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.

Brother Weasel wrote:

 Kosake wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
"Let's make them buy a Codex to use with their Codex on top of the BRB!"

With a good helping of "and make them buy tablets to read any of it, as requested by our iStore-friends".

or a computer....

You go ahead and set up your desktop rig in your FLGS when you want to check back on a rule during a game...

I took a look a the codex for the curious who want to know more about what's inside: http://www.talkwargaming.com/2014/03/new-release-codex-legion-of-damned.html

I predict some will be mad about it, others will be mad at me for not being more upset.

 Kosake wrote:
You go ahead and set up your desktop rig in your FLGS when you want to check back on a rule during a game...

I do that with my laptop, and it is SO BLOODY ANNOYING ! Good thing I mainly play Warmachine these days. Also, now that my father has a kindle, he let me burrow it sometimes, which so much more practical.

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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I took a look a the codex for the curious who want to know more about what's inside: http://www.talkwargaming.com/2014/03/new-release-codex-legion-of-damned.html

I predict some will be mad about it, others will be mad at me for not being more upset.

You flubbed your math on armorbane in your article by 2 points. They max at 16 and average an 11.

Also it's fine to field a legion primary, you just need an allied detachment for turn 1. Perfectly fluffy when you consider the rule is AID UNLOOKED FOR. Clearly they need someone to help or the force makes no sense being deployed. I don't think it was an oversight.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I took a look a the codex for the curious who want to know more about what's inside: http://www.talkwargaming.com/2014/03/new-release-codex-legion-of-damned.html

I predict some will be mad about it, others will be mad at me for not being more upset.

You flubbed your math on armorbane in your article by 2 points. They max at 16 and average an 11.

Also it's fine to field a legion primary, you just need an allied detachment for turn 1. Perfectly fluffy when you consider the rule is AID UNLOOKED FOR. Clearly they need someone to help or the force makes no sense being deployed. I don't think it was an oversight.

Thanks for the catch.

And now we all know why I don't do math right after rolling out of bed in the morning.

The issue with Aid Unlooked For is it means you can't just run a pure Legion army. You have to take something else in there (which isn't a huge issue, but it'd be nice to run pure Legion too in my opinion).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
http://www.talkwargaming.com/2014/03/new-release-codex-legion-of-damned.html

“S4+2d6=Max 18, average being 13”
Not very much into calculus, are you ?
S4+2d6=Max 16, average 11.5
Still a frightening prospect, but as much as you overstated it.

Also, Spectral Horrors + Aura of Fear + Animus Malorum = POWER OVERWHELMING !
[edit]Crap, too late[/edit]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

That is just forgetting how the crappy, crappy layout is totally unfit for printing on A4 page, as it is made for very small screens. And how the content is spread out all over. You end up with many dozens of pages with crappy layout, which is not much better than the original situation, except you had to work, and to spend some money, to get that still crappy result.
You can work and pay even more to redo the layout and get the printed page binded, and then you will just have done yourself the work GW should have done.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
http://www.talkwargaming.com/2014/03/new-release-codex-legion-of-damned.html

“S4+2d6=Max 18, average being 13”
Not very much into calculus, are you ?
S4+2d6=Max 16, average 11.5
Still a frightening prospect, but as much as you overstated it.

Also, Spectral Horrors + Aura of Fear + Animus Malorum = POWER OVERWHELMING !
[edit]Crap, too late[/edit]

Yeah, the math is fixed now. And no, I don't do Calc.

And yes, you could make people very mad at you if you can pair that with say, Scouts with Sniper Rifles to force pinning checks too....

Aura of Fear will not work on those pinning checks, though.
It is much more fun when the Ld test comes with a -6+ penalty. So, your warlord have Ld4 now, have fun .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Aura of Fear will not work on those pinning checks, though.
It is much more fun when the Ld test comes with a -6+ penalty. So, your warlord have Ld4 now, have fun .

