only thing I thought you could shoot knights with was lascannons. When I say lascannons I mean "heavy weapons capable of reliably wounding T8".

Wouldn't it be nifty if the basis for the game was balance? I mean, in a perfect world, the LOW wouldn't be so game breaking that you have to worry about whether or not to even RUN one in a pick up/casual game. A tight balanced ruleset facilitates both casual AND competitive play. The new ruleset fails in that respect.

 Just Tony wrote:
Wouldn't it be nifty if the basis for the game was balance? I mean, in a perfect world, the LOW wouldn't be so game breaking that you have to worry about whether or not to even RUN one in a pick up/casual game. A tight balanced ruleset facilitates both casual AND competitive play. The new ruleset fails in that respect.

Its funny you say that because one of the big complaints about Warmachine's LoW equivalent is that they don't feel powerful enough even because they're balanced.

Do people not play pickup games? Most of the time I play I have no idea what my opponent has until they pull it out their case, or if I saw them play a game earlier in the day, nor do they know what I'm bringing. Tbh the only LOW that sees regular play around here is lots of baneblades, which aren't really op, especially when there's lists like 'what If I put a commissar and some bullgryns in a stormlord and that's my list'.

LoW really aren't a problem. In a recent game I unexpectedly faced Magnus and he died to nothing but plague spitters (heavy flamers), bolters and the close combat attacks of a daemon prince. In the end, he is not any harder to kill than the same amount of points sunk into daemon princes.

Pretty much the same for baneblades. If you can't kill them, you will also fail to kill a squadron of russes, a pair of nauts or a trio of vindicators trying to line-bombard the crap out of your army.

All the examples of LoW people are giving all require an army around them to be effective. They are literally built with the knowledge they will have a full force of units to either distract, or to hit the enemy while they focus on the LoW.

The thing about IK and their codex is that it directly buffs the knights in such a way that you don't need IG or AdMech for them to be useful, or even competitive. They have been given a solid foundation, and are essentially a REALLY elite army.
The houses give some really great buffs, and the stratagems allow you to make all your knights into warlords and equip them with a relic, which, from what I have seen, they have some devastating relics.

Just saying, I wouldn't peg the new IKs into a corner with the other LoW specifically made to run with an army at their back, because they aren't.

meleti wrote:
I don't want to ever be the position of telling my opponent in a friendly match that I don't like his models and he can't use them against me. Part of being a good sport is letting other people build the armies they want to build and enjoy their hobby the way they want to do so.

Agreed, although with the caveat that it is a good idea to discuss what you are taking beforehand anyway. If a game is obviosly going to be 1 sided then there may be something that can be done to alleviate that and make the game more fun. That could be a list change or a different scenario.

Sim-Life wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Wouldn't it be nifty if the basis for the game was balance? I mean, in a perfect world, the LOW wouldn't be so game breaking that you have to worry about whether or not to even RUN one in a pick up/casual game. A tight balanced ruleset facilitates both casual AND competitive play. The new ruleset fails in that respect.

Its funny you say that because one of the big complaints about Warmachine's LoW equivalent is that they don't feel powerful enough even because they're balanced.

It's funny you say that because I had a Bacon King sandwich from Burger King yesterday as my wife and children were out with me garage saling and we had to eat on the fly. My wife chose Burger King as my daughter wanted Chicken Fries, and as Burger King is my least favorite restaurant, I had to order the least bad thing on the menu.

It's funny I say that because my statement has the EXACT same relevance on 40K power level balance issues as your statement.

Which is funny.

What's NOT funny is that current players have become so desensitized to this skewed balance issue that they soldier on despite there being more balanced games readily available that are also cheaper to buy in to. They stick with modern GW despite the absolute destruction of balance and competitive pricing, and push through out of allegiance more than anything.

Which is funny.

And to be clear, I don't play Warmachine. I will NEVER play Warmachine. I don't like the system, and the models are... well, I'll just be diplomatic and say that they are not to my tastes. It's an accurate statement, and it would do no good to the conversation to slander models solely express intensity to my distaste. Cross comparisons don't work since it's comparable to debating the balance issues and power levels of euchre vs. canasta because they both use cards.

Which is funny.

TFG is more attitude; you could have an opponent bring a full knight army and end up being really fun to play against. I would bring maybe one at most myself unless it was more of an apocalypse like battle or if they knew in advance, but I don't think it's as much of a big deal as it was in the past.

 n0t_u wrote:
TFG is more attitude; you could have an opponent bring a full knight army and end up being really fun to play against. I would bring maybe one at most myself unless it was more of an apocalypse like battle or if they knew in advance, but I don't think it's as much of a big deal as it was in the past.

This. The Magnus player was one of the most awesome players I've ever played and his models were freakin' beautiful, Magnus himself looked like he jumped strait from the box art onto the table. And yes, the big red old one-eye almost cost me the game, I just barely managed a draw.

TFG will ruin your game no matter what - having a LoW, FW units (oh noes, I said it) or multiple of a certain unit are in no way a clear indicator of playing against a TFG. The'll mange with a fluffy word bearer list summoning daemons, believe me.

I voted other since I do'nt think OP is aking the right question.

Lords of war as a whole are "fine". The hidden problem is skewed/spammy lists (icluding pure knight lists) creating rock-scicors-paper situations. And examples of this can be found in multiple slots across the different armies in the game.

Ofc there is also the issue of genuinely OP units. But that is another story.

