PDA

View Full Version : LatD or Daemons?



Partisan Rimmo
01-06-2008, 00:12
Hello gang.

I've been hearing a few voices of dissent about GW's choice to produce the Daemons Codex. Now, whilst I must say I do like the Daemon Codex very much, the interesting argument was raised that Lost and the Damned have still to be done, and that this is a higher priority.

I'm genuinely unsure about how I feel on this one, so I thought I'd see how the rest of the community felt.


Let's go back in time, to before the Daemon Codex was written. Following GW's policy of every codex being a commitment to the end of time, if we have one Codex, we cannot have the other.

What do people want more? Lost and the Damned, or Daemons?

EarlGrey
01-06-2008, 00:25
Codex Daemons makes more sense for a number of reasons.
- Warhammer Daemon army; can knock out what will technically be two armies but not have to make twice as many models.
- Chaos Space Marine players will already have a few (if not lots) of daemon models ready to use.
- Daemons in 40K needed rules for their specific types. Chaos Space Marines was about Chaos Space Marines, thus summoned Daemons were reduced to Lesser and Greater. But keeping Daemons this way would be like reducing the Imperial Guard to one or two entries in the Space Marine codex, so they got their own codex as a fully fleshed army, just like they used to have many, many years ago. :)

Lost and the Damned are... Imperial Guard with mutants, a squad of Chaos Space Marines, and some Daemons. They are an collection of units from a number of books with a new unit thrown in, they are not in themselves a unique army, unlike the new Daemon army which plays and feels very different from all the others.

Captin Korea!
01-06-2008, 00:39
Give me latd or give me death! I for one would like to see a latd army, even in a WD would be good enough! I do like the new daemons and play them, but I miss my ageing latd.

Baneboss
01-06-2008, 00:46
Daemons play differently so I choose them.

DE are higher priority than LatD.

Templar Ben
01-06-2008, 00:51
Daemons were the obvious choice as a business decision. No further development since it is the same as WHFB with some changes in the cut and paste. Same models with twice the audience and twice the market.

As a gamer I would have preferred Lost and Damned so that is what I voted.

njfed
01-06-2008, 01:16
I love the way daemons come in by DS and all the special units.
I am not collecting them but I look forward to fighting them.
LatD ain't anything special. Who really needs evil guard?

Templar Ben
01-06-2008, 02:03
Who really needs evil guard?

Well who needs evil marines? Just use Codex: Space Marines with traits and have inquisitor allies to stand in as daemons.

Gen.Steiner
01-06-2008, 02:14
Lost and the Damned, because treason is fun! :D

Chem-Dog
01-06-2008, 02:19
I voted for LatD, it so NEEDS to be done IMHO, but I'm not saying I don't like the new Daemons stuff.

Looking at the LatD list as it was it was totally hokey, THREE codexes and only a handful of original units it needs a lot of work and one hopes that's why Daemons came first, same as the Dark Eldar, to give them more time to fine tune the it.

Warhammer Chaos players just got a "To get you by" army list in WD meaning that they officially have THREE Chaos armies to play, I see no reason that 40K players wont get a third Chaos Codex.

Kelderaith
01-06-2008, 15:11
I voted Daemon as I started them (a bit biased I know but hell). I always liked daemon but didn't like the fact they were only 2nd to CSM when you wanted to field them. Daemons are always a fresh wind on the 40k tables for their unique way of plays that is "imho" really tough to master (but like every army, I guess people will get the hang of it after a while). I loved the LatD list, and wish they would make a codex about it, but imho LatD was always a niche army and so I would put them after DE, Necrons, IG, maybe SW and maybe Tyranids. 3rd and obvious point being that Daemon were a fantasy release iirc so basically it's just a "free" 40k codex and doesn't really eat any of 40k normal resources and development time.

Kriegsherr
01-06-2008, 16:08
Demons as a standalone army don't belong into 40k... to be honest, FANTASY demons don't belong into 40k at all!

Either GW makes the extra effort of 40k-ing their demons by giving them demonic ordonance, de-naked-ify them and make up some REAL fluff as to why this kind of demonic incursion now is not so rare anymore, or the army will be an army of Conan-lookalikes fighting super-Sci-Fi-robots that only should appear once in a thousand years or so.

LatD on the other side are one of the most numerous armies of chaos that is encountered by other races. Seldom a CSM force will have the numbers for a big conflict, and it will be even rarer that a whole demonic army finds a place with enough chaotic energy to enter on their own without the intervention of some chaotic scum (aka LatD).
And of course, the CSM and demon part was already covered by the CSM Codex (not to speak of that abomination which is the 40k demon codex... so ugly :rolleyes: ), but there are a lot of things still missing... mutants, traitor guard, cultists, chaos xenos and others.

Apart from that, the demon codex was even a bad try at making the naked-barbarian-with-silly-axes-army... why exactly a whole army of demons still uses the Deepstrike rules, when there is NO-ONE (cultists, csm, other demons) to summon them, and a demonic incursion will last for months, and the demons will most probably already be summoned and on the planet once the real battle for the planet starts, is really beyond my comprehension.
And that is even befor I go into the whole multi-god army and undivided matter...

But I'll stop now.

If you ask me: LatD = instant win! Demonic Legions in 40k = really really poor!

ChaosBeast
01-06-2008, 18:28
Lost and the Damned are... Imperial Guard with mutants, a squad of Chaos Space Marines, and some Daemons. They are an collection of units from a number of books with a new unit thrown in, they are not in themselves a unique army, unlike the new Daemon army which plays and feels very different from all the others.

just to be clear, i voted for Demons. however GW made the Catachan codex which you could say was just the IG but with addons, same with all the non-codex space marines. they could easily do a bolt on codex for guard with mutants in.

that being said, IA5 is practically a LaTD codex

EarlGrey
01-06-2008, 19:26
Demons as a standalone army don't belong into 40k... to be honest, FANTASY demons don't belong into 40k at all!

