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.

Delephont wrote:Wouldn't Lost and the Damned simply be Imperial Guard gone bad?!?! So, you'd use IG stats, but your objectives would be non Imperial.....

Why do you need a seperate codex for that?!? Whats more, you'd probably have a Chaos Space Marine army "leading" their slaves of darkness.....and rules for CSM are everywhere....so what more do you need?!?!

You are aware that there was this worldwide campaign called 'Eye of Terror', and with that campaign came a Codex. This Codex, ironicaly enough, had the title 'Codex: Eye of Terror', and inside this Codex there were four different army lists. One of these army lists happened to be - you guessed it! - a Lost & The Damned Army list.

And y'know what?

It wasn't just 'Imperial Guard gone bad' with a few Chaos Marines thrown in. It was one of the most characterful armies in the game, an army with limitless conversion and modelling potential, and it was competative to boot, and not many armies in 40K can claim to be both fluffy and competative at the same time.

And when this Codex came out a lot of people, myself included, went out put down a fair amount of cash on building a Lost & The Damned army. As I have said on multiple occasions, I have over 90 individually converted and crafted mutant models. Not a single one is the same as another. Half of them I've given names to! Building my LatD has been the most fun I've ever had putting an army together, and to have the army 'Squat'ed' by GW only reinforces our group's decision to do our own version of 40K.

So please, Delephont, before you go running your mouth off about how LatD is just 'Imperial Guard gone bad', try to think historically and remember something beyond last week.

BYE

Delephont wrote:Ok, fair points....but Forge World has almost answered your prayers right! Have you seen the new chaos cultists, and the SIEGE OF VRAKS PART ONE!

I own that book.

It is not a Lost & The Damned Army.

What the list in IA5 is, is a very good example of a traitor Guard list.

Lost & The Damned and Traitor Guard are two very different things.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote: So please, Delephont, before you go running your mouth off about how LatD is just 'Imperial Guard gone bad', try to think historically and remember something beyond last week.

BYE

What ever the reasons, LatD and not supported....you can talk about the money you spent...or you can adapt you're "investment" so that it can actually be used for something

As for the IA rules, yes, they may not be perfect...but again, what else have you got

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Delephont wrote:Wouldn't Lost and the Damned simply be Imperial Guard gone bad?!?!

It wasn't just 'Imperial Guard gone bad' with a few Chaos Marines thrown in.

Sure, it was.

For all intents and purposes, LatD is nothing more than IG "gone bad", with a little window dressing.

After all, CSM is nothing more than SM "gone bad" with spikes, so why should you expect IG to be any different, much less "more special"?

Delephont wrote:spend less time online bit@hing about how GW has abandoned you.

I think it would be far more accurate to say that he is b!tching about how he has abandoned GW...

He doesn't even play standard 40k, so I don't understand why he cares what GW supports or doesn't support, as I don't think it really affects his playgroup.

Delephont, take a chill pill. Why should you be so offended that people want to complain about the loss of LatD on a thread about LatD? What on earth were you expecting, and why do they have any obligation to not complain?

Also, as has been pointe dout, H.B.M.C. actually has put his money where his mouth is, so to speak. His group plays their own homebrew version of 40k, so whatever else you want to say about him, he certainly is not just whining and doing nothing about it.

-

The only person flaming is you. H.B.M.C. may have been a little brusque, but I don't see a personal attack anywhere in there. As for him trying to silence your opinion, I think you're exaggerating terribly. He did take the time to respond to your points, and only added that comment in passing--and if you read it properly, you'll see that he was merely telling you to do your homework before expressing your opinion, not saying that you shouldn't express it.

Regardless of all that, I don't see how calling people "imbeciles" or "animals" is going to add to this discussion. Please reconsider your tactics.

-

Sorry to be ignorant, but what was in the lost and the damned codex anyways? They sound cool but I've never really looked into them.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Sure, it was.

For all intents and purposes, LatD is nothing more than IG "gone bad", with a little window dressing.

After all, CSM is nothing more than SM "gone bad" with spikes, so why should you expect IG to be any different, much less "more special"?

The current Chaos Codex is Loyalists with Spikes, I'll agree with you there, but LatD was not just Guard with spikes. Anyone who read the damned list would know that.

Delephont wrote:What ever the reasons, LatD and not supported....you can talk about the money you spent...or you can adapt you're "investment" so that it can actually be used for something

I 'spose you'd say the same thing to people with Daemonic Legion armies in Warhammer? Or Squat armies from the old days? They should just 'adapt' their 'investment'.

