All of FW is gone!

Oh wait...that's not true.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/legends/

 Daedalus81 wrote:
All of FW is gone!

Oh wait...that's not true.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/legends/

I'm quite happy to be wrong. My Storm Eagles are happy I was wrong, as is my Kharybdis that I never field.

Rather than hyperbole like all fw will be gone that was known to be false from first is there any oop fw units there?

tneva82 wrote:
Rather than hyperbole like all fw will be gone that was known to be false from first is there any oop fw units there?

Not that I can see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
All of FW is gone!

Oh wait...that's not true.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/legends/

I'm quite happy to be wrong. My Storm Eagles are happy I was wrong, as is my Kharybdis that I never field.

You are a gentleman and a scholar.

Though I imagine Orks aren't terribly happy.

Hmm, sorcerer on palanquin is not in the DG-list, that's strange.

tneva82 wrote:
Rather than hyperbole like all fw will be gone that was known to be false from first is there any oop fw units there?

Nope, not that I can see. fething stupid that they aren't

So basically Legeds is just all the left over Index options? Great!

I will continue using my Autarch Skyrunners with Laser lance, Banshee mask AND Reaper Launcher

-

oh boy maybe the old named characters for Drukhari will -

oh, no, nevermind. Just the ability to pay twice the point costs for a bonus attack on my kabalites and wyches.

Thanks GW.

I knew it was coming but having custom/scratch built 3 painboys on bikes I am sad to see them basically go away (most poeple in my area will not do power level sadly) also all of the buggies and wartraxx are now just gone. my 2 cutom mega armor warbosses I can just run as warbosses but they to will be hampered.

my 12 og big gunz for orks won't make good terrain liek the buggies btu i guess the crew models can jsut be ammo runts.

Theres no repressor in the Sororitas list either.

gotta love that dedication to no model no rules. They made sure the thunderhammer stays out for CSM, wouldn't want people to have fun with models that won't even be a competetive thing.

So... how long until ITC/ETC bans Legends?

Hmm - I don't remember Kyrinov appearing in the Index list, so I'm surprised he is in the SoB file.

Yet the IG file just has Rough Riders - none of their OOP characters.

What gives, GW?

Does Legends affect index options for codex units?

Can I still take dual autocannon venerable dreadnoughts?

I'm a bit confused about all of this.

Yes, it hasn't been moved to legends. Apparently they're still in CA2019 and pointed out as normal.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Theres no repressor in the Sororitas list either.

 Dysartes wrote:
Hmm - I don't remember Kyrinov appearing in the Index list, so I'm surprised he is in the SoB file.
Yet the IG file just has Rough Riders - none of their OOP characters.
What gives, GW?

The old IG characters had various unique rules and abilities. Kyrinov lost his a long time ago, he's just a priest with a stick. Plus they were selling his model just a couple of weeks back.

The implication is that if its not in the Legends entry, its a non-dormant datasheet. That's got some *very* interesting implications in the context of things that are and are not in these lists.

So you can all legends use in matched play? A nice day for orks

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I knew it was coming but having custom/scratch built 3 painboys on bikes I am sad to see them basically go away (most poeple in my area will not do power level sadly)

Points are included. Unless the options are considered good, you will still be able to field them. You just got to convince your opponent that they are doing themselves a favor by allowing you to take a sub-part unit and getting to feel good about it!

I was hoping that they might actually *fix* the rules and points costs for these units one last time rather than just putting the existing datasheets in the index into a PDF form. Oh well, I guess we can't complain about free rules. Time to go sell the Index Xenos book I bought.

 Dysartes wrote:
Hmm - I don't remember Kyrinov appearing in the Index list, so I'm surprised he is in the SoB file.

Yet the IG file just has Rough Riders - none of their OOP characters.

What gives, GW?

They just did Kyrinov in made to order, I assume that’s how he snuck in.

No cannoness veridian or any of the deleted DE hq's, :(

So while they say they will have points for Matched but aren't really meant for tournaments, that all but means they will not be allowed in regular games since inevitably the tournament suggestions are treated like Matched Play rules in the name of "balance". If tournaments ban Legends, then I guarantee the majority of Matched Play games will too.

Wayniac wrote:
So while they say they will have points for Matched but aren't really meant for tournaments, that all but means they will not be allowed in regular games since inevitably the tournament suggestions are treated like Matched Play rules in the name of "balance". If tournaments ban Legends, then I guarantee the majority of Matched Play games will too.

if my opponent doesnt want me to use my warboss in mega armor or my sister superior with a SB or my herald of slaanesh on steed they arent someone i would want to play with in the first place

So the bonesinger is now legendary apparently and costs the usual 70pts. Chapter approved lists a new discount price of 55pts...

 warmaster21 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
So while they say they will have points for Matched but aren't really meant for tournaments, that all but means they will not be allowed in regular games since inevitably the tournament suggestions are treated like Matched Play rules in the name of "balance". If tournaments ban Legends, then I guarantee the majority of Matched Play games will too.

if my opponent doesnt want me to use my warboss in mega armor or my sister superior with a SB or my herald of slaanesh on steed they arent someone i would want to play with in the first place

Fair enough, it will of course depend on your group. Just expect it to be something you're expected to ask permission for in the future. It'll likely be treated just like rule of 3 in that sense.

 Dysartes wrote:
Hmm - I don't remember Kyrinov appearing in the Index list, so I'm surprised he is in the SoB file.

Yet the IG file just has Rough Riders - none of their OOP characters.

What gives, GW?

At least some units who were left out of the indexes are now getting 8th edition rules. Still, its a shame they axed rough riders, LoD, and power axes from a lot of units. Those filled important roles in 40k, especially rough riders who were the ig flanking unit and the only viable alternative to sentinels (which kinda suck and are expensive).

I'm just not sure what wargear options means, I assume those wargear options now considered legends? So special weapons squads can't take demolitions charges and DW librarians can't take bolters? Fair enough, I guess, it means you can't do conversions to gain a possible slight advantage anymore. GW is ok with not selling as much green stuff if it makes the hobby more accessible. I say that, but I would be kinda sad if they removed hand flamers as an option for my DW librarian, no more shooting fire from his hands (https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/314801.page). I'm sure everyone with conversions feels the same way. It's one thing to invalidate old models, but it's another to punish creativity.

Actually there is no FW there at all!

That either means that FW got once more NOT informed, OR that FW isn't on the chopping block.

I half-expected them to increase the points on all the units before putting them in Legends, to further discourage their use in matched play.

the_scotsman wrote:
oh boy maybe the old named characters for Drukhari will -

oh, no, nevermind. Just the ability to pay twice the point costs for a bonus attack on my kabalites and wyches.

Thanks GW.

Not even slight adjustments for Trueborn or Bloodbrides? That's super lame I'm sorry about that.

I think the concern about organized play has more to do with future proofing than with the rules as they currently stand. Since these are models with key words and rules that could interact oddly with future rules, they probably want to make it very clear that these are not to be default part of organized play.

Strange how int chap on bike made the cut when regular chap on bike didn't.

 skchsan wrote:
Strange how int chap on bike made the cut when regular chap on bike didn't.

I think they're both in the DA pdf. Regular chappy is p6.

 Polonius wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Strange how int chap on bike made the cut when regular chap on bike didn't.

I think they're both in the DA pdf. Regular chappy is p6.

You're right. Missed page 9.

Still irked that rough riders have basically gone; they are such a unique thing that it's always surprised me they've not produced a kit, especially since it's the only non-VEHICLE fast attack the guard has ever had.

locarno24 wrote:
Still irked that rough riders have basically gone; they are such a unique thing that it's always surprised me they've not produced a kit, especially since it's the only non-VEHICLE fast attack the guard has ever had.

I think it was a minor case of Squat disease: lack of motivation, interest, or creativity to make them work in the modern game. The last citadel models were from 2nd edition, and the Attilan sculpts are what, 25 years old? It's a shame they never figured out a proper replacement or update for them. I loved playing with the riders.

Ahhh just finished painting my chaos lord on bike, hoping it would dodge a bullet. Seems like it's a worrting trend to get rid of kitbashing from the game.

while promoting kitbashing on some of their community posts

 small_gods wrote:
Ahhh just finished painting my chaos lord on bike, hoping it would dodge a bullet. Seems like it's a worrting trend to get rid of kitbashing from the game.

I don't think that's the primary concern. Characters on bikes tend not be a big consideration during rules designs, and so some odd interactions can occur. I think the combination of lack of kits and wanting to tamp down on potentially abusive combinations makes more sense than trying to eliminate kit bashing.

Now, I think they want to reduce the necessity of kit bashing to play a powerful model.

 Roknar wrote:
while promoting kitbashing on some of their community posts

And their codexes.

Looking at you SM Captain on Bike and GMNDK.

IIRC correctly the SM Captain on bike is an option for White Scars, and they re-released that model.

 warmaster21 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
So while they say they will have points for Matched but aren't really meant for tournaments, that all but means they will not be allowed in regular games since inevitably the tournament suggestions are treated like Matched Play rules in the name of "balance". If tournaments ban Legends, then I guarantee the majority of Matched Play games will too.

if my opponent doesnt want me to use my warboss in mega armor or my sister superior with a SB or my herald of slaanesh on steed they arent someone i would want to play with in the first place

I\m sure you don't mind me running 6 detachments and 5 copies of same datasheet. After all equally valid suggestions.

tneva82 wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
So while they say they will have points for Matched but aren't really meant for tournaments, that all but means they will not be allowed in regular games since inevitably the tournament suggestions are treated like Matched Play rules in the name of "balance". If tournaments ban Legends, then I guarantee the majority of Matched Play games will too.

if my opponent doesnt want me to use my warboss in mega armor or my sister superior with a SB or my herald of slaanesh on steed they arent someone i would want to play with in the first place

I\m sure you don't mind me running 6 detachments and 5 copies of same datasheet. After all equally valid suggestions.

I think that's a bit of a false equivalence. Detachment limits and rule of 3 are ways to ensure that matched play games are, you know, fairly matched. Maybe not exactly, but corner cases of unit or detachment spam quickly become broken. Nothing in legends is close to being abusive, OP, or broken.

Even so, the rules for Legends provide points, which right of the bat lets you know that GW considers these appropriate for matched play. How organized play handles it will be up to the organizers, I'd imagine.

*sigh* just after I finished my first 5 converted Rough Riders and bought 6 more...
Anyway, for garagehammer and the likes that should not really be a problem.

I could imagine one reason to axe them was their weird CAVALRY interaction with some LoW rules that allowed falling back over INFANTRY. Together with their cheap cost and relatively large base size you might play some funny positioning games to cheaply trap knights and the like in CC.

 warmaster21 wrote:
No cannoness veridian

codex sisters of battle specificly says just use her a s a canonness with a bolt pistol and power sword


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
I think the concern about organized play has more to do with future proofing than with the rules as they currently stand. Since these are models with key words and rules that could interact oddly with future rules, they probably want to make it very clear that these are not to be default part of organized play.

that's my read too

 Polonius wrote:


I think that's a bit of a false equivalence. Detachment limits and rule of 3 are ways to ensure that matched play games are, you know, fairly matched. Maybe not exactly, but corner cases of unit or detachment spam quickly become broken. Nothing in legends is close to being abusive, OP, or broken.

Even so, the rules for Legends provide points, which right of the bat lets you know that GW considers these appropriate for matched play. How organized play handles it will be up to the organizers, I'd imagine.

i mean, just because you run a list that ignores the rule of 3 doesnt mean its automatically abusive.... If i want to run an aeldari wraith list with more than 3 wraithlords doesnt mean its abusive..
And if legends having points means that GW considers appropriate for matched play, why is no tournament allowing the drukhari Raiding party special rule? after all, its litterally printed in their codex, this means they consider it appropriate for matched play, no? You could even say that they built the codex with that rule in mind.

deviantduck wrote:So... how long until ITC/ETC bans Legends?

who cares

small_gods wrote:Ahhh just finished painting my chaos lord on bike, hoping it would dodge a bullet. Seems like it's a worrting trend to get rid of kitbashing from the game.

not really, narrative play wont be effected

Roknar wrote:while promoting kitbashing on some of their community posts

It wont be removed from the game GW(and my flgs) plays, just the type that feth you players actively trying to break the game play

Racerguy180 wrote:

deviantduck wrote:So... how long until ITC/ETC bans Legends?

who cares

small_gods wrote:Ahhh just finished painting my chaos lord on bike, hoping it would dodge a bullet. Seems like it's a worrting trend to get rid of kitbashing from the game.

not really, narrative play wont be effected

Roknar wrote:while promoting kitbashing on some of their community posts

It wont be removed from the game GW(and my flgs) plays, just the type that feth you players actively trying to break the game play

Agreed. The article even explicitly mentions legends being allowed in matched play (and the files provide points values). So, if someone decides not to use their models it's not GWs problem in this case. Not throwing these options out of the codizes would have been the better option of course, but that's not a question anymore.

I remember GW said they won't be updating Legend points anymore, so while they may be "balanced" for Match Play now, as new material is published, they may end up being either horribly underpowered or incredibly overpowered. So I can understand people saying "I'd rather you didn't use them."

As for me, let me see your list and the datasheet in question and I'll consider whether it's abusive or fine (whether it's Legends or Ro3 or any other "not recommended by GW" option). Most of the time, it'll be the latter, but every so often you get those gamey types who just want to stomp ya.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually there is no FW there at all!

That either means that FW got once more NOT informed, OR that FW isn't on the chopping block.

Or that the fw pdfs will be released in a day or so like in the last big faq.

It confuses me that power axes [and eviscerators] were cut from our inventory when power mauls weren't.

This is slightly irritating, considering I have a small number modified to have power axes, but like it's not a big deal, I just have to wonder what process made them go:

"We're going to have power mauls, but cut power axes."

Considering the new kit was literally just launched, I have to wonder why someone went out of their way to include power mauls as an option for everything in the codex. And how did mauls get chose over axes? Was there a spin-the-bottle?

Losing stormbolters on sergents for SoB is a big hit, it basically cuts out a third of the squads damage potential (at least under blessed bolts) because regular bolters suck.