Sure TFG is an attitude.

But there is a difference between having Magnus and - perhaps in the not too distant future - having the Daemon Primarch Party of Magnus, Mortarion, Angron and Fulgrim, where they are all incredibly tough while dealing out solid damage.

I mean to use examples brought up - if you turned up with 9 russes/basilisks - I'd question to the extent this was a casual/friendly game.

Tyel wrote:
But there is a difference between having Magnus and - perhaps in the not too distant future - having the Daemon Primarch Party of Magnus, Mortarion, Angron and Fulgrim, where they are all incredibly tough while dealing out solid damage.

You are claiming lists to be problematic before two of those models even have rules.
Neither Mortarion nor Magnus are "incredibly tough" compared to the amount of points they cost, and I'm pretty sure neither Angron nor Fulgrim will be massively more durable than Mortarion, since durability is kind of the nurgle thing.
Both are T7 18W 3+/4++ with Mortarion rocking an extra 5+ DR and Magnus being able to buff himself to 3++. Both have a spell for -1 to hit on themselves, something I bet we won't be seing for Angron. Note that psychic powers can be denied or fail.
T7 means you don't even need lascannons to take them down, massed S4+ fire is already enough to force them to make a ton of 3+ saves, causing them to lose a lot of wounds.
A winged daemon prince escorted by two bloat-drones are just 26 points more than Mortarion and leagues harder to kill. Ahriman escorted by two daemon princes are a lot harder to kill than Magnus and usually do just as much damage.
If you can't kill the primarch, chances are pretty high that a regular army from that legion would also stomp you flat into the ground.

Last, but not least, for what we know both Angron and Fulgrim could be useless piles of dung once they get rules and a list containing all four Primarchs would just barely be held afloat by Magnus and Mortarion. And yet, you already declared such lists to be terrible.
In general, I don't think that a list with 72 T7 wounds across four models is going to be winning a lot of games. Heck, the new knights codex can do better.

I mean to use examples brought up - if you turned up with 9 russes/basilisks - I'd question to the extent this was a casual/friendly game.

Why? What's wrong with bringing tanks and artillery to a wargame? You haven't even mentioned the armament of the russes, which surely should make a difference in your decision, right?

Thing is, if you turn up to a declared friendly game with a hard-hitting tournament list, you're being a dick.
On the other hand, declining games or claiming people to be TFG just because of some arbitrary rules you have come up is no better at all.

You cannot generalize what lists are "unfriendly". One of the most unfriendly lists this year - the poxwalker farm - had mostly troops doing the heavy lifting. Are troops no longer allowed in friendly games now?

I'm fine with Lords of War of all types. I don't list tailor so whether someone tells me if they are bringing multiple Lords of War or not is fairly inconsequential. The reality is that the most aggressively irritating armies I've played against weren't based around Lords of War.

 Just Tony wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Wouldn't it be nifty if the basis for the game was balance? I mean, in a perfect world, the LOW wouldn't be so game breaking that you have to worry about whether or not to even RUN one in a pick up/casual game. A tight balanced ruleset facilitates both casual AND competitive play. The new ruleset fails in that respect.

Its funny you say that because one of the big complaints about Warmachine's LoW equivalent is that they don't feel powerful enough even because they're balanced.

It's funny you say that because I had a Bacon King sandwich from Burger King yesterday as my wife and children were out with me garage saling and we had to eat on the fly. My wife chose Burger King as my daughter wanted Chicken Fries, and as Burger King is my least favorite restaurant, I had to order the least bad thing on the menu.

It's funny I say that because my statement has the EXACT same relevance on 40K power level balance issues as your statement.

Which is funny.

What's NOT funny is that current players have become so desensitized to this skewed balance issue that they soldier on despite there being more balanced games readily available that are also cheaper to buy in to. They stick with modern GW despite the absolute destruction of balance and competitive pricing, and push through out of allegiance more than anything.

Which is funny.

And to be clear, I don't play Warmachine. I will NEVER play Warmachine. I don't like the system, and the models are... well, I'll just be diplomatic and say that they are not to my tastes. It's an accurate statement, and it would do no good to the conversation to slander models solely express intensity to my distaste. Cross comparisons don't work since it's comparable to debating the balance issues and power levels of euchre vs. canasta because they both use cards.

Which is funny.

You know what's ACTUALLY funny? You taking such grave offence at an innocent turn of phrase.

If I'm understanding you're rant you want a balanced game however you don't feel it's appropriate to compare 40k to Warmachine despite Warmachine being considered a very well balanced game (in comparison) with models analogous to LoW? If LoW were as balanced as Colossals you'd never see them because there would never be any reason to take them over smaller versions of similar units.

This is of course ignoring the fact that 40k never has and never will be balanced. People don't play 40k for balance generally. A vast majority of people will use models because they're cool or for fluff. Sure there are people for whom balance is the be all and end all but they aren't the majority of players. I'm not saying balanced 40k would be bad or undesireable. I'm saying it's a fools errand and if I'm being honest I would prefer LoW be slightly OP than the equivalent of two tanks stuck together with less guns and less flexibility.

As I said, as long as I know someone is bringing a LoW beforehand people can play what they want because it's a two player game and the end goal is for both players to have fun. If I have to sit and watch my Nid Swarm list get shot off the board and unable to retaliate for two hours then at least one player has failed to meet the goal and it wasn't me.