Either GW makes the extra effort of 40k-ing their demons by giving them demonic ordonance, de-naked-ify them and make up some REAL fluff as to why this kind of demonic incursion now is not so rare anymore, or the army will be an army of Conan-lookalikes fighting super-Sci-Fi-robots that only should appear once in a thousand years or so.


Why don't they belong in 40K? 40K is more gothic than fantasy, and Daemons are perhaps the most gothic of all the races.

Making them "naked" really sets them apart from all the technology reliant races. Having a race that is utterly different, like the Tyranids but more so, is a great thing to vary 40K.

I believe the increased Daemonic activity will lie with the advanced 40K timeline... with the Golden throne apparently broken, or about to fail, the astronomican failing, and all the other doom and gloom, it's pretty cool to have increased daemonic activity, I think to really give an "end of days" feeling. :)



LatD on the other side are one of the most numerous armies of chaos that is encountered by other races. Seldom a CSM force will have the numbers for a big conflict, and it will be even rarer that a whole demonic army finds a place with enough chaotic energy to enter on their own without the intervention of some chaotic scum (aka LatD).

This is a very common arguement, but means nothing.
You see, it's akin to saying, "army X is more common than army Y, so you have to play army X 500 times before playing army Y". Think about it. Your battles aren't a statistical representation of the 40K universe, you're playing epic/cool/important/fun battles, so pick any army you want, how common that army is in the 40K fluff means NOTHING in the real world of table-top gaming.
If you were to go by commonality, all the alien races would be bunched up into a single "Codex: Xenos" with possibly one unit each, and then we'll have 50 Imperial Guard books and about 4 Traitor Guard books. Hmm...

RampagingRavener
01-06-2008, 19:40
Daemons, without a doubt. Lost and the Damned can be represented with Imperial Guard, one of the Inquisition codexes (perhaps ironicly), or whatever. Daemons, you really can't represent with anything going at the moment. While the various changes and retcons to the Daemon fluff have obviously upset a lot of the old-timers, personally I prefer the new version. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I don't think the L&TD fluff would be as valuble to the overal 40k mythology as the stuff in the Daemon codex is.

Would I like to see a Lost and the Damned codex? Yes, I certainly think it'd be a valuble addition to the game. But if it was L&TD or Daemons, I'd rather see Daemons.

TimLeeson
01-06-2008, 19:47
Daemons. Good backround - exploring a realm we knew little about previously, a nice variety of miniatures, including ones that ARENT more bipeds. GW got it right to me anyway, as iv spent 300 on miniatures, something I wouldnt of done otherwise and before Daemons came out.

I find LATD boring as hell, and beside they have miniatures and rules from FW anyway. Sorry, but I find theres already very little diversity and choice in 40k as it is and another human army would of put me off entirely. If they have to do another chaos army - IMO it should be Chaos Aliens instead, id rather see "Saruthi Soldier" over "guardsman with khorne logo".

Wraithbored
01-06-2008, 19:54
I think lost and the damned. Because they existed before(in before so did squats, genestealer cults) and people who played them felt genuinely shafted when their fave army wasn't re-released.

As for demons it's not at all a bad dex, I really loved the bickering nature of the warp described, the fickleness and then the darkness that can flow out when the dissent is silenced.

Piaevo
01-06-2008, 19:55
Daemons...
My 2 c.

Tymell
01-06-2008, 20:00
A hard choice for me. It depends how much the actual daemon codex we got is taken into account.

While I like the idea of a daemons army, and certainly have no problem with the concept, in the end GW missed a golden opportunity IMO. They could have gone wild with new unit types, which would've been great. As it is, I felt a bit let down in that department.

Overall, I'd go with:
Daemons (w/lots of tasty new units) -> Lost and the Damned -> Daemons (as we got them)

I have to say, I'm very surprised at how close this poll is so far :eek: I was expecting a much steeper result in favour of Lost and the Damned.

Shadowheart
02-06-2008, 06:04
To answer the entirely hypothetical question, I'd pick Lost and the Damned. (Though I'd strongly prefer another name for them.)

Fluffwise, besides the rarity of full-on Daemonic incursions, I feel that Daemons work best in small doses and as manifestations of the gods' favour. Without someone to summon/be possessed by them they're rather bland, which is only strengthened by seeing them in large numbers.

I also find the LatD has been much more encouraging and enabling in terms of modelling, painting and fluff-writing. Of course, you have to do some of that to play LatD at this point. But I think there are much more people who play LatD because they want to do the modelling than there are people who do the modelling because they want to play LatD.

As has often been observed, LatD are a very useful "counts as" list. In fact, ideally I'd like GW to do a Codex that allows not only for Chaos cults, but Genestealer cults, Imperial cults, militias, gang armies, mutant uprisings and so on.

In reality I don't think it's an either/or situation at all - GW is already saving a lot of work by having basically the same army in both games. If they wanted to do LatD the Daemon Codex wouldn't hinder them.

TheMav80
02-06-2008, 06:06
I've got no interest at all in seeing evil Guard. None. I couldn't care less if it ever gets done.

I would be just as happy to see three more SM codeci.

weissengel86
02-06-2008, 06:29
I prefer the daemons over a evil imperial guard clone but what i would of preferred was that GW updated out of date codexes rather then spend time on a new army. Dark eldar, the inquisition, necrons, and imperial guard need new codexes much more then we need daemons or LatD

Shadowheart
02-06-2008, 06:50
Curious how we've got people here dismissing LatD as evil Guard, while at the same time favouring space Daemons.

Plastic Rat
02-06-2008, 06:56
Hmm, let's see:

An army based on an event so rare that it only happens every few thousand years and requires fluff to be bent to breaking point by happilly putting demons of all four chaos gods working together like a bunch of spiky Tau.

OR:

The ubiquitous bad guys that are at the core of just about every planetary uprising, rebellion or full scale war going on in the Imperium. An army with a strong backing in fluff from novels like Gaunt's Ghosts.

I'd have prefered the second option, but I guess it's easier to get the kiddies excited about spiky 'evil' looking guys with an annoying gimmick.

Keadaen
02-06-2008, 07:28
I've got no interest at all in seeing evil Guard. None. I couldn't care less if it ever gets done.