There's also no good replacement option. Plasma pistols are trash, I don't think we can take inferno pistols or hand flamers (not that you would), combi-flamers, like most flamers, are garbage, and combi-meltas are expensive.

 small_gods wrote:
Ahhh just finished painting my chaos lord on bike, hoping it would dodge a bullet. Seems like it's a worrting trend to get rid of kitbashing from the game.

Mono pose, mono pose, mono pose. Was totally depressed seeing the new sorcerer model has pauldrons molded into the arms. Means no legion specific heraldry.

ERJAK wrote:
Losing stormbolters on sergents for SoB is a big hit, it basically cuts out a third of the squads damage potential (at least under blessed bolts) because regular bolters suck.

Dominions still take 4, so losing 20% of the stratagem that was kind of niche already isn't a huge deal-breaker.

Just got back into 40k with 8th edition so these are all models I bought/converted relying on 8th edition materials...

3x Auto-cannon+las cannon ven dreads (45$ just for the stupid FW auto-cannons)
DA libby on bike
DA master on bike
SW wolf lord on bike
SW libby on bike
5x wolf guard on bikes
Minny tiggy
Minny Shrike

So about 250$ (peanuts for the rough rider guys) removed in valid models + hours of conversion/painting (this hurts the most). For what gain? The game is already an unbalanced piece of gak, I doubt removing a couple options is going to help GW out (maybe they can buff marines more now?). And they wonder why people turn to recasters and pirate their terribly written rules...

Already salty about having to wait months for my boys to get rules so I can put them on the table (DA/SW/DW) without looking like the proverbial red-headed step child and now this.

bananathug wrote:
Just got back into 40k with 8th edition so these are all models I bought/converted relying on 8th edition materials...

3x Auto-cannon+las cannon ven dreads (45$ just for the stupid FW auto-cannons)
DA libby on bike
DA master on bike
SW wolf lord on bike
SW libby on bike
5x wolf guard on bikes
Minny tiggy
Minny Shrike

So about 250$ (peanuts for the rough rider guys) removed in valid models + hours of conversion/painting (this hurts the most). For what gain? The game is already an unbalanced piece of gak, I doubt removing a couple options is going to help GW out (maybe they can buff marines more now?). And they wonder why people turn to recasters and pirate their terribly written rules...

Already salty about having to wait months for my boys to get rules so I can put them on the table (DA/SW/DW) without looking like the proverbial red-headed step child and now this.

Shrike and Tiggy you can just put on a thicker base and call them counts-as.

bananathug wrote:
Just got back into 40k with 8th edition so these are all models I bought/converted relying on 8th edition materials...

3x Auto-cannon+las cannon ven dreads (45$ just for the stupid FW auto-cannons)
DA libby on bike
DA master on bike
SW wolf lord on bike
SW libby on bike
5x wolf guard on bikes
Minny tiggy
Minny Shrike

So about 250$ (peanuts for the rough rider guys) removed in valid models + hours of conversion/painting (this hurts the most). For what gain? The game is already an unbalanced piece of gak, I doubt removing a couple options is going to help GW out (maybe they can buff marines more now?). And they wonder why people turn to recasters and pirate their terribly written rules...

Already salty about having to wait months for my boys to get rules so I can put them on the table (DA/SW/DW) without looking like the proverbial red-headed step child and now this.

If you're not going to tournaments, you'll still be able to use all that stuff.

Legends is basically only a thing for people who go to events. I am one of thise people so I'll be ditching some stuff. People who don't, don't need to worry about it.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 small_gods wrote:
Ahhh just finished painting my chaos lord on bike, hoping it would dodge a bullet. Seems like it's a worrting trend to get rid of kitbashing from the game.

Mono pose, mono pose, mono pose. Was totally depressed seeing the new sorcerer model has pauldrons molded into the arms. Means no legion specific heraldry.

Don't worry, it's plastic you can cut them off and add you own as a kitbash -GWWC Team (probably).

Hate that they talk out of both sides of their mouths. Pick a lane GW.

They should at least have brought the rules in line with the current state if they're never gonna touch these units again. And in CSM case I'm really worried what that means for the future of daemonic mounts or lack thereof :(

ERJAK wrote:
Losing stormbolters on sergents for SoB is a big hit, it basically cuts out a third of the squads damage potential (at least under blessed bolts) because regular bolters suck.

Sure bothers me, since i focused on stormbolters myself at one point. it's nice to lose out on the fire efficiency, really. i knew it was likely, but now it's clear. even more than before ill need a dedicated dominion squad if i ever want to REALLY use the storm bolter strategem now...

Majority of the legends entries are poorly costed - meaning it would be in the tournament goers' best interest not to include them and not necessarilly events banning legends units.

I for one don't see events banning them in the near future.

The primary unit that Orks lost is the Warboss in Mega Armour, which is irritating and utterly breaks any sense of established lore (why would the roughest, toughest Ork NOT wear the best armour Teef could buy?) but we kept KFF Meks (standard) and Biker Bosses, so I'd say it's a wash.

 Roknar wrote:
They should at least have brought the rules in line with the current state if they're never gonna touch these units again. And in CSM case I'm really worried what that means for the future of daemonic mounts or lack thereof :(

I usually don't straighten out my garbage before I throw it in the trash.

bananathug wrote:
Just got back into 40k with 8th edition so these are all models I bought/converted relying on 8th edition materials...

3x Auto-cannon+las cannon ven dreads (45$ just for the stupid FW auto-cannons)
DA libby on bike
DA master on bike
SW wolf lord on bike
SW libby on bike
5x wolf guard on bikes
Minny tiggy
Minny Shrike

So about 250$ (peanuts for the rough rider guys) removed in valid models + hours of conversion/painting (this hurts the most). For what gain? The game is already an unbalanced piece of gak, I doubt removing a couple options is going to help GW out (maybe they can buff marines more now?). And they wonder why people turn to recasters and pirate their terribly written rules...

Already salty about having to wait months for my boys to get rules so I can put them on the table (DA/SW/DW) without looking like the proverbial red-headed step child and now this.

I mean, this sucks, but I think most people had anticipated this when the codex did not include those options. 40k history is rich with conversions that lost rules, unfortunately.

I noticed a line added on: https://www.warhammer-community.com/legends/#age-of-sigmar note this address says age of signal but is also shown. When 40k is selected.

This means that Legends units are not designed for matched play

So they aren’t even just saying don’t use them in tournaments now.

On Signals today, Frontline announced no legends for LVO and stricter paint and base standards.

 deviantduck wrote:
On Signals today, Frontline announced no legends for LVO and stricter paint and base standards.

Oh this is going to be delicious.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I noticed a line added on: https://www.warhammer-community.com/legends/#age-of-sigmar note this address says age of signal but is also shown. When 40k is selected.

This means that Legends units are not designed for matched play

So they aren’t even just saying don’t use them in tournaments now.

the individual sheets say they are appropriate for matched play. AOS is different because they had some wonky issues with points early on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
On Signals today, Frontline announced no legends for LVO and stricter paint and base standards.

Oh this is going to be delicious.

Keep in mind that major tournaments are selling out. Stricter modelling rules were inevitable regardless.

And frankly... at a major competitive event, the only reason to use a Legends model is to exploit some sort of weird loophole, or build an army that wasn't really intended.

 Polonius wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
On Signals today, Frontline announced no legends for LVO and stricter paint and base standards.

Oh this is going to be delicious.

Keep in mind that major tournaments are selling out. Stricter modelling rules were inevitable regardless.

And frankly... at a major competitive event, the only reason to use a Legends model is to exploit some sort of weird loophole, or build an army that wasn't really intended.

I'm looking forward to it, and I support it. No more awful looking armies.

OH BOY, so if i were to ever unbox my old sisters into the field, even moreso than before ill have to go base-extend all the things once that catches on amongst the tournaments, drifting down to the pick-up games, and so on...

 deviantduck wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
On Signals today, Frontline announced no legends for LVO and stricter paint and base standards.

Oh this is going to be delicious.

Keep in mind that major tournaments are selling out. Stricter modelling rules were inevitable regardless.

And frankly... at a major competitive event, the only reason to use a Legends model is to exploit some sort of weird loophole, or build an army that wasn't really intended.

I'm looking forward to it, and I support it. No more awful looking armies.

I am a terrible painter but the standards they presented don’t seem unreasonable, I could easily meet the requirements they put forth in that article.

 deviantduck wrote:
So... how long until ITC/ETC bans Legends?

ETC hasn't allowed index-options and Forge World for a long time. Forge World never, index not since 2017, maybe (?)

ITC is pretty free-form, I think. FLG said they won't use Legends for LVO, etc.., but I think you can run an ITC tournament with Legends without a problem, if you want. (similarly, you could always run an ITC tournament banning index, FW, Orks, whatever before just as easy).

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
So... how long until ITC/ETC bans Legends?

ETC hasn't allowed index-options and Forge World for a long time. Forge World never, index not since 2017, maybe (?)

Neat. Except the forgeworld part.

I continue to be pissed about the Herald on Steed. 1. It's got a model in the kit and 2. It's actually a really good option to give the Herald aura on a fast platform. Now my choices are special characters, a foot herald (who will be outrun), and a Seeker/Exalted Seeker Herald, who is overkill and/or has a massive footprint. How lame!

 LunarSol wrote:

 Roknar wrote:
They should at least have brought the rules in line with the current state if they're never gonna touch these units again. And in CSM case I'm really worried what that means for the future of daemonic mounts or lack thereof :(

I usually don't straighten out my garbage before I throw it in the trash.

oof, the truth can hurt.

Truth allways hurts.

Cue reality meme.

I'm amused that there's an entire "Inquisition" PDF just for the Null Rod.

 deviantduck wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
So... how long until ITC/ETC bans Legends?

ETC hasn't allowed index-options and Forge World for a long time. Forge World never, index not since 2017, maybe (?)

Neat. Except the forgeworld part.

Remember resin>plastic and is magic.

That's why my 5 resin mark V csm always perform better than my plastic csm. They're MAGIC.

So they're no longer intended for Matched play, yet they list points values. The metric used solely for Matched play
*narrows eyes*

-

 Galef wrote:
So they're no longer intended for Matched play, yet they list points values. The metric used solely for Matched play
*narrows eyes*

-

Indeed strange.
As if they were minimalisticly done.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm amused that there's an entire "Inquisition" PDF just for the Null Rod.

...which never even had a model!

Not Online!!! wrote:
Truth allways hurts.

Cue reality meme.

Better than queuing Stelek.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Truth allways hurts.

Cue reality meme.

Better than queuing Stelek.

I had no idea what that one meant.
I looked it up.

Not dissapointed

Bdrone wrote:
OH BOY, so if i were to ever unbox my old sisters into the field, even moreso than before ill have to go base-extend all the things once that catches on amongst the tournaments, drifting down to the pick-up games, and so on...

I've been doing just that.

BrianDavion wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:
No cannoness veridian

codex sisters of battle specificly says just use her a s a canonness with a bolt pistol and power sword

And if my <insert> codex told me to use <insert random named character who currently does or does not have rules> as a generic HQ choice i would be just as fethed off.

 Polonius wrote:

And frankly... at a major competitive event, the only reason to use a Legends model is to exploit some sort of weird loophole, or build an army that wasn't really intended.

A player builds an army from a list of sources from the people who created the game...and that army wasnt intended to be played?

The bs is strong with this one.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The primary unit that Orks lost is the Warboss in Mega Armour, which is irritating and utterly breaks any sense of established lore (why would the roughest, toughest Ork NOT wear the best armour Teef could buy?) but we kept KFF Meks (standard) and Biker Bosses, so I'd say it's a wash.

Because apparently armour is a commodity that only marines have access to :I It wouldn't surprise me that the BLOODY MAGPIES (Blood Ravens) looted them all.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

And frankly... at a major competitive event, the only reason to use a Legends model is to exploit some sort of weird loophole, or build an army that wasn't really intended.

A player builds an army from a list of sources from the people who created the game...and that army wasnt intended to be played?

The bs is strong with this one.

You act like GW has never said "there were some unintended consequences of this unit/rule interaction that some players took advantage of to gain an unfair advantage".

So my only long range weapons are two dreads with two autocannons each, Does this mean they are no longer legal? Because if yes, this is really stupid.

 Grimskul wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The primary unit that Orks lost is the Warboss in Mega Armour, which is irritating and utterly breaks any sense of established lore (why would the roughest, toughest Ork NOT wear the best armour Teef could buy?) but we kept KFF Meks (standard) and Biker Bosses, so I'd say it's a wash.

Because apparently armour is a commodity that only marines have access to :I It wouldn't surprise me that the BLOODY MAGPIES (Blood Ravens) looted them all.

... so THATS where all my bolter variants, the jetpack i ordered, and the generic mega pulpit ran off to for my canoness, who is one of the highest ranking slots in the ministorum...

...im almost willing to crusade alongside orks to get the shiny stuff back.

-Unit or wargear option doesn't go from Index to Codex.

-GW states that things that didn't make the jump will be "Legends" and not recommended for Matched Play.

-GW does what they said.

-Players act surprised and outraged.

Well then why didn't they put the thunderfire techmarine in to the GK codex. they put the normal version in. There is no model for a GK techmarine, so it is not like it is the lack of a GK specific model.

They have the psycannon razorback in the codex, but there is no model for it, shouldn't that be an legend option too?

I ain't GW, so I don't have the answers you're looking for. Send them an email and find out. I honestly don't know why some models became Legends and others didn't. I also don't know why some made the Codex jump and others didn't. I just know that when Legends was announced, I made the decision to start phasing out any non-Codex option in my army, just in case.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I knew it was coming but having custom/scratch built 3 painboys on bikes I am sad to see them basically go away (most poeple in my area will not do power level sadly) also all of the buggies and wartraxx are now just gone. my 2 cutom mega armor warbosses I can just run as warbosses but they to will be hampered.

my 12 og big gunz for orks won't make good terrain liek the buggies btu i guess the crew models can jsut be ammo runts.