What an idiotic thing to say.

How do I 'adapt' models that are completely unique and match no other choice in the game. They're not Guardsmen, and they're certainly not 'Guard gone bad', so what should I do with them.

Oh well, I 'spose you're right. How dare I be bitter that after spending hundreds of dollars only to have GW pull my ruleset and invalidate the entire army. I mean, it's probably my fault they did it. How can I blame them...

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Delephont wrote:What ever the reasons, LatD and not supported....you can talk about the money you spent...or you can adapt you're "investment" so that it can actually be used for something

I 'spose you'd say the same thing to people with Daemonic Legion armies in Warhammer? Or Squat armies from the old days? They should just 'adapt' their 'investment'.

What an idiotic thing to say.

How do I 'adapt' models that are completely unique and match no other choice in the game. They're not Guardsmen, and they're certainly not 'Guard gone bad', so what should I do with them.

Oh well, I 'spose you're right. How dare I be bitter that after spending hundreds of dollars only to have GW pull my ruleset and invalidate the entire army. I mean, it's probably my fault they did it. How can I blame them...

BYE

You're very offensive to people who don't share your flare for the dramatic.....I mean, lets just consider what I've said to get your back up.....

1) You've got an army of figures, that you spent time and money on, for what-ever reason GW has decided, rightly or wrongly to discontinue to support.

2) I've suggested some rules you could use to make use of the army you have. The rules are not perfect and they're not as good as the "old" rules, but its an alternative to NOT using your army ever again.

3) You state, that I'm running my mouth off, and my comments are idiotic

Solution:

Throw away your army, becuase you can't use it cause evil GW doesn't care about you or anyone else. Yeah, that'll show GW won't it....ohh, I bet they won't be able to sleep ever again....H.B.M.C has thrown away the army he spent all his hard earned money on....yeah, that'll show GW.

So to cap it all off, I've mentioned two ways in which you could use your forces.....and you've just thrown a tantrum like a spoilt child.

Yeah, you IS da man....

wow, for once I seem to agree with H.B.M.C. (what does that stand for btw.?). I really like that list. altough I never got quite around to build it, I alwasy wanted to, and the way GW kicked it, really p!!sed me of too.

LatD were also supposed to be the base for one of my dream-theme armys: an Umbrella Corporation tast force with dogs and Zombies and lots of big mutants...and Wesker as arch heretic. aw well....

Sorry to be ignorant, but what was in the lost and the damned codex anyways? They sound cool but I've never really looked into them.

it was one part imperiel guard units (tanks and setinels), one part allied chaos marines (if you wanted too) and one part cool new things like units of chaos dogs, mutants (with the option for zombies) and chaos spawns (who were btw. better then the current ones, at least they had a save).

Maybe they're killing the list off because it's proof that they CAN design a list that pulls from different codices without being totally broken?

yakface wrote:
There isn't any evidence that GW doesn't like LatD, just that they may have not found the time or the money to make the army into a full codex release, which is what it takes for an army to be supported indefinitely by GW now.

Yep, like I said here before, I heard from Jervis on LatD and pretty much got this impression. It's not quite the same situation as the Squats, which was an army concept they decided they just didn't like. It's just that LatD has no room on the docket right now.

What I said before was true...Jervis said they won't even give it a WD list because the army doesn't have miniatures to sell. Yeah, it seems to fly in the face of logic, as every entry in the army list (save Mutants, although Beastmen fit that role nicely) HAS miniatures, just from another line. But that shows you the company's mindset these days...they want neatly packaged army releases with codices and plastic boxed sets.

And I'll reiterate what I said before...(first) write GW a letter, (second) sign our petition, and (third) bug the designers about LatD every chance you get in person. Look, all it's gonna take is a change in philosophy for LatD to happen, and those aren't exactly uncommon at GW, are they?

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh well, I 'spose you're right. How dare I be bitter that after spending hundreds of dollars only to have GW pull my ruleset and invalidate the entire army. I mean, it's probably my fault they did it. How can I blame them...

BYE

I guess I missed the part where Jervis broke into your house and stole your Eye of Terror Codex...

Pariah Press wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh well, I 'spose you're right. How dare I be bitter that after spending hundreds of dollars only to have GW pull my ruleset and invalidate the entire army. I mean, it's probably my fault they did it. How can I blame them...

BYE

I guess I missed the part where Jervis broke into your house and stole your Eye of Terror Codex...