Ah, true, true. Making someone's Tigurius Ld4 is hilarious though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I took a look a the codex for the curious who want to know more about what's inside: http://www.talkwargaming.com/2014/03/new-release-codex-legion-of-damned.html

I predict some will be mad about it, others will be mad at me for not being more upset.

I'm just somewhat annoyed that my hopes got up, and I ought to have known better. They had a complete army list for LotD in 2nd edition (granted, in WD, but still a fuller list than this "codex"), they gave us rules in the cursed founding article later (3rd, wasn't it?) that, again, allowed a full army...but this falls short of those WD offerings.

Still, it does let me take "proper" LotD as a detachment, now I just have to figure out which other army's rules to use for the bulk of the force, which will not be too glaring in the difference between the full LotD squads, and the rest of the army.

 Kosake wrote:

Brother Weasel wrote:

 Kosake wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
"Let's make them buy a Codex to use with their Codex on top of the BRB!"

With a good helping of "and make them buy tablets to read any of it, as requested by our iStore-friends".

or a computer....

You go ahead and set up your desktop rig in your FLGS when you want to check back on a rule during a game...

Print it...

Seriously tired of the same old arguments... Go read petre's sig

I think using them as primary detachment is stupid (fluff-wise and because you'd automatically lose if you didn't have anything allied with them- they MUST Deep Strike but rules state you have to have at least something on the table to begin with...), but I'm going to use a squad as an allied detachment for my Blood Angels.

I do however refuse to pay £55 for 10 LotD models so this will be an experiment in using Green Stuff on Tactical Squads

 Neith wrote:
(fluff-wise and because you'd automatically lose if you didn't have anything allied with them- they MUST Deep Strike but rules state you have to have at least something on the table to begin with...)

I love how many people get this rule wrong.

If something MUST Deep Strike, it doesn't count towards the calculation of mandatory units on the board. Therefore, if your entire list MUST Deep Strike(not CAN), you are able to start with nothing on the board as there's no units to count towards that minimum.

You'd only auto-lose if you have nothing that's allowed to come down Turn One.

shade1313 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I took a look a the codex for the curious who want to know more about what's inside: http://www.talkwargaming.com/2014/03/new-release-codex-legion-of-damned.html

I predict some will be mad about it, others will be mad at me for not being more upset.

I'm just somewhat annoyed that my hopes got up, and I ought to have known better. They had a complete army list for LotD in 2nd edition (granted, in WD, but still a fuller list than this "codex"), they gave us rules in the cursed founding article later (3rd, wasn't it?) that, again, allowed a full army...but this falls short of those WD offerings.

Still, it does let me take "proper" LotD as a detachment, now I just have to figure out which other army's rules to use for the bulk of the force, which will not be too glaring in the difference between the full LotD squads, and the rest of the army.

A large part of why I do my little looks into codexes the way I do (I dare not call them "reviews" because I don't feel I'm objective enough) is to help alleviate buyer's remorse and give people something they can reference before purchase, especially on digital only offerings.

And 2nd Edition had a lot of stuff that was more substantial. It also lasted about a decade and have more time to really flesh things out like that. I'll agree though that they could have done more with the Legion and when I saw the single unit in there with no transports or really any other options I was disappointed. That said, it doesn't mean we won't get more eventually, but for now I'll take what I can get.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Neith wrote:
(fluff-wise and because you'd automatically lose if you didn't have anything allied with them- they MUST Deep Strike but rules state you have to have at least something on the table to begin with...)

I love how many people get this rule wrong.

If something MUST Deep Strike, it doesn't count towards the calculation of mandatory units on the board. Therefore, if your entire list MUST Deep Strike(not CAN), you are able to start with nothing on the board as there's no units to count towards that minimum.

You'd only auto-lose if you have nothing that's allowed to come down Turn One.

Yeah, the issues is if you have no units on the table at the end of the turn, you lose.

