I've been sitting on this for a while, but here it is...I HATE THE NEW DAEMONS! Why did GW decide to make them suck so much? I don't know if any of you out there like them or not, so f you think I'm crazy fell free to let me know. I want to hear a good way to use them.


I used to play a Word Bearer army. I had 9 troops choices, 1 HQ and 1 Elite. This included my Dark Apostle, 10 Chosen, 40 marines (all foot slogging), and 50 daemons (16 Bloodletters, 24 Daemonetts, and 10 Furries). The list just ripped through anything that wasn't heavy armor, and even then I sometime got lucky and could bring down AV 14 with one of my meltas, or some rends. The second the new codex came out I saw the daemon entry and sold off all of my daemons on ebay. I am vastly disappointed with the new daemons in the CSM codex, and I want to know if any of you out there share my sentiments.

pretty sure you just answered your own question.

I think you'll find most people here agree with your sentiments, but at the same time the old Demons were absolutely broken. There's a reason your Demons consisted of Bloodletters & Demonettes. Hell I'm surprised you've had Furies in there.

I don't think Demons should have gotten nerfed to where they are now, but they needed some kind of toning down (and toning up in the case of Plaguebearers & Flamers/Horrors), but this does remind me of a pretty funny story:

One time I was in my local GW and some guy I'd never seen before came in and started raving about how "Chaos got killed!" and "Demons blow now, why did they change them!?!?". This prompted a discussion with the Manager trying to tell him how the new Demons could be good, etc, but the guy wasn't having any of it.

I think when he left he picked up a copy of the Eldar codex.

It's going to be pretty damn funny if a little ways down the road, the OP reads the Daemon Codex and goes, 'Hot damn! I can't wait to-oh. Oh..."

But... but they said as far back as the release of the new CSM codex that they were planning on doing a Daemon Codex... Man, no one has any patience anymore.

Now if Daemons didn't get their own Codex, then you'd have a valid point at being pissed. Along with all the Daemonhunters players out there who now have an armoury that's... utterly useless.

AlexCage wrote:But... but they said as far back as the release of the new CSM codex that they were planning on doing a Daemon Codex... Man, no one has any patience anymore.

Now if Daemons didn't get their own Codex, then you'd have a valid point at being pissed. Along with all the Daemonhunters players out there who now have an armoury that's... utterly useless.

I agree with your sentiment, but it's important to remember that GW didn't say they were making a Daemon Codex: it was mostly rumors until just before or just after the Chaos book itself was released. If GW were a bit more upfront, and assured players that a daemon book was coming, you'd be more correct.

Also, not to dig up ancient history, but patience and faith in GW can sometimes bite you: ask anybody with a LatD army.

Hrm. Good point. I remember at the time everyone I talked to seemed so convinced the rumors were true (given how badly they gimped the Daemons) that I just took it as gospel.

And hey! You can still USE all those Daemon models you have! Just like your LATD models! They're perfectly viable in the existing range of armies! *ducks incoming flak*

i don't care about the new daemon codex though. i wanted daemons to still be usable in my existent army. as per the rules they are worthless, and the thing is there is no way in hell i am gonna buy that new codex. basically making the CSM daemons suck was GW's way of making people have to go out and buy the new daemon codex so that any daemons they had cold be used effectively. also the new daemon codex is a stand alone codex, meaning things won't be summoned, they are gonna be on the board at the beginning of the game. i want to summon them, and not have them just sit there. yes they were broken in the old rules, being able to summon, move and charge (plus scatter) but now the chaos deepstrike things don't have to scatter and IMO the new daemons should have t be summoned in place 6" from an icon. that would limit them, and they still get to charge so that's ok.

the new daemon codex is just a gimmick that GW is pulling to get more people to start a new army so that they can make more money. It's a way for them to screw the gaming community once again. that s why i will never play the new daemon codex, no matter how good, unless some super generous person would buy me everything for it if course...i won't deny kindness

Oh right and I forgot to say, as far as I've been told by my local GW rep (who has never giving me the GW crapola statements, which is rare) the new daemon codex may not be able to be used in a CSM army in the way imperials get to share between codices. which s a double boo on their part

Bastirous666 wrote:Oh right and I forgot to say, as far as I've been told by my local GW rep (who has never giving me the GW crapola statements, which is rare) the new daemon codex may not be able to be used in a CSM army in the way imperials get to share between codices. which s a double boo on their part

The search function is a wonderful tool that often gets overlooked. There have been discussions about this already.

In anycase, while I do have some of the same sentiments, I like people like you who are that impulsive because it makes getting minis a lot cheaper for the rest of us.

go right ahead buy the new daemons, i'm just saying out of principle, and hate for the CSM daemons i will not be suckered into buying the new army/codex

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I think you'll find most people here agree with your sentiments, but at the same time the old Demons were absolutely broken. There's a reason your Demons consisted of Bloodletters & Demonettes. Hell I'm surprised you've had Furies in there.

I don't think Demons should have gotten nerfed to where they are now, but they needed some kind of toning down (and toning up in the case of Plaguebearers & Flamers/Horrors), but this does remind me of a pretty funny story:

First time I've heard anybody explore why demons got the nerf, and I don't necessarily disagree with you either, though I do miss my 2x 6 demonette "game winner" squads. I think a big slip-up on GeeDub's part was not differentiating the demons at all. Taking a page from 2 codeces back (which they've kinda revisited in general) and the way icons / marks work in the new book, having one statline then adding +1 A / T / I / Inv save depending on deity would have been simple and acceptible. Undivided demons would stay as now, dedicated ones cost 5 points more or something. Not too hard :S

As it is though I still find uses for what amounts to a mob of nekkid marines with refractor fields and 2 ccw jumping on people ...

- Salvage

I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on this, but I'm glad GW is toning down all the codex armies. I'm hoping it will put some thinking and strategy back into the game. As opposed to (what some in this thread have already stated) having the no brainer game winner. It's the same reason it used to be fun to find out who really was the best in racing by watching IROC.

Maybe people will take note of all the "nerfing" going on and FINALLY start toning down their lists. Then some character might be added back in.

It's tricky, when you've got folks with revised codices trying to compete and stand a chance against some of the tough builds out there. Some of the armies out now, the way GW pushes you towards building them, your heavy weapon count is never going to cut it against skimmer-heavy Eldar or Tau, big-bug nids, or multiple Monoliths.

I'm on the same page with Boss Salvage. I still get some mileage out of the new weaker Lesser Daemons, but I can't see any reason at all why they couldn't have just allowed mild variations in statline based on god to make them a little bit better, give you more tactical, options, AND be more flavorful/fluffy. If S5, I5, and Flying were too good for Furies, just making them Fly and lose the two stat boots would still keep them interesting.

I agree with Kim. I've played Tau, which is a nicely-balanced army, all this time (except the last year and a half ) and I'm glad other armies are being toned down too.

