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 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.