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.

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.