I was actually surprised that people were whining about Tau because I never played an all-skimmers list and thought that when people talked about it, it was purely hypothetical.

That's exactly my point. I know I probably sounded like i think the whole change was crap, but i just get carried away talking about the daemons. I am glad that GW toned the daemons down some, as they were way broken, being able to scatter, move and charge on the turn they were summoned, i just don't think the replacement was a good change. it made them go from "oh dear lord they are amazing!" to "thanks but no thanks" I wish GW had made them at least have some of the special rules. Daemonetts could have had +1 I, bloodletters +1 WS, Plague Bearers +1 T, Horrors a shooting attack, and furries flying, but now they are just some simpleton guys, much worse than a chaos marine for only 2pts less.

it just makes me sad, that's all

Bastirous666 wrote:I've been sitting on this for a while, but here it is...I HATE THE NEW DAEMONS! Why did GW decide to make them suck so much? I don't know if any of you out there like them or not, so f you think I'm crazy fell free to let me know. I want to hear a good way to use them.


I used to play a Word Bearer army. I had 9 troops choices, 1 HQ and 1 Elite. This included my Dark Apostle, 10 Chosen, 40 marines (all foot slogging), and 50 daemons (16 Bloodletters, 24 Daemonetts, and 10 Furries). The list just ripped through anything that wasn't heavy armor, and even then I sometime got lucky and could bring down AV 14 with one of my meltas, or some rends. The second the new codex came out I saw the daemon entry and sold off all of my daemons on ebay. I am vastly disappointed with the new daemons in the CSM codex, and I want to know if any of you out there share my sentiments.

I'm guessing that GW nerfed the Daemons because they want players to demonstrate some minimal amount of actual tactical skill and finesse, rather than turning 40k into a game based around who has the most broken list with the most undercosted minis.

In the grim darkness of the far future, you shall not be missed.

Polonius wrote:

AlexCage wrote:Man, no one has any patience anymore.

Also, not to dig up ancient history, but patience and faith in GW can sometimes bite you: ask anybody with a LatD army.

LatD? Puh-leeeaze. They never had their own Codex, and they got an Apocalypse Datasheet within months, so they have nothing to complain about.

The guys who have actual valid complaint are the Squat players, who got dragged around for *years*.

Yah, I must agree. Deamons in the previous codex were over the top. Being able to deep strike in and assault on the same turn was broken. That and the fact that they were really good for what they cost makes me somewhat glad they are gone. On the other side I am sad that the got reduced to the generic blobs that they are now. Some variety would have been nice.

JohnHwangDD wrote:LatD? Puh-leeeaze. They never had their own Codex, and they got an Apocalypse Datasheet within months, so they have nothing to complain about.

Except when people like you act all high and mighty. You really come across as callous, reactionary, self-centered and poorly-informed when you say things like that. Lost and the Damned players DO have a legitimate complaint, and you're acting like an apologist and a blinder-wearing fanboy to claim otherwise.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm guessing that GW nerfed the Daemons because they want players to demonstrate some minimal amount of actual tactical skill and finesse, rather than turning 40k into a game based around who has the most broken list with the most undercosted minis.

QFT

JohnHwangDD wrote:LatD? Puh-leeeaze. They never had their own Codex, and they got an Apocalypse Datasheet within months, so they have nothing to complain about.

The guys who have actual valid complaint are the Squat players, who got dragged around for *years*.

Squats never had a codex. LatD did. It was called Codex: Eye of Terror and was as valid as any other codex. LatD Mutants even appear in the current rulebook.

The Apoc datasheet is nothing other than some basic rules for Mutants. Which is great if you actually ran that many Mutants and have thousands of points of LatD. I don't see many LatD players *expanding* an otherwise invalid army just to play the occasional Apoc game. Saying they received "coverage" in a system that has no org charts or limitations is saying nothing.

Although I like that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is covered in Apoc too. I wrote up a datasheet for it. GW even said I could! Yay!

JohnHwangDD wrote:
LatD? Puh-leeeaze. They never had their own Codex, and they got an Apocalypse Datasheet within months, so they have nothing to complain about.

At least AlexCage ducked. You walked right into it.

I don't think GW is "toning down" the new Codex's.

Eldar, Chaos, Orks, are all very powerful lists.

Compare that to codex Dark Angels, and you see just how different the power levels are.

In fact Dark Angels are the only "weak" new codex. Blood Angels & Templars got *nerfed* from what they were, but still can make decent lists.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm guessing that GW nerfed the Daemons because they want players to demonstrate some minimal amount of actual tactical skill and finesse, rather than turning 40k into a game based around who has the most broken list with the most undercosted minis.

In the grim darkness of the far future, you shall not be missed.

but see my list was in no way broken...i had to trudge through enemy fire, and the mud to reach the opposing player lines, and then my daemons were effective, but till then nothing more than pin cushions. In fact i lost more games than i won, but always had fun when i could place between 30 and 50 daemons on the table at one time. seeing the opponents eyes was enough victory for me that day.

You know, I'm getting back into the hobby after a 3-4 year hiatus, so I've been giving the DA codex a good hard look (as I'm a DA player). I don't see them being that "nerfed".

In fact, seeing as how I used to ALWAYS run with 10 man squads anyway, I've gained some flexibility, and a few points here and there. It would have sucked if I were playing an donkey cannon heavy list (which is just plain lazy IMHO). I never played "optimized" lists (god I hate that word), and I did Ok having a flexible force and thinking my way through. Now it seems people are complaining they are being forced to do the same.

Boo fricken hoo. Learn tactics other than "I'll load up on donkey cannons, and hope for the best."

Except when people like you act all high and mighty. You really come across as callous, reactionary, self-centered and poorly-informed when you say things like that. Lost and the Damned players DO have a legitimate complaint, and you're acting like an apologist and a blinder-wearing fanboy to claim otherwise.

Absolutely agree on that rebuttal. I was about to collect the list myself when they killed it and am glad I wasn't one of those who's entire army was invalidated. With not enough demons to go Demon Horde, not enough guard to go IG, and not enough CSM to go chaos, they've had to go "opponent permission" or sell 2/3 or their army to buy into one.

Back on topic, the demons were too powerful, but nerfed too much. I'm ticked that I have no nurglings, especially since I have 30 bases of them. I really think that they will be fixed with the legion codexes though.

@KiMonarrez you don't get it, it's just the daemons are way too weak now, and i had som many. had they only been broght down to a fair level i would have no complaints, but their new rules are too ridiculously weak. I like the new CSM codex, minus the turn that the daemon took. I used tons of daemons as my first post said, but now i use none because they aren't worth it. The CSM's are way better in all respects as for 2pts more they get a 3+ save, frag/krak grenades, shooting (bolter and bolt pistol) and the same number of attacks.

i just think GW toned the daemons down too much, as they were broken, i just wish it had not been as much as was done. other than that i have no complaint about the CSM codex.