I would be just as happy to see three more SM codeci.

I see we have found GW target Demographic, I thought they were just a rumor, :rolleyes:
personally LATD made way more sense to actually give them a army then Daemons considering I can't even think of a single piece of fluff where daemons and just daemons come into a battle.

cailus
02-06-2008, 07:33
Hmm, let's see:

An army based on an event so rare that it only happens every few thousand years and requires fluff to be bent to breaking point by happilly putting demons of all four chaos gods working together like a bunch of spiky Tau.

OR:

The ubiquitous bad guys that are at the core of just about every planetary uprising, rebellion or full scale war going on in the Imperium. An army with a strong backing in fluff from novels like Gaunt's Ghosts.

I'd have prefered the second option, but I guess it's easier to get the kiddies excited about spiky 'evil' looking guys with an annoying gimmick.



Totally agree.

LaTD all the way.

Fulgrim's Gimp
02-06-2008, 08:06
I too totally agree with Plastic Rat. It's also concerning that a good proprtion of the daemon special characters fall into the category of rebelled against the god and were banished or fell into something owned by the god and became even more powerful. It would have been more palatable if they'd brought back Doombreed, Nkari etc for 40k.

Brucopeloso
02-06-2008, 08:17
Give me latd or give me death! I for one would like to see a latd army, even in a WD would be good enough! I do like the new daemons and play them, but I miss my ageing latd.

Completely agree!

leonmallett
02-06-2008, 10:02
I voted Daemons. Seperating Daeomns from CSM makes sense - as it has long been held that they are not the subordinates of marines in the fluff, especially as those Traitor Legions aligned with specific powers wree subordinate to their gods rather than the other way around. Yet despite that, the codexes previously treated them as pretty willing thralls in their rules depiction. So the right move in that seperataion.

In addition, we now have more tabletop variety thanks to this army, more than if we had sen LatD. Which is not to say we won't see LatD (probably renamed Codex Chaos-something-or-other if we do), because if the long-term plan for Inquisition is a combined book, we may well see an open 'slot' in the line-up.



Hmm, let's see:

An army based on an event so rare that it only happens every few thousand years and requires fluff to be bent to breaking point by happilly putting demons of all four chaos gods working together like a bunch of spiky Tau.

The argument that the ruinous powers don't work together. Despite precedent going back some time that they do, and the current fluff that they do so but not harmoniously. The only thing that has changed are the silly polarisations that each power didn't get on specifically with one other, any more so than the other powers.

As for the rarity of event, you basically suggest that there have been only a couple of daemonic incursions in the time since the Horus Heresy ("An army based on an event so rare that it only happens every few thousand years"). Can I ask what you base this on?


OR:

The ubiquitous bad guys that are at the core of just about every planetary uprising, rebellion or full scale war going on in the Imperium. An army with a strong backing in fluff from novels like Gaunt's Ghosts.

Fair comment. The problem is maybe wanted to make a slightly Imperium-centric additional army (they may nort be loyalist, but their background ties them into the Imperium as a matter of course). In that way there is arguably more narrative imperative for Daemons (rather than LatD) versus non-Imperial forces.


I'd have prefered the second option, but I guess it's easier to get the kiddies excited about spiky 'evil' looking guys with an annoying gimmick.

Trust me when I say I am not a kiddie, Plastic Rat, and yet I am excited in putting together a couple of Daemon armies in time. Snide comments like this undermine your otherwise thoughtful points and don't add anything, yet arguably detract from what you are communicating.

Plastic Rat
02-06-2008, 10:30
As for the rarity of event, you basically suggest that there have been only a couple of daemonic incursions in the time since the Horus Heresy ("An army based on an event so rare that it only happens every few thousand years"). Can I ask what you base this on?


How about this, point ME towards some official fluff, Black Library novel or codex or whatever talking about daemonic incursions. Not something where traitors are accompanied by summoned deamons, something where a bunch of demons just decided to pitch up out of the warp and lay the smack down.



Trust me when I say I am not a kiddie, Plastic Rat, and yet I am excited in putting together a couple of Daemon armies in time.

I have yet to see a post by you that doesn't defend GW or it's designers/writers in a discussion. As far as I've seen you appear to be dileriously happy with everything they produce.

Some might question your objectivity in these discussions, which doesn't go a long way to validating YOUR point.

Granted with the amount of whining I do about GW, the same might be said for me. However I will always admit that I really love the models, most of the hobby products and the fluff being produced. (Otherwise why else would I still be here?)

I just feel that their weakest side by far currently is their approach to the actual gameplay/rules side of things and I would dearly love to change my viewpoint so that I could enjoy the game itself. Though as a game designer myself, I feel I can recognize bad design when I see it.

EDIT: Actually... I'd rather say it's less bad design I see, and more bean-counter influence, which pretty much always spells bad things for creativity.

Penitent Engine
02-06-2008, 10:35
I voted Daemons. I feel that they have been neglected for so long they NEED an update!!

And besides which, in what piece of fluff do Tau verse Necrons? The daemon army exists throughout space AND time, so feasibly speaking there could be an unlimited number of incursions.
Besides which, if you're sitting on a world next to a warp storm or has a large number of clandestine chaos worshippers (and let's face it, there's a lot of those) then a daemonic incursion is only a matter of time.

LatD are good, I'll admit. But I'm of the view that they can be represented just by using the Guard book and some of the new Apoc stuff (like the Plague Zombie). YOu don't have to use the formation, just the units!! Simple!

leonmallett
02-06-2008, 10:41
How about this, point ME towards some official fluff, Black Library novel or codex or whatever talking about daemonic incursions. Not something where traitors are accompanied by summoned deamons, something where a bunch of demons just decided to pitch up out of the warp and lay the smack down.

Well let us start with the Deamons codex itself. Then onto 'Grey Knights', a BL novel.

Now onto a quote from Codex: Daemonhunters (p. 11):
"One individual's lapse in vigilance can allow countless Daemons to spill from the Warp into the Material universe."

Is that a good enough start as my evidence. Now unto yours...



