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.

This is an automated message added by the articles system.

A new article titled Dakka Army List: Lost and the Damned has been added to the dakka articles system.

This message thread is for the discussion of content in the article. Any updates to the article will be automatically added to this thread and (if you are logged in), you can get automatic email updates as and when the article changes by clicking 'Email me when this thread changes' below. If you are the author or have added a lot to the article then it is a good idea to do this to ensure that you maintain control over the content of the article.

If you have anything to add to the article, then just jump in and edit it by going to the actual article page and clicking 'edit' (the link can be found just above the article). If there is no edit link then the article is locked for now, so just add your comments or content to this thread and if they are appropriate and the article owner checks this thread, they should get merged in.

If there is something in the article that you wish to debate, then this is the place to do it. Just hit the reply button and get chatting. You need to be registered and logged in to post in the forums so if you are an anonymous article editor then now would be a great time to register and join in dakka's great forum discussion!

What's this army list for? See this thread for the discussion.

Project priorities, as I see 'em:

1. Compatibility with the newest Codex Chaos Space Marines: Units which are the same or very similar to those in C:CSM should match them. The format and design aesthetics should match.

2. Compatibility with the latest edition of the Imperial Guard Codex. Less of a priority, but worth considering.

3. Backward compatibility with people's old Lost and the Damned armies.

4. Balanced army list. We should shoot for a mid-powered Codex, I think.

Personally, I'd love to go nuts with the army list, but I agree the best policy is probably to keep things more or less in line with the old list and what both LatD players and their opponents are used to. What you have is a great start.

A couple thoughts:

1) I always thought the Plague Zombie upgrade was handled strangely in EoT. I think it should be incorporated into the regular Mutant listing. We could make it either a standalone upgrade, or work it into the Bloated upgrade. The former would probably be a simpler and clearer approach, though.

2) What's your thinking behind the Death Brigade unit? Do you just want to add a "veteran" Traitor choice? Just curious.

3) I personally liked the old Chaos Spawn rules and how they operated as a HS choice for the army. Should we include the old unit, but under a slightly different name ("Chaos Monstrosities", etc.?).

I'll have to mull over Gifts of the Gods...

gorgon wrote:1) I always thought the Plague Zombie upgrade was handled strangely in EoT. I think it should be incorporated into the regular Mutant listing. We could make it either a standalone upgrade, or work it into the Bloated upgrade. The former would probably be a simpler and clearer approach, though.

Yeah, or maybe just make a completely different unit entry for it. It seems like it would be clearer to simply do it that way.

2) What's your thinking behind the Death Brigade unit? Do you just want to add a "veteran" Traitor choice? Just curious.

There was a Chapter Approved article with rules for "Blood Pact Death Brigades" for LatD, so I typed it up and added it to the army list, removing the "Blood Pact" references to make it more universal. My impression (based on nothing more than reading internet forums) was that an "all-traitor" army (without mutants) was only viable if Death Brigades were included.

3) I personally liked the old Chaos Spawn rules and how they operated as a HS choice for the army. Should we include the old unit, but under a slightly different name ("Chaos Monstrosities", etc.?).

My personal opinion is that we should try to maintain consistency with the CSM Codex, and not invent new concepts, but I'm not the "boss" of this project; I just got it rolling. If there is a consensus among people who are interested in the project that Chaos Spawn should revert to their old rules with a new name, let it be done.

So I finished changing all the formatting over to black font (which is good).


I think it is a good idea to kind to use what the AU Gamers did as a starting point:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/209243.page#262177



However, their Aspiring Champion rules completely referenced several different pages of the CSM codex, something I think we should try to avoid where possible. Instead, I think the compromise I came up with for the Asp Champion was pretty good. The only point value I had to guess at was the Force Weapon (I settled on 25 points). Overall I think its a little better than the AU version (mainly because all the rules are in one place).


I also made some changes to the Force Org chart text to try to make it more clear exactly what is available to the player.

One thing I think needs to be changed (which I did) is to get rid of the whole 'if an allied unit has a mark it is elite' rule. This caused all sorts of questions and issues because if you took a Chaos Lord with a Mark then it meant you could take him as an Elite and then take a 2nd unmarked Chaos Lord.