KiMonarrez wrote:You know, I'm getting back into the hobby after a 3-4 year hiatus, so I've been giving the DA codex a good hard look (as I'm a DA player). I don't see them being that "nerfed".

In fact, seeing as how I used to ALWAYS run with 10 man squads anyway, I've gained some flexibility, and a few points here and there. It would have sucked if I were playing an donkey cannon heavy list (which is just plain lazy IMHO). I never played "optimized" lists (god I hate that word), and I did Ok having a flexible force and thinking my way through. Now it seems people are complaining they are being forced to do the same.

Boo fricken hoo. Learn tactics other than "I'll load up on donkey cannons, and hope for the best."

Not to make this into another DA debate thread, but it's not about loading up on the Donkey Cannons.

The whole combat squads rule, applied to EVERYTHING Marine wise, Tac Squads, Assault Squads, Dev Squads, means you're wasting points where you didn't before. This is themey though, which while nice, kind of blows while all the other armies out there don't have that problem and are much more powerful as a result.

One thing that bothers me isn't so much "OMG MY ASSAULT CANNONS ARE NERFED!" it's more about the fact that I can't take 2 Heavies in a Terminator Squad. Without the 2 Heavies, they're really not an attractive option. I'd rather they cost more, or weren't as effective, but toning it down to just one, and no options for 2 CML's? That just makes it suck.

Then you add in the rest of the bits of places the list just bones you, and you see how bad it is compared to Normal Marines, then Chaos, then Nids, Eldar, Orks, Tau, Necrons, etc.

is the DA codex really that bad? that's what kinda happened to the chaos codex, but it's not as bad for me as i don't use heavy weapons in my high mobility list

I always played 10 man squads. I liked their staying power. As it's what I used already, it's really not a hinderance. And I NEVER loaded up on donkeys. It was lazy. So losing 1 in a deathwing squad isn't a big deal. And if people REALLY can't deal with losing 1 marine with a lascannon from their "optimal" tac squad, well boo fricken hoo. Quit crying and learn tactics. Buy a 5 man dev squad with 2 instead.

What had been going on was LAZY, and GW is FINALLY forcing the players hand.

I can't remember how many times I've heard the rebuttal about donkeys, and starcannons, and rampant rending, and broken daemons saying something like "well if GW didn't want us to take that many, they should change it."

Guess what. They did. Deal with it.

Oh and @Bastrious666, I feel your pain. I do. Not QUITE to your extent, but I had a nicely converted chaplain on bike w/ crozius and thunderhammer. Can't use him anymore. Same is true with my Grand Master w/ sword of secrets, jump pack, BP and combat shield. No rules. Back in the DA update, I made a deathwing techmarine. Lost his rules too. I bought all the various arms for my dreadnought from FW, and for a while there (until the new codex) I lost the ability to take most of them. Now (thankfully), they're back. I'm still hoping I'll get to use my oldschool razorbacks without VDR, but I'm not holding my breath.

Deal with it and move on.

I feel sorry for the LatD and Squat players though. I may be joining them soon with the 13th company army I was assembling.

I agree with KiMonarrez and JohnHwangDD. Space Marine players need to deal with it, and learn to challenge themselves using good game-play instead of relying on their lists.

Except you're stuck with the issue Mannahnin brought up: Weaker revised lists, competing against old and new lists that are far more powerful.

The problem of imbalance is continuing, it's just shifted away from the SM's and CSM's.

I also find it funny that Nurglitch finally admits that players can rely on their army list. Which in turn means that some armies are more powerful than others.

Iorek wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:LatD? Puh-leeeaze. They never had their own Codex, and they got an Apocalypse Datasheet within months, so they have nothing to complain about.

Except when people like you act all high and mighty. You really come across as callous, reactionary, self-centered and poorly-informed when you say things like that. Lost and the Damned players DO have a legitimate complaint, and

I'll take callous, because I really don't have any sympathy whatsoever for people whose armies become "illegal". I've had several of my armies go from legal to illegal, and from uber to weak with each Codex change. I figure, if I'm man enough to deal with it, then so should the rest of Dakka.

If a bunch of frilly dress-wearing little girls can't deal with the fact that lists change and power levels change and armies are added and subtracted, then they simply shouldn't play 40k.

So, getting back to LatD, as far as I'm concerned, their complaint is NOT legitimate at all. They had a legitimate army for the Eye of Terror campaign, and it was valid for that campaign and quite some time thereafter. They spent their money and got fair usage out of that army. Even today, those minis can still be used for Apocalypse. Along with the Zoats, Ambulls, Gyrinx, and other long-lost minis. So I see no basis for complaint.

you're acting like an apologist and a blinder-wearing fanboy to claim otherwise.

What site did I log in to? Warseer?

No, you logged into Dakka. You're acting poorly and getting called on it. I realize that my last post was confrontational, but in this case, you deserved it.

You are entitled to your opinion, and you're entitled to express your point of view. However, you do so in a deliberately confrontational and condescending manner, with the implication that anyone who disagrees with you is beneath contempt. You've had a similar attitude in many of your posts and haven't changed at all since you joined Dakka. I don't know why you're expecting any sympathy from other posters, especially the ones you're putting down.

This is another warning about your posting behavior. If you have any questions or problems with this, feel free to PM me, Yakface, or any of the other mods.

JohnHwangDD wrote: So, getting back to LatD, as far as I'm concerned, their complaint is NOT legitimate at all. They had a legitimate army for the Eye of Terror campaign, and it was valid for that campaign and quite some time thereafter. They spent their money and got fair usage out of that army. Even today, those minis can still be used for Apocalypse. Along with the Zoats, Ambulls, Gyrinx, and other long-lost minis. So I see no basis for complaint.

They invested a bunch of time, effort, and money into an army which they were never told had an expiration date, and which has been invalidated for tourney and general play (except limited situations with willing friends and in Apocalypse). It's also an army which gives fantastic opportunity for converting, and which represents a major component of the Chaos forces in the 40k fluff. And it's an army with an interesting mix of units, giving a different play style from any existing army.

I don't even PLAY the army and I think I have a basis for complaint. GW invalidating the army makes the hobby poorer and less interesting. It removes the ability for me to see any more of these interesting and usually gorgeous forces when I go to a GT or other tournament.

While I can certainly get behind the sentiment that GW doesn't owe players eternal support, and that as GW players we should all expect our unit to go up and down in power and utility, the practice of invalidating whole armies is just poor. It's simply not a good way to treat your players, especially the players who were interested in this army; generally passionate hobbyists and converters who frequently bought several kits and lots of bitz to build units. These are people GW should want as customers and work to keep, rather than disappointing them.

While I know the general intent is to support every model/unit with a kit, it would have required very little effort to include some sort of traitor/mutant unit in CSM, even if only as an Elite choice or the like. Taking a similar role (though cheaper and weaker) to Scouts in the new Marine dexes. Similarly, providing some basic level of god-based customization to the daemons might have made them a little more appealing, and would have taken a bare few sentences of text to achieve. This would have been a very nice bone to throw to all the people who made summoning lists and bought lots of daemons which are now of very questionable utility.

