Seeing as most of the DKoK have been moved to legends, a lot of people are saying you can still use the legends data sheet they will be getting. But I honestly wonder how people feel about them, only in regards to non-tournament play of course.

The only people going to object to Legends stuff are those who aren't worth playing.

Uriah Jacobus and Confessor Kyrinov will always have a place on my roster.

Considering that most of the stuff in Legends is stuff GW was too lazy to copy/paste, such as HQ generic weapons options, I really don't have any issue with people using them.

I certainly still intend to give my Cannonesses combi-weapons, and sister superiors stormbolters, among other options.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Seeing as most of the DKoK have been moved to legends, a lot of people are saying you can still use the legends data sheet they will be getting. But I honestly wonder how people feel about them, only in regards to non-tournament play of course.

Only the centaur, gorgon, and grenadiers went to legends IIRC, and I think the gorgon will be unlegends soon, so I wouldn't panic. R&H and Elysians lost a lot more, and didn't get legends for their trouble.

I have no objection to legends, but I do expect the most up to date rules for the model to be used.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Seeing as most of the DKoK have been moved to legends, a lot of people are saying you can still use the legends data sheet they will be getting. But I honestly wonder how people feel about them, only in regards to non-tournament play of course.

Only the centaur, gorgon, and grenadiers went to legends IIRC, and I think the gorgon will be unlegends soon, so I wouldn't panic. R&H and Elysians lost a lot more, and didn't get legends for their trouble.

I have no objection to legends, but I do expect the most up to date rules for the model to be used.

Mars-Alpha Leman Russes, Deathrider Commissars, Quartermaster Cadres, and Marshal Karl V.

It's a poor excuse for claiming "you can still use your minis!", and an even poorer excuse for not bothering to even try to Legends a bunch of stuff.

It's not even up for debate in our gaming group, whenever my Lord or sorcerer want to take a ride on their palanquin they will do so.

ccs wrote:
The only people going to object to Legends stuff are those who aren't worth playing.

So are you OK with me playing with 10% discounted models?

Seeing legend models didn't get point adjustements it means they are cheaper than non-legend equilavent.

tneva82 wrote:

ccs wrote:
The only people going to object to Legends stuff are those who aren't worth playing.

So are you OK with me playing with 10% discounted models?

Seeing legend models didn't get point adjustements it means they are cheaper than non-legend equilavent.

...10% discounted models that don't get to interact with any stratagems and don't get game-wide stat creep updates?

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Seeing as most of the DKoK have been moved to legends, a lot of people are saying you can still use the legends data sheet they will be getting. But I honestly wonder how people feel about them, only in regards to non-tournament play of course.

Only the centaur, gorgon, and grenadiers went to legends IIRC, and I think the gorgon will be unlegends soon, so I wouldn't panic. R&H and Elysians lost a lot more, and didn't get legends for their trouble.

I have no objection to legends, but I do expect the most up to date rules for the model to be used.

Mars-Alpha Leman Russes, Deathrider Commissars, Quartermaster Cadres, and Marshal Karl V.

Mars Alpha Leman Russes are just an alternate model Leman Russ, like the Sygies or Gryphonne ones. They'll use the Leman Russ datasheet now, which is either a buff since it won't be forgotten when the codex comes around, or future-proofing against it randomly being broken because of an unforeseen [or just ignored because it's a random FW datasheet that might as well be legends for the support it gets but somehow remains legal in competitive play] interaction. That said, there are 3 Leman Russes which seem to have legitimately gone legends or just vanished: the Annihilator, Conqueror, and Destroyer Tank Hunter.

As for 5 actual unique units plus a special character, I wouldn't panic about it.

I'm mostly disappointed by the loss of Grenadiers, which is a hard hit since they're iconic to the DKoK and since Stormtroopers can't be Regiment, share a place with Kasrkin for just not really having a analogue to use them as in the IG codex.

The IG has fallen a long way from being loved by Forgeworld, with Elysians, DKoK, and R&H to, well, here, where there's apparently a minimal interest in maintaining even the extant line and when molds need replacing, they just drop the item for another legion-specific dreadnought.

The thing that surprises me though is that the Gorgon model was recently restored. This implies they went out of their way to refurbish the mold for the Gorgon, but not for Grenadiers or literally anything else, and I have a hard time believing that the Gorgon is more popular than Grenadiers, the Leman Russ Conqueror, or really basically anything that might be useful.

Legends stuff is explicitly and intentionally designed to be fully legal in all types of play (including matched-play).

The entire point and reason for Legends to exist is to not have rules for older models disappear into nothingness like, for example, Doom of Malan'tai, various Dark Eldar characters, etc.. .

tneva82 wrote:
So are you OK with me playing with 10% discounted models?

Seeing legend models didn't get point adjustements it means they are cheaper than non-legend equilavent.

So you're the 1 vote on "never", hey?

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Legends stuff is explicitly and intentionally designed to be fully legal in all types of play (including matched-play).

The entire point and reason for Legends to exist is to not have rules for older models disappear into nothingness like, for example, Doom of Malan'tai, various Dark Eldar characters, etc.. .

Matched play yes, competitive play no.

A word to the wise, however – these profiles will not be curated as part of the annual points review, and as such aren’t really intended for use in competitive play

tneva82 wrote:

ccs wrote:
The only people going to object to Legends stuff are those who aren't worth playing.