But really, that whole rule was in place because in the old Chaos codex CSM squads with a mark were essentially elite units, something that isn't true in the new codex. It is soooooooo much cleaner and easier to get rid of that rule and I think it vibes with the new Chaos codex much, much better.


What do you think?


P.S. I'll keep deleting out those automated update replies to keep this discussion a bit clearer.

Pariah Press wrote:
There was a Chapter Approved article with rules for "Blood Pact Death Brigades" for LatD, so I typed it up and added it to the army list, removing the "Blood Pact" references to make it more universal. My impression (based on nothing more than reading internet forums) was that an "all-traitor" army (without mutants) was only viable if Death Brigades were included.

Death Brigades were really a Troops choice? It seems as though they'd be 'Elites' but I haven't read that article in ages. I was going to ask you about that, so props for finding it and writing it up! (I'll add it to the FOC at the top)

My personal opinion is that we should try to maintain consistency with the CSM Codex, and not invent new concepts, but I'm not the "boss" of this project; I just got it rolling. If there is a consensus among people who are interested in the project that Chaos Spawn should revert to their old rules with a new name, let it be done.

I agree with that. The new codex should be the main guide. Under that same pretense, I think gibbering hordes should be deleted. What do you think?

Thanks for pruning back the automated responses generated by our edits, for helping out in so many ways with the article.

yakface wrote:Death Brigades were really a Troops choice? It seems as though they'd be 'Elites' but I haven't read that article in ages. I was going to ask you about that, so props for finding it and writing it up! (I'll add it to the FOC at the top)

They were Troops unless you took a veteran skill for them, in which case they became Elite. I pared down the list of veteran skills to those that were appropriate to infantry and available as Universal Special Rules in the main book.

I agree with that. The new codex should be the main guide. Under that same pretense, I think gibbering hordes should be deleted. What do you think?

I think that the little Gibberoos aren't hurting anyone. The original list said that they "represent lesser spawn, minor daemons and a host of other hell-spawned nastiness," which simply "count as" Nurglings. We might consider ditching the invulnerable save, though, to make them a bit less "daemonic."

I think I'm missing something. Why do Summoned Lesser Daemons take up a force org slot?

The Plague Zombies as a separate entry works great.

I'll also give a vote of support to the Gibberers. I think they're a great 'counts as' choice. And even though they lost animosity, just the fact that they can't hold objectives means they're not the most competitive choice.

Does anyone have the Vraks army list? I'm curious about the Renegade Ogryn Bezerkers and how they differ from Big Mutants. The models would seem to indicate they get CCWs or heavy CCWs. Is that something to consider for Big Mutants, considering they're a bit of a subpar choice as is? I realize I'm deviating from the old list, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

I don't have the Vraks list, so I don't know what's in it. I have no objection to minor tweaks that will balance out the unit choices, so "be bold," as we say on Wikipedia. You're an experienced LatD player; make whatever changes you think are appropriate to improve the list.

One knock on Traitors is that they pay the IG price for heavy weapons, without the high quantity that IG get. Especially considering they are already 8 pts each w/ infiltrate, frag and -1 ld (with no officers rule, either).

So what do people think of this: 8 pt Traitors but they use SM heavy weapon costs. HB, Mortar are 5 pts. ML and AC are 10pts, LC is 15pts. Maybe bump grenade launcher down to 5pts.

Also, are mutants and plague zombies base 2 attacks b/c their profile says 1(2).

From Vraks, the renegade Ogryns are Fearless, FNP, d6 attacks (due to stimulants) w/ a rule that can hurt them based on how many attacks, and one can take a power weapon. Sorry in advance if I can't list that here.

Borrowing from Vraks you could say.
Berzerk
In addition to other upgrades, the entire squad can be upgraded to Berzerkers for +10 points per model. They gain Fearless, FNP, and +1 Attack each.

Well, I guess the question is, "are these changes justified?" Were people avoiding Traitors' heavy weapons and Big Mutants in competitive lists?

I do not know. That is the house rule change my brother and I use, mostly due to the -1 ld issue.

To sound more positive than 'Traitors were avoided', I don't think Traitors are seen as being the strongest unit in the list. Mutants, HQ, ordnance and space marine allies w/ veteran skills were what strong lists were based around, I believe. We saw it as being more a common sense thing that gives you a few more points to include something cool. Why include a 6 man Traitor las/plas squad when you can include a CSM one. Note that this option is no longer available due to the new chaos book.