Let's see how well I've done with armies:

Warhammer Fantasy

WFB Dogs of War - started collecting back in 5th Edition, back when DoW had an Army Book. Suffered through not having a WFB6 Ravening Hordes list. Dealt with having WD / Chronicles lists (with Ogre Kingdoms) until GW declared armies without a current Army Book cannot be played in GT events.

WFB Empire - luckily, this is still "OK" because it's a "main" army like Orks.

Warhammer 40k

40k Eldar - *Huge* ups and downs going from Second Edition, to Rulebook, to Codex, to Craftworlds (Biel-Tan), to 4th Edition, to "new" Codex. Stuff goes up and down from the shelf at an alarming rate, but the sheer size and breadth of the army means I can still keep playing. I decide that henceforth, my 40k armies will be large and option-filled as hedges against Codex and Rulebook shifts. The recent swings are less than before, but I do miss my uber Wraithlords, Dark Reapers as Troops, and 7-Guardian 3-shot Starcannons.

40k Dark Eldar - What a debacle these guys were. I bought into them. GW moved them to "Classic" (i.e. de-supported), and I sold them off except for a single squad. Lucky me!

40k Chaos Marines - Almost as much back-and-forth as the Eldar. All-Veteran & Havoc SCAFH died with the revised 3rd Ed Codex. I sold off the SCAFH and decided to rebuild as vanilla CSM. I have the models and bitz and am waiting for the 5th Edition Rulebook and SM Codex to build & rebuild all of my MEQs at once.

40k Imperial Guard - I'd like a shiny, new Codex, please. :( But I'm not holding my breath, either. Oh, yeah, I planned, bought, and started a pure Armoured Company list following the WD articles. Apocalypse should lead to good things for IG in the future. I'm prepared to lose Doctrines, BTW.

40k Space Marines - I didn't start these until late 3rd Ed, but I shamelessly abused min-max 6-man Las/Plas like crazy; then I bough AssCans for all of my Landspeeders. After the DA & BA Codices, I reshuffle towards Combat Squads and plan to tear apart and rebuild the bulk of the army.

40k Kroot Mercenaries - Not quite the disaster as the DE, I had some as Allies, sold them off when I decided to consolidate to fewer larger armies.

40k Sisters of Battle - Big swings in GW support (or lack thereof), but at least they got a Codex! This army will stay small, but I'm keeping it!


I'm not expecting any sympathy for having to make changes. It's a game, and the rules keep changing. No model, unit, or army is going to stay the same. So if you want to keep playing, you have to deal with the changes. Simple as that.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Except you're stuck with the issue Mannahnin brought up: Weaker revised lists, competing against old and new lists that are far more powerful.

The problem of imbalance is continuing, it's just shifted away from the SM's and CSM's.

I also find it funny that Nurglitch finally admits that players can rely on their army list. Which in turn means that some armies are more powerful than others.

I disagree though. I started playing and learning the game from a couple of cheese masters, and I never delved into the cheese. You just learn how to cope. The funny thing about "Optimized" lists (God, how I hate that word) is that you always run the risk of running into the perfect "rock" to your "scissors". I once saw a super uber shooty marine list get pOwnDe!!!one! by a little critter army of tyranids (150+ models) in an old RTT. His army was just too static, and aimed at 3+ save armies to be able to adequately deal with a TRUE swarm. He just didn't have enough bolters/flamers after all that las/plas goodness of his "optimized" list.

GW is trying to (and succeeding IMHO) of bringing everything into parity. And no, the "nerfed" lists aren't a hinderance. Yeah, the easy to exploit armies are still around, but they aren't a problem for people who already use tactics. It's only a problem for people who would REALLY (if they're honest) just like to show up, compare lists, and declare the winner (which may be a harsh assessment, but certainly rings true).

thanks Iorek

and for real guys this place is where some of us come to vent about our angers with the game. I myself have had to adapt to the first and now second CSM codex change, the marine codex change, and the IG change. I too am a veteran of the GW updates to codices. I also have moved on and new lists for IG and CSM (dropped the marines) that i like a lot more than the old codices, but that doesn't mean i don't get to be upset that my 50 models, amounting round $145 (as i got some deals on them) are no longer a really viable option. and don't say stop whining just because i like to express my discontent.

oh and i never was a user of cheese myself, although i know way too many of those guys (and them) but for real the daemons went from great to nothing. huge swings are yes understandable but GW seems to love making us sell thing, than buy em' back up by making them good again. it's like they purposefully make daemons super good, then super bad, and then good again. those of us who just sold the daemons for being total crap then have to go out and buy new ones if we want to use the new uber goodies. I'm just done with it. from now on i'm adapting 40k lists to changes as minimally as possible, and gonna really concentrate on WHFB as GW has yet to screw us over totally on that.

Kimonnarez- I strongly disagree. And I dislike cookie-cutter lists as much as anyone. But some armies just start a leg up from Dark Angels, just as they did over Orks until recently. Assuming two skilled players and an average table, a competitive DA player does not generally get close to an even fight against a competitive Eldar or Tyranid player.

Mannahnin wrote:They invested a bunch of time, effort, and money into an army which they were never told had an expiration date,

Exactly. GW never promised that these armies would be perpetually supported, either.

The implied promise for a Campaign army is that it remains valid at least through the end of the Campaign, and hopefully through the current edition. If the army goes on to the next edition, so much the better.

When Armageddon and Eye of Terror ended, GW's continuing to honor those armies through 4th Edition is pretty good.

In the case of EoT, it was released in 2003. GW pulled it from sale quite a while ago. People got 4 years out of the LatD list. That's really not bad at all.

GW follows where the money is. People loved the broken black templars, so they get a codex. Not so much the Salamanders, so they remain a flavor option to the space marine lists.

I suspect 13th company may be following the LatD here shortly. What about Ulthwe Strike Force? I haven't been in the hobby for 3-4 years, but they weren't too popular back when, are they around now?

It's just the ebb and flow of gaming, and yeah, it can suck. If you want to change it, buy enough GW shares to become majority shareholder and then change support as you see fit. Anything else, and we're all just along for the ride.

which leaves us gamers boned. and that's what i've been upset about this whole time. the daemons were just the point of it that really opened my eyes and made me say "wow GW doesn't really care about us, just the money" and i had always thought otherwise, but hey i guess i'm just way too naive to understand those things, and try to see the best in people. forget it now i give GW no hope, and understand them for the money grabbing jerks they are

USF lost their non-GW-model warp gates, just like they lost their +1BS Black Guardians. There's no USF specifically called out as such in the new Codex.

But you can always theme a black-colored Eldar force with Farseer HQ and Warlock Retinues and call it an "Ulthwe Strike Force". You just don't get bonus rules for doing so.

