The army has a base 1+ initiative and it was reduced to take the bonus from the Hatred rules into account. Jervis likes writing rules in such a way that the player they effect needs to remember them to get a positive effect which is why the rules are not written as being a negative modifier when you are within range.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

I can see why, but also I can see why not. Removing a dangerous option for a forlorn hope seems contrary to its intent!

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Well Scouts don`t have Droppods (and it is rumoured that they can`t have them in the upcoming Codex Space Marines too) because they don`t land in hot landing zones. They land somewhere else and sneak toward enemylines.

Forlorn Hope to the contrary are Veterans who drop right in the middle of the fun

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Though in Epic they don't get them because 5 lots of scouts could be cheaply used as a barrage weapon, something contrary to their nature! Nice to have a fluff justification afterwards though

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

This presumes that anyone has ever created an abusive list with Forlorn Hopes and Dreadclaws. Has anyone?

An option that CSM formations have to pay for and also use an Upgrade for. Making it a lot less cost effective than the Scout drop-pod force.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Why would we include it?

It isn't a part of the background any more in any case. So we'd be attempting to include "retro" fluff.

There is all sorts of fluff that people are free to use on their own and I think this could be one of them but I don't see the point behind it in the CSM list.

Especially since this is meant to be a Black Legion list.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

It is not that simple to abuse with Forlorn Hope Dreadclaws as
a) forlorn hope are limited; you need those Retinues to get them (unlike SM scouts). So in a 3000 point game, it is hard to get more than 2 of them
b) once landed, they are fragile as hell.

I tried that forlorn hope drop thing but chose to use Rhinos instead as then they are not broken as quickly as someone points a finger at them.

So gamewise I see no reason to prevent that.

(what I still do not like in Black Legion are those "free" Lords in Raptor and Chosen formations.)

Kind of like those knights in the titan legion lists, then?

Oh, and there is an incentive to taking lists of opposing gods under the current rules. You get to cherrypick whichever daemons/cult marines/daemon engines you prefer.

I have it semi-confirmed that Knights will be appearing in a Black Library novel soonish.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

There's a difference between "old and not mentioned" and "written out of the canon".  And, of course, Titan Legions are in very current GW background material.

_________________
Neal

My first point is consider the scale we're dealing with here. A detachment is basically a whole 40K army. Let's pretend that you couldn't mix marks at all in a 40K army - the end result for Epic is "no mixing marks within a single formation". The analogy is that 40K "detachments" can mix-n-match cult marines within a formation. So we're still more constrictive that way.

The other thing is just consider the ranges - we're talking about a fairly major breakdown in discipline over "Epic ranges".

40K and fantasy doesn't allow demons to run together with their mortal followers anymore, either. How about we remove them, too? To placate all those with bunches of miniatures, how about we add in a generic version of them?

I think this should be a seperate discussion for the LatD on its own merits - the rule has a bigger impact on their formations, and it perhaps makes more sense for cultist formations (rival cults?) or daemon-engines suffering this sort of penalty. I think probably still lose the rule there, but that's up to Steve.

There is a lot more factional issues in the LaTD background as well. The fact that the army has literal alters and faction specific daemon engines and aircraft.

As LI says, the rule may or may not go for them as well but the theme of the army is dramatically different than the Black Legion list.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Like you said, that might not be such a bad idea... It'd be even better if those AA-defilers in the cult lists got replaced with proper AA.

But seriously, I don't really mind new units being added now and then as far as any game goes. What I do mind is GW defecating on their old fluff. Honestly though, if the rule is removed and all formations get 1+ initiative to compensate, it doesn't really affect me. I'll still be running a maximum of two gods and won't be screwed because of that unlike in 40K/fantasy. So go for it. I just get annoyed when those random background changes to a game I care about get brought up.

If we settle on new AA for the BL, the cult lists will probably follow suit.

But seriously, I don't really mind new units being added now and then as far as any game goes. What I do mind is GW defecating on their old fluff. Honestly though, if the rule is removed and all formations get 1+ initiative to compensate, it doesn't really affect me. I'll still be running a maximum of two gods and won't be screwed because of that unlike in 40K/fantasy. So go for it. I just get annoyed when those random background changes to a game I care about get brought up.