I have yet to see a post by you that doesn't defend GW or it's designers/writers in a discussion. As far as I've seen you appear to be dileriously happy with everything they produce.

Some might question your objectivity in these discussions, which doesn't go a long way to validating YOUR point.

Granted with the amount of whining I do about GW, the same might be said for me. However I will always admit that I really love the models, most of the hobby products and the fluff being produced. (Otherwise why else would I still be here?)

I just feel that their weakest side by far currently is their approach to the actual gameplay/rules side of things and I would dearly love to change my viewpoint so that I could enjoy the game itself.

Dileriously [sic] happy? I don't think so.

Look carefully and you will see posts where I (hopefully) offer balance and respect that other views exist. I don't ever suggest "GW is right just accept it" or words to that effect, but rather I will try to offer reason, evidence and argument as to my opinion (such as in my response above), which I would suggest is more objective than:

"it's easier to get the kiddies excited about spiky 'evil' looking guys with an annoying gimmick."

:eyebrows:

yabbadabba
02-06-2008, 10:46
For LatD see Squats or Adeptus Arbites.

"What!" I hear you all cry "Heresy!" but it's true. As so many people have pointed out LatD are basically, at it's core, IG with horns.

The main reason their are no Squats anymore is lack of an individual, definable image that can be protected under copyright law and sold as part of a licencing agreement. It's the same with LatD. While a totally logical army, LatD needs a definable, unique image to ensure that GW can produce them in comfort. As for Adeptus Arbites you won't see those in 40K until they are released from Necroumdas image package. You might see Enforcers, but no Arbites. While some aspects of the LatD are individual in 40K, like mutants and demagogues, the core isn't and definitely needs redesigning.

Don't get me wrong I like the idea of cult and traitor guard armies and I especially support the idea that everyone's army should be based around what they perceive the 40K universe to be. But, if you want a LatD army you will have more luck seeing a codex based on a specialist army like the Blood Pact rather than a generic one like we saw for Eye of Terror.

Killmaimburn
02-06-2008, 11:01
I've got no interest at all in seeing evil Guard.. LATD (in previous incarnation) weren't just tank guard.. they were massive swarms of untrained mutants and heretics deformed into strange bunchs of different skills with demons and CSM as elite stuff to lead\corrupt the rabble.
Even just stand alone the mutants in their various mutations and options could represent demons fairly well:p
I'd have preferred LATD...but if it had just been focused on expanding 1 or 2 of their guard like units (and not had mutants variations) then i'd have still been a bit disappointed ..The LATD was our (chaos) inquisitorial (ally combos) codex, Big and small demons, mutants heretics and misled guard with a few evil space marines and lots of silly vehicles.. all coming together for the glorious uprising on rigel prime.Whilst some undead popped up around the battlefield just to confuse everyone.
How many MEQ noobies first experience of other stuff is by allying through inquisition to lesser armour?
I think GW didn’t like the reality (it got a bit too close to non combatants, having populous of oppressed rising up) and they couldn’t balance that much variety. (they could ape nidzilla (little help from IA required), or nid horde, or guard, or CSM, or demonbomb, or shooty, tank list etc, there wasn't much you couldn't get out of the list)

As for the dual release argument meh, people were down on LATD because the model range could be anything.. just like those same folks rejoiced at the idea a generic greater demon could be anything..My LATD centred around brettonians with crossbows (the firearms got hot by the safety failing and shooting the bloke in the foot), and leaping mutants (dark elfs with capes etc) GW made good sales on LATD they just couldn't see it.

Plastic Rat
02-06-2008, 11:10
Well let us start with the Deamons codex itself. Then onto 'Grey Knights', a BL novel.

Now onto a quote from Codex: Daemonhunters (p. 11):
"One individual's lapse in vigilance can allow countless Daemons to spill from the Warp into the Material universe."

Is that a good enough start as my evidence. Now unto yours...


This can go back and forth for eternity. After reading Grey Knights, I believe the point was that while it does happen, instances of army sized forces coming through a rift are STILL extremely rare. Infinitely more rare than uprisings by deluded cultists.

But in the light of fairness, I'll look it up and find evidence or offer an apology.




Dileriously [sic] happy? I don't think so.

Look carefully and you will see posts where I (hopefully) offer balance and respect that other views exist.

I struggle to recall one, but I'll take your word for it that they exist. I will admit that you're nicer about stating your point of view in most cases than I am.

Bear in mind though that personal preference does not count as evidence or a in fact a solid argument in most cases. Most posters on here appear to go by the 'well I like it so it's good' mentality.


I don't ever suggest "GW is right just accept it" or words to that effect, but rather I will try to offer reason, evidence and argument as to my opinion (such as in my response above), which I would suggest is more objective than:

"it's easier to get the kiddies excited about spiky 'evil' looking guys with an annoying gimmick."

:eyebrows:

Fair point.

I meant that I feel GW is aiming the army at kids as is most of GWs stuff today. This one more strongly than most. I'd have to admit there's nothing wrong with enjoying stuff for kids though. I still love Ninja Turtles and coco-pops. Heck, I play with plastic soldiers on my weekends.

AdmiralDick
02-06-2008, 11:13
this is a tricky question, because whilst i liked the concept of a Codex: Daemons, i could have imagined something rather a lot more inspiring than that which we've got.

nevertheless, i'm inclined to agree with EarlGrey's reasoning. the most sensible choice to bring something more to the game was always going to be Daemons. but i would also add that whilst their may well be a unified voice calling out for a LatD Codex, i suspect that you will find that the creation of such a book would really divide players.

there are those that want LatD and then there are those that want Traitor Guard (under the guise of LatD). if players were to get what they asked for i think there would be an uproar, because many of them had actually asked for the wrong thing.

Plastic Rat
02-06-2008, 11:22
this is a tricky question, because whilst i liked the concept of a Codex: Daemons, i could have imagined something rather a lot more inspiring than that which we've got.

nevertheless, i'm inclined to agree with EarlGrey's reasoning. the most sensible choice to bring something more to the game was always going to be Daemons. but i would also add that whilst their may well be a unified voice calling out for a LatD Codex, i suspect that you will find that the creation of such a book would really divide players.

there are those that want LatD and then there are those that want Traitor Guard (under the guise of LatD). if players were to get what they asked for i think there would be an uproar, because many of them had actually asked for the wrong thing.