I run my buggies and tracks as warbikes. The names of the two crewmen? 'Slugga' and 'Choppa'.

Karol wrote:
Well then why didn't they put the thunderfire techmarine in to the GK codex. they put the normal version in. There is no model for a GK techmarine, so it is not like it is the lack of a GK specific model.

They have the psycannon razorback in the codex, but there is no model for it, shouldn't that be an legend option too?

Best guess is they intend to sell those models at some point in the future and they're low risk for copy since they're fairly specific.

"The rules here can be used in any type of play – open, narrative or matched, and full points are provided to help you balance your forces."


They are allowed for normal matched, it says so clearly. Several people here are lamenting that they cannon any longer use these models. Yes you can, just don't invent houserules that ban them.

I was going through my old models recently to go with my new Sisters and I am pleased to see that Kyrinov, Uriah Jacobus and the venerable preacher with a plasma gun can still continue to serve the Emperor.

This seems to say otherwise...

Edit: why was the picture so big...

Well, what the actual rules say is the thing that matters, and they say they're fine for matched.

 Polonius wrote:
And frankly... at a major competitive event, the only reason to use a Legends model is to exploit some sort of weird loophole, or build an army that wasn't really intended.

Yeah, why would anyone want to use the previously-legal models they bought and painted as part of an army assembled over the course of years, let alone want to participate in a major event with them?

Just throw them out and buy a new netlist to follow the meta, scrub.

What you and your pals decide to do is up to you. You could play with the original point costs for everything, if you wanted. But T.O.s are free to run their tournaments as they want (and will likely disallow Legends), and there's a fair chance any rando pick-up opponent you come across is also gonna not want to see them.

But, again, 90% of people are reasonable and if you talk to em, they'll probably be fine with it.

 Crimson wrote:
Well, what the actual rules say is the thing that matters, and they say they're fine for matched.

Agreed. Not being "designed" or "intended" for Matched play is irrelevant. The rules PDFs say the units and options can be used in Matched play AND they give points values. Only Matched play uses points.

So imma gonna continue using my Autarch Skyrunners with Banshee masks and Reaper launchers in Matched play. Especially since BOTH the unit and the options ARE in the Codex and will thus continue to be supported but Chapter Approved changes.

-

That's nice. In reality, something like 75% of 40k players take GW "recommendations" as rules (ex: Ro3), so I would still discuss it with your opponents first and be prepared if they say "no". Playing a game and having fun without using certain models is certainly worse than not playing at all, packing up your models, and going home.

At least in the codices that I use (DG, TS, Daemons, CSM), nothing seems too overpowered, so I don't see why use in matched play and competitive tournaments is such an issue. I highly doubt that the palanquin lord will be a game-breaker any time soon. Also, because of its inclusion in Legends, should I buy and convert a Chaos Lord on Juggernaut? It's such a cool model and I'm glad it was included, but the doom and gloom of this thread has me thinking otherwise.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
At least in the codices that I use (DG, TS, Daemons, CSM), nothing seems too overpowered, so I don't see why use in matched play and competitive tournaments is such an issue. I highly doubt that the palanquin lord will be a game-breaker any time soon. Also, because of its inclusion in Legends, should I buy and convert a Chaos Lord on Juggernaut? It's such a cool model and I'm glad it was included, but the doom and gloom of this thread has me thinking otherwise.

As far as competitive tournaments go, what any of us think is irrelevant unless you're running one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

"The rules here can be used in any type of play – open, narrative or matched, and full points are provided to help you balance your forces."


They are allowed for normal matched, it says so clearly. Several people here are lamenting that they cannon any longer use these models. Yes you can, just don't invent houserules that ban them.

I was going through my old models recently to go with my new Sisters and I am pleased to see that Kyrinov, Uriah Jacobus and the venerable preacher with a plasma gun can still continue to serve the Emperor.

It's not a houserule to ban them from competitive events. It's a GW reccomendation. Same as the rule of 3.

My suggestion is still the same, Arcane: talk to your opponents/T.O. first before fielding a list that features something that GW has said "isn't recommended for Matched Play." Saying "well the rules say I can" ain't gonna help ya much if people refuse to play ya. You've held the RAW high ground and gained nothing.

I want the stupid wolf bikers gone, so this is fine with me. I feel bad for Ork HQs, but spiting the SW takes priority to me.

ERJAK wrote:

It's not a houserule to ban them from competitive events. It's a GW reccomendation. Same as the rule of 3.

Sure. But using it outside such events is a houserule. I was talking about notmal casual matched games.

What I was getting at that a lot of people were lamenting loss of these models. But that is a choice. Talk with your local players, I'm sure many of them have Legends models they want to use as well. Or Forgeworld models. And then just agree to not ban those models! Problem fething solved!

Copied from the SM PDF:
[i]Warhammer Legends will not form part of our ongoing balance
review for the wider Warhammer 40,000 game – and we don’t
recommend Legends units for competitive tournaments. This
means that event organisers and attendees alike can guarantee
that everything they’re gaming with is easily available to
everyone and has been subject to the same rigorous balance and
playtesting process.[/i]

Lol.... I wasn't aware that it was April 1st already.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
So while they say they will have points for Matched but aren't really meant for tournaments, that all but means they will not be allowed in regular games since inevitably the tournament suggestions are treated like Matched Play rules in the name of "balance". If tournaments ban Legends, then I guarantee the majority of Matched Play games will too.

if my opponent doesnt want me to use my warboss in mega armor or my sister superior with a SB or my herald of slaanesh on steed they arent someone i would want to play with in the first place

I\m sure you don't mind me running 6 detachments and 5 copies of same datasheet. After all equally valid suggestions.

Nope. Why should I? Anything you can do I can do as well.

Slaul wrote:
Does Legends affect index options for codex units?

Can I still take dual autocannon venerable dreadnoughts?

I'm a bit confused about all of this.

This also has me a bit confused because it says:

"The datasheets from Codex: Space Marines that are listed below are
updated as follows:"

It specifically calls out the data sheets from the codex and that those codex data sheets are updated to add those wargear options, so are those now considered Legends rules or are they actually updating the codex entries through Legends? I would guess the former, but some official clarity would be nice.

The Indices are now obsolete. The added options are Legends content, as they're in the Legends PDF. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 Crimson wrote:
The Indices are now obsolete. The added options are Legends content, as they're in the Legends PDF. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Agreed. Think of it this way Mud Turkey, if you are NOT using Legends, the Codex entry remains unaltered. But if you ARE using Legends, modify the Codex entry as instructed.
So as long as you and your opponent are cool using Legends options, Quadocannon Dreads are a go!

-

 flandarz wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

And frankly... at a major competitive event, the only reason to use a Legends model is to exploit some sort of weird loophole, or build an army that wasn't really intended.

A player builds an army from a list of sources from the people who created the game...and that army wasnt intended to be played?

The bs is strong with this one.

You act like GW has never said "there were some unintended consequences of this unit/rule interaction that some players took advantage of to gain an unfair advantage".

Yeah, those unintended super powerful Chaplains on a bike are gone! Oh and those super broken Trueborn, what with their TWO attacks!

 Polonius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
So while they say they will have points for Matched but aren't really meant for tournaments, that all but means they will not be allowed in regular games since inevitably the tournament suggestions are treated like Matched Play rules in the name of "balance". If tournaments ban Legends, then I guarantee the majority of Matched Play games will too.

if my opponent doesnt want me to use my warboss in mega armor or my sister superior with a SB or my herald of slaanesh on steed they arent someone i would want to play with in the first place

I\m sure you don't mind me running 6 detachments and 5 copies of same datasheet. After all equally valid suggestions.

I think that's a bit of a false equivalence. Detachment limits and rule of 3 are ways to ensure that matched play games are, you know, fairly matched. Maybe not exactly, but corner cases of unit or detachment spam quickly become broken. Nothing in legends is close to being abusive, OP, or broken.

Even so, the rules for Legends provide points, which right of the bat lets you know that GW considers these appropriate for matched play. How organized play handles it will be up to the organizers, I'd imagine.

Legends are models that help your army if possible and oop. Easy pay to win claim. And all sujgestions have same weight. So if you oppose one othbrs can just as validly oppose others. No cherry picking


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

deviantduck wrote:So... how long until ITC/ETC bans Legends?

who cares

small_gods wrote:Ahhh just finished painting my chaos lord on bike, hoping it would dodge a bullet. Seems like it's a worrting trend to get rid of kitbashing from the game.

not really, narrative play wont be effected

Roknar wrote:while promoting kitbashing on some of their community posts

It wont be removed from the game GW(and my flgs) plays, just the type that feth you players actively trying to break the game play

Agreed. The article even explicitly mentions legends being allowed in matched play (and the files provide points values). So, if someone decides not to use their models it's not GWs problem in this case. Not throwing these options out of the codizes would have been the better option of course, but that's not a question anymore.

And for matched play no detachment limit and no ro3. Yet tournament suggestions are generally accepted standard


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually there is no FW there at all!

That either means that FW got once more NOT informed, OR that FW isn't on the chopping block.

Seeing fw doesn't handle 40k rules for their models what informing them would accomplish?

And isn't twin autocannon arm for dreadnought fw?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Well, what the actual rules say is the thing that matters, and they say they're fine for matched.

Agreed. Not being "designed" or "intended" for Matched play is irrelevant. The rules PDFs say the units and options can be used in Matched play AND they give points values. Only Matched play uses points.

So imma gonna continue using my Autarch Skyrunners with Banshee masks and Reaper launchers in Matched play. Especially since BOTH the unit and the options ARE in the Codex and will thus continue to be supported but Chapter Approved changes.

-

Rules for Matched play i can bring 6 flying hive tyrants. Going to fly with you?

Howabout 5 det's? Matched play legal

Huh, Tyranid Shrikes weren't here :( I am strangely hoping they come back, (although they kind of make raveners pointless...)

If I was a TO I would go whole hog and just dont accept anything non-codex. I.E. No legends, No campaign books, No FW books, No supplamne tbooks or WD.

(If it ain't in the current codex it ain't in. Apart from core mechanics FAQs)

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Huh, Tyranid Shrikes weren't here :( I am strangely hoping they come back, (although they kind of make raveners pointless...)

Have they had 8th ed rules? If not they were never coming back here. This is just moving stuff from index to this. Units that dissapeared pre-8th ed aren't getting new datasheets.

As I said way back, I may not use my legends units much but all my lists will have the clause they may have them in it. I'm not going to not run my Rough Riders, or Bike Characters, etc, etc.

Someone said 70% of players wouldn't allow it, well they can take a flying leap, I'll play with the 30% that actually kept their brain. If they are more afraid of Legends units than the actual op trash GW randomly toss out, they have more issues than Legends in an army list.

If anything use it as a test for how reasonable someone is, though Legends and index options have 100% acceptance around where I play.

 flandarz wrote:
-Unit or wargear option doesn't go from Index to Codex.

-GW states that things that didn't make the jump will be "Legends" and not recommended for Matched Play.

-GW does what they said.

-Players act surprised and outraged.

You're implying that the people acting outraged were, at some point, in agreement with GW. They were not.

Slowly phasing out old/bad/unsupported models is inevitable unless we want 0 new units. Maybe they havent chosen the correct units flr every army though but Legends by itself I see nothing wrong with. We have way too many units in some of the armies to keep track of, especially Imperium, so removing some is good. I hope they add a bunch of FW units to legends as well to tr down the bloat a bit.

Only read the BA and SM one so far and have nothing against those choices except why not just remove the whole datasheet instead of just the JP option for BA. We already have a BA unique apothecary, Ancient and veterans no need to have the vanilla version too.

Only thing I will be sad to se go is the weapon options on the Sanguinary Priest. If they at least had added some nice chain sword relics for BA in the PA book the priest could take I would have been happier with the decision.

Im not gonna play Legends and I hope TOs will not use it as well. Not because its OP but just to make it easier for everyone to limit the sheer quantity of Datasheets and options. Same reason I wouldnt mind a FW ban in tournaments. Nothing about being OP or p2w but just to keep it easier for everyone.

tneva82 wrote:

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Huh, Tyranid Shrikes weren't here :( I am strangely hoping they come back, (although they kind of make raveners pointless...)

Have they had 8th ed rules? If not they were never coming back here. This is just moving stuff from index to this. Units that dissapeared pre-8th ed aren't getting new datasheets.

Shrikes were in the Tyranid index at the beginning of 8th, and was effectively the warrior datasheet with extra movement and the fly keyword. (and slight bump in points in fast attack slot so you had synapse in every slot)

Hmm well that's odd then. So we have models in legends that never had model for some but not for others. That is odd. It would not have been odd if they never had rules in 8th ed but now I'm out of ideas

Lol wtf is this release even?

No rules for Shrikes, Skyslashers, Big Mek with KFF or Charioted Heralds of Slaanesh.

Why? Like seriously, why? Why are these not included? They had rules in their respective Indexes.

How pathetic, all GeeDubs had to do was take the stuff that didn't carry over from the indexes to codexes and put it to these. They couldn't even manage that.

Yeah I know its just a few units and options and not really some big loss, but the lack of them stll kinda irks me if only for the bloody principle of it. They had models, they had rules, they should be on these.

Big mek w/KFF has entry in CA2019. So ATM we have no datasheet but it's coming. Likely with new model since GW is not fan of rules without models. Ditto for warboss on bike.

So for KFF big mek orks got lucky. We got better than entry in legends. We got entry in fully tournament valid section Now just need the actual datasheet so we can actually use it...

Agreed on rest though.

If the model didn't get moved from Index into Legends there is most likely a model on the way. Stuff that went into Legends is stuff they have given up on completely.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah, those unintended super powerful Chaplains on a bike are gone! Oh and those super broken Trueborn, what with their TWO attacks!

We literally just had an FAQ from GW about a FW unit that was "too strong" when combined with the IH stuff. So, while the options you mentioned likely aren't an issue NOW, they could become issues in the future as GW continues to release more content. And, since GW said they won't be supporting Legends anymore, that'll mean no FAQs, Errata, or point changes for these units.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Someone said 70% of players wouldn't allow it, well they can take a flying leap, I'll play with the 30% that actually kept their brain. If they are more afraid of Legends units than the actual op trash GW randomly toss out, they have more issues than Legends in an army list.

