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.

So let me get this straight. You can have your primary detachment be legion of the damned and then ally with legion of the damned to have a whole army of legion of the damned. They then all have to deploy in deepstrike reserve and you lose the game on turn one. Is that correct? Why even make it possible to do that?

They aren't the only ones it's possible to do that with.
Depending on the point value, GK can do it (paladins + draigo in a stormraven), Nids used to be able to do it (all pods)...

I'm sure there are other armies that if you make poor decisions with will auto-lose turn 1.

well, a major difference is that the LotD units *have* to start in reserve. So unless you ally in a different army, you will auto-lose.

coredump wrote:
well, a major difference is that the LotD units *have* to start in reserve. So unless you ally in a different army, you will auto-lose.

Paladins + Draigo in a Stormraven have to start in Reserve.
A Pod Nid army had to start in Reserve (well, the HQ didn't)

Nids are (I think) the only army that can make an illegal list by selecting a valid HQ - Tervigons aren't characters and therefore can't be Warlords.

Guard could also do it with the outflank platoon commander and vets in valks with a command squad in one.

The best solution I've seen to this yet is, "don't do that."

Well even if you take 8 squads of LotD you could still have points left over for an inqisitorial detatchment.


So you could do that.

rigeld2 wrote:

coredump wrote:
well, a major difference is that the LotD units *have* to start in reserve. So unless you ally in a different army, you will auto-lose.

Paladins + Draigo in a Stormraven have to start in Reserve.
A Pod Nid army had to start in Reserve (well, the HQ didn't)

Nids are (I think) the only army that can make an illegal list by selecting a valid HQ - Tervigons aren't characters and therefore can't be Warlords.

Sure, if you make a *very* specific army build in one of those codices you can arrange to auto-lose. But the *only* way you can play the LotD codex (by itself), is as an auto-lose build.

Now, I really don't have a problem with this, since I don't LotD are meant to be helping others, and not really be on their own. But it is pretty unique to have an 'entire' codex that can't even play the game with only that codex.

I discussed this in an earlier thread.

Yes, LotD on its own is an auto-loser. However, a funny thing happened when our FLGS owner called GW customer service. They reacted quite strongly, as if it was a typo that they don't deploy. We'll have to see if they FAQ it.

They just have to take allies (and remember that the 2nd LotD detachment isn't their allies, just a LotD detachment like an inquisition detachment)

 viewfinder wrote:
I discussed this in an earlier thread.

Yes, LotD on its own is an auto-loser. However, a funny thing happened when our FLGS owner called GW customer service. They reacted quite strongly, as if it was a typo that they don't deploy. We'll have to see if they FAQ it.

Others have claimed to call and were told they are not intended to be ran without allies... Another reason why calling GW customer service is meaningless.

 viewfinder wrote:
We'll have to see if they FAQ it.

The complete absence of FAQs from the new website would suggest a likely answer to that...

 BarBoBot wrote:

 viewfinder wrote:
I discussed this in an earlier thread.

Yes, LotD on its own is an auto-loser. However, a funny thing happened when our FLGS owner called GW customer service. They reacted quite strongly, as if it was a typo that they don't deploy. We'll have to see if they FAQ it.

Others have claimed to call and were told they are not intended to be ran without allies... Another reason why calling GW customer service is meaningless.

It shouldn't be billed as a codex then. It should be a supplement. Codex strongly implies a stand alone product (or used to...).

It is a stand-alone product.
GW wants you to design missions for yourself and change whatever rules you want.

FWIW, the GW customer service response was rather sharp when it was brought their attention that the LotD run as a solitary list is an auto-lose. As is, yes, toss in something. and seriously, who has 6 LotD squads to run this as a full army right now?

 viewfinder wrote:
...and seriously, who has 6 LotD squads to run this as a full army right now?

Given that we've had rules for LotD armies in previous editions, and that some people have still been running them in the interim using other codexes, while there may not be a huge number of then, they're certainly out there.

And really, running a LotD army doesn't require buying the rather expensive 'Fine'cast models. They're just marines with flames and bones painted on.