So what's wrong with even just a White Dwarf army list? They don't have to do an entire book with a hobby section and fluff and all the rest... just put out a white dwarf codex for now. At least something official to keep people interested.

Kurisu313
02-06-2008, 11:25
How about this, point ME towards some official fluff, Black Library novel or codex or whatever talking about daemonic incursions. Not something where traitors are accompanied by summoned deamons, something where a bunch of demons just decided to pitch up out of the warp and lay the smack down.


Mordia, Armageddon and Toreus are three. It's a bit crazy to assume these are the only ones, because if the battles written in fluff are the only one that exist, then what the hell are we doing on the tabletop? However, what is incredibly frustrating is YOUR insistence that the daemonic codex can only represent daemon-only warfare. My daemons are rationalised as my LatD performing a ritual to destabilise realspace, allowing the daemons to pour in.

I play LatD and I do NOT want GW to release a codex for them. This is because a single codex cannot do them justice, IMO. They are far too, varied, drawn from a wide range of warriors, marines, daemon, scum and preachers.

It is my greatly held belief that Apocalypse is the place for LatD. They are not supposed to be a power-gamers army, but rather a fluffy one. My army currently is composed of Imperial guard, daemons, CSM, Inquisition and mutants (datasheet). If GW released a codex, it could not represent this well, at least IMO.

And I get a bit annoyed that in the old codex that I HAD to have marines. I'd reckon that the great majority of LatD are not marine related.

And to the 'Latd are Horned Guard' advocates. Come on, LatD is more than that, people!

leonmallett
02-06-2008, 11:27
This can go back and forth for eternity. After reading Grey Knights, I believe the point was that while it does happen, instances of army sized forces coming through a rift are STILL extremely rare. Infinitely more rare than uprisings by deluded cultists.

<snipped because I really wanted to respond to this bit>

I won't disagree with your point here, nor should any right-minded fan of Codex Daemons. I will give no argument that cult uprisings are not more common than Daemonic incursions.

That said, we know full well army production (codex and models) has little to do with what is most likely (according to fluff-logic) to be seen, but rather to do with what works best for the game/army line-up, and to meet customer needs/desires. The former point illustrated whenever two loyalist Space Marine chapters meet in battle. That I would guess (no evidence this time, since it is hard to acquire in an empirical sense), would be a rare (but not unknown) event. Yet in the meta-game is quite likely due to the sheer number of Space Marine armies that are out there. The latter point is harder to gauge since the popularity of LatD versus Daemons is very hard to quanity for a number of reasons. Which then made it a (theoretical) judgement call by GW. I suspect that simply put daemons ticked more boxes, for example:
- less risk in resources for development since two primary armies could utilise most of the models (WH40K and WHFB), and also secondary usage in C: CSM. Simple expediency also comes in here: if re-appraising Daemons in one game, then to do both cuts down in required resources if the releases and development were staggered (capital, human resources, time).
- arguably Daemons added more depth in making the lie-up less human or marine centric.
- Daemons as they are now arguably play in a much different way to existing armies compared to what we may have seen with a prospective LatD army.
- the designers may have simply felt more able to achieve a desirable outcome with regard to model range and rules and background with Daemons - they may have simply felt that in pursuing this they could greater justice to the concepts they were tackling.

Kettu
02-06-2008, 11:28
I voted Daemons.

My first army would have been daemons but when I started back in 1998, shortly after 3rd just came out, I found that I would need at least some CSM in the force to make it work. It annoyed me but I moved on, started DE and the rest is history.

Needless to say, the moment I heard about the upcoming Codex Daemons I started to buy random daemon minis so I would have a bit of a starting force ready.

As for LatD?

I looked over their old list and really, sans the CSM and daemons, you could just collect IG, Conscripts, psykers, ogryns all make fluffy 'count as' units.
Commissars or priests could be the ring-leaders.
Chimeras, Leman Russes, Hellhounds... all are common tanks in the IG that could have been 'liberated' when the fighting broke out.

Really, LatD are an assorted group of heretics, mutants and doomsayers. Use your imagination.

Killgore
02-06-2008, 11:34
I voted Daemons

The daemon army adds a new game mechanic to the 40k game system thats in danger of going stale without new armys, an entire army that has to deep strike refreshs 40k imho


I'd also like to mention that iv been playing Lost and the Damned on/ off since the eye of terror codex came out, yes it would be nice to have an updated army list, but my gaming group likes to have fun so i get no problems when i use the old latd codex with the chaos 3.5 codex... mabey its because i dont abuse lists.

ColonelWicked
02-06-2008, 11:40
Just give us a White Dwarf mini-dex for LatD and everybody's happy.

Kurisu313
02-06-2008, 11:48
Just give us a White Dwarf mini-dex for LatD and everybody's happy.


Tell that to Hordes of Chaos players :p

It'd be a step in the right direction for LatD players, but a week later we'd have have a 'why don't LatD have a proper codex?' thread, and so the cycle continues. :cries:

I said it earlier, but I don't believe a single codex can ever do LatD justice, and so, even as a LatD player, I don't think there should be one.

AdmiralDick
02-06-2008, 14:34
So what's wrong with even just a White Dwarf army list? They don't have to do an entire book with a hobby section and fluff and all the rest... just put out a white dwarf codex for now. At least something official to keep people interested.


Just give us a White Dwarf mini-dex for LatD and everybody's happy.

if that's you level of concern for the army then i think that most LatD enthusiasts should rather that you weren't on their side. i know i'd far rather see them given some serious thought and formed into a worth while army in their own right, with an imaginative and inventive purpose, and a rules set that was engaging and exciting.

anything so simple it could be boiled down into a breif WD article is not really worth the effort. what would it be other than a slightly differently orgnised IG?

and ultimately that is the i voted against the book. i don't want Codex: LatD to be Codex: Evil Guard That I Could Have Made Using The Regular Guard Book. i don't particularly like the Codex: CSM because of the similarities with the SM book and lack fo differences. a LatD book like that would be even more depressing.

gorgon
02-06-2008, 14:39
Tell that to Hordes of Chaos players :p

It'd be a step in the right direction for LatD players, but a week later we'd have have a 'why don't LatD have a proper codex?' thread, and so the cycle continues. :cries:

I said it earlier, but I don't believe a single codex can ever do LatD justice, and so, even as a LatD player, I don't think there should be one.