I suppose I misspoke. It's actually more like 75% of gaming groups. And I also said that most people are gonna be reasonable if you TALK TO THEM about it first. That said, there's two good reasons not to use Legends. 1) They are no longer gonna be supported by GW. Which means no point balances, no FAQs, and no Errata for them. So, if GW releases content which "breaks" something in Legends, you can have a pretty big problem. 2) since the models and wargear are out of production, new players don't have access to these "tools", creating an uneven playing field.

Mmmpi wrote:You're implying that the people acting outraged were, at some point, in agreement with GW. They were not.

What I was trying to imply was that everyone had 6 months or so to prepare for this. So why are they acting surprised that GW did the thing they said they were gonna do?

Where do you take that number from? I'm pretty sure you made it up. I could say 95% of the gaming groups will allow legends and that claim would be just as convincing.
Every player with a legacy model has an interest in keeping legends alive, imo that's at least every SM, Ork, Eldar and CSM player( I don't know what other factions get from legends). And those make up more than 25% of the playerbase I'm sure.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Where do you take that number from? I'm pretty sure you made it up. I could say 95% of the gaming groups will allow legends and that claim would be just as convincing.
Every player with a legacy model has an interest in keeping legends alive, imo that's at least every SM, Ork, Eldar and CSM player( I don't know what other factions get from legends). And those make up more than 25% of the playerbase I'm sure.

I own ton of legacy models and have zero interest in keeping Legends alive as I do prefer the games I play to be somewhat standardized. The legacy models I have are now just going to be put into my display cabinet and I am perfectly fine with that.

Ie. there are people who own legacy models who will want to keep legends forever and others who don't.

 Argive wrote:
If I was a TO I would go whole hog and just dont accept anything non-codex. I.E. No legends, No campaign books, No FW books, No supplamne tbooks or WD.

(If it ain't in the current codex it ain't in. Apart from core mechanics FAQs)

Because feth CSM players and their Contemptors, but they’re fine for loyalists to take as they’re in the codex.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Where do you take that number from? I'm pretty sure you made it up. I could say 95% of the gaming groups will allow legends and that claim would be just as convincing.
Every player with a legacy model has an interest in keeping legends alive, imo that's at least every SM, Ork, Eldar and CSM player( I don't know what other factions get from legends). And those make up more than 25% of the playerbase I'm sure.

Well for starters ETC banned index(and this is just index renamed). This means every tournament has had index banned. Which means I haven't had random pick up games where index is OK in like 2 years. Would need to agree on that in advance.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Where do you take that number from? I'm pretty sure you made it up. I could say 95% of the gaming groups will allow legends and that claim would be just as convincing.
Every player with a legacy model has an interest in keeping legends alive, imo that's at least every SM, Ork, Eldar and CSM player( I don't know what other factions get from legends). And those make up more than 25% of the playerbase I'm sure.

The last time we did a poll on Ro3 (a few months ago, iirc), it worked out as about 70-75% saying either "I will only ever play this way" or "I prefer to play this way, but will make allowances." That's where I get my "75% use GW suggestions as rules" data.

Okay, I can understand that.
I'm still doubtful, rule of 3 is a rule to balance the game, disallowing legends means people can't use their toys. Yes,somehow that goes for ro3, too, when you had your 5 Flyrants, but I'd just say legends models have less of an impact on the game and at the same time more people have legends models, while fewer people actually had units more than 3 times. This makes me think it won't be as widely accepted as the suggestion of 3.
One could also say Ro3 was a reasonable suggestion, disallowing legends is not but that's just my opinion

That's fair, and I agree that, at least for now, it probably won't be a problem. But 6 months from now, GW could release some new rule that causes a Legend option to be "too good".

My suggestion is still the same: talk to your gaming group about it. If they're all fine with it, you're golden. But don't just roll up on em with these "not suggested for Matched Play" units and act surprised if someone you ain't talked to about it gives you the side-eye.

Personally I won't have a problem at all. Even if GW had thrown out all the legacy models I would have simply written an own Dataheet and would have no problem using it in my gaming group. But from what I read on dakka that's probably not possible for everyone. And for these people I consider it important to make clear it's just a suggestion to not use them in tournaments, according to GW they're totally playable for Matched.

 flandarz wrote:

Mmmpi wrote:You're implying that the people acting outraged were, at some point, in agreement with GW. They were not.

What I was trying to imply was that everyone had 6 months or so to prepare for this. So why are they acting surprised that GW did the thing they said they were gonna do?

It's less that they're acting surprised, and more that they are even angrier about the results now that they've seen them.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Personally I won't have a problem at all. Even if GW had thrown out all the legacy models I would have simply written an own Dataheet and would have no problem using it in my gaming group. But from what I read on dakka that's probably not possible for everyone. And for these people I consider it important to make clear it's just a suggestion to not use them in tournaments, according to GW they're totally playable for Matched.

Well according to gw 6 detachments and 6 datasheets is also totally playable for matched

@Mmmpi: still, this kinda feels like GW threw us a bone. As far as I'm aware, in previous editions, GW would just remove the unit/option altogether if they stopped producing it. So, I can't much be mad with keeping the option to use my toys, even if most tournaments are gonna disallow them.

@Cortez: I would just do what I already do when I'm looking to play someone new: ask them the "big 3" questions. "Do you use Ro3?" "You cool with FW?" "How about Legends?" That'll save ya a whole lotta irritation in the long run.

tneva82 wrote:


Well according to gw 6 detachments and 6 datasheets is also totally playable for matched

I *love* the smell of disingenuous arguments in the morning.

Karol wrote:
Well then why didn't they put the thunderfire techmarine in to the GK codex. they put the normal version in. There is no model for a GK techmarine, so it is not like it is the lack of a GK specific model.

They have the psycannon razorback in the codex, but there is no model for it, shouldn't that be an legend option too?

GK never had thunderfire because they don't have artillery in general. They are not IF, sieges is not how they operate.

As for psycannon razorback, what's that then?

 flandarz wrote:
something like 75% of 40k players take GW "recommendations" as rules (ex: Ro3)

Maybe, just maybe, people accept this as a rule because they are tired of TG spamming OP units (while smugly proclaiming "this is totes balanced, guv" and "just playing as INTENDED") and the rule of 3 is easy way of stopping that nonsense. I can't see most people minding Legends (unless someone finds broken wombo-combo in there) because nothing in there that I saw is even remotely on that level. It's as if context mattered, funny that...

And I still find it both weird and hilarious that we nearly have 2020 yet there are still people salty they can't WAAAC spamming most broken unit of the book exclusively to ruin the game for both players, especially seeing rule of 3 was always a thing in the history of 40K.

 Polonius wrote:
I think the concern about organized play has more to do with future proofing than with the rules as they currently stand. Since these are models with key words and rules that could interact oddly with future rules, they probably want to make it very clear that these are not to be default part of organized play.

I don't see anything problematic there, certainly nothing on the scale of FW pay-to-win garbage (because stratagem buffing 80 pts dread will be totally balanced on 500 pts one that was never meant to have it, eh?). If GW keeps tiptoeing around that and nerfing core book rules instead of just plainly denying OP units access to them (essentially nerfing the 80 pts model, not the 500 pts one) I fail to see how they will block Legends.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Because feth CSM players and their Contemptors, but they’re fine for loyalists to take as they’re in the codex.

Seeing GW contemptor has worse statline (which is laughable, FW one should have the same) and vastly worse weapons, yup, good riddance. FW contemptors are slightly less problematic than deredeo/leviathan, but seeing they make multiple Codex units instantly obsolete (especially Predators), I'd be fine with them being banned.

And I am still puzzled why people wanting to spam broken crap think hiding behind bad units, be they GW or FW, does anything. No, we're not talking about GW contemptor, which is mostly fine. We're talking about actually broken junk, please don't change the topic.

In the USA, a big factor will be what ITC decides to use for the big tournaments. If they allow Legends (and they might, comp players love their cheesey combos) then it will be accepted in gaming groups and stores across the country. If not, then you'll have a few places but most won't allow it.

Same like the Rule of 3/3 Detachments is an organized play rule, not a matched play rule, and yet 99% of the time when discussing lists it's assumed to be in effect and people will bring a list up as being illegal for breaking it, even if the OP never mentioned anything about a tournament. It's just the assumption that it's a default game rule and always in effect, even though it's just a suggestion for organized events.

The sad reality is what is accepted as "tournament standard" often becomes "game standard" in many, many cases. This won't be any different. The fact they all but say it shouldn't be in tournaments doesn't make me confident that you'll see them allowed as the default. Sure, not everyone will adhere to that but allowing Legends will become the exception and not the norm.

What Wayniak said. If your group is fine with it, good on ya. If they're not, it ain't gonna do ya no good to kick your feet and be salty over it.

Why do so many threads on this forum always dissolve into Open Players vs. Standardized Rules players?

I prefer that everyone use the generally agreed upon rules.

V.

I bought these toys and I demand to be allowed to use them however I want.

 flandarz wrote:
@Mmmpi: still, this kinda feels like GW threw us a bone. As far as I'm aware, in previous editions, GW would just remove the unit/option altogether if they stopped producing it. So, I can't much be mad with keeping the option to use my toys, even if most tournaments are gonna disallow them.

Yeah, the problem is that the bone they threw me is my own femur.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why do so many threads on this forum always dissolve into Open Players vs. Standardized Rules players?

I prefer that everyone use the generally agreed upon rules.

V.

I bought these toys and I demand to be allowed to use them however I want.

Because in the end that's what it boils down to. It doesn't matter what people want or what GW says, it matters what the community (both the local and larger) decide is "standard" since it's incredibly hard to get people to agree to anything outside of that narrow band.

Blame people so narrow-minded that they don't ever want to deviate from "tournament standard". It was a problem decades ago, and it's still a problem.

tneva82 wrote:

Rules for Matched play i can bring 6 flying hive tyrants. Going to fly with you?

Howabout 5 det's? Matched play legal

Yes, these are matched play legal. What's your point?

Sure, if the first thing that you want to do in absence of tournament suggestions is to bring most WAAC tryhard things then it suggest playing with you might not be that much fun; but presumably you'd bring the most WAAC tryhard tournament-compatible list if those rules were in place, so it is not the rules or lack of them which might be the issue, it is the attitude.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

I bought these toys and I demand to be allowed to use them however I want.

That's not remotely the disagreement going on here, and you know it.

The issue is that the "generally agreed upon rules" are extremely subjective. Every gaming group does things differently. According the the Ro3 poll, at least 25% don't use that rule. This is why I suggest talking to your group about it. Cuz 99% of the time, those are the folks you'll be playing with, and it doesn't matter what GW (or any rando on the internet) says of you and your pals want to do things your own way.

At the same time, if your group decides not to use Legends, but you want to, you can either accept that, get salty, or find another group. And of the three choices, I'd say the latter two are not ideal.

Wayniac wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why do so many threads on this forum always dissolve into Open Players vs. Standardized Rules players?

I prefer that everyone use the generally agreed upon rules.

V.

I bought these toys and I demand to be allowed to use them however I want.

Because in the end that's what it boils down to. It doesn't matter what people want or what GW says, it matters what the community (both the local and larger) decide is "standard" since it's incredibly hard to get people to agree to anything outside of that narrow band.

Blame people so narrow-minded that they don't ever want to deviate from "tournament standard". It was a problem decades ago, and it's still a problem.

I don't see that in my local group. If you want to bring a silly list of 10 daemon princes that's fine, good fun even, when you're playing a casual game at the store. You're not allowed to bring it to tournaments because it's hard to balance and can be abused. That's fine.

My problem with legends is that it's not been made out of balance considerations. Nobody was stressed at seeing a Chaos Lord on Juggernaut at the other side of the table. It's been made because GW can make more money if they dissuade kitbashing and 3rd party purchases.

 Crimson wrote:
The Indices are now obsolete. The added options are Legends content, as they're in the Legends PDF. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Is that official? I didn't see anything in the announcement or on the Legends page saying explicitly that the Indexes aren't valid anymore.

 flandarz wrote:
The issue is that the "generally agreed upon rules" are extremely subjective. Every gaming group does things differently. According the the Ro3 poll, at least 25% don't use that rule. This is why I suggest talking to your group about it. Cuz 99% of the time, those are the folks you'll be playing with, and it doesn't matter what GW (or any rando on the internet) says of you and your pals want to do things your own way.

At the same time, if your group decides not to use Legends, but you want to, you can either accept that, get salty, or find another group. And of the three choices, I'd say the latter two are not ideal.

Also this, I've been to groups where if I bring Magnus in a fluffy T Sons and Tzeentch Dameon list I het grief because 'Lords of War are OP'!

The Newman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The Indices are now obsolete. The added options are Legends content, as they're in the Legends PDF. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Is that official? I didn't see anything in the announcement or on the Legends page saying explicitly that the Indexes aren't valid anymore.

No, they didn't explicitly say it, but pretty much everything from the Indices has now been reprinted elsewhere. There just isn't anything left.

tneva82 wrote:
Hmm well that's odd then. So we have models in legends that never had model for some but not for others. That is odd. It would not have been odd if they never had rules in 8th ed but now I'm out of ideas

It's just a standard minimum-effort bit by GW to try and distract from the quiet removal of options.

Legends really could have been a cool thing. It would have been really neat to see some of the wacky, old school out of print models getting narrative only rules for 40k. Just off the top of my head, we could have seen rules for:

-Zoats
-Ork Digganobz
-Squat/Demiurg
-GSC Limos
-Deleted Drukhari named characters
-Harlequin Mimes
-Deleted Corsairs units
-Black Templars old codex options
-Old inquisition options like Plasma Talons, xenotech, Xenos mercenaries with shuriken weaponry, etc
-Madboyz
-Deleted imperial guard characters like al raheim
-Adeptus Arbites
-Any number of deleted very old characters like Brother Bethor, Sapphon, Legion of the Damned Sergeant Centurius and dreadnoughts, Durfast of Mordrak, Ranulf, Cardinal Hellfire, etc etc.