Without platoons you are still limited by the force org chart after you get your mutants and CSM units in.

I would wait for feedback from other and possibly more experienced LatD players. It was just a suggestion.

edit: So yes, if I have to be assertive about it, I would say that people generally avoided traitors. There is no real way to spam heavy weapons since taking a chimera makes it a fast attack and doing so costs you your infiltrate anyway.

Just a small tweak to help bring the list from maybe B to B+.

As for Big Mutants, I don't think anyone ever used them. Not with all the other close combat available. But again I would have to wait for someone else's suggestion and I am not trying to hijack the thread.

When minmaxing for effectiveness, most players took minimum-sized Traitor squads with a heavy weapon -- usually a lascannon, although I also liked autocannons. They'd give you access to the IG tanks and give you an infiltrating heavy weapon to annoy people with. Occasionally they popped a vehicle before getting wiped out or failing a Ld test and running. But Tacobake is right -- you (previously) could get a min-sized CSM squad with heavy weapon for a few points more. You mostly took them to field ordnance, unless you just wanted to be fluffy.

I've seen people field Big Mutants, but they aren't a terribly competitive choice. They have all the same problems as Ogryn -- they die quickly to PFs and S8 weapons, they're hard to get stuck in, and they lack the ability to deal with power armor.

If we want to address competitiveness and not simply do a port of the old list (which has its merits too), then tweaking Traitors and Big Mutants is something we should consider.

It sounds like, with the loss of CSM heavy weapons, Traitors may become a more viable choice than they used to be, within the context of the revised army list. By making CSMs worse, we've made Traitors, even with their original stats, more attractive.

There are at least a couple of reasons to tweak the list, above and beyond doing a straight "port." 1: To make sure that the overall power level is neither too high, nor too low. 2: To ensure that every unit is worth taking, not just in competitive tournament play, but in other gaming contexts. While the primary goal for this list is tournament play, and it should have its overall power-level balanced for that purpose, it should be a fun and flexible list for casual play as well.

My vote is to leave the traitors' heavy weapons costs as they are, and see how playtesting goes.

I think that, based on the comments above, big mutants are a bit weak. We should discuss what their role is in the army, and how to tweak them to fit better into that niche. Tacobake's suggestions make me think that we're looking at an assault role for them, but some sort of mobile fire-support unit (with the heavy stubbers) is another options. Sort of a slower version of a Space Marine Attack Bike Squadron.

Whichever role we decide upon for the Big Mutants, we need to look at the other units that occupy similar niches. The Big Mutants need to compare favorably with them, but not overpower them, and have a distinct difference that makes them better against certain enemies and worse against others, point for point.

Have you given thought to the addition of a stalker tank as a heavy support? I'd posit the same stats and costs as a chimera (and tied to any changes in the IG codex), with the exception-WALKER.


Edit. Death brigades are nice. As expensive as marines-paying for their ability to have different traits. Might be alsight point drop in line with ST's but thats my personal view.

I'd love to include a stalk tank, but I think that it's too radical an addition at this stage of list development. I'd like to avoid adding additional units this early on, as they will make the list less-likely to be widely accepted.

As far as Death Brigade point costs go, I think we should stick with the original Chapter Approved points until we've had a chance to do some playtesting. A points value that works within the context of an Imperial Guard army may not be appropriate in the context of a LatD army.

Traitors might be more necessary to supply heavy weapons, but I think we'd still see disposable min-sized squads. Their Ld makes them so vulnerable to running after a few casualties (even if the squad is maxed) that fielding anything more than the minimum doesn't make sense, strictly competitively speaking. It's probably important to point out that with 5th edition, ineffective and fragile Troops choices will probably be a lot less attractive.

What if we rethought the Traitor troops choice a bit (remove the heavy weapon options but allow multiple specials?), but added a (non-infiltrating) Traitor heavy weapons teams choice? The latter would bring LatD more in line with IG, and add a firepower HS option beyond tanks. As is, Traitors are basically fielded as individual 5-man weapons teams anyway.

Regarding Big Ms, I'm inclined to think we should allow them to be outfitted for either shooting or close combat. Beyond list flexibility, it'd give folks using Ogryns or the Berzerker Ogryns the ability to field their models in a generally WYSIWYG way.