Which is about what I expected.

KiMonarrez wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Except you're stuck with the issue Mannahnin brought up: Weaker revised lists, competing against old and new lists that are far more powerful.

The problem of imbalance is continuing, it's just shifted away from the SM's and CSM's.

I also find it funny that Nurglitch finally admits that players can rely on their army list. Which in turn means that some armies are more powerful than others.

I disagree though. I started playing and learning the game from a couple of cheese masters, and I never delved into the cheese. You just learn how to cope. The funny thing about "Optimized" lists (God, how I hate that word) is that you always run the risk of running into the perfect "rock" to your "scissors". I once saw a super uber shooty marine list get pOwnDe!!!one! by a little critter army of tyranids (150+ models) in an old RTT. His army was just too static, and aimed at 3+ save armies to be able to adequately deal with a TRUE swarm. He just didn't have enough bolters/flamers after all that las/plas goodness of his "optimized" list.

GW is trying to (and succeeding IMHO) of bringing everything into parity. And no, the "nerfed" lists aren't a hinderance. Yeah, the easy to exploit armies are still around, but they aren't a problem for people who already use tactics. It's only a problem for people who would REALLY (if they're honest) just like to show up, compare lists, and declare the winner (which may be a harsh assessment, but certainly rings true).

Well I disagree with your disagreement! What do we do now, roll a D6 and see who's right for today?

The only thing I really disagree with is the fact that using an "optimized" army takes no tactics. Take something really good, play it really well, and you win stuff.

Army lists aren't a substitute for tactics, but they sure as hell can trump some of the tactics that are possible vs. some other armies who don't quite have the power level of their competitors. I think they are very well a problem for people who use tactics. You could be one of the smartest Grey Knight players out there, but roll up against Necron army with 1-2 Monoliths and you're just not going to win most of the time if the other player knows what he's doing.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I also find it funny that Nurglitch finally admits that players can rely on their army list. Which in turn means that some armies are more powerful than others.

Don't be silly. The fact that some players rely on their army lists hardly means that army lists can be relied upon. I can rely on magical pixies to clean my teeth, but that hardly means I should rely on magical pixies as a dental hygiene strategy. It just means that (a) such players are weak players, and (b) that they play against weak players.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:They invested a bunch of time, effort, and money into an army which they were never told had an expiration date,

Exactly. GW never promised that these armies would be perpetually supported, either.

The implied promise for a Campaign army is that it remains valid at least through the end of the Campaign, and hopefully through the current edition. If the army goes on to the next edition, so much the better.

When Armageddon and Eye of Terror ended, GW's continuing to honor those armies through 4th Edition is pretty good.

In the case of EoT, it was released in 2003. GW pulled it from sale quite a while ago. People got 4 years out of the LatD list. That's really not bad at all.

As Kimonarrez noted, Black Templars went from a campaign list to a full standalone codex. Which from a gameplay and variety standpoint makes no sense at all. It's just another darn SM army. Which enriches the play experience more? Another SM army with their own codex, or an army with some more variety, like LatD? From my personal experience, in local games and GTs, the answer is quite obvious.

GW must have made the decision based on the more-easily tracked sales figures demonstrating that BT (a very powerful list in the Armageddon codex list) sold a lot. They were mostly likely just unable to track the LatD sales, because the players bought a lot of different kits to build their traitors and mutants, some from Warhammer and some from 40k.

While it's understandable and appropriate for them to support armies that support them (financially), it sure looks to me like LatD players bought a lot of stuff, and that BT players would still be able to play their army even if they had just become another Trait chapter.

Man I thought this thread was about how much the new miniatures suck. I might have been a little bit interested in this new codex if I didn't see the fiend, epidimus and all the other poorly painted trype that they are trying to peddle with this release.

Mannahnin wrote:Kimonnarez- I strongly disagree. And I dislike cookie-cutter lists as much as anyone. But some armies just start a leg up from Dark Angels, just as they did over Orks until recently. Assuming two skilled players and an average table, a competitive DA player does not generally get close to an even fight against a competitive Eldar or Tyranid player.

A better example would be a competitive Ork list vs a competitive DA list.

Both new codexes, but the Ork one is much stronger.

And "stronger" means...what?

It means, among other things, that the best take-all-comers list constructed from the one will, all else being equal, have greater success than the best take-all-comers list constructed from the other.

What next? You want us to define "best", "success", "equal"?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
LatD? Puh-leeeaze. They never had their own Codex, and they got an Apocalypse Datasheet within months, so they have nothing to complain about.

Apocalypse isn't 40k.

Lost and the Damned rules inspired people to buy Imperial Guard and Chaos flavors and
mix them up hobby-wise. They could counts-as the models somewhere, but that doesn't
feel right. They put together an army, it's not like they're just repping guardians with
lasguns in place of guardians with shuricats.

LotD was one of the best armies for converts, and cool little nick-nacks. now it has gone to the trash, which is the saddest thing ever. To me it seems that GW is just taking all of the customization out of the game now, making things more and more cookie cutter with each update to the codices. eventually the game will be a sad sight indeed if this trend continues.

Yeah, players will have to supply their own imaginations.

at least GW limitation isn't always taken into account at all tournies. My local tournies and gaming group totally ignore the GW rule of using all GW models in the armies, so we still play with army books and rules that are otherwise unused. Such as LatD, and the codices from chapter approved (tank company, kroot, etc.)

it really all boils down to what your local gaming community is ok with using or not using.

Must every LatD discussion go down this path?

Here's the response that always comes next:

"Let's get rid of all the codices, then, and have one basic troop type with one basic stat line and one basic weapon. It'll be up to the player's creativity and modelling talent to use these to represent Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, Aspect Warriors or Grots. That will leave the greatest room for imagination."

If you're going to caricature it like that, then it certainly seems like that is how the discussion has to go. If you're going to pay attention to the conversation though, instead of what you're expecting you might see something different.

I'm pretty encouraged by Bastirous666's reply. Instead of being spoon-fed by GW Bastirous666's gaming group seems quite capable of supplying their own imagination. Given that his/her group seems to be able to supply their own imagination and use GW's materials as a starting point for their play instead of the be-all end-all is I don't see why s/he has a problem with GW just providing the basic framework.

fair enough, i definitely just destroyed my own argument about the daemons. alright then well i got no more to say.

Caricature or not, it is an on-target reply to your argument. Obviously less is not always more. Generally, we take it for granted that more is more--that is why when GW announces a new codex or a new expansion, people are pleased and hope that it'll be something good, rather than gnashing their teeth and bemoaning GW's decision to stifle our precious imaginations with yet more fluff and factions and rules.

You can perhaps argue that the LatD list itself is not essential to someone who wants to run that kind of army, but is it really your opinion that it was not, at any rate, a benefit? Can you imagine someone thinking, "Huh, I sure want to field an IG army that's been corrupted by Chaos and has daemonic allies and such, but blech, why did GW have to go and actually make a list for them, with rules and all? Why must you crush my individualism this way? WHY??" An official list is a help, not a hindrance.