They could have created a fun old nostalgia trip for beardy hobby grognards, instead they didn't even give us back all the options we had just before the dawn of this edition :/

 Crimson wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The Indices are now obsolete. The added options are Legends content, as they're in the Legends PDF. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Is that official? I didn't see anything in the announcement or on the Legends page saying explicitly that the Indexes aren't valid anymore.

No, they didn't explicitly say it, but pretty much everything from the Indices has now been reprinted elsewhere. There just isn't anything left.

As far as Im concerned the current edition flowchart FAQ still stands as thats a core rules thing... The community article seems very self contratictory so My view is until they FAQ it doesnt really change anything. CA 19 points still take precendence. Not sure what my LGS tourney policy will be as we are discusing it.
I think we may well se a new legends format if they going to go down this route. If someone has spent time effort and money converting a cool model im sure as hell not going to try and stop them using it.
Theres more balance issues steming out of the supplament stupidity now meta wise, then index options ever did IMO lol. It is what it is: ENjoy less options and just stfu and go buy more space marines scrubs..

the_scotsman wrote:


They could have created a fun old nostalgia trip for beardy hobby grognards, instead they didn't even give us back all the options we had just before the dawn of this edition :/

Yeah, certainly. I was really hoping this would have been much more comprehensive.

The big thing to remember is that GW isn't gonna touch Legends again until next edition. So, while I personally believe they are well priced and balanced at the moment, that could change in the future and GW will do nothing to address it. My gaming group has decided that Legends are ok, for now, and that we'll consider whether or not to keep them as new material is published.

Everybody still wanting to play with your Legends options, what do yo do in the scenario in which all (for example) non-legends power mauls get a points increase, and your Legends unit(s) with power maul(s) doesn’t play with that increase. You now have an unfair advantage of cheaper power maul. Are you shelving your unit?

 Apple Peel wrote:
Everybody still wanting to play with your Legends options, what do yo do in the scenario in which all (for example) non-legends power mauls get a points increase, and your Legends unit(s) with power maul(s) doesn’t play with that increase. You now have an unfair advantage of cheaper power maul. Are you shelving your unit?

Well, most of the options I've seen with rules in the codex do NOT have points in Legends. For example, Librarians can take combi-weapons through Legends only, but the points for combi-weapons are in the Codex still. No points values for combi-weapon exist through Legends (for Marines at least)

So in your example, there would only be a points discrepancy if Power Mauls BOTH
A) have a points entry in your Codex (or the Munitorum Filed Manual for you faction) and
B) the Legends entry has a points value for Power Mauls too
But so far, I can't find any example of a situation like this

Another example is Eldar Autarchs. Legends gives them options for Reaper launchers, Banshee masks and other wargear options that are MANDATORY to represent how Autarchs are former Aspect warriors, but many of those options do not have point in the Legends PDF, because they are in the Codex, which will get updates.

A counter example is Twin Autocannons for Dreads, which do not have an entry at all in any Marine Codex, so the 20ppm cost for them in Legends will NEVER have a discrepancy. It's the final cost, period.

-

What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

My experience in the local meta is that pickup-games of 40k are dead. There's just way too much imbalance.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

Yeah, I agree. And what's worse, it has further divided an already divided group. I remember in 7E in my area, there were 2 kinds of games: RAW 40K and ITC, which loosely translated it casual vs competitive. The "raw"/casual players just wanted to play out of the book as-is, while the tourney players gravitated towards ITC-style house rules. And that was fine because you could kinda feel out which player was which and just have 2 lists ready for either.

But now? Well, no one really plays Open/Narrative, but Matched play hardly has any consistency either. Are you using the organized play "suggestions", Ro3, max 3 detachments? Will you allow Legends now that the door is more open to deny it?
I have no issues discussing a game beforehand, in fact, discussing the game as a whole while playing is part of the fun for me. But I do miss the days in which everyone was limited to a single FOC with a single faction and you could just start throwing dice without debating a 5 page thesis on the merits of which style of play you desire.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My experience in the local meta is that pickup-games of 40k are dead. There's just way too much imbalance.

Sometimes I feel the same. I've all but stopped going to my LGS because
A) it's a bit of a drive and I'll be out too late
B) pick-up games are hard to get because everyone there already has an opponent scheduled and
C) even though I could work around A & B and have in the past, it just seems like more and more work as GW piles on the rules

That's why I just play in my own local meta that is just me and my 2 teens. It's far easier to control what we play and bring things down to a casual but competitive level that everyone can have fun with

-

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

If your local scene is this varied, then communicate with the people with which you play. Walking into a room, finding out that you dont match what others want, then throwing up your hands and yelling at other people because you didnt make any effort to prepare beforehand isnt a solution.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

My experience in the local meta is that pickup-games of 40k are dead. There's just way too much imbalance.

So are you talking Open Narrative pick up, or ITC Matched pickup? Because there are usually 5-10 games a week at my local of matched. About 2-3 of open narrative, where the points don't matter and the rules are made up.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

My experience in the local meta is that pickup-games of 40k are dead. There's just way too much imbalance.

So are you talking Open Narrative pick up, or ITC Matched pickup? Because there are usually 5-10 games a week at my local of matched. About 2-3 of open narrative, where the points don't matter and the rules are made up.

Any sort of pickup, in the way that you just show up on the store's "warhammer night" and there's usually a few people looking for games ahead of time.

Back in 5th edition, pickup games were my bread and butter of 40k. I wasn't in an organized club, but people showed up to the store's "warhammer night" or whatever and would be prepared to play damn near anyone that walked through the door - just throw down your list and play. It got to the point where I had lists for 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 points each of which was pre-prepared so I didn't have to make my opponent wait. Back then, there was no "narrative/open/matched". There was just 40k.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

So are you talking Open Narrative pick up, or ITC Matched pickup? Because there are usually 5-10 games a week at my local of matched. About 2-3 of open narrative, where the points don't matter and the rules are made up.

All rules are made up. Just the open-narrative stuff is made-up in Nottingham, while the various ITC house rules are made up in California.

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

Yeah, I agree. And what's worse, it has further divided an already divided group. I remember in 7E in my area, there were 2 kinds of games: RAW 40K and ITC, which loosely translated it casual vs competitive. The "raw"/casual players just wanted to play out of the book as-is, while the tourney players gravitated towards ITC-style house rules. And that was fine because you could kinda feel out which player was which and just have 2 lists ready for either.

But now? Well, no one really plays Open/Narrative, but Matched play hardly has any consistency either. Are you using the organized play "suggestions", Ro3, max 3 detachments? Will you allow Legends now that the door is more open to deny it?
I have no issues discussing a game beforehand, in fact, discussing the game as a whole while playing is part of the fun for me. But I do miss the days in which everyone was limited to a single FOC with a single faction and you could just start throwing dice without debating a 5 page thesis on the merits of which style of play you desire.

-

Exactly, well put. I honestly miss trying to just play the game, without listening to my opponent's laundry list of conditions. The store I play at has a sign up board for styles of play. So the store can call people who want to play specific styles when others are looking for a game. Last weekend I had a call, a guy wanted to test out his competitive list, and I thought, ok, this is competitive, so ITC. I got there and it was a 4 deredo IH list with rule breaks. I explain that he would lose his missions with this list, no matter how well he played, because the list is invalid. He gets upset because rule of 3 is a suggestion, and I agree. For open. For competitive, or what I thought was ITC matched, it's a law.

I don't want to tell anyone how to play, but we need to have non-fluid terms to define how a match will be conducted.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

It would help if there was not a big and vocal contingent of people who insist that other players need to accept their houserules. The standard pick up matched games should follow the official rules.Those inldude the Legends and FW and do not include tournament suggestions. This would be very simple and clear if people wouldn't intentinally confuse matters.

tneva82 wrote:
Rules for Matched play i can bring 6 flying hive tyrants. Going to fly with you?

Howabout 5 det's? Matched play legal

If someone is asking to use Legends rules to facilitate a high-power wombo combo in a competitive game, you are equally entitled to ask to ignore RO3.

If someone is asking to use Legends rules so they can use their lovingly-painted old collection, and you're asking to suspend RO3 so that you can take a cheesy WAAC list to curbstomp them in a casual game, you are 100% That Guy.

If someone is asking to use Legends rules so they can use their old collection, and you ask to suspend RO3 so that you could take more than three squads of IG Veterans to fit a 'veteran regiment' theme, then that's completely reasonable.

There is nuance here, and more choices beyond 'play according to tournament rules' and 'allow more casual rules, then bring an exploitative tournament mindset anyways to take advantage of it'.

 Crimson wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

It would help if there was not a big and vocal contingent of people who insist that other players need to accept their houserules. The standard pick up matched games should follow the official rules.Those inldude the Legends and FW and do not include tournament suggestions. This would be very simple and clear if people wouldn't intentinally confuse matters.

Yeah. I could see an argument that Matched Play is the default, and the "organized event recommendations" (Ro3, 3 Detachments, etc) are not the default. But others disagree, even within my own playgroup. So WTF do I know.

 Galef wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
Everybody still wanting to play with your Legends options, what do yo do in the scenario in which all (for example) non-legends power mauls get a points increase, and your Legends unit(s) with power maul(s) doesn’t play with that increase. You now have an unfair advantage of cheaper power maul. Are you shelving your unit?

Well, most of the options I've seen with rules in the codex do NOT have points in Legends. For example, Librarians can take combi-weapons through Legends only, but the points for combi-weapons are in the Codex still. No points values for combi-weapon exist through Legends (for Marines at least)

So in your example, there would only be a points discrepancy if Power Mauls BOTH
A) have a points entry in your Codex (or the Munitorum Filed Manual for you faction) and
B) the Legends entry has a points value for Power Mauls too
But so far, I can't find any example of a situation like this

Another example is Eldar Autarchs. Legends gives them options for Reaper launchers, Banshee masks and other wargear options that are MANDATORY to represent how Autarchs are former Aspect warriors, but many of those options do not have point in the Legends PDF, because they are in the Codex, which will get updates.

A counter example is Twin Autocannons for Dreads, which do not have an entry at all in any Marine Codex, so the 20ppm cost for them in Legends will NEVER have a discrepancy. It's the final cost, period.

-

I haven’t looked deeply at the other factions beyond what units have been lost, but that is exactly the case for Guard. We’ve lost all power axes and mauls and now there is a points cost in Legends.

 Apple Peel wrote:
I haven’t looked deeply at the other factions beyond what units have been lost, but that is exactly the case for Guard. We’ve lost all power axes and mauls and now there is a points cost in Legends.

Are there points for axes and mauls in your Codex? If you lost them all, then there are NO points in your Codex, so there will never be a different value for axes and mauls.

That's my point. If the only points cost is in Legends, that's the final cost and there will NEVER be a situation in which Codex units have a cheaper or more expensive cost than a Legends unit.

-

 catbarf wrote:

If someone is asking to use Legends rules to facilitate a high-power wombo combo in a competitive game, you are equally entitled to ask to ignore RO3.

If someone is asking to use Legends rules so they can use their lovingly-painted old collection, and you're asking to suspend RO3 so that you can take a cheesy WAAC list to curbstomp them in a casual game, you are 100% That Guy.

If someone is asking to use Legends rules so they can use their old collection, and you ask to suspend RO3 so that you could take more than three squads of IG Veterans to fit a 'veteran regiment' theme, then that's completely reasonable.

There is nuance here, and more choices beyond 'play according to tournament rules' and 'allow more casual rules, then bring an exploitative tournament mindset anyways to take advantage of it'.

Yes, exactly this.

The irony is pickup games were the real sell of 40k versus other games and the reason it thrived while other games failed; it was so ubiquitous that you could be certain there would be opponents for 40k. Now my experience is that while you still find some, mostly it's pre-arranged which means just going to the game store doesn't work as you'll have to wait around for a table/opponent, not to mention the laundry list of rules being slapped on top of one another.

So, I think Legends is a good idea, unless it grows out of control, say entire factions go legend. (Glances at Greyknight with a begging cup in the corner and his "Will debase self for a supplement" sign)

The real reason for the lack of genuine pick up games is the rise of social media. Most gaming stores/clubs/areas have some sort of facebook group, dischord, and/or chat where people set up games. I haven't played a true "pick up" game in years, but I was able to readily and easily find games at my local in Baltimore on the Facebook group or my club chat.

Matched play =! Tournament play.

Tournaments make their own variations of the rule, including the decision to exclude legends entries which are matched play legal.

Did GW make legends entries less than favorable to use? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, tournaments banning legends is a problem of the respective TO's and not GW's.

Legends are far more "legal" than index.

Locally I played pick up games almost exclusively at the local shop (until I got crazy busy and couldnt make it anymore). When I check in with people pickup games are still going strong. I just brought two lists to use either against competetive or more casual people.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I think Legends is a good idea, unless it grows out of control, say entire factions go legend. (Glances at Greyknight with a begging cup in the corner and his "Will debase self for a supplement" sign)

I agree, but more importantly, don't think that would ever happen. Models that GW still produces will not go Legends, so unless GKs are the next Squats, I think we can breath easy.

My fear is that ITC/ETC and other well known tourney circuits will knee-jerk ban Legends, which will have a trickle-down effect to even casual games. Kinda like the stigma of FW units "needing" opponent's permission to use for so many years.

 skchsan wrote:
Matched play =! Tournament play.

Tournaments make their own variations of the rule, including the decision to exclude legends entries which are matched play legal.

Did GW make legends entries less than favorable to use? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, tournaments banning legends is a problem of the respective TO's and not GW's.

Legends are far more "legal" than index.

While I agree overall, common TO rulings tend to trickle down to become the expectations for even casual games.

Side note, I didn't realize it, but just about every list we play at home has a Legends unit: Eldar Autarch with Aspect gear, Dreads with Twin Autocannons, Chaos Lord on bikes & Disc Sorcerers.

-

So, out of curiosity, how come there are no Squats in Legends? I would love to use a all Dwarven IG list...