Nah, he just told every 40k fan around not to play with it any more.

Yeah it would be a wonderful world where I could show up with my squat army and 40k compendium and find a game but in the real world all but the friendliest of players will only let you use currently supported armies and codexes.

Just out of interest is there any troop type that cannot be represented in the LatD list using codex:CSM aor codex:IG, assuming that mutants are represented using the 'sub human' (or whatever it was called) doctrine from White Dwarf?

I'm guessing that GW's position is that you can use those codicies to create LatD armies in Apocalypse in a similar way to how daemonphiles will be fielding daemons in their CSM armies since the daemon rules got 'streamlined'.

George Spiggott wrote:Just out of interest is there any troop type that cannot be represented in the LatD list using codex:CSM aor codex:IG, assuming that mutants are represented using the 'sub human' (or whatever it was called) doctrine from White Dwarf?

I'd think the fact that there are no rules allowing you to take choices from CSM and Guard at the same time pretty much kills that line of thingking.

BYE

Pariah Press wrote:I guess I missed the part where Jervis broke into your house and stole your Eye of Terror Codex...

I'm going to assume that that was a misguided attempt at humour as I simply refuse to believe that you are that obtuse Pariah.

BYE

Delephont wrote:You're very offensive to people who don't share your flare for the dramatic

To butcher the quote Delephont, I am not making fun of your personally, I am simply heaping scorn on an inexcusably stupid line of thought. Furthermore, I don't like it when people purport their opinions as though they were facts.

Delephont wrote:So to cap it all off, I've mentioned two ways in which you could use your forces.....

No. What you've done is dismissed several valid criticisms of GW's actions with a wave of your 'Counts As' wand, as though simply using a different Codex with the old models is a good way to get around the fact that GW took away our ruleset.

Neither the Traitor Guard list in IA5 nor any combination of Doctrines in the Guard codex will represent the Lost & The Damned. All your suggestions do is highlight your own ignorance on the subject.

Tell me Delephont, if you were an avid Ork player, and you'd put a significant amount of effort into making a powerful, characterful and fluffy Ork army, and then GW said 'Sorry, we're not making Orks any more' and then said you can use the Tyranid Codex to 'represent' Orks, how would you feel? Dramatic?

Delephont wrote:Throw away your army, becuase you can't use it cause evil GW doesn't care about you or anyone else. Yeah, that'll show GW won't it....ohh, I bet they won't be able to sleep ever again....H.B.M.C has thrown away the army he spent all his hard earned money on....yeah, that'll show GW. ...and you've just thrown a tantrum like a spoilt child.

Yeah, you IS da man....

Just to clarify... I'm the one acting childish here? Right?

I ask only because the above quote seems to indicate the opposite.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Pariah Press wrote:I guess I missed the part where Jervis broke into your house and stole your Eye of Terror Codex...

I'm going to assume that that was a misguided attempt at humour as I simply refuse to believe that you are that obtuse Pariah.

Believe it! Being obtuse is a choice!

My point is, no one is forcing you to stop using the old rules. Hell, I didn't upgrade from 2nd edition Epic until this year.

That said, I don't see why GW can't just release an set of updated LatD rules. I mean, how hard would that be?

It just occured to me that I used the word 'that' four times in that sentence.

Man the English language is strange...

BYE

Let me see if I can recap:

HBMC plays his own 40k-based game and has C:EoT, so one presumes he can play "house" LatD anytime he wants to.

GW released Apocalypse to support non-Codex, non-Tournament play, so one presumes LatD (and Craftworlds, and Chaos Legions, etc.) is legal for Apocalypse.

LatD can be approximated fairly well as IG with Inquisitional (WH / DH) allies if one insists on Tournament play.

So what's the problem?

Are people *really* incapable of playing armies without extra bonus special rules? Are people *really* incapable of building a themed list without GW leading them by the nose?

I lost Biel-Tan rules for my Eldar, along with Iron Warrior rules for my CSM, and I suspect I'll be losing Traits for my SM and Doctrines for my IG. If I can live with these changes hitting every single one of my armies, why can't the rest of you?

Delephont, just because you delete a comment doesn't mean it wasn't there. I read what you said, and H.B.M.C., I gather, got the gist of it from reading my response to it. You called him an imbecile and said he should be considered an animal, not a human being. He's merely responding in kind.

If you want to flame, flame away--that's for the mods to worry about; I couldn't care less--but know that no one is fooled by your pretence at innocence.