I have to say I really don't understand your position. You're saying that a full codex wouldn't do justice to an abbreviated campaign book list? :eyebrows: Just by getting a full codex, the army would be receiving much more love than it has in the past.

The really sad part of this whole discussion is that it didn't need to be either/or. A Daemonworld codex could have included daemonic fluff, sold the new daemon plastics AND allowed LatD players another outlet for refurbishing their armies to fit an official codex. All it would have required is an entry or two for Mutants and/or Cultists. It didn't happen, so we can just hope they intentionally left the design room there to address them *someday*. :(

I have the Daemon book, and it's fine. The fluff is a good read. The army list is very straightforward and basic, though. IMO, the aforementioned Daemonworld book would have required a little more design and playtesting time on GW's part, but given us an army with the potential for more varied and interesting play over the long run.

Kurisu313
02-06-2008, 19:26
I have to say I really don't understand your position. You're saying that a full codex wouldn't do justice to an abbreviated campaign book list? :eyebrows: Just by getting a full codex, the army would be receiving much more love than it has in the past.

The really sad part of this whole discussion is that it didn't need to be either/or. A Daemonworld codex could have included daemonic fluff, sold the new daemon plastics AND allowed LatD players another outlet for refurbishing their armies to fit an official codex. All it would have required is an entry or two for Mutants and/or Cultists. It didn't happen, so we can just hope they intentionally left the design room there to address them *someday*. :(

I have the Daemon book, and it's fine. The fluff is a good read. The army list is very straightforward and basic, though. IMO, the aforementioned Daemonworld book would have required a little more design and playtesting time on GW's part, but given us an army with the potential for more varied and interesting play over the long run.

:eyebrows: I said that the codex could not do justice to the LatD, not the LatD codex. See the difference? The original abbreviated codex didn't do them justice, and I don't think a full one could either.

The daemon codex has 7 special HQ's, 8 normal HQs, 4 elite, 5 troops, 3 fast attacks and 2 heavies. Adding cultist would've made it a monster, and IMO completely ruined the flavour of the army.

Also, if we had cultists, would it have stopped CSM whingers? NO.

My position is that chaos, in all its glory, is too diverse for one codex. Using seperate codices we have:

Chaos marines, traitors and renegades, some legions
Traitor Guard (IG, obviously)
Daemons
And some time in the future, apparently, chaos legions
- and a Mutants datasheet

The title 'LatD' encompasses all these arms, and It is my position, that it can't be done justice in one codex, so leave it for apocalypse for mixing. I know some people don't like apocalypse, but a 3k game is easy to set up, and of course, friendly clubs might allow mixing in smaller games.

Does that clear things up?

ChaosBeast
02-06-2008, 20:12
I see we have found GW target Demographic, I thought they were just a rumor, :rolleyes:
personally LATD made way more sense to actually give them a army then Daemons considering I can't even think of a single piece of fluff where daemons and just daemons come into a battle.

well, ther a load of them in the deamon codex;)

Lordsaradain
02-06-2008, 22:26
Codex LatD. Having them as an independent army would be much more fitting with the 40k fluff.

Playa
03-06-2008, 06:28
Hey,


Let's go back in time, to before the Daemon Codex was written

Way, way back to the dim prehistory of September, 2007?
When Daemons were bit players in Codex: CSM, and EoT lists were legal?

Okay.

Afterward, let's return and examine what players have *gained* since then.


Following GW's policy of every codex being a commitment to the end of time

Um, EoT wasn't titled "Expansion EoT" or "Campaign EoT".
It was titled - by Games Workshop - "Codex: Eye of Terror".
Compare to "Codex: Daemonhunters" and "Codex: Witchhunters".


if we have one Codex, we cannot have the other

GW seems to have decided to cut Codex: CSM into six different Codices.
This is not the same as *gaining* five options when we've the figs already.
It amounts to simply charging us six times as much for the same rules.


What do people want more? Lost and the Damned, or Daemons?

Oops, we've now gone to a fantasy world where this is still an option. :- \

Now, what have GW's customers *gained* in the last nine months?

Renegade Chapters? Already had 'em - Corsair and Black Legion templates.
Yet another Space Marine Codex instead of free pdf FAQ updates?
Exactly who was supposed to benefit from a four-year hiatus in 40k errata?
Non-starter-set players finally getting attention only after a ten year wait?
Ask DE players how they like the current trend in GW release scheduling.
Daemon world armies? Coulda had them with a single Chapter Approved article.
Except that CA was one of the first of GW's sacrifices at the altar of INDIFFERENCE.

The idea that three Codices were deliberately orphaned to address market demand is ridiculous.

Now, what has GW gained in the last nine months? Financial recovery?

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=LON:GAW

I would have voted that we get a vote . . .


Playa

yabbadabba
03-06-2008, 16:20
Is a LatD army fitting in the 40K Universe? Yes
Could a LatD army be represented on an Apocalypse battlefield? Yes - Chaos Marines, Daemons and IG.
Do LatD have a single, pin pointable defining image - no and that's the crux. Chaos Marines do, Daemons do but LatD don't and until they do they will never be more than an unloved pdf hidden in the depths of the GW online archive.

x-esiv-4c
03-06-2008, 16:21
I rather like Daemons. If I wanted LatD, i'd just mod up an IG army and call it good.

AdmiralDick
03-06-2008, 20:14
Is a LatD army fitting in the 40K Universe? Yes

LatD are certainly a suitably themed army for 40k, but i don't think they are more apt for the game than Daemons. LatD may well seem more 'sci-fi' but Daemons are definitely more 40k.