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity, how come there are no Squats in Legends? I would love to use a all Dwarven IG list...

because squats never had index rules in 8th edition.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity, how come there are no Squats in Legends? I would love to use a all Dwarven IG list...

Because Squats didn't exist in 7E. Legends is just models that were brought over from 7E in the Indexes but then outdated by 8E Codices.

-

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I think Legends is a good idea, unless it grows out of control, say entire factions go legend. (Glances at Greyknight with a begging cup in the corner and his "Will debase self for a supplement" sign)

I agree, but more importantly, don't think that would ever happen. Models that GW still produces will not go Legends, so unless GKs are the next Squats, I think we can breath easy.

My fear is that ITC/ETC and other well known tourney circuits will knee-jerk ban Legends, which will have a trickle-down effect to even casual games. Kinda like the stigma of FW units "needing" opponent's permission to use for so many years.

nah, the GK aren't the next squats. the legion of the damned are. but who will be next!

your fear is already being realized i think, because at least one circuit already has stated they will soon enough. banning legends to me makes no sense at all, because how much of the stuff here was even competitive? if it was, it's unlikely to stay that way as rule and point creep continue onwards, so i don't see the point in banning legends, especially when the rules are right there for everyone to see. they will just no longer get used between the effort to make the models, and other models likely being better over time. anything that WAS viable likely won't be by next CA or the one after that, right?

i feel bad for white scars, ork, Space Wolf, and Dark Angel players especially. i lost some weapon options to this and characters, but i didn't lose an entire playstyle.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity, how come there are no Squats in Legends? I would love to use a all Dwarven IG list...

Because there's no Squats in the Indexes. 40K Legends is just the Index stuff minus a few things.

Bdrone wrote:
your fear is already being realized i think, because at least one circuit already has stated they will soon enough. banning legends to me makes no sense at all, because how much of the stuff here was even competitive? if it was, it's unlikely to stay that way as rule and point creep continue onwards, so i don't see the point in banning legends, especially when the rules are right there for everyone to see. they will just no longer get used between the effort to make the models, and other models likely being better over time. anything that WAS viable likely won't be by next CA or the one after that, right?

i feel bad for white scars, ork, Space Wolf, and Dark Angel players especially. i lost some weapon options to this and characters, but i didn't lose an entire playstyle.

TO's banning Legends will have far less to do with them being competitive and the TOs just wanting to reduce options and source material they have to track.
But the perception will be that TOs think Legends options are competitive.

Side note, a 120pt Ven Dread with 2 Twin autocannons and AP-2 whiel the Dev Doctrine is active seems fairly competitive IMO. Not OP, but more then just a good option

-

 Apple Peel wrote:
Everybody still wanting to play with your Legends options, what do yo do in the scenario in which all (for example) non-legends power mauls get a points increase, and your Legends unit(s) with power maul(s) doesn’t play with that increase. You now have an unfair advantage of cheaper power maul. Are you shelving your unit?

In the circle I play in one of two things will happen:

1) We'll just run the legends stuff as printed. A few pts difference isn't going to make a difference.

2) We'll just adjust the points of ALL power mauls.
It's not like this is difficult. Power mauls now cost xx? You pull out your pen, you cross out the cost in legends, you write in the new cost....
Same thing if something like a chaplain changes pts cost. Just adjust the bike mounted one by that amount of pts. We know what a bike costs, we know what a chaplain costs. Therefore we know what a chaplain on a bike should cost.

Honestly we'll likely default to #1. we're not playing in a tourney & it's not like we scrutinize each others lists.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I think Legends is a good idea, unless it grows out of control, say entire factions go legend. (Glances at Greyknight with a begging cup in the corner and his "Will debase self for a supplement" sign)

Do none of you know that Age of Sigmar exists? We have whole factions there as Legends. They are even on the same page under a different banner.

I doubt Grey Knights will go into Legends unless they completely stop making them. Stuff that is going into Legends seems to be - for the most part - old resin models and options they have phased out.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity, how come there are no Squats in Legends? I would love to use a all Dwarven IG list...

Advice from a guy that owns a squat based IG force;
So just go buy a bunch of squats & use them as IG models.
The average squat model is wearing flak armor & a lasgun. Others have flak & a heavy weapon. Mole mortars? = regular mortars (it really doesn't matter if you describe the shell burrowing up & exploding or arcing over & exploding). Some of them are armed with bolt guns/bolt pistols/las pistols - looks like perfect sgt/HQ figs to me. Replace visible tank crew humans with squats.
There, that 90% of your force.

 flandarz wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah, those unintended super powerful Chaplains on a bike are gone! Oh and those super broken Trueborn, what with their TWO attacks!

We literally just had an FAQ from GW about a FW unit that was "too strong" when combined with the IH stuff. So, while the options you mentioned likely aren't an issue NOW, they could become issues in the future as GW continues to release more content. And, since GW said they won't be supporting Legends anymore, that'll mean no FAQs, Errata, or point changes for these units.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Someone said 70% of players wouldn't allow it, well they can take a flying leap, I'll play with the 30% that actually kept their brain. If they are more afraid of Legends units than the actual op trash GW randomly toss out, they have more issues than Legends in an army list.

I suppose I misspoke. It's actually more like 75% of gaming groups. And I also said that most people are gonna be reasonable if you TALK TO THEM about it first. That said, there's two good reasons not to use Legends. 1) They are no longer gonna be supported by GW. Which means no point balances, no FAQs, and no Errata for them. So, if GW releases content which "breaks" something in Legends, you can have a pretty big problem. 2) since the models and wargear are out of production, new players don't have access to these "tools", creating an uneven playing field.

Mmmpi wrote:You're implying that the people acting outraged were, at some point, in agreement with GW. They were not.

What I was trying to imply was that everyone had 6 months or so to prepare for this. So why are they acting surprised that GW did the thing they said they were gonna do?

And Iron Hands rules were the problem, not the unit itself. Or are you saying rerolls for everyone is fine?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well then why didn't they put the thunderfire techmarine in to the GK codex. they put the normal version in. There is no model for a GK techmarine, so it is not like it is the lack of a GK specific model.

They have the psycannon razorback in the codex, but there is no model for it, shouldn't that be an legend option too?

GK never had thunderfire because they don't have artillery in general. They are not IF, sieges is not how they operate.

As for psycannon razorback, what's that then?

 flandarz wrote:
something like 75% of 40k players take GW "recommendations" as rules (ex: Ro3)

Maybe, just maybe, people accept this as a rule because they are tired of TG spamming OP units (while smugly proclaiming "this is totes balanced, guv" and "just playing as INTENDED") and the rule of 3 is easy way of stopping that nonsense. I can't see most people minding Legends (unless someone finds broken wombo-combo in there) because nothing in there that I saw is even remotely on that level. It's as if context mattered, funny that...

And I still find it both weird and hilarious that we nearly have 2020 yet there are still people salty they can't WAAAC spamming most broken unit of the book exclusively to ruin the game for both players, especially seeing rule of 3 was always a thing in the history of 40K.

 Polonius wrote:
I think the concern about organized play has more to do with future proofing than with the rules as they currently stand. Since these are models with key words and rules that could interact oddly with future rules, they probably want to make it very clear that these are not to be default part of organized play.

I don't see anything problematic there, certainly nothing on the scale of FW pay-to-win garbage (because stratagem buffing 80 pts dread will be totally balanced on 500 pts one that was never meant to have it, eh?). If GW keeps tiptoeing around that and nerfing core book rules instead of just plainly denying OP units access to them (essentially nerfing the 80 pts model, not the 500 pts one) I fail to see how they will block Legends.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Because feth CSM players and their Contemptors, but they’re fine for loyalists to take as they’re in the codex.

Seeing GW contemptor has worse statline (which is laughable, FW one should have the same) and vastly worse weapons, yup, good riddance. FW contemptors are slightly less problematic than deredeo/leviathan, but seeing they make multiple Codex units instantly obsolete (especially Predators), I'd be fine with them being banned.

And I am still puzzled why people wanting to spam broken crap think hiding behind bad units, be they GW or FW, does anything. No, we're not talking about GW contemptor, which is mostly fine. We're talking about actually broken junk, please don't change the topic.

Ro3 was just created now though, compared to what happened in 6-7th, because GW admitted basically they can't balance units. 6th-7th aren't without unit issues but strangely a lot of those unit issues came from additional rules that were piled on through Formations or units that you couldn't limit in the first place, like Scatterbikes!

I'm saying that if GW says "we ain't bothering with Legends anymore", then any rule interactions which cause issues with those Legends units will never be addressed. If you're honestly suggesting that we should just accept Legends without giving them a critical eye as new rules and point changes come along, then I don't know what else I can say to you. If your gaming group is fine with it, by all means: play them regardless of what comes down the pipe. As for myself and my group, we're allowing them (for now) and will decide whether to keep doing so as GW continues to release content.

Index options are kinda like Proxies... sure its allowed. But it be a lot cooler if you didn't.

 flandarz wrote:
I'm saying that if GW says "we ain't bothering with Legends anymore", then any rule interactions which cause issues with those Legends units will never be addressed. If you're honestly suggesting that we should just accept Legends without giving them a critical eye as new rules and point changes come along, then I don't know what else I can say to you. If your gaming group is fine with it, by all means: play them regardless of what comes down the pipe. As for myself and my group, we're allowing them (for now) and will decide whether to keep doing so as GW continues to release content.

GW doesn't pay attention to unit interactions for their "legal" models to begin with!

True, but they DO, generally, address them (eventually). Like I said, right now I believe Legends is fine. In the future? Who knows?

 flandarz wrote:
True, but they DO, generally, address them (eventually). Like I said, right now I believe Legends is fine. In the future? Who knows?

You'd have to really be in denial that Chaplains are going to become so powerful they're gonna get a price increase to the point of being the same as the Bike entry.

Also it doesn't matter if you think GW addresses stuff because they go right back to messing it up again.

You'd have to really be in denial to think that there is a zero chance that an issue will ever arise with this. Hell, you JUST said that GW "messes up" all the time. So, which is it? Are Legends going to be fine forever, or will GW screw things up (as they are wont to do)?

 flandarz wrote:
You'd have to really be in denial to think that there is a zero chance that an issue will ever arise with this. Hell, you JUST said that GW "messes up" all the time. So, which is it? Are Legends going to be fine forever, or will GW screw things up (as they are wont to do)?

"It is possible that one day GW will write brokenly OP Ork rules, thus to be on the safe side it is better that we just ban the Orks now."

Dealing with such hypotheticals is silly.

 flandarz wrote:
You'd have to really be in denial to think that there is a zero chance that an issue will ever arise with this. Hell, you JUST said that GW "messes up" all the time. So, which is it? Are Legends going to be fine forever, or will GW screw things up (as they are wont to do)?

Well tell you what. If you can name how many cases of "no model" really leads to something broken you would have a point

Well, considering this format is brand new (they used to just take all your rules away and shrug), I'll wait on that. You should too, cuz when an issue inevitably comes up with Legends, you might wanna remember when you said the equivalent of "Nah. Anything in Legends would never cause an unexpected (and powerful) interaction with the new material GW is publishing. It', frankly, impossible."

I would like to point out that the Sisters were released and on day one it was revealed that the Cannoness (The primary HQ of the faction) is already not legal with her current war gear options. See: Plasma Pistol and Rod.

Yes. GW if capable of screwing the grot on this one in the VERY real future.

 Crimson wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
You'd have to really be in denial to think that there is a zero chance that an issue will ever arise with this. Hell, you JUST said that GW "messes up" all the time. So, which is it? Are Legends going to be fine forever, or will GW screw things up (as they are wont to do)?

"It is possible that one day GW will write brokenly OP Ork rules, thus to be on the safe side it is better that we just ban the Orks now."

Dealing with such hypotheticals is silly.

You have to, as people refuse to deal with the practical. GW did write brokenly OP Space Marine rules, but no TO bans them. Until we get more acceptance for events to move quickly on the actual problems, the least we can do is work with hypotheticals to minimize future risks.

And I never said that, btw, Crimson. I was clear that, in my group, we allow Legends. For now. I'm also being realistic that, maybe, one day, sometime in the future, probably, GW will release something, or adjust points, or write a FAQ or Errata poorly, and what is ok right now won't be in the future. And when that happens, myself and my group will reevaluate whether Legends is still gonna be allowed for us. But the argument Slayer was putting forth (that Legends will be fine forever) is just silly, and ignores everything GW has done to this point.

 flandarz wrote:
And I never said that, btw, Crimson. I was clear that, in my group, we allow Legends. For now. I'm also being realistic that, maybe, one day, sometime in the future, probably, GW will release something, or adjust points, or write a FAQ or Errata poorly, and what is ok right now won't be in the future. And when that happens, myself and my group will reevaluate whether Legends is still gonna be allowed for us. But the argument Slayer was putting forth (that Legends will be fine forever) is just silly, and ignores everything GW has done to this point.

You're going under the expectation that points are going to drastically change. In reality, that's not going to happen. You DID look at the Legendary entries right?

You also have yet to present a time where a unit didn't have a model and it was a pure disaster.

The only OP index interaction I have seen whas the Eldar Autarc with reaper missile launcher and the Warlord Trait that made him a sniper.

Well, tell me Slayer: how many times has GW released rules for a unit that they didn't have a model for? Admittedly, I ain't been around the 40k scene for too long, but I imagine this might be the first time. So, you're obviously making a poor attempt at getting a "gotcha" moment. I'll just pass on that, thanks. Instead, I'll just take a screenshot of this conversation, and in... oh, 6-12 months when something happens, I'll DM it to ya. Sound good? Until then, feel free to feel superior and "right".

 flandarz wrote:
Well, tell me Slayer: how many times has GW released rules for a unit that they didn't have a model for? Admittedly, I ain't been around the 40k scene for too long, but I imagine this might be the first time. So, you're obviously making a poor attempt at getting a "gotcha" moment. I'll just pass on that, thanks. Instead, I'll just take a screenshot of this conversation, and in... oh, 6-12 months when something happens, I'll DM it to ya. Sound good? Until then, feel free to feel superior and "right".

