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.

The problem with any exotic 'counts as' armny is it sharply limits your unit selection, requires fielding many units that just don't work on the table top and you may find the entire army nixed when the next book comes out.

This is really NOT the time to start an army based on IG doctrines for example.

Besides, by that logic any DE army can be done using the eldar book. Aren't wytchs just the same as banshees? Aren't warrirors the same as guardians? Are raiders and wave serpents that different? Surely they can just count as wave servpents right?

You see the problem.

But of course DE players don't have to worry, since THEY HAVE A CODEX it even got an update. It seems to me that the Imperium's greatest foes need a codex long before some fringe faction gets their third.

LatD aren't Traitor Guard. I had 10 Traitor Guard models in my LatD army. You could do a lot of different things with LatD. Ultimately, you could play the "but you could shoehorn them in as a 'counts as' X army..." game with any army in the game. It's a pointless exercise.

What DE seem to have and LatD lack are champions in the studio. Don't underestimate how important this is to getting projects done.

But it's not a DE vs. LatD situation anyway. As far as I can tell, LatD dwell in that murky realm that exists after every 3rd ed. codex gets its update. I don't think GW even knows what they're going to do then. Personally, I'd bet on =I= not making the cut, at least not in their current form. Might be an opportunity there for something really different, combining =I= and LatD. The two adversaries seem to be a natural fit. Who knows?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:The problem with any exotic 'counts as' armny is it sharply limits your unit selection, requires fielding many units that just don't work on the table top and you may find the entire army nixed when the next book comes out.

This is really NOT the time to start an army based on IG doctrines for example.

Besides, by that logic any DE army can be done using the eldar book. Aren't wytchs just the same as banshees? Aren't warrirors the same as guardians? Are raiders and wave serpents that different? Surely they can just count as wave servpents right?

You see the problem.

But of course DE players don't have to worry, since THEY HAVE A CODEX it even got an update. It seems to me that the Imperium's greatest foes need a codex long before some fringe faction gets their third.

That no one ever hears about...

The Imperium's greatest foe is not some out classed group of traitors, its the aliens that are attacking them constantly.

DE are a big part of the war, and they need an update to there codex like all the other codex that are out now. They don't need to create a new codex based of some small group of heretics that no one ever hears about.

...no one ever hears about them because GW wrote them out of the background.
Seriously.

I can understand not liking an army, but it's poor form to wish an army that many people have spent hundreds of dollars on be squatted.

If it means that the armies for which thousands have been spent get support, then it's fair.

I love it that not many people seem to run DE and think they suck. It makes it all the better when I table their armies in tournaments.
It's fairly easy to win with DE if you have some practice with them.
I've noticed around here a lot of the hate for DE comes mostly from people that have had their armies worked over by them.

I've never been tabled by nor lost a game to Dark Eldar. Why? Because the one DE player in this area is rarely around. I know several people however that would return to their LatD if GW would throw them a list.

Relapse wrote: I love it that not many people seem to run DE and think they suck. It makes it all the better when I table their armies in tournaments.
It's fairly easy to win with DE if you have some practice with them.
I've noticed around here a lot of the hate for DE comes mostly from people that have had their armies worked over by them.

Either that or they just haven't witnessed the game of a skilled DE player. A lot of people hate them because they tried to play DE using SM or some other army's tactics, got ripped a new one and stubbornly decided that no matter what anyone says, the DE suck. Fact is DE tactics bear absolutely no resemblance to those employed by any other army. Their play style is so profoundly different that, to players who never learned how they function, DE play style is incomprehensible. They blame their inability to understand on the DE, calling them a crappy, generic army. But to say: "DE play like (insert army name here)" is to parade ignorance. Because of the remarkable difference, GW has said that they won't change the DE play style much. They want it to maintain its uniquely powerful fragility. It's probably the dramatic play style difference (and the small but hard-core following) that's kept the DE from being squatted. They offer an experience that no other army can emulate.

I know several people however that would return to their LatD if GW would throw them a list.

Many former DE players say the same thing.

Archonate wrote:

I know several people however that would return to their LatD if GW would throw them a list.

Many former DE players say the same thing.

You mean besides the functional codex that you have?

How about they combine LaTD with Dark Eldar?

THEY CAME FROM THE WARP; scornful, mutated marines hanging off black-bladed skimmers, leaping into combat alongside pirating space-elves? Now that majority armour has been done away with, ANYTHING is possible. And the DE don't need anything more than a bit of armour and more punch in combat.

BTW, Daemonettes have exposed breasts to give them their invulnerable save. They're not real daemons, just very distracting daemon-ettes.

Slightly off topic, where can I get a 38mm Chuck Norris? I think I just had an idea...