(i know you are not trying to argue that they are more suitable than Daemons, but your quote gave me the chance to respond to an attitude that seems to be cropping up quite frequently, but i think is totally eroneous.)


Could a LatD army be represented on an Apocalypse battlefield? Yes - Chaos Marines, Daemons and IG.

the LatD Datasheet probably goes towards it too.


Do LatD have a single, pin pointable defining image - no and that's the crux. Chaos Marines do, Daemons do but LatD don't and until they do they will never be more than an unloved pdf hidden in the depths of the GW online archive.

to an extent, have to agree with you. i don't think they are as shambolic (thematically) as you might make out, but their is certianly room for better definition. part of the reason for that is the name of the army itself. Lost and the Damned was the name of the 2nd RoC book and the term didn't refer to anything at all, so all it implied was a kind of vague allusion to the enirety of Chaos. in the 2nd ed Codex the term was used in an almost jocular fashion, as hint towards the past, in the title for the section that had the two mini-lists for Cultist and Daemon-World inhabitants.

then when Eye of Terror came out the term was used as though it was supposed to tell us something specific about the army. whilest the armylist itself was quite coherent, the name did not lend much to it. it should have been called 'Chaos Cultists' or 'Daemon World' or something new entirely.

personally i think that if the army wants to have any chance of bringing something new to the game then it has to drop the Traitor Guard aspect and focus solely on the Daemon World mutants and monsters. Traitor Guard are not, and cannot be, significantly different from regular Guard to make the codex worthwhile. really and truely, what Traitor Guard players need is a nice flexible Codex: IG, not another book. (how different is the FW Vraks list from the regular IG list? not very?)

conversely, whilst i think that the Deamon-World aspect would bring more life and variety (not to mention cool miniatures), i know full well that GW knows that people like Guard, and, much like Marines, if people can collect more Guard whilst pretending to collect something else they will. hence the DA and BA (and even the BT) are not significantly different from the original book, because it just gives the allusion of diversity without any of the difficulties that arise from those things (i.e. people saying they don't like 'new' and 'different'). with that in mind, if we ever see a Codex: Lost and the Damned, i would be at all surprised if it wasn't just a slightly edited version of Codex: IG with mutants tacked on maybe as an after thought.

either way, i still think the more logical choice was made. its just a shame it wasn't quite as creative as it deserved to be. still its only a first attempt and the Necrons, Tau and Dark Eldar didn't fair much better (neither did the sisters in 2nd ed).

carlisimo
04-06-2008, 03:38
Do LatD have a single, pin pointable defining image - no and that's the crux. Chaos Marines do, Daemons do but LatD don't and until they do they will never be more than an unloved pdf hidden in the depths of the GW online archive.

I feel the same way.

What should the LatD look like? If they're just Traitor Guard with unique HQ choices, there's not much point. If they're Traitor Guard plus Marines plus Daemons, well, that's just lame. It'd be a huge list and rather unfair to Imperial players who have to choose between one or the other. And I think have-it-all lists are cheap, as they don't have any weaknesses.

But I'm curious to hear better ideas about what LatD should look like.

loveless
04-06-2008, 05:16
Do LatD have a single, pin pointable defining image - no and that's the crux. Chaos Marines do, Daemons do but LatD don't and until they do they will never be more than an unloved pdf hidden in the depths of the GW online archive.

This is quite possibly the most intelligent thing that anyone has said on the 40K forums on Warseer.

Not kidding.

I don't think that the LatD community really has a single set view of what they want. How should they play? Some people want traitor guard, some people want hordes of mutants, some people want slobbering daemons and hulks. The problem would be trying to balance all the options. We'd have the same problem with the LatD that people have with Daemons - you'd need a little bit of everything to make them work. You'd really have to separate them to make everyone happy. You might then need a Traitor Guard dex (or...you could just convert IG and be done with that one), and a Cultists (not the Chaos Legions, mind you) dex.

I think the current GW scheme of things is to lead people into Apocalypse. More money for them. More freedom for players. LatD is easy to do in Apocalypse. So why not just build bigger armies?

BTW, I voted for daemons. I like the supernatural too much to deny them.

Killmaimburn
04-06-2008, 06:08
And I think have-it-all lists are cheap, as they don't have any weaknesses. So codex deamonhunters is the next thing you lot are going to pick on ROFLOL.. they have MEQ GEQ, deamon type things and assassins and termies and can ally in things.I haven't seen many people refer to them as having no weaknesses before though ;).
As I said I would have liked a LATD codex, but accept that in these days of "simple" codexs they can't be bothered to try to mesh wider themes together.(so I'm realistic in that yes, they couldn't do LATD to a level that would make me happy)
As for image\ key concept: Codex insurrection - for everybody who doesn't want to live under the military junta, how can all these SM(\witchunters etc) go along chanting "Burn the heretic. Kill the mutant. Purge the unclean."everyday, when they won't fight them, only xenos and endless other space marine? (or is it just like dwarfs.. expect them to talk about gold a lot but not actually do anything with it)..as I say its when you start looking exactly for what could be the defining images of LATD you see why GW would rather not go into full stuff (They got rid of human bombs a long while back for the same reason)
Off the top of my head :angel:references and boasts to do with mutants turn up second only to orks in the smurf dex of who they should be bringing the pain to.

cailus
04-06-2008, 06:46
I think the current GW scheme of things is to lead people into Apocalypse. More money for them. More freedom for players. LatD is easy to do in Apocalypse. So why not just build bigger armies?
.

Frankly I think that GW can shove Apocalypse up their collective rectums. I don't like bigger games with 40K - for the most part they are rubbish dice roll-a-thons with next to no tactical thought.

I want LaTD as a normal codex and playable in games of 1,500 points and under.

loveless
04-06-2008, 16:24
Frankly I think that GW can shove Apocalypse up their collective rectums. I don't like bigger games with 40K - for the most part they are rubbish dice roll-a-thons with next to no tactical thought.

I want LaTD as a normal codex and playable in games of 1,500 points and under.