There is a rule called "Aid from Above" rule in the Glossary that brings stuff in turn 1, but that runs into the issue of not being anywhere else in the codex. Either someone forgot to remove it from the test copy, or someone forgot to put it in unit/army rules.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

shade1313 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I took a look a the codex for the curious who want to know more about what's inside: http://www.talkwargaming.com/2014/03/new-release-codex-legion-of-damned.html

I predict some will be mad about it, others will be mad at me for not being more upset.

I'm just somewhat annoyed that my hopes got up, and I ought to have known better. They had a complete army list for LotD in 2nd edition (granted, in WD, but still a fuller list than this "codex"), they gave us rules in the cursed founding article later (3rd, wasn't it?) that, again, allowed a full army...but this falls short of those WD offerings.

Still, it does let me take "proper" LotD as a detachment, now I just have to figure out which other army's rules to use for the bulk of the force, which will not be too glaring in the difference between the full LotD squads, and the rest of the army.

A large part of why I do my little looks into codexes the way I do (I dare not call them "reviews" because I don't feel I'm objective enough) is to help alleviate buyer's remorse and give people something they can reference before purchase, especially on digital only offerings.

And 2nd Edition had a lot of stuff that was more substantial. It also lasted about a decade and have more time to really flesh things out like that. I'll agree though that they could have done more with the Legion and when I saw the single unit in there with no transports or really any other options I was disappointed. That said, it doesn't mean we won't get more eventually, but for now I'll take what I can get.

At least there's good artwork, and fluff. As for the 2+ battle companies worth of the older minis that I've got on hand, well I continue to weigh other codices that I can use for the bulk of the army, and I'll use the newer (metal, I bought a fair amount of them) minis to represent the detachment that is "proper" LotD.

The review is cool and all, but since they can't and shouldn't be used as a primary detachment the entire review of the book could be summed up with the following.

"Pay 17$, see Codex: Sm for identical rules oh and they're battle brothers with imperium"

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Thanks for the catch.

And now we all know why I don't do math right after rolling out of bed in the morning.

http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/p1jk76/futurama-action-rangers

Skip to 0:50. I imagined you "rolling out of bed in the morning" in the same way Gygax decides how to greet people.

Sorry i have not been fully following this thread, but from what im getting here.

Is the LotD codex just a copy pasta from the SM codex? with some apoc rules thrown in?

 Kirasu wrote:
The review is cool and all, but since they can't and shouldn't be used as a primary detachment the entire review of the book could be summed up with the following.

"Pay 17$, see Codex: Sm for identical rules oh and they're battle brothers with imperium"

That doesn't really explain the Relic, or the FOC though does it. Your snark is noted though, and yes it could have been shorter but then I'd feel lazy and like I wasn't really giving people a look at what's in the book.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Thanks for the catch.

And now we all know why I don't do math right after rolling out of bed in the morning.

http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/p1jk76/futurama-action-rangers

Skip to 0:50. I imagined you "rolling out of bed in the morning" in the same way Gygax decides how to greet people.

Well it's more of a half-roll/half-crawl. I tend to sleep near the wall and my bed is a Queen so it takes a little manuevering to get to the otherside to get out of bed (and then not trip over anything that's on the floor).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Sorry i have not been fully following this thread, but from what im getting here.

Is the LotD codex just a copy pasta from the SM codex? with some apoc rules thrown in?

Added Relic, a FOC chart, allies rules, rules for using it as your primary detachment, the datasheet and 3 special scenario missions. New fluff, new art, just not new units. I have a feeling when C:SM gets updated the Legion will move out of it and have more room to grow. Until then, yes, it's basically a "copy paste" plus all the stuff extra I just mentioned.

You know, since we're distilling things down into the most oversimplified forms possible.