A wise man once told me that the DE are like a glass hammer, and he's right.
It seems a lot of the fun of running a DE list is employing all the hit & run tactics they can employ.
When they hit, they can hit hard and be gone to another part of an opponents battle line before a decent counterattack can be launched.
I've faced LATD armies with DE and never really had much trouble against them because of superior manuverability.

derek wrote:

Archonate wrote:

I know several people however that would return to their LatD if GW would throw them a list.

Many former DE players say the same thing.

You mean besides the functional codex that you have?

LatD army list is newer than the DE codex. Whatever is wrong with it, I'm sure there's even more wrong with the DE list as it exists in 5th Ed.

Archonate wrote:

derek wrote:

Archonate wrote:

I know several people however that would return to their LatD if GW would throw them a list.

Many former DE players say the same thing.

You mean besides the functional codex that you have?

LatD army list is newer than the DE codex. Whatever is wrong with it, I'm sure there's even more wrong with the DE list as it exists in 5th Ed.

By whatever is wrong with it, you mean it not existing? I'm quite sure DE still exist.

derek wrote:

Archonate wrote:

derek wrote:

Archonate wrote:

I know several people however that would return to their LatD if GW would throw them a list.

Many former DE players say the same thing.

You mean besides the functional codex that you have?

LatD army list is newer than the DE codex. Whatever is wrong with it, I'm sure there's even more wrong with the DE list as it exists in 5th Ed.

By whatever is wrong with it, you mean it not existing? I'm quite sure DE still exist.

Well GW did seem to write them out, in which case asking for them is like asking for squats. But you can always buy Codex: Imperial Guard, add spikey bits to your tanks and infantry, maybe write them some chaos fluff and Ta daa! You have a viable LatD army. I know that's of little consolation but I've been playing 40k since the dawn of 2nd edition, and in all the countless tournaments and weekly game nights I've participated in, I have met numerous DE players but never once have I encountered so much as a solitary LatD player.

Archonate wrote:Sure they exist. Buy Codex: Imperial Guard, add spikey bits to your tanks and infantry and Ta daa! You have LatD.

No, what you have is spikey Imperial Guard.

legionaires wrote:Just curious then, which is worse, the way DE seem to have been forgotten or the way they have been teasing the Chaos Dwarf players by throwing around the Hellcannon, first in SoC and now the new Warriors of Chaos book?

You know there were going to be 3 chaos books: Hordes, Beasts, and then Machines (which would have featured Chaos Dwarves) and you were going to be able to mix and match units from all 3.

Ghaz wrote:

Archonate wrote:Sure they exist. Buy Codex: Imperial Guard, add spikey bits to your tanks and infantry and Ta daa! You have LatD.

No, what you have is spikey Imperial Guard.

Which is NOT what LatD was.

What was the difference between LatD and "Chaos Guard"?

Their squad structure was more akin to orks but without the nice leadership bonuses. They had dirt cheap mutants and zombies that could do alright in assualt but died if they were sneezed on. They had chaos hounds and big mutants for assault, and psykers. They could be led by chaos marines to get that excellent fluff feel of a chaos marine leading and entire planet in rebellion (check out the latest chaos codex fluff for some examples of that). They could ally with Chaos Marines for the cultists-with-alpha legion feel or with gaurd for the Traitor Gaurd feel. Or you could just have a whole load of gibbering hordes, mutants and zombies to represent a planetary uprising.
They had defilers too if I remember correctly.
In all honesty, there was more to differentiate them from Gaurd than there is to differentiate Chaos Marines from normal Marines.
Not saying Dark Eldar should disappear to allow them in or anything, but if all those marine variants were to feck off I'd be delighted to see some time spent on Lost and the Damned. I'd definitely pick up an army if they released a codex.
As for hate for DE, most of the hatred I've seen has been for the fluff and models. I rarely hear people saying that they suck in game terms. I don't know where you got that from.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If it means that the armies for which thousands have been spent get support, then it's fair.

It's not a zero-sum game John, and you know it. Codex: DE does not prevent anyone else from getting support. All it does, if anything, is push the stuff behind it in the queue a few months.

You're being terribly unsporting right now. Calling for people to lose their favorite army just so your favorite army is less inconvenienced.

From a LatD standpoint, Chaos Daemons was and is our enemy, not DE. That codex really hurt our chances of getting another Chaos book that isn't CSMs. It could have been a proper daemonworld list with a couple *minor* tweaks, and that would have given the LatD players some use of parts of their armies.

So I'm okay with DE, as long as they can put the f@#$&%g smackdown on daemon armies.

Question:

What is a squat?

I'm glad GW is getting more family friendly. Real war sucks, and we shouldn't encourage young people to giggle too much about killing, evn in fiction.

The DE will be coming, and I'm looking forward to it by already modelling some DE warriors using Warhammer Ark corsairs. Nice conversions!

OTG

Orc Town Grot wrote:
What is a squat?