I don't remember, but did they push campaign armies with
a disclaimer about them being temporary? Would they have
sold if they were upfront about it?

Even if the disclaimer is something like:

"After the campaign is completed, you could still use your
figures in armies such as 'counts as' Imperial Guardsman
and use mutations as the start of a burgeoning Chaos
Marine army."

I doubt people would buy/build if the books were seen
just as fluff sources. At least, they wouldn't buy/build
as much as gets represented on the forums.

You know, I agree with Nurglich (sp?) There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with showing up to your FLGS and using an older codex with an older ruleset. I don't know of anyone that's such a prick that they'd say "as it's not allowed in this years GT, you can't play with it." Heck, if I wanted, I could break out my space marine codex from the beginning of 3rd edition and use it. (I'd be at a SEVERE disadvantage) but I could. I can play 2nd edition in my garage if I wanted to. Nothing disallows it. The ONLY place it's not allowed is the GT circuit.

You wanna play daemon heavy chaos, or LatD, or whatever, go for it.

KiMonarrez wrote:You know, I agree with Nurglich (sp?) There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with showing up to your FLGS and using an older codex with an older ruleset. I don't know of anyone that's such a prick that they'd say "as it's not allowed in this years GT, you can't play with it." Heck, if I wanted, I could break out my space marine codex from the beginning of 3rd edition and use it. (I'd be at a SEVERE disadvantage) but I could. I can play 2nd edition in my garage if I wanted to. Nothing disallows it. The ONLY place it's not allowed is the GT circuit.

I think the issue would be finding another player. If you and a friend walk into a store and both want to play second edition rules why would anyone stop the two of you? Now if you just show up at the store and start going around telling other players they have to play an outdated system/codex because you want to, why the hell would they want to play with you at all?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Iorek wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:LatD? Puh-leeeaze. They never had their own Codex, and they got an Apocalypse Datasheet within months, so they have nothing to complain about.

Except when people like you act all high and mighty. You really come across as callous, reactionary, self-centered and poorly-informed when you say things like that. Lost and the Damned players DO have a legitimate complaint, and

I'll take callous, because I really don't have any sympathy whatsoever for people whose armies become "illegal". I've had several of my armies go from legal to illegal, and from uber to weak with each Codex change. I figure, if I'm man enough to deal with it, then so should the rest of Dakka.

If a bunch of frilly dress-wearing little girls can't deal with the fact that lists change and power levels change and armies are added and subtracted, then they simply shouldn't play 40k.

So, getting back to LatD, as far as I'm concerned, their complaint is NOT legitimate at all. They had a legitimate army for the Eye of Terror campaign, and it was valid for that campaign and quite some time thereafter. They spent their money and got fair usage out of that army. Even today, those minis can still be used for Apocalypse. Along with the Zoats, Ambulls, Gyrinx, and other long-lost minis. So I see no basis for complaint.

you're acting like an apologist and a blinder-wearing fanboy to claim otherwise.

What site did I log in to? Warseer?

So if you were "man" enough to get you arm cut off then everyone should be able to be "man" enough to have their arm cut off?

tegeus-Cromis: The trouble with the obvious is that it encourages one to overlook the evidence. If less is not always more, then it is not always less either. So yes, an official list is a help, not a hindrance, to one's imagination. And yes, lack of an official list is not a hindrance to one's imagination either. It's not a dichotomy between either having official printed material or not, and you only get the caricature saying that we should get rid of all the printed materials if one does suppose such a false dichotomy. Assuming that less is not always more, then we have more options on where this conversation can go, and options beyond what the caricature might lead us to assume.

Having official printed material is nice, but it's not necessary to play. Given that said material is just a nice bonus, there's no reason to complain if it isn't there and no reason to complain if it is.

So what?

[edit: oops, forgot to include the address]

Um.... what?

Victorraven wrote:So if you were "man" enough to get you arm cut off then everyone should be able to be "man" enough to have their arm cut off?

I may be dumb enough to play Warhammer, but I'm not stupid enough to cut my own arm off!

If less is not always more, then it is not always less either.

Sure.

So yes, an official list is a help, not a hindrance, to one's imagination.

Right.

And yes, lack of an official list is not a hindrance to one's imagination either.

But is it a help? If the lack of an official list is not a help, but the presence of an official list is, then the decision to no longer support an official list is, by definition, a loss to those who would wish to use it. If you give me $0, you have not caused me any loss, but if you decide to give me $0 where previously you said you were going to give me $10, then clearly the latest arrangement leaves me worse off than the one earlier planned. So yes, in this case, less is less.

tegeus-Cromis wrote: So yes, in this case, less is less.

Hm.... funny that.

malfred wrote:Apocalypse isn't 40k.

Neither is Tournament play.

40k is what the players make it to be. Polls, even on Tournament-heavy sites, show most games are "friendlies", for which Apocalypse is designed for. So I think it's good that GW is getting away from Tournaments being the One True Way to play 40k, as Tournament play too often focuses too much on the notion of Winning At All Costs instead of just having fun.

Except I (GW) didn't promise you $10, I gave you some spare change I wanted to get rid of that happened to add up to $10. You're hardly at a loss when I don't repeat the offer just because you've developed a psychological dependence on a hand-out.

Officially printed material is what gives players access to
one of 40k's biggest strengths: interoperability. You go to
a store somewhere and people can play a game with you.

For Local Play an Old Friend games, though, then yeah you
can pick whatever way to play you two agree to.

JohnHwangDD, you do have a point, but it cuts both ways. Apoc and tourney-style 40k (not that "tourney-style" is homogenous) are both equally "40k." The thing is, by relegating LatD (and similar lists/choices) to Apoc, players who enjoy the tourney-style as well as the list in question lose out. On the other hand, if LatD were (re-)legitimised, players who enjoy Apoc would not lose anything at all, since the list would remain equally usable in Apoc (possibly with additional supplements).

As for GW "getting away from Tournaments being the One True Way to play 40k", I think you're mistaken to assume that such was ever the case. If you look at the proportion of players who actually game predominantly or even significantly in the tourney scene, I am sure you'll find it's rather small. Tournament conditions are usually used in discussions of strategy and tactics simply for convenience, because they are as close as 40k comes to an objective yardstick for power levels (and mind you, that is still not really very close).

Where does it say you can't play LatD tourny style?!?!

The ONLY place I know of it saying that is on the list of allowed codex for the GT circuit. Every tourny has it's own allowed rules. I just did a quick check and you could use LatD for Adepticon if you wanted.

Other than GW saying you can't use those lists in GT's, I know of NOWHERE that GW has said those lists are illegal.

KiMonarrez?

