Quote: (Hena @ Feb. 02 2010, 17:42 )
There is a a difference in fine tuning and major surgery (that the revising of Factions cause). I agree that there is little complaints as none play. That also means that most people don't seem to understand exactly how badly LatD is being crashed with the suggestions. Same applies to playing against them as there is little knowledge on how the list plays so few games aren't enough to say much about the list.
I've played a lot of LatD with pure and mixed Factions, and I fully support the Factions change, especially if the range of effect is reduced to 15cm.
Cultists are *SUPPOSED* to be crappy; they should be fractious, hard to control, and unreliable, *especially* when followers of different gods are mixed together! I *LIKE* that about the army, it's should be challenging to play... but it's not.
The pre-change list always allows you to mix and match the best things as you desire, with no real cost or consequence; that doesn't seem very "chaotic" to me. I like that if you want the "best" from each Faction, you have to make some tough choices, both in army design *and* on the battlefield.
Again, I know all about crappy initiative values, I often run "shooty" Orks, so I know how frustrating it can be... but playing the odds like that is *fun*, especially when a "plan comes together".
If you want reliability in a cultist army, go "purist", if you want diversity mix-and-match, but realize you're going to have problems. I don't see that as "crashing" the army at all, I see it as fixing it!