JohnHwangDD:

I lost Biel-Tan rules for my Eldar, along with Iron Warrior rules for my CSM, and I suspect I'll be losing Traits for my SM and Doctrines for my IG. If I can live with these changes hitting every single one of my armies, why can't the rest of you?

The fact that you're content with this state of affairs doesn't mean other people need to be. Is everyone in the hobby bound by the personal code of the most stoic, tolerant gamer? Absurd.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I lost Biel-Tan rules for my Eldar, along with Iron Warrior rules for my CSM, and I suspect I'll be losing Traits for my SM and Doctrines for my IG. If I can live with these changes hitting every single one of my armies, why can't the rest of you?

Can you still play an Eldar army?

Yes.

Can you still play a Chaos Army?

Yes.

Can you still play Space Marines?

Yes.

Can you still play Imperial Guard?

Yes.

Can you still play Lost & The Damned?

No.


This isn't a sub-list being lost (and don't get me started on that), this is an entire army being lost.

BYE

tegeus-Cromis wrote:You called him an imbecile and said he should be considered an animal, not a human being. He's merely responding in kind.

'Least he didn't compare me to Hitler.



BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:It just occured to me that I used the word 'that' four times in that sentence.

Man the English language is strange...

BYE

It is possible to string at least 5 thats into a legal sentence. If I tell you that that that that that last sentence contained was a plural, I don't think you will disagree.

Kilkrazy wrote:It is possible to string at least 5 thats into a legal sentence. If I tell you that that that that that last sentence contained was a plural, I don't think you will disagree.

Apparently you can do seven:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:Let me see if I can recap:

LatD can be approximated fairly well as IG with Inquisitional (WH / DH) allies if one insists on Tournament play.

So what's the problem?

Are people *really* incapable of playing armies without extra bonus special rules? Are people *really* incapable of building a themed list without GW leading them by the nose?

I lost Biel-Tan rules for my Eldar, along with Iron Warrior rules for my CSM, and I suspect I'll be losing Traits for my SM and Doctrines for my IG. If I can live with these changes hitting every single one of my armies, why can't the rest of you?

Well I started this thread with the tongue in cheek asking why GW is turning what would seem to be a popular product line. But yeah, people who, like me, have chaos armies are kind of PO'ed.

Now anything can be simulated with another army list if you try. Harlis as Howling Banshees (when they didn't have rules) Arbites as SM scouts, Exodites as eldar, even Jervis recommended Squats as Orks (before Tau came out which is what I would go with).

But it's always a compromise and always flawed and always confuses and annoys some other players. Is that dinosaur a falcon or a wraithlord? Is that giant steam powered dwarf head a predator or a land raider or a dread? Are those guys T4 or T3?

And it's a lot of work to retrofit an existing army as something else.

Yeah, armies have to be tinkered with every few years. I made out pretty well with the new chaos dex, my Death Guard got tons of new options to play with and only lost some minor special rules. Iron Warriors have to leave one tank on the shelf. Alpha Legion got hosed big time.

But L&D got nothing. They can play with people who don't mind you using an OOP, unofficial rule book or they do a counts'as army. So people are sincerely pissed.

As for me... well this is my first IG army circa 2000

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Delephont, just because you delete a comment doesn't mean it wasn't there. I read what you said, and H.B.M.C., I gather, got the gist of it from reading my response to it. You called him an imbecile and said he should be considered an animal, not a human being.

I'm not trying to come across as innocent. I don't deny tpying those things......however, I took your advice when you stated that what was being dicussed wasn't helping the topic progress in any way.

Apologies if this created a void in the slanging match....obviously I don't have MOD rights, so I simply edited my responses so as not to detract from the true essence of the thread.

However, thanks for rekindling the flame.

@H.B.M.C

I understand how you feel about the way in which GW works....I didn't state that, and perhpas my comments came across as ill thought out because I didn't take the time to state that fact. My whole point is, GW isn't liable to start supporting Squats, LatD, or any other army they have screwed on. As I see it you really only have two options, one of which you have, quite rightly in my opinion opted for, and that is to start playing your own version of WH40K.....or the other option is to use the "counts as" rule.....

I guess its a case of making the best of a bad situation.

I don't agree with companies encouraging people to spend money on something that requires the companies support into the future, and then abruptly shutting down that support. However, anyone involving themsslves with GW has to expect that kind of treatment....this is a reason why I have involved myself with other systems (Infinity) and have reduced vastly my money and time spent with WH40K.