The following are NOT allowed in the 40k Team Tournament:

* Rules and Army Lists marked as "Trial" or "Optional"
* Warhammer 40,000 Apocalypse rules
* Lost and the Damned Armies
* Feral Orks
* Armored Companies
* Relictors Wargear found in US White Dwarf #280
* Apocalypse Formations
* Apocalypse Strategic Assets

The following are NOT allowed in the 40k Championships:

* Rules and Army Lists marked as "Trial" or "Optional"
* Warhammer 40,000 Apocalypse rules
* Lost and the Damned Armies
* Feral Orks
* Armored Companies
* Relictors Wargear found in US White Dwarf #280
* Apocalypse Formations
* Apocalypse Strategic Assets

I'm going off of this page for that assertion for adepticon. Where you getting your info from?

Ah, I found the page you were refering to. So you could use LatD for the gladiator tourny if you wanted.

Yes, the Gladiator.

Gladiator is also where you can use Forgeworld crazy stuff
if you wanted, hehe.

Maybe they're trying to say LatD was a broken list. Heaven knows I used to HATE having to play against it. There was one guy (and I feel for him) who worked at my FLGS, who had (shot in the dark guess) 80 or so plague zombies in his army. Lot of chaff to cut through to get to the good stuff, and he always had lots of good stuff while those zombies bogged you down.

Now that the Ork codex is good again, can't LatD be proxied with a pretty good ork list?

Traitor IG: lootas
mutants: Boys
Big Muties: Killa Kans
Vehicles: gun trucks
etc., etc.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the LatD list for all reasons listed above, but there actually is a pretty decent proxy list out there.

As for the Daemons, I can only assume the decision to split daemons and CSM was purely fiscal. GW is basically getting to double dip a set of releases for both 40k and fantasy, and people with large daemon collections will expand.

Finally, I think this thread perfectly illustrates an important point: if you want to kvetch about something that happened six months ago, the internet probably isn't the place for it. Those that would agree with you are doing what they can to move on, and there are plenty of people willing to tell that not only do they not feel bad for you, but you should feel worse because you're a sucker.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:JohnHwangDD, you do have a point, but it cuts both ways. Apoc and tourney-style 40k (not that "tourney-style" is homogenous) are both equally "40k."

The thing is, by relegating LatD (and similar lists/choices) to Apoc, players who enjoy the tourney-style as well as the list in question lose out.

On the other hand, if LatD were (re-)legitimised, players who enjoy Apoc would not lose anything at all, since the list would remain equally usable in Apoc (possibly with additional supplements).

As for GW "getting away from Tournaments being the One True Way to play 40k", I think you're mistaken to assume that such was ever the case.

If you look at the proportion of players who actually game predominantly or even significantly in the tourney scene, I am sure you'll find it's rather small.

Tournament conditions are usually used in discussions of strategy and tactics simply for convenience, because they are as close as 40k comes to an objective yardstick for power levels (and mind you, that is still not really very close).

Sure, that's another way of looking at the same thing.

Tournament play wants well-defined rules to minimize disagreements among strangers in a zero-sum competitive gaming environment. Complex / non-current Codices open the door to more disagreements, so they're bad from a tournament standpoint. Keeping the list of Codices smaller keeps development and support cost down.

If LatD were ever redone, I can pretty much guarantee it wouldn't be like what we had before, but it would still have the same problem of not being trackable beyond selling the base Codex. And even if GW had a distinctive LatD minis range, most players would convert, artificially deflating sales. So LatD would still look like a money-loser. Until GW can clearly monetize LatD, they won't relaunch it.

When GW released 40k3, they pushed Tournament-style play pretty hard, to the point that Tournament-style pretty much became the de facto primary play style in many areas. :(

Didn't I say that Tournament gaming is small potatoes in my post?

Tournament conditions only measure what they measure. For example, for the longest time, Tournaments focused on VPs and Massacres. That biases scoring in favor of armies that score big VPs, but give up few VPs. But if you change the rules to only Troops Scoring, and Scoring tied to Objectives, then things would be measured very differently. It's why Guardsmen are easily worth 6+ pts in a static shooting VP contest, but worth less than 5 pts in a dynamic objectives game.

Tournament play wants well-defined rules to minimize disagreements among strangers in a zero-sum competitive gaming environment. Complex / non-current Codices open the door to more disagreements, so they're bad from a tournament standpoint. Keeping the list of Codices smaller keeps development and support cost down.

A simple Ravening Hordes type condensation would solve that. Between a 3rd ed BBB-style list and no list at all, I'm sure most would prefer the former. And it would cost barely anything, as it could go online and/or in WD.

If LatD were ever redone, I can pretty much guarantee it wouldn't be like what we had before, but it would still have the same problem of not being trackable beyond selling the base Codex. And even if GW had a distinctive LatD minis range, most players would convert, artificially deflating sales. So LatD would still look like a money-loser. Until GW can clearly monetize LatD, they won't relaunch it.

Well, we all know that, but we don't have to like it.

Your points on tourneys are sound. Still, the fact remains that those who like playing tourneys and like playing LatD (or, for the moment, cult armies) have lost something. Yes, they can still play Apoc, or get friends to agree to use the old lsits, but there are things they cannot do which they previously could. They are worse off. You can say they shouldn't be surprised (and many aren't) or that they should see why GW would do that from a business point of view (and many do), but that doesn't mean they don't have a valid grievance, or devalue their complaints to mere whining.

If GW were smarter, they wouldn't have gone list crazy in the first place with "official" appendix lists, Armageddon, EoT, Storm of Chaos, WD lists, CA lists, etc. GW did themselves a lot of damage with these things when they declared them "official".

Shockingly, I agree with much of JohnHwang's post, in that GW was a touch reckless in introducing sublists in 3rd. On the other hand, they did get lots of people excited. While the wreckage is caused, I think there is a sensible work around. When FW first churned out IA books, they included units that were clearly overpriced (by 20% or more in many cases). As an example, between IA and Apocolypse, the Baneblade dropped 150 points, gained a larger blast on the main gun, and has a 75% change of re-rolling it's scatter. The damage chart likewise got softer.

Why not spend a long weekend converting some of the better lists over (which, oddly, might happen with the INAT list thread), but simply err on the side of higher points, less power, fewer options within the list.

LatD would be the easiest to do, since nearly everybody found it pretty inherently balanced to begin with. Introduce modern wargear costs, eliminate armories, and these lists could be made relatively simply.

Of course their revenues were higher then...

Shouldn't be too hard. Say mutation/chaos sprue to add to a box of Cadians (say, 10 for $22.00...). Or simply Cadians with the Imperial Iconography taken off and chaos detailing added. Basically as Chaos Marines to Space Marines (Land Raider with Chaos widgets, Rhino with Chaos widgets) with some cross-compatibility with the Daemonic Legion and Chaos Marine lines. A few specific HQ models made out of metal, and maybe six (troops, heavy weapons a la Catachans, leman russes, chimeras, basilisks, sentinels) plastic sprues?

tegeus-Cromis wrote:A simple Ravening Hordes type condensation would solve that. Between a 3rd ed BBB-style list and no list at all, I'm sure most would prefer the former. And it would cost barely anything, as it could go online and/or in WD.