Well unless they had a point over haul, they are still not worth taking, which makes me sad :(

They just cost to much for what they bring to a table.

 aka_mythos wrote:
I don't really have any intention to buy this supplement short of rave reviews. It just sounded like the only content was a copy and paste of the unit entry from Codex:SM

Having read over the book, yet, it's just a copy/paste job, a whole lot of special rules (from the rulebook) that you don't need, one new item, a Warlord table (woo!), and lots of fluff. It's not a "Codex", but it will be the first of two Codices released in two weeks that have only one unit in them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I don't really have any intention to buy this supplement short of rave reviews. It just sounded like the only content was a copy and paste of the unit entry from Codex:SM

Having read over the book, yet, it's just a copy/paste job, a whole lot of special rules (from the rulebook) that you don't need, one new item, a Warlord table (woo!), and lots of fluff. It's not a "Codex", but it will be the first of two Codices released in two weeks that have only one unit in them.

GWs bass ackwards way of trying to push models that arnt selling.

"Hey how about instead of putting out a codex that makes the unit more viable, thus making people want to buy them, lets see how many we can dupe by putting out some fluff in a book with some whistles, no bells, thats to much"

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?

 Neith wrote:
I think using them as primary detachment is stupid (fluff-wise and because you'd automatically lose if you didn't have anything allied with them- they MUST Deep Strike but rules state you have to have at least something on the table to begin with...), but I'm going to use a squad as an allied detachment for my Blood Angels.

I do however refuse to pay £55 for 10 LotD models so this will be an experiment in using Green Stuff on Tactical Squads

One of the dudes at my FLGS said that any rule in the codex over rules any in the BRB, if there's a conflict, so does that mean you can get a fully deep striking army?

 stubacca wrote:

 Neith wrote:
I think using them as primary detachment is stupid (fluff-wise and because you'd automatically lose if you didn't have anything allied with them- they MUST Deep Strike but rules state you have to have at least something on the table to begin with...), but I'm going to use a squad as an allied detachment for my Blood Angels.

I do however refuse to pay £55 for 10 LotD models so this will be an experiment in using Green Stuff on Tactical Squads

One of the dudes at my FLGS said that any rule in the codex over rules any in the BRB, if there's a conflict, so does that mean you can get a fully deep striking army?

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.

We won't get an FAQ, and this more then likely won't be updated. Its stupid that you can't field just the damned but if you read the codex you can see making the a primary detachment was not the books focus and it feels sort of 'thrown in for good measure'. Sure it would be an easy fix to amend the rule that forces the to deep strike into stating that primary detachments may choose to deep strike but that would require some one in the design team to still be working on this codex.

Personalty, I like it, aside from the lack of foresight on GW's part. I made some 'fallen angels' to use as legion of the damned when I play m DA as white scars. Now I can use those models when I play my DA as DA and with that relic they get even better!



The guys are painted by my buddy at http://www.twilightemporium.net/

 Kirasu wrote:

 stubacca wrote:

 Neith wrote:
I think using them as primary detachment is stupid (fluff-wise and because you'd automatically lose if you didn't have anything allied with them- they MUST Deep Strike but rules state you have to have at least something on the table to begin with...), but I'm going to use a squad as an allied detachment for my Blood Angels.

I do however refuse to pay £55 for 10 LotD models so this will be an experiment in using Green Stuff on Tactical Squads

One of the dudes at my FLGS said that any rule in the codex over rules any in the BRB, if there's a conflict, so does that mean you can get a fully deep striking army?

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.

This is annoys me about GW. The date at the back of this "codex" is from the end of January this year, so they've had 4 weeks to look at it. Well, more than likely they've had a lot longer to look at it, to play test. They're so damned secretive about the rules that the only way to find out they've messed up, or been as thorough, is to spend £12 on something that 'has no refunds'

I'm on the lookout on eBay for models though, I'm not paying £115 for 20 minis, I'll give it a play test

 stubacca wrote:
... they've had a lot longer to look at it, to play test.

HA!

Play test?

That's a good one stubacca.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 stubacca wrote:
... they've had a lot longer to look at it, to play test.

HA!

Play test?

That's a good one stubacca.

What, you don't believe GW employees are allowed (*cough*encouraged*cough*) to play with the new toys in their lunch break before sending it all off to the printers?