Looking at the shooting side of the equation, Big Ms are underwhelming as a shooting unit as is. I propose allowing the entire unit heavy stubbers, as in "the entire unit can be equipped with heavy stubbers for 5 pts a model." When you consider Big Ms are BS2 and would be 30 pts apiece armed that way, they still wouldn't be overpowered. But they'd add some long range anti-horde and anti-AV10 vehicle firepower, which is lacking in the army list. We could drop the "assault 3 for Big Ms" thing if the range seems too good.

Looking at them as an assault unit, I think we have to factor in 5th edition as best as we can. Based on what we know so far, the run rule will help for getting them into combat if we want to gear them for assaults or a dual role. So I think the mobility problem won't be a major issue. The issue becomes their CC performance.

Defensively, power fists will be slightly downpowered, although Big Ms will probably become even more vulnerable to hordes. Might be a wash there. Offensively, I think they need a boost. I suppose the option are to make them better vs. hordes by giving them an extra attack, or boost them vs. MEqs by allowing them heavy CCWs or Furious Charge. Any thoughts?

I think we need to make a decision on what direction you want to take this army list, and maybe even consider splitting it into two parts: one list to sell as the 'straight port' tournament list and the other list that is more of what we would like to see the list be, in our opinion balanced for tournament play with all units tuned to be equally effective choices.


The reason I say this is because I think most players can obviously agree that rules have to change in order to make the LatD list function with the new Chaos Codex, that's just a fact. How exactly you accomplish that feat is obviously open to interpretation but as long as those alterations are reasonable I think most people could agree and run with the list.

However, the minute you start creating rules and/or altering points costs for balance purposes you catapult the list into a totally different realm. This is because it is almost impossible for a wide-spectrum of players to agree on what is balanced and/or under/over-powered. No matter what changes you make to the army list with the goal of making the army more balanced (in your mind) there will be a large contingent of people who will disagree that such a change needed to be made in the first place and will then rally against your list because they feel it under or overpowers the army for no good reason.


And the fact is, the existing LatD army (even as it stands now in our article) is a perfectly competitive army. Sure, not every unit is of equal quality but the same is true of every other codex in print. In essence, I think just updating the list to vibe with the current Chaos codex presents the best possible way to convince other players and tournament organizers to utilize our version of the LatD.


With that in mind I really think we should focus on the integration of the new chaos codex before moving onto anything new.

Pariah Press wrote:

I think that the little Gibberoos aren't hurting anyone. The original list said that they "represent lesser spawn, minor daemons and a host of other hell-spawned nastiness," which simply "count as" Nurglings. We might consider ditching the invulnerable save, though, to make them a bit less "daemonic."

I think I'm missing something. Why do Summoned Lesser Daemons take up a force org slot?

I don't think Gibbering Hordes 'hurt' anyone either, but they represent a unit that is no longer found in the new codex and not found (stats-wise) in the old LatD list. At this point they are basically a unit we are 'making up' (albeit with pretty solid inspiration) in that we have to change rules and possibly points-costs to make them work because there is no comparable unit in the game.

I suppose the *only* reason (IMHO) to keep them in the army list is as service to players who have existing models in their army. If that's what you guys think is the best direction to take then I would agree their points cost should probably go up a couple of points because instability is gone (maybe 12 points?).


As for Summoned Lesser Daemons taking up an Elites slot, this is the kind of thing I think we should be discussing.

Do we all agree that the whole 'allied marked units count as an elites choice' was really a rule that was in effect based on the old CSM codex, where (for the most part) marked units in CSM armies became an Elites choice, and therefore should be jetisoned in our list? Not to mention the rule was a giant pain in the ass for rules questions regarding LatD armies.

That, of course, means that Bezerkers, 1Ksons, Plague Marines & Noise Marines can all now be taken as allied TROOPS choices in LatD armies now, but since they can be taken as a Troops choice in regular CSM armies it seems fitting to me (and is generally much more simple to understand). What do you think?