This is adorable, because that's literally how 40k codexes worked for...all the editions up to like 7th?

You'd get a new codex, and go 'oh, wow, a new Tyranid called a Smarglefex that has Grazzwossler cannons and gribblesnub scythes! That sounds AWESOME! Wish there was even a drawing of it! In 7 years when they release that model it'll be sweet I'll bet."

Really? That's neat (as I said, I am admittedly new to 40k). Side note: how many of the times that they did that did it cause balance issues? Asking for a friend. I assume more than "never".

How exactly you imagine that could cause balance problems?

the_scotsman wrote:
This is adorable, because that's literally how 40k codexes worked for...all the editions up to like 7th?

You'd get a new codex, and go 'oh, wow, a new Tyranid called a Smarglefex that has Grazzwossler cannons and gribblesnub scythes! That sounds AWESOME! Wish there was even a drawing of it! In 7 years when they release that model it'll be sweet I'll bet."

It was only a common practice in 5th edition and slightly into 6th. Imperial Guard and tyranids were the big offenders, with both having codexes that included either straight up FW units (medusa, Shrikes), OOP units that were now FW only (Griffon), or thinly veiled twists on FW units (bombard). This was also when SM got access to FW dreadnought options. The big counterexamples were the Wave Serpent, which was introduced in the 3rd edition BBB and made by FW but not released in plastic until late 3rd/early 4th, and the drop pod, which got rules in 4th edition and a model many years later.

 Galas wrote:
The only OP index interaction I have seen whas the Eldar Autarc with reaper missile launcher and the Warlord Trait that made him a sniper.

And that's hardly OP because you can only do that ONCE. And it can't one-shot characters that are anywhere near the points investment to get that Aurtach
Marine lists, otoh, can get 3x 3 Eliminators to remove support characters wholesale

-

Well, hypothetically, if GW was to increase SM HQ point costs by, say, 25% (perhaps in response to giving their HQs more Abilities, or better WTs) any Marine HQ that is in Legends will suddenly go to "must-take", as their prices will not change but they'll still be able to take advantage of these new rules. Or if they were to release a Stratagem or Ability that affects a certain Keyword (in order to buff some sub-par unit choice(s) in the Codex), but it also applies to an already good choice from Legends.

Just two possibilities. I'm certain there's others out there. Point is: assuming Legends will never have any issues in regards to balance is foolish.

kingheff wrote:
So the bonesinger is now legendary apparently and costs the usual 70pts. Chapter approved lists a new discount price of 55pts...

I was wondering about that too. They just made him kind of playable with moving him into the HQ slot and now he is legend with the old point coast.
Also they forgot to include daemon princess range weapons

 flandarz wrote:
Well, hypothetically, if GW was to increase SM HQ point costs by, say, 25% (perhaps in response to giving their HQs more Abilities, or better WTs) any Marine HQ that is in Legends will suddenly go to "must-take", as their prices will not change but they'll still be able to take advantage of these new rules. Or if they were to release a Stratagem or Ability that affects a certain Keyword (in order to buff some sub-par unit choice(s) in the Codex), but it also applies to an already good choice from Legends.

Just two possibilities. I'm certain there's others out there. Point is: assuming Legends will never have any issues in regards to balance is foolish.

Another possibility would be if they lower the wound count on models, but include a special rule that helps mitigate damage. Suddenly 5 or 6 wound characters might be tougher.

Most Legend models are far from amazing already, and given that trend is to lower point costs far more often than rise them, it is far more likely that the Legends will become overpriced over time rather than underpriced.

Sure, there is a chance that some later changes might make some Legend units better than they're currently, but I find it unlikely that they would become game breakingly OP. GW's balancing simply is not good enough for minute differences to matter.

Can it in theory happen that some weird combination of relics, warlord traits etc with some rule in Legends will cause some hilarious unintended power combo that totally breaks the game? Yes, it is possible but not at all likely. If it happens, you can worry about it then. And so can GW. And even in such situation it would be unnecessary to ban Legends as a whole, merely that one specific combo.

I agree. I already stated that my stance is "ok for now, will check to make sure it stays ok after GW releases new material". Which I felt was pretty reasonable, but then I got the proverbial beatdown over it.

I am surprised the lists aren't bigger.

But wait, if this were a finalized thing- then GW would have put them in a book and sold them to us.

These are living documents. That's what this means.

These lists will expand.

...and this is the part where I give that awkward chuckle, with a dead look in my eyes, and say "I told you so..."

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

These are living documents. That's what this means.

These lists will expand.

Yes, of course.

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, of course.

It's sad, and I'll tell you exactly why.

It's not that I'm particularly bothered about the screeching grognards with their beakies, bellowing that GW is some monster for invalidating their models or something (this honestly amuses me when it crosses into hyperbolic lunacy, I've seen guys speak of this like someone was putting their own children in front of a firing squad).

It's the fact that these models mentioned in the Adeptus Astartes list are usually models I've seen people make, and they are some fantastic conversions. I hope I don't see them completely gone from the tables.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yes, of course.

It's sad, and I'll tell you exactly why.

It's not that I'm particularly bothered about the screeching grognards with their beakies, bellowing that GW is some monster for invalidating their models or something (this honestly amuses me when it crosses into hyperbolic lunacy, I've seen guys speak of this like someone was putting their own children in front of a firing squad).

It's the fact that these models mentioned in the Adeptus Astartes list are usually models I've seen people make, and they are some fantastic conversions. I hope I don't see them completely gone from the tables.

What GW is doing is fine. They no longer produce these models, but they provide legacy rules for them, so the models still can be used. And it is good to know that they have this system in place for that. It is pretty much guaranteed now, that if any current models will go out of production at some point (such as the minimarines.) they will continue to be supported in this way. It is just the masochistic lunacy that has overtaken a big part of the playerbase that is the problem. They refuse to use these perfectly fine and legal rules and at the same time lament that they cannot use their old models anymore! That is the sad part.

I am a little sad to not see my RT Chaplain armed with power sabre & bolt pistol.

How dare they!

 Crimson wrote:
What GW is doing is fine. They no longer produce these models, but they provide legacy rules for them, so the models still can be used. And it is good to know that they have this system in place for that. It is pretty much guaranteed now, that if any current models will go out of production at some point (such as the minimarines.) they will continue to be supported in this way. It is just the masochistic lunacy that has overtaken a big part of the playerbase that is the problem. They refuse to use these perfectly fine and legal rules and at the same time lament that they cannot use their old models anymore! That is the sad part.

Well, let's put it this way- legacy rules are great support, but they aren't recommended for Competitive play unless there is an exemption. And, well- we all know what happens when GW lets the general public make their own decisions- either some really awesome things happen, or you end up with event organizers and FLGS owners in the US that tell people "Forge World models are banned, because they aren't official models." well into the year 2019.

The other part about this is, at least it seems to me- these models won't ever see a new and updated version. I could be wrong, but I think that this is the first step of the great OldMarine purge...

First. Playerbase lunacy is not GW's fault. The Legend rules clearly says they're good for matched play.

Secondly, Minimarines are obviously heading to squatsville, this has been clear for years. However, I don't think it is impossible that some things that are currently in the Legends could get new models and brought back into codices. GW's policy now just is that if a player buys a codex, all models and options in that codex should also be readily purchasable. If for example some some designer comes up a cool concept for new Rough Riders, then they could be made and the rules being put back into the codex.

 flandarz wrote:
Well, tell me Slayer: how many times has GW released rules for a unit that they didn't have a model for? Admittedly, I ain't been around the 40k scene for too long, but I imagine this might be the first time. So, you're obviously making a poor attempt at getting a "gotcha" moment. I'll just pass on that, thanks. Instead, I'll just take a screenshot of this conversation, and in... oh, 6-12 months when something happens, I'll DM it to ya. Sound good? Until then, feel free to feel superior and "right".

By your own admission you haven't been around "too long". So if you don't know what you're talking about on a subject then you shouldn't speak.

You want a specific example? The Land Raider.
They produced it in RT. They took it out of production just prior to 2nd ed. And then it didn't get a new model until 3rd. About a year into 3rd if I recall.

But from RT on, every edition & codex has had things with no specific model. Often characters due to war gear, but sometimes units, vehicles, weapon combo options.

Bit late to the party on that one; someone beat ya to it. However, I answered a question that the asker didn't want to take "I don't know" as an answer to. Sorry that ticked a nerve.

That said, maybe you can answer the question they posed: how many units with rules but without a model have been "broken"? Is the answer more than "zero"? Cuz, in that case, their assertion that Legends will never cause any issues is historically incorrect.

 flandarz wrote:
Bit late to the party on that one; someone beat ya to it. However, I answered a question that the asker didn't want to take "I don't know" as an answer to. Sorry that ticked a nerve.

That said, maybe you can answer the question they posed: how many units with rules but without a model have been "broken"? Is the answer more than "zero"? Cuz, in that case, their assertion that Legends will never cause any issues is historically incorrect.

Definitely more than zero.

Players don't tend to notice rules that don't have models when the rules suck.

 Crimson wrote:
First. Playerbase lunacy is not GW's fault. The Legend rules clearly says they're good for matched play.

Oh, of course- dumb gamers are not exclusive to any company, or any type of game at all. I could write you a book about all the... very interesting things I have discovered in MMORPG's (I should do a book, called "The Wrongest I Have Ever Been: It is actually NOT cool that millions of people play this together online". It's lengthy but it gets the point across. Gonna work on it).

 Crimson wrote:
Secondly, Minimarines are obviously heading to squatsville, this has been clear for years. However, I don't think it is impossible that some things that are currently in the Legends could get new models and brought back into codices. GW's policy now just is that if a player buys a codex, all models and options in that codex should also be readily purchasable. If for example some some designer comes up a cool concept for new Rough Riders, then they could be made and the rules being put back into the codex.

And I think if they do get brought back, there will need to be something 'else' to it. In other words, I think maybe in a few years all Marines will have roughly the same "Primaris" stat line, and it'll be a mix and match of the new and the old. And eventually, they'll bring those units back with an updated data sheet and a model, making the older ones valid.

 flandarz wrote:
Well, hypothetically, if GW was to increase SM HQ point costs by, say, 25% (perhaps in response to giving their HQs more Abilities, or better WTs) any Marine HQ that is in Legends will suddenly go to "must-take", as their prices will not change but they'll still be able to take advantage of these new rules. Or if they were to release a Stratagem or Ability that affects a certain Keyword (in order to buff some sub-par unit choice(s) in the Codex), but it also applies to an already good choice from Legends.

Just two possibilities. I'm certain there's others out there. Point is: assuming Legends will never have any issues in regards to balance is foolish.

With the possible dream fear Legends can cause for " What Ifs " it's pretty amazing. I'm willing to bet most of these options won't become the Boogeyman people may fear. Not when GW make their own Boogeymen right here in easily available models, such as all Marines with supplements, Knights, Guardsmen, Eldar flyers, etc, etc.

Life isn't black or white, it's somewhere in between and I think most players mull over what they pick and play with and against with logic of the experience they want. If people are going to live in fear of what if Legends becomes a monster REEEE ! I think they would be better served wondering how GW are going to bork the rules next, break the next faction, keep breaking marines, etc.That would be the bigger damage to balance and the more legitimate threat to worry about. Also the most unavoidable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I am surprised the lists aren't bigger.

But wait, if this were a finalized thing- then GW would have put them in a book and sold them to us.

These are living documents. That's what this means.

These lists will expand.

...and this is the part where I give that awkward chuckle, with a dead look in my eyes, and say "I told you so..."

So you want a cookie for predicting things will eventually cease to be ? I think people much smarter than you or I beat you to that rule of life. Marines will eventually fall away, but so will the game itself, and the company and the country that company is based in and the world itself and the solar system, etc, etc. Pointing a finger in the air and predicting the end will eventually prove to be accurate, that is the nature of universe. The only thing shocking is your grandiose self congratulating post, when you still haven't even been correct yet. Until all the old marines are there, you still aren't correct no matter how you " end is nigh " at everyone.

I'm sure though come the end of the world, there will be some crazy guy on the street corner who will also say " See ? I told you ! I knew it all along ! " I'm sure that'll be quite the good day for him.

Well, like I said, right now I think Legends are fine. Me and my group have decided they're ok to use. But we're also cognizant that future changes could break them (especially since GW has stated they won't get point changes or taken into account for balance purposes), so if things come up that cause issues, we'll reevaluate whether they're appropriate for our games or not.

Again, I think this is pretty reasonable. Some folks disagree. And that's 99% of the argument.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

So you want a cookie for predicting things will eventually cease to be ? I think people much smarter than you or I beat you to that rule of life. Marines will eventually fall away, but so will the game itself, and the company and the country that company is based in and the world itself and the solar system, etc, etc. Pointing a finger in the air and predicting the end will eventually prove to be accurate, that is the nature of universe. The only thing shocking is your grandiose self congratulating post, when you still haven't even been correct yet. Until all the old marines are there, you still aren't correct no matter how you " end is nigh " at everyone.

"They're still on the shelf and in the books for now!"

I hate to say it, bud- but my post is one of those cases where I wish I weren't right. And you can sit there and say that I'm wrong, but I assure you- it's coming. Haven't been seeing any 1-wound marine models for a while, have we? Not like they're getting anything flashy at all. That's what we call "keeping them on the books", because I'm pretty sure GW's next step is going to be "Space Marines are all the same", and they'll all run that same basic stat line.

Oh, hey, don't worry. Maybe just this one time, in all the times where I've predicted things, I'll be wrong. Maybe that will happen, in defiance of all the trends pointing to "I am right".

Don't worry, you will still be able to use your old models.

Yeah, see it's posts like this that honestly make those cookies taste sooooo much better. A little salty and soggy, but delicious.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

So you want a cookie for predicting things will eventually cease to be ? I think people much smarter than you or I beat you to that rule of life. Marines will eventually fall away, but so will the game itself, and the company and the country that company is based in and the world itself and the solar system, etc, etc. Pointing a finger in the air and predicting the end will eventually prove to be accurate, that is the nature of universe. The only thing shocking is your grandiose self congratulating post, when you still haven't even been correct yet. Until all the old marines are there, you still aren't correct no matter how you " end is nigh " at everyone.