Well, we all know that, but we don't have to like it.

Considering how GW has trimmed their development staff recently, I would imagine GW is tracking cost very carefully. Even if the rules cost is small, to get in WD format, it still requires people to do the editing, proofreading, typesetting, graphics, etc. Given the choice, I'd rather see the Space Woofs get updated from a 3rd edition add-on to a 5th edition WD list. Similarly, I'd rather see existing standalone Codices (e.g. IG, Inquisition) get books sooner than being pushed off 3 or 4 months to the next 40k slot.

But GW loves to surprise us, so who knows?

Yeah, loves to surprise us with "hey, your $35 unit now costs $50 though it's made out of cheaper to manufacture matierials and is made in bulk."

Love them surprises.

that's my biggest guff with GW, they always love to make the things cost way more when they come out in plastic vs. the pewter price

JHDD, it's true, but even the most miniscule increase in demand for the affected minis would easily pay back that cost. Plus, they would have needed some kind of content there anyway, so at least the formatting, copy-editing and graphics work would still have had to be done.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Victorraven wrote:So if you were "man" enough to get you arm cut off then everyone should be able to be "man" enough to have their arm cut off?

I may be dumb enough to play Warhammer, but I'm not stupid enough to cut my own arm off!

Touche'

How about a finger?

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm guessing that GW nerfed the Daemons because they want players to demonstrate some minimal amount of actual tactical skill and finesse, rather than turning 40k into a game based around who has the most broken list with the most undercosted minis.

Except that's not what happens. 40k is still a game based around who has the the most broken list with the most undercosted minis - nerfing stuff only changes which lists are broken and which minis are undercosted. Simply removing options until we're left with Chess 40,000 and carbon-copy armies is not going to give us a "tactical" game. In order to do that they'd need to overhaul the core rules to add some real tactical depth to the game, which of course they won't because their marketing model requires backward compatibility. The End.

mortal888 wrote:Back on topic, the demons were too powerful, but nerfed too much. I'm ticked that I have no nurglings, especially since I have 30 bases of them. I really think that they will be fixed with the legion codexes though.

Legion codexes are still pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking at this point. But Nurglings actually survived the change quite well. Since all daemons are generic, Nurgling = Bloodletter = Daemonette = ... And guess which one is the cheapest ($-wise)? Here's a hint: there's nothing in the rules stating that Nurglings have to be based as swarms rather than as individual models. Add to that the comedy inherent in fielding individual Nurglings with marine stats and you've got yourself some kickass generic daemons!

Mannahnin wrote:Kimonnarez- I strongly disagree. And I dislike cookie-cutter lists as much as anyone. But some armies just start a leg up from Dark Angels, just as they did over Orks until recently. Assuming two skilled players and an average table, a competitive DA player does not generally get close to an even fight against a competitive Eldar or Tyranid player.

But the DA player has tactics!

Nurglitch wrote:Except I (GW) didn't promise you $10, I gave you some spare change I wanted to get rid of that happened to add up to $10. You're hardly at a loss when I don't repeat the offer just because you've developed a psychological dependence on a hand-out.

It was a while ago so my recall may not be perfect, but I'm pretty sure I paid real money for my EoT codex and my mutant models.

Iorek wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:LatD? Puh-leeeaze. They never had their own Codex, and they got an Apocalypse Datasheet within months, so they have nothing to complain about.

Except when people like you act all high and mighty. You really come across as callous, reactionary, self-centered and poorly-informed when you say things like that. Lost and the Damned players DO have a legitimate complaint, and you're acting like an apologist and a blinder-wearing fanboy to claim otherwise.

Don't mind him. JohnHwang is just the Ann Coulter of GW apologists. Oh JohnHwang - what won't you say!

Nurglitch wrote:How about a finger?

Oh, how I'd love to give GW a finger...

gorgon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:LatD? Puh-leeeaze. They never had their own Codex, and they got an Apocalypse Datasheet within months, so they have nothing to complain about.

The guys who have actual valid complaint are the Squat players, who got dragged around for *years*.

Squats never had a codex. LatD did. It was called Codex: Eye of Terror and was as valid as any other codex.

I don't really understand why people keep saying this. GW invalidated the Cadian list in the EoT book within a couple months of its production, 13th Company sometime around the 4th Edition launch, and the Webway list with the release of Eldar. Not once did they apologize or make any sort of attempt to keep the lists usable. Now, I certainly wouldn't argue that this is sort of a crappy thing to do, but I cannot understand why people are acting like they're surprised and hurt by the LatD situation; it's been going on for five years in other places.

The 13th company list hasn't been invalidated...

My mistake. Still, there was ample precedent for lists in EoT being invalidated by new codeces.

Yes but then seeing the huge love for the LatD army list they should then make a codex or something for all those out there who spent time and money on that army. after all GW is all about the money and i bet they made plenty of good sales for the LatD list. all in all it was a dumb move for them to drop the list. GW has lost respect

Salvation122 wrote:GW invalidated the Cadian list in the EoT book within a couple months of its production, 13th Company sometime around the 4th Edition launch, and the Webway list with the release of Eldar. Not once did they apologize or make any sort of attempt to keep the lists usable.

Exactly. And anyone who had a Cadian list can now find it in Codex: Imperial Guard. Anyone who had an USF list can field their Black Guardians using the rules for Guardians found in Codex: Eldar. And anyone who had a LatD list can field them using the rules for mutants and traitors found in Codex: Chaos Space Marines. Oh wait - no they can't. I guess GW forgot to put those rules in.

Don't worry, someone will come along to say they can be used in Apocalypse in three...two...one...

They can be used in Apocalypse!

Stop complaining all you whiners because your previously legitimate and completely legal army list can now only be used in a specific subset of the gaming system that requires games of 3000+ points.

*deep breath*

That was a long sentence.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:They can be used in Apocalypse!

Stop complaining all you whiners because your previously legitimate and completely legal army list can now only be used in a specific subset of the gaming system that requires games of 3000+ points.

*deep breath*

That was a long sentence.

BYE

HBMC drive by

Not to veer too far from what we were saying before buuuuuuuuut...

Has anyone had good experiences with the new lesser daemons?

Dead Horse wrote:Not to veer too far from what we were saying before buuuuuuuuut...

Has anyone had good experiences with the new lesser daemons?

Yes, I have.

I have experienced how significantly less dangerous they are!

H.B.M.C. wrote:They can be used in Apocalypse!

Stop complaining all you whiners because your previously legitimate and completely legal army list can now only be used in a specific subset of the gaming system that requires games of 3000+ points.

*deep breath*

That was a long sentence.

BYE

Exalt!