Space Dwarf. They were supported by GW thru the early 90's

Orc Town Grot wrote:
I'm glad GW is getting more family friendly. Real war sucks, and we shouldn't encourage young people to giggle too much about killing, evn in fiction.

The needle on my sarcasm meter just jumped astronomically. Was that a good read or a false read of the above comment?

Not to mention that the comment comes from someone who has a NAZI Luftwaffe pilot as his avatar..

Relapse wrote: I've noticed around here a lot of the hate for DE comes mostly from people that have had their armies worked over by them.

FWIW, I have never been tabled by Dark Eldar. Hell, I've never even lost to Dark Eldar. Of course, they hardly ever appear across the table anymore, but that's a different problem. From recent qualification data, DE don't seem to have any problems with competitiveness, so if there aren't a lot of rules issues, there isn't a competitiveness problem, then there really isn't any need for a new DE Codex.

JOHIRA wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If it means that the armies for which thousands have been spent get support, then it's fair.

It's not a zero-sum game John, and you know it. Codex: DE does not prevent anyone else from getting support. All it does, if anything, is push the stuff behind it in the queue a few months.

You're being terribly unsporting right now. Calling for people to lose their favorite army just so your favorite army is less inconvenienced.

You use the phrase "zero-sum game". I do not think it means, what you think it means.

GW has exactly one release slot per month. If a release slot is taken by one army, that release slot is not available for any other army. If GW takes multiple release slots for a new version or major event, those slots aren't available for another army. By definition, we are talking about a zero-sum game on a slot-by-slot basis.

GW has a limited number of staff, and a limited number of projects that they can work on. Any resources that are spent are not recoverable. GW can't go back in time and regain that time to have worked on a different project. Again, by definition, this is a zero-sum game on a resource / time basis.


What I'm generally arguing for is for DE to perpetually be pushed to the back of the queue whenever anything more profitable or important comes up. Now I will admit that my list of things that would be more profitable and interesting than DE is very large. My list starts with Guard, Woofs, and Necrons, and also includes Sisters and the Inquistion. Not to mention Traitor Guard. So, from a practical standpoint, DE could remain at the back of the queue forever, and I'd be OK with that.


Now, I'm very sorry if you think I'm somehow being "unsporting", but let's be very, very clear: I am NOT arguing for anybody to lose their favorite army. That would mean that I'm arguing for the immediate cancellation and banning for the Dark Eldar army (i.e. "Squatting"). I don't believe that I have ever seriously advocated for that to happen.

I believe my standing position is that DE should continue to play their (3rd Edition) Codex until such time that GW makes a major change in the ruleset philosophy, such that the DE Codex is no longer compatible, at which point, the DE should be Squatted. However, I have also very clearly stated that I don't believe that GW will ever make such a significant and disruptive change to the ruleset, precisely because it would seriously undermine the stable, long-term support that 40k currently enjoys. Ergo, DE are not in any great danger of being Squatted in the foreseeable future.

I played DE throughout most of 3rd edition. It took a while to get the best out of them, but after I did I won more games consistently than I have with any other army. I'm not saying I'm an awesome player, just that once I figured out the army I could play against most opponents and feel confident in at least having a chance of winning.

I still see the few DE players as generally being very competitive. I don't think DE need a new Codex to be competitive, I think they need a new Codex to make unit selection more than a checkbox, rethink how the army fits into the 40K universe, and most importantly, serve as a means for some decent models.

Honestly, I'd go back to the army if the models weren't so naff and there was more thought beyond piratical sadists to them. They're the perfect representation of early 3rd edition product: some models, little background for new players, and a challenge to market to parents of 12 year olds.

FWIW, one of my gaming group has a large LatD army. But he quit playing with it late 4th edition, probably because its greatest strengths seemed to easily crumble to more common armies like Tau, Eldar and SAFH marines. The guy runs 4 other armies as well so it could be the shiny syndrome.

If any Codex is to be 'squatted' my vote is for the -=I=- codexes. They're mostly an amalgamation of Guard and power armor models with a smattering of character models. I'd throw those players a bone by combining all 3 Ordos in a single book and releasing it about 6 months before a new game edition. That won't make me popular, but I think there's enough Imperial options for players already.

I'm pretty sure most Inquisition players would be happy to just have a combined codex. I somehow doubt they're going to get the Squat treatment, as they, unlike DE, are still sold in the retail stores instead of by direct sales only.

GW cranked out metal Grey Knight models and whatnot, cutting that would be quite a ruined investment.

Metal grey Knight models are cheaper than an investment plastics. They made a few new Sisters models too, but honestly, I feel confident they made their investment back on both lines.

I doubt GW is going to remove the Ordos completely, just stating that I wish they'd fade away. A revamped Codex is 6 months that could be used to doing another codex before a new edition comes out.