"They're still on the shelf and in the books for now!"

I hate to say it, bud- but my post is one of those cases where I wish I weren't right. And you can sit there and say that I'm wrong, but I assure you- it's coming. Haven't been seeing any 1-wound marine models for a while, have we? Not like they're getting anything flashy at all. That's what we call "keeping them on the books", because I'm pretty sure GW's next step is going to be "Space Marines are all the same", and they'll all run that same basic stat line.

Oh, hey, don't worry. Maybe just this one time, in all the times where I've predicted things, I'll be wrong. Maybe that will happen, in defiance of all the trends pointing to "I am right".

Don't worry, you will still be able to use your old models.

Yeah, see it's posts like this that honestly make those cookies taste sooooo much better. A little salty and soggy, but delicious.

The only thing tragic here is your own sad sense of smug satisfaction when you're still wrong. Don't worry shinning light of wisdom, one day you'll be correct, sooner or later and on that day, if you or I or anyone on this forum cares, feel free to break that arm off patting yourself on the back. That day is not this day however. Doesn't matter how " It's coming !! " It gets, until it is in fact here, you're still in fact wrong. Good day Sir.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
The only thing tragic here is your own sad sense of smug satisfaction when you're still wrong. Don't worry shinning light of wisdom, one day you'll be correct, sooner or later and on that day, if you or I or anyone on this forum cares, feel free to break that arm off patting yourself on the back. That day is not this day however. Doesn't matter how " It's coming !! " It gets, until it is in fact here, you're still in fact wrong. Good day Sir.

Like I said, it's coming. And you can rage at it all you want, it's still not going away. Attitudes like yours are what makes me honestly excited for the day. Oh, the salt will flow.

Don't worry, you'll still be able to use your old Space Marines.

By all means, though- keep raging. The results are going to be interesting. Or... maybe I'm wrong.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
The only thing tragic here is your own sad sense of smug satisfaction when you're still wrong. Don't worry shinning light of wisdom, one day you'll be correct, sooner or later and on that day, if you or I or anyone on this forum cares, feel free to break that arm off patting yourself on the back. That day is not this day however. Doesn't matter how " It's coming !! " It gets, until it is in fact here, you're still in fact wrong. Good day Sir.

Like I said, it's coming. And you can rage at it all you want, it's still not going away. Attitudes like yours are what makes me honestly excited for the day. Oh, the salt will flow.

Don't worry, you'll still be able to use your old Space Marines.

Well the fact you suffer from Schadenfreude doesn't concern me. Until you're correct though, you're wrong. So why not bottle up all that anxious joy for that day when you can be right, wouldn't want to use it all up in flights of whimsy or dreams of what may come.

Hope is but a waking dream my friend. I'd say not to waste it looking forward to the sadness of others.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
The only thing tragic here is your own sad sense of smug satisfaction when you're still wrong. Don't worry shinning light of wisdom, one day you'll be correct, sooner or later and on that day, if you or I or anyone on this forum cares, feel free to break that arm off patting yourself on the back. That day is not this day however. Doesn't matter how " It's coming !! " It gets, until it is in fact here, you're still in fact wrong. Good day Sir.

Like I said, it's coming. And you can rage at it all you want, it's still not going away. Attitudes like yours are what makes me honestly excited for the day. Oh, the salt will flow.

Don't worry, you'll still be able to use your old Space Marines.

By all means, though- keep raging. The results are going to be interesting. Or... maybe I'm wrong

If mini Marines are to be squatted, it’s not going to be any time soon.

While digging around for PA rumours I stumbled on rumours of the alleged 8.5/9th edition and a similar discussion was taking place there. The “leaker” who has some details of the next edition (rumoured for Summer) was quite certain that mini Marines were going to be around for a long time, at least another edition, if not longer.

Now I’ve no doubt GW are going to push Primaris, so it’s likely they get rules that encourage players to take them, instead of their older, mini Marine models, but Mini Marines absolutely can (and will, for the foreseeable) be used in all play environments.

the image of GW in this ridiculous position
with GI Joe 'boo-yah' immaculate nu-marines
squatting on their own best legacy OG marines
over the course of the next two generations of rules,
taking a long, slow dump on the chests of so many of us with half-finished project armies and yes, dreams, plans, futures (in some hobby way) wrapped up in this legacy is just too tragically demented to pass by in silence.
Nu-marines are a product of unhinged neo-liberal latter-day corporate capitalism, the Chernobyl of the Western wargaming world, and I will get about as close to them.
At least the stuff put into legends can't be further defiled.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I am a little sad to not see my RT Chaplain armed with power sabre & bolt pistol.

How dare they!

likewise, the default option on the buggy model has always been a multimelta, yet it isn't an option on the dataslate?!

At least they can finally dakka^3

 jeff white wrote:
the image of GW in this ridiculous position
with GI Joe 'boo-yah' immaculate nu-marines
squatting on their own best legacy OG marines
over the course of the next two generations of rules,
taking a long, slow dump on the chests of so many of us with half-finished project armies and yes, dreams, plans, futures (in some hobby way) wrapped up in this legacy is just too tragically demented to pass by in silence.
Nu-marines are a product of unhinged neo-liberal latter-day corporate capitalism, the Chernobyl of the Western wargaming world, and I will get about as close to them.
At least the stuff put into legends can't be further defiled.

Yes, making better looking plastic toy soldiers is certainly perfectly comparable to the a horrendous disaster that cost thousands of lives...

Better looking is purely subjective

I asked my local gw manager what the spread between new and old marine sales were and he guestimated a 60/40 split in favour of new marines. Purely anecdotal of course, but if even remotely accurate it's hard to see any business ignoring that kind of revenue stream.

With Oldboys being roughly equivalent now in terms of sheer dakka output, and the ability to pull off insane combos, I don't see them leaving anytime soon. Centurian Devs, Scouts, Drop Pods, and TFCs will still be a thing, until the meta shifts and the hardos move onto the next broken faction, and Old Marines stop selling.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well the fact you suffer from Schadenfreude doesn't concern me. Until you're correct though, you're wrong. So why not bottle up all that anxious joy for that day when you can be right, wouldn't want to use it all up in flights of whimsy or dreams of what may come.

Well, let's see... what have I been saying for about 2 years now? "They'll start phasing them out. First they'll stop making new ones. Then the old ones will gradually start to go into a sort of 'sure you can use it category' but they won't see any support or updates (YOU ARE HERE). And then, over time, the old models will all get phased into this category, then they'll drop a new edition later on that wraps them all up into the same category."

Hey, they said I was stupid when I said that "Space Marines are going to be redone" when the Primaris Marine pictures leaked, because those were obviously third party or converted truescale Marines and I didn't know what I was talking about. Oh, and let's see... "Horus Heresy support is going to slow down exponentially", but nope- I was an idiot because that was obviously the biggest and bestest game ever and billions of people play it and there's no way Forge World would slow down after 2016! Oh, and "Shadow War won't see any support, it's a failure"- nah, they obviously were going to push that for YEARS. "Kill Team will be an afterthought product, getting the crumbs from 40k"- I'll say the Rogue Trader caught me off guard, but really the only 'support' that game gets is repacked models and a copy/paste from a Codex with little change. "They'll only put like, one rotorcannon in that box of Havocs, watch." and there's another one...

It ain't a psychic power. If you watch GW long enough, they become predictable.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Hope is but a waking dream my friend. I'd say not to waste it looking forward to the sadness of others.

The fact that even in the worst case scenario I've predicted, "you will still be able to use your old models, but Primaris Marines will just be the standard Marine Stat line and they'll be the Tacticals, Devastators, etc with all the appropriate wargear"- well, yeah. I'm gonna relish that misery. "Model still valid" being the operative word. But we all know they won't be adding any new "Original Space Marines".

At worst, the old stumpy marines will have an extra wound and an extra attack. The kind of person that gets upset at that needs a laugh at his expense.

Anyway, watch as this list of "Legends" models grows over the next year, prior to the release of 8.5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
the image of GW in this ridiculous position
with GI Joe 'boo-yah' immaculate nu-marines
squatting on their own best legacy OG marines
over the course of the next two generations of rules,
taking a long, slow dump on the chests of so many of us with half-finished project armies and yes, dreams, plans, futures (in some hobby way) wrapped up in this legacy is just too tragically demented to pass by in silence.
Nu-marines are a product of unhinged neo-liberal latter-day corporate capitalism, the Chernobyl of the Western wargaming world, and I will get about as close to them.
At least the stuff put into legends can't be further defiled.

This is the kind of post that makes me eager for the Great Purge of Astartes Shortboys.

Yeah, I remember that ork buggies were old looking even when I joined the hobby in 1999, after the release of the 3rd edition new range of ork models, and only 20 years later those buggies actually have been phased out.

What about metal sisters?

Like others said I also think that 1W marines and all their stuff will stay for a long time, if not forever.

 jeff white wrote:

Nu-marines are a product of unhinged neo-liberal latter-day corporate capitalism, the Chernobyl of the Western wargaming world, and I will get about as close to them.
At least the stuff put into legends can't be further defiled.

This might be the best sentence I've ever read on Dakka.

 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, I remember that ork buggies were old looking even when I joined the hobby in 1999, after the release of the 3rd edition new range of ork models, and only 20 years later those buggies actually have been phased out.

What about metal sisters?

Like others said I also think that 1W marines and all their stuff will stay for a long time, if not forever.

Marines being the poster boys and getting new releases at much (MUCH!) faster pace than other armies will mean that such changes will be more rapid as well.

But now we know that in the case of eventual phase out the minimarines will have a home in the Legends and thus will remain usable.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

Nu-marines are a product of unhinged neo-liberal latter-day corporate capitalism, the Chernobyl of the Western wargaming world, and I will get about as close to them.
At least the stuff put into legends can't be further defiled.

This might be the best sentence I've ever read on Dakka.

In the category of 'Most Hilarious Hyperbole*, sure.

 catbarf wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Rules for Matched play i can bring 6 flying hive tyrants. Going to fly with you?

Howabout 5 det's? Matched play legal

If someone is asking to use Legends rules to facilitate a high-power wombo combo in a competitive game, you are equally entitled to ask to ignore RO3.

If someone is asking to use Legends rules so they can use their lovingly-painted old collection, and you're asking to suspend RO3 so that you can take a cheesy WAAC list to curbstomp them in a casual game, you are 100% That Guy.

If someone is asking to use Legends rules so they can use their old collection, and you ask to suspend RO3 so that you could take more than three squads of IG Veterans to fit a 'veteran regiment' theme, then that's completely reasonable.

There is nuance here, and more choices beyond 'play according to tournament rules' and 'allow more casual rules, then bring an exploitative tournament mindset anyways to take advantage of it'.

100% this. Always blows my mind how many people seem to be determined to play this game with people whom they basically hate. So much stuff people complain about would be a total non-issue with just a modicum of sensible discussion.

 Nazrak wrote:

100% this. Always blows my mind how many people seem to be determined to play this game with people whom they basically hate. So much stuff people complain about would be a total non-issue with just a modicum of sensible discussion.

It doesn't have to be complex.

"Dude you insist on bringing broken stuff and it's not fun, kick rocks and go play with someone else."

As far as I'm concerned the first rule of the game is "I get to decide who I play with".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

100% this. Always blows my mind how many people seem to be determined to play this game with people whom they basically hate. So much stuff people complain about would be a total non-issue with just a modicum of sensible discussion.

It doesn't have to be complex.

"Dude you insist on bringing broken stuff and it's not fun, kick rocks and go play with someone else."

As far as I'm concerned the first rule of the game is "I get to decide who I play with".

Ha, yeah absolutely. I'm astonished I keep seeing people flipping their lids over this over and over and over again.

Apart from that Marines discussion: I chatted with my local GW store guy today and expressed my sadness about the rough rider loss. He ensured me that in HIS store, I don't have to worry about legends. His impression was that they will only be banned somewhere in the future in high class tournaments. But of course, take that as a personal opinion of a local shop manager. At least I'm happy that the show will go on for my brave lancers.

 Nazrak wrote:

Ha, yeah absolutely. I'm astonished I keep seeing people flipping their lids over this over and over and over again.

Everyone will end up meeting "that guy" gaming. That's normal.

But if you consistently play against "that guy" without drawing the line- you may as well be encouraging him.

 Polonius wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I noticed a line added on: https://www.warhammer-community.com/legends/#age-of-sigmar note this address says age of signal but is also shown. When 40k is selected.

This means that Legends units are not designed for matched play

So they aren’t even just saying don’t use them in tournaments now.

the individual sheets say they are appropriate for matched play. AOS is different because they had some wonky issues with points early on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
On Signals today, Frontline announced no legends for LVO and stricter paint and base standards.

Oh this is going to be delicious.

Keep in mind that major tournaments are selling out. Stricter modelling rules were inevitable regardless.

And frankly... at a major competitive event, the only reason to use a Legends model is to exploit some sort of weird loophole, or build an army that wasn't really intended.

If we are, indeed, being frank... we should probably admit that a significant number of Tournament armies were never “really intended”.

Ain't that the truth. 99% of the "problems" would leave the game if folks worried less about optimization and more about just having fun with your pals.

More like 75%, but I agree.

I mean, I'm all for a balanced game. But in lieu of GW fixes, you know what's easy?

"Dude, these guys are WAY overcosted for what they do. Could we let me go over a few points?"

Never had an issue with that.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I mean, I'm all for a balanced game. But in lieu of GW fixes, you know what's easy?

"Dude, these guys are WAY overcosted for what they do. Could we let me go over a few points?"

Never had an issue with that.

The issue is we're paying for these rules, and pretty high prices at that. I'm not giving a cent to GW for any of their printed materials ever again because of this crap happening over and over, all on top of the bloat too. GW are supposed to be professionals and they're really not acting like it.

If I wanted to pay for stupid guidelines I'd play D&D. Which I have. It works a lot better.