If you agree about removing the marked=elite ally rule then that brings us to Summoned Lesser Daemons. In the original LatD list they were a straight up (non-allied) Elites choice, and they counted as an Elites choice. That's why I wrote that they take up a FOC slot. Do we want to change it to (again) fit closer with the new CSM codex and make Lesser Daemons a Troops choice that doesn't take up a FOC slot?

yakface wrote:
I think we need to make a decision on what direction you want to take this army list, and maybe even consider splitting it into two parts: one list to sell as the 'straight port' tournament list and the other list that is more of what we would like to see the list be, in our opinion balanced for tournament play with all units tuned to be equally effective choices.


The reason I say this is because I think most players can obviously agree that rules have to change in order to make the LatD list function with the new Chaos Codex, that's just a fact. How exactly you accomplish that feat is obviously open to interpretation but as long as those alterations are reasonable I think most people could agree and run with the list.

However, the minute you start creating rules and/or altering points costs for balance purposes you catapult the list into a totally different realm. This is because it is almost impossible for a wide-spectrum of players to agree on what is balanced and/or under/over-powered. No matter what changes you make to the army list with the goal of making the army more balanced (in your mind) there will be a large contingent of people who will disagree that such a change needed to be made in the first place and will then rally against your list because they feel it under or overpowers the army for no good reason.


And the fact is, the existing LatD army (even as it stands now in our article) is a perfectly competitive army. Sure, not every unit is of equal quality but the same is true of every other codex in print. In essence, I think just updating the list to vibe with the current Chaos codex presents the best possible way to convince other players and tournament organizers to utilize our version of the LatD.


With that in mind I really think we should focus on the integration of the new chaos codex before moving onto anything new.

You're right. It's hard to stop when my amateur game designer juices start flowin'! Our goal it to create the most acceptable list, not necessarily the best list. "Conservative" should be our watchword.

I don't think Gibbering Hordes 'hurt' anyone either, but they represent a unit that is no longer found in the new codex and not found (stats-wise) in the old LatD list. At this point they are basically a unit we are 'making up' (albeit with pretty solid inspiration) in that we have to change rules and possibly points-costs to make them work because there is no comparable unit in the game.

I suppose the *only* reason (IMHO) to keep them in the army list is as service to players who have existing models in their army. If that's what you guys think is the best direction to take then I would agree their points cost should probably go up a couple of points because instability is gone (maybe 12 points?).

I guess it's a question of whether Gibbering Hordes were a new unit type that happened to have rules which just happened to be exactly the same as Nurglings, or if they were just Nurglings with a different name. Should they be represented as they are (with a slightly updated version of the Nurgling rules) or as Lesser Daemon packs. Obviously we've already tweaked some of the other unit entries, so I don't think that slightly tweaking Gibbering Hordes is a big deal. If we DO decide that Gibbering Hordes should just become Lesser Daemons, that means that we should consider moving Lesser Daemon Packs to Troops, I guess.

Do we all agree that the whole 'allied marked units count as an elites choice' was really a rule that was in effect based on the old CSM codex, where (for the most part) marked units in CSM armies became an Elites choice, and therefore should be jetisoned in our list? Not to mention the rule was a giant pain in the ass for rules questions regarding LatD armies.

That, of course, means that Bezerkers, 1Ksons, Plague Marines & Noise Marines can all now be taken as allied TROOPS choices in LatD armies now, but since they can be taken as a Troops choice in regular CSM armies it seems fitting to me (and is generally much more simple to understand). What do you think?

I completely agree. Just have 'em count as Troops. It's simple and straightforward.

If you agree about removing the marked=elite ally rule then that brings us to Summoned Lesser Daemons. In the original LatD list they were a straight up (non-allied) Elites choice, and they counted as an Elites choice. That's why I wrote that they take up a FOC slot. Do we want to change it to (again) fit closer with the new CSM codex and make Lesser Daemons a Troops choice that doesn't take up a FOC slot?

Ah, I see. I guess it just seems a bit weird to me that Lesser Daemons take up a Force Org slot, but Greater Daemons do not. I'm in favor of leaving Lesser Daemons in Elite, especially if we keep Gibbering Hordes. This list has a lot of Troops Choices available, but not so many Elites choices.

Making everything Troops makes sense to me.

Here's a suggestion for Big Mutants: give em fearless or a S6 power weapon to help in close combat and compete with other Chaos units, and give em the choice of moving Slow and Purposeful if they want to shoot heavy weapons. And, like, give em some heavy weapons.

The other thing that would help them in close combat would be to simply reduce their points cost. This assumes they are just not that great in the first place.