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.

 Breotan wrote:
I am so glad they officially back off the whole Fire Hawks thing. Yes, they still mention it but give it no greater weight than any other "rumor".

There is also a conflict in the codex. Quixos had a theory about the LotD and he was killed in 343.M41 and the Fire Hawks didn't disappear until 963.M41. So, how could the Fire Hawks be the LotD if the LotD where known about 620 years before the Fire Hawks disappeared into the warp?

How widely known are Quixos' theory and the appearance of the LotD which brought them to his attention? Those with the Fire Hawks theory may not be aware of those items...undermining the whole Fire Hawks thing even more. Which would make me happy, at it happens. Never cared for the FH theory.

 Kriswall wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but you can buy a printer for next to nothing and you're allowed to print out a copy for personal use. I just print the relevant unit and rule entries and I'm good to go.

Complaining that you have to bring a computer to a FLGS to read something when you can just print it out seems very odd to me. Seems a little melodramatic.

So not only do you have to pay a ton of hard-earned cash on small, faulty and unbalanced codices but you now have to print them out for yourself? it gets better by the minute.

I just noticed, in the process of taking inventory of my own LotD models, that none of the squad or apoc deals include the beaky flamer. So you have to buy him separate at $16 to complete your collection. Having said that I am only missing one sculpt. So I am probably going to risk it and buy the Damned Legionnaires 1 to get the beaky with the sling on his bolter. There are rumors now that failcast has been replaced with proper resin so here is hoping for the best!

Am I reading right or did GW flub something again.......I don't see the 3++ (invul) save for LoTD anymore - it's in the SM Codex....

It's under the unyielding spectres rule.

*** Beaten to it***

 Breotan wrote:
I am so glad they officially back off the whole Fire Hawks thing. Yes, they still mention it but give it no greater weight than any other "rumor".

There is also a conflict in the codex. Quixos had a theory about the LotD and he was killed in 343.M41 and the Fire Hawks didn't disappear until 963.M41. So, how could the Fire Hawks be the LotD if the LotD where known about 620 years before the Fire Hawks disappeared into the warp?

Well the LOTD travel a gakload through the warp. remember it is possible to Enter the Warp in a Ship and Arrive at your location Hundreds/thousands of years before you even left.

In the Inquisition Codex there is a part about the Ordo Chronos that deals with Time, People from the future arriving through warp travel. In the LOTD codex there are parts about the Ordo Chronos trying to track the movements of the LOTD

 Kirasu wrote:

But there isn't a conflict? The rule works as intended, however, you still auto-lose. It's not a conflict that GW doesn't understand how their game works, perhaps an oversight but we got no way of knowing that without a FAQ.

Where's your evidence of insider-knowledge that shows they are unaware of how this would work?

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I am so glad they officially back off the whole Fire Hawks thing. Yes, they still mention it but give it no greater weight than any other "rumor".

There is also a conflict in the codex. Quixos had a theory about the LotD and he was killed in 343.M41 and the Fire Hawks didn't disappear until 963.M41. So, how could the Fire Hawks be the LotD if the LotD where known about 620 years before the Fire Hawks disappeared into the warp?

Well the LOTD travel a gakload through the warp. remember it is possible to Enter the Warp in a Ship and Arrive at your location Hundreds/thousands of years before you even left.

In the Inquisition Codex there is a part about the Ordo Chronos that deals with Time, People from the future arriving through warp travel. In the LOTD codex there are parts about the Ordo Chronos trying to track the movements of the LOTD

^^ this.

When dealing with warp traveling, in any scenes of the idea, be it 40k, startrek, ect ect, the rules of time and space become more like guide lines then rules.

With the way the legion operates its pretty possible that they can travel through time, the only way to get to a battle is if the emperor toret tell them to go there, they are heavily mutated by the warp, so for all we know they are just flying through the warp popping up all over time were the emperor needs them.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

But there isn't a conflict? The rule works as intended, however, you still auto-lose. It's not a conflict that GW doesn't understand how their game works, perhaps an oversight but we got no way of knowing that without a FAQ.

Where's your evidence of insider-knowledge that shows they are unaware of how this would work?

Because they included rules to use them as a primary detachment maybe? That shows they have no idea that a primary detachment auto-loses.

 Kirasu wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

But there isn't a conflict? The rule works as intended, however, you still auto-lose. It's not a conflict that GW doesn't understand how their game works, perhaps an oversight but we got no way of knowing that without a FAQ.

Where's your evidence of insider-knowledge that shows they are unaware of how this would work?

Because they included rules to use them as a primary detachment maybe? That shows they have no idea that a primary detachment auto-loses.

That's not really how deductive reasoning works.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

But there isn't a conflict? The rule works as intended, however, you still auto-lose. It's not a conflict that GW doesn't understand how their game works, perhaps an oversight but we got no way of knowing that without a FAQ.

Where's your evidence of insider-knowledge that shows they are unaware of how this would work?

Because they included rules to use them as a primary detachment maybe? That shows they have no idea that a primary detachment auto-loses.

That's not really how deductive reasoning works.

It's also not how the game works (allies being extant and all).

 tomjoad wrote:

It's also not how the game works (allies being extant and all).

I was trying to lead him to water, but yes.