...couldn't you just house-rule the LatD datasheets to be used for smaller games where you play?

Most tournaments I've seen are at least 1850, so I don't think you're looking for tournament play. So really, the rules are there, they're just fit to Apocalypse. Nothing's stopping you and your friends from using the datasheets in smaller games.

You could combine the Lost and the Damned sheet with the Plague Zombie sheet, too. I mean, the options are there for friendly games.

If it's models you're after in addition to a codex (i.e., the models are just as important as the rules), then you're kinda up the creek without a paddle in this case.

I dunno, cailus, it sucks what they did to the EoT lists (most of them ended up in Apocalypse form only), but we learn to make due and find ways around it. Obviously GW is a company that seeks a profit - the players with completed armies will just (maybe) buy a codex or two as the rules are updated; they aren't that useful to create profit. However, by taking all these "small" EoT lists and clamping them onto Apocalypse, GW has attempted to rekindle the excitement of building a crazy army (as it's likely that you'll need more LatD for Apocalypse Games) as well as the craze of the megabattle (such as what gets done at Games Day). Of course, they can't please everyone. A lot of people I know are all in favor of Apocalypse and find it to be all kinds of wonderful. You're in the other camp, and unfortunately, GW seems to be leaving that camp behind.

I really don't know what you can do.

gorgon
04-06-2008, 18:23
This is quite possibly the most intelligent thing that anyone has said on the 40K forums on Warseer.

Not kidding.

I don't think that the LatD community really has a single set view of what they want. How should they play? Some people want traitor guard, some people want hordes of mutants, some people want slobbering daemons and hulks. The problem would be trying to balance all the options. We'd have the same problem with the LatD that people have with Daemons - you'd need a little bit of everything to make them work.

I think your standards are set pretty low. :)

Did you forget the old LatD list *was* balanced, and it had Mutants, CSMs, Traitors, etc.? It was hardly a powergamer's army, but it was good enough to win a GT in the U.S.

Moreover, the LatD list *did* accommodate some very different army builds based on player preference -- your hordes of mutants, slobbering daemons and traitor guard.

There may be valid arguments against LatD, but I can't see how one can be built around balance or the diversity of the army. The old list already covered those areas extremely well.

gorgon
04-06-2008, 18:38
Frankly I think that GW can shove Apocalypse up their collective rectums. I don't like bigger games with 40K - for the most part they are rubbish dice roll-a-thons with next to no tactical thought.

*shrug* Apoc is what it is. I don't see it ever being a large percentage of overall 40K games played, especially with time. If Apoc actually improved megagame play other than "set a time limit" and "have someone plan everything out beforehand", and made an attempt at *some* level of balance instead of "balance doesn't matter...make everything up if you want", it might have a better chance of sticking around long term.


As for image\ key concept: Codex insurrection - for everybody who doesn't want to live under the military junta, how can all these SM(\witchunters etc) go along chanting "Burn the heretic. Kill the mutant. Purge the unclean."everyday, when they won't fight them, only xenos and endless other space marine?

We can hope that they'll start kicking around LatD when they get around to doing the combined =I= codex. Cross your fingers (and keep writing letters).

Galatan
04-06-2008, 18:38
Deamons. LatD never even was a fully fledged army IMO. It was a sub list, an awesome sub list, but still a sub list. LatD can also be easily represented by IG. I've seen plenty of guard army's converted to traitor, you even get a more balanced and IMO powerful army. I feel for all LatD players, but you could've seen it coming if your army is represented by a campaign codex.

(hope I'm not stepping on too many toes here)

loveless
04-06-2008, 18:58
I think your standards are set pretty low. :)

To be fair, it IS Warseer :p



Did you forget the old LatD list *was* balanced, and it had Mutants, CSMs, Traitors, etc.? It was hardly a powergamer's army, but it was good enough to win a GT in the U.S.

Moreover, the LatD list *did* accommodate some very different army builds based on player preference -- your hordes of mutants, slobbering daemons and traitor guard.

There may be valid arguments against LatD, but I can't see one can be built around balance or the diversity of the army. The old list already covered those extremely well.

True on those points, but I think the problem is the way that GW approaches their current army lists. An all Ravenwing force is not as marvelous as a combined Dark Angels force. An all Slaanesh Daemon force is going to be hindered a bit more than an Undivided force. Similarly, an all mutant force would likely not be as effective as a combined Lost and the Damned force. Though the whole would likely make a decent army, I think we'd still hear some people complain that their "all-plague-zombie" army wasn't doing very well.

In other words, I was more addressing the self-imposed "lack of options" by some players b/c they don't care for the rules or fluff of a certain unit. Current 40K doesn't seem to necessarily enjoy letting players go after 10 different builds per codex, though about 3 seems fine. I suppose they might be able to pull it off, but I still think some individuals would complain.

It wouldn't be hard to put together a LatD Codex for GW. However, they have a lot of other things to do at the same time. Daemons was a bit unnecessary, but at the same time they deserve the background stories and amusing (to me) rules that the Codex provides. With GW's current policy of "If we make a Codex, it stays around forever now," GW really has to think about a long-term plan for the LatD. For instance:

1) How to stop people asking for Codex: Ulthwe Strike Force, Codex: 13th Company, and Codex: Cadian Shock Troops? These were all present in the same book as the LatD, surely they're just as deserving? (Though, admittedly, LatD seemed the most radical of the 4 EoT lists).

2) The options would have to be either toned down or the kits made excessively large. Each of the Big Four had their own gift to bestow on the Mutants. Either you make 4 kits, or you make 1 kit that fails to have enough of the appropriate option to "bless" your mutants. The options, as they stand, are too varied - a single kit would likely have enough parts for 20-30 mutants and cost double the amount of other troop boxes. Perhaps, however, they could do an Icon type thing, a la Codex: Chaos Marines.

3) Ally rules. These seem to be going by the wayside (expect Codex: Inquisition to be standalone and untouchable). It's not a huge deal, but some people really love to ally. (Ok, number 3 is weak, but I'd miss allying)


...

Okay, I'm totally just leaving this thread now - I get FAR too long-winded >.>