Own and regularly play...

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/

What are the archetypical LatD forces in 30/40k and the novels? The problem with LatD is that it tries to include all of their variations in one list because the original writer had limited time and resources and needed to make a catch-all. I'd suggest keeping it to balance tweaks in the existing approved/tourney list, but making it clearer/identifying which traitor lists focus/delve more deeply into specific themes.

I see there bring several core traitor themes:
- Blood Pact - organized, chaos-dedicated professional military with integrated psykers, priests, and demons/demonically possessed assets (Bloody Hand list)
- Raging devotee chaos worshippers - what the Word Bearers landed on Calth; religious hierarchy, cultists, possibly/probably mutants, not organized military (perhaps not anymore) but with some/limited access, and the capacity to summon lots of demons (Basic LatD list, but trimmed perhaps. Probably deserves its own rewrite from the catch-all, but its closest)
- Insurrectionist Cults - Alpha Legion uprising, Insurrection list idea, the problem with the Alpha list is that it's kinda really the Chaos Saranes Expanse list though, doesn't really represent a cultist uprising (cheap, deep-striking mutant formations? Infiltrators? Suicide bombers? Checkmate-level late-game/turn three mass demon incursion? Just thinking out loud)
- The poor misguided Cads - Vraks. We fight because we're pissed off/whipped into a frenzy and have no idea what we just got ourselves into...
- Open wide the gates of Hell and vomit forth insanity! - Abbadon's 13th Black Crusade, everything and anything from chaos-sworn guard and cultists to nightmare demon engines. IMO this is the LatD list's goal and the reason it was made as a catch-all since even the kitchen sinks sprouted limbs and soul-devouring maws. That's the problem though, it has a lot of bloat and can't really demonstrate it's diversity at 3000-4000pts. But, I don't think it should get cut up, since once in a while you might get a day-long mega game that could let you put most of your collection on the table and actually get the list's "feel" right.

We actually have all of the sub-themes covered to one extent or another (Chaos insurrection being the least congruent in the Compendium at the moment), the only problem with LatD is there's no way to force a particular theme out of it, but I'm not sure its worth carving it up so much as keeping it and perhaps iterating on it for a pure cultists & demon engines list, or otherwise generating a less guard-heavy cultist list. I'd rather leave it as-is, just incorporating minor tweaks and stat adjustments as necessary to keep it in line with the Black Legion changes, and keep it as a massive catch-all that people can do whatever they want with. If we need more focused, exclusive lists, it's probably better to build them separately. Just my $0.02.

Edit: tweaked to make my position on the matter a little clearer. On a related note, Chaos is kind of a listsplosion. Part of the problem is there is a lot of variety in Chaos (which is totally ok!), and part of the problem is the development of a lot of lists that seek to force a particular style of play rather than permitting people to field a couple of possible army styles off of a single list. Not that I want to start that discussion here, but as an example, I still can't quite figure out what the hairsplitting differences are between some of the marine lists (and whether they're really worth 2-3 lists for a single theme), when it might not be a better idea to collapse them into a single LatD-style list, and let people build more themed specific lists if they desire. I know it's harder to balance a bigger list with more options, but the GW 5th Edition 40K-style "one codex = one viable build" tournament approach is kinda...short-sighted?

_________________
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/armiger84/?hl=en

My General Modelling Blog: http://armiger84.blogspot.com/

Players can theme their armies themselves without needing guidelines, or changes to the army list to do that in my opinion.

I feel as though we're flogging a dead horse here for no good reason. If anyone wants to write, and play with variant lists, then by all means go ahead. I just don't see what good it will do changing the existing approved list, owing to the fact that it's a very divisive issue.

_________________

When asked if the changes to the BL army list should be considered netEA approved, Steve 54 said "Yes". With that in mind, the LatD should be brought into line with the BL list when it comes to the changes made to factions, daemon summoning, etc. (things that both lists share) for consistency. Other than that, nothing should be changed imho. It's a fun, characterful list and I have spent too much time and money on this army to see it's approved list (a rare thing btw) cut to ribbons. People do play the list, sure it's not popular like the BL or Orks for example, but what does that matter? Some people have argued in the past that some upgrades and/or support formations weren't taken in their gaming group so they should be removed - again - what does that matter?? It seems as though people think that if there aren't a whole bunch of gamers playing a list, that there is something wrong with it and it must be changed/butchered. The lists are not here to win popularity contests, lists are played by gamers who find them enjoyable. If people don't like a list then they are totally free to write another list that they do like - have at it.