So are you OK with me playing with 10% discounted models?

Seeing legend models didn't get point adjustements it means they are cheaper than non-legend equilavent.

Yes.
Was my initial response unclear on that?

Won't use it myself and won't build new units like it (obviously...?), but I have no objection if you want to field whatever didn't make the cut in your latest codex or points update.

At the moment, I dont have a problem with an opponent adding a few Legends models to their army. Yeah, they're getting a little discount but it's not enough to be That Guy and tell someone they can't use their toys they paid good money for and hopefully painted too.

Give it another edition... I'm not sure I'll feel the same way, if points in the main game continue to fluctuate and GW stands by not changing Legends points. We'll have to see, but it feels like there's a time limit.

The real test will be the next time there is an edition change that is a full reboot of the rules like 8e was. What will GW do to Legends then?

I can understand the reasons for not using them in tournaments but in casual play hell yes!

I'd also be happy for my opponent to use updated weapons profiles and stats if the changes are obvious, if it seems OP then add a few points on.
Discussing things with your opponents pregame make for a much better experience and a much more fun game IMO.

If your worried about points then just work out what they would be by comparing similar current options.
They have removed the option for Firstborn Bike Chaplains and Libbies - Just work out the difference between a bike captain and normal captain and thats the cost of a bike. I usually find that adding 5 points on when doing this is a healthy "tax" for working out your own points.

I think its worth remembering that that its not just tournament or casual games we're talking about here. A lot of games are played in an in-between space I've seen referred to as casual-competitive.

These are games often against people you don't really know, probably pickup games in a local store, which while definitely not organised play often have quite a competitive edge to them. For many people these sorts of games make up the majority of their play.

Yes, they should still be friendly. Yes, you should still talk to your opponent about how to run the game. But discussing how to calculate fair points for legacy units isnt really an option a lot of the time. They'll likely have brought an army and be able to run it as is or not at all.

What might be doable is having a store/group baseline policy on it - either they should be allowed by default or not. But thats about as far as you can go.

 Stux wrote:
At the moment, I dont have a problem with an opponent adding a few Legends models to their army. Yeah, they're getting a little discount but it's not enough to be That Guy and tell someone they can't use their toys they paid good money for and hopefully painted too.

This is basically my stance on it - as has been mentioned, the discount makes up for the fact they don't get access to stratagems and so on (and now, they might well be missing the Core keyword too).

Is there even a single competitive option in legends?

Many people also don't seem to understand that legends is not the same as using something from the index.

ccs wrote:
The only people going to object to Legends stuff are those who aren't worth playing.

This gets an exalt.

I recently played in a tournament using an ork mega armoured warboss. A few people complained about it. Most thought it was cool.

As long as the player brings the datasheets and all the rules about the legend models he/she wants to play I honestly struggle to see what kind of issues someone may found in units belonging to legends.

The Legend section is an official source of rules.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Seeing as most of the DKoK have been moved to legends, a lot of people are saying you can still use the legends data sheet they will be getting. But I honestly wonder how people feel about them, only in regards to non-tournament play of course.

In non-tournament play I think Legends models are completely fine and can be a fun addition.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
The entire point and reason for Legends to exist is to not have rules for older models disappear into nothingness like, for example, Doom of Malan'tai, various Dark Eldar characters, etc...

Is tricky for older models to disappear into nothingness when no model was produced in the first place...

I value consistancy over everything. In the past people weren allowed to use their legends stuff, I don't think just because a whole army became legends this gives grounds to somehow revert it now.

Karol wrote:
I value consistancy over everything. In the past people weren allowed to use their legends stuff, I don't think just because a whole army became legends this gives grounds to somehow revert it now.

good, then by that same measure, gk should go back to consitently bad and " unplayable", if you value consitency.

what. you'd not like that? but what's the difference torwards those that lost a full army, you'd also lose one, equal pikes for everyone, no`?

 Blackie wrote:


The Legend section is an official source of rules.

This; in bold, underlined 40pt text.

Legends are fine. I will happily play against them or with them, and maintain a slight sliver of hope that they will get re-integrated at some point further down the line. Daemon steeds in particular I feel are a glaring omission from the current CSM codex.

I'm fine playing against someone who has a couple of Legends units in their army provided it's not in a tournament setting, otherwise, do what you want as long as you aren't trying to break the game.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
I value consistancy over everything. In the past people weren allowed to use their legends stuff, I don't think just because a whole army became legends this gives grounds to somehow revert it now.

good, then by that same measure, gk should go back to consitently bad and " unplayable", if you value consitency.

what. you'd not like that? but what's the difference torwards those that lost a full army, you'd also lose one, equal pikes for everyone, no`?

Why from what I understand they were good when they had their codex made by Ward. So it seems like being bad is the in consitency here. Plus the legend system didn't exist in the past, so you can't use something that didn't exist when GW was desiging 8th ed rules for GK to claim they should be bad, specialy as initialy they seem to have been a good army to play with.

Now GW has a design policy and a gold list to remove units from matched play. If GW ever decides to put GK on the list, I won't play of course. But I hope that in advance GW gives GK players something like the IG and eldar players got with their armies, 12-18 months of good rules to play with before they get removed.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Karol wrote:
I value consistancy over everything. In the past people weren allowed to use their legends stuff, I don't think just because a whole army became legends this gives grounds to somehow revert it now.

good, then by that same measure, gk should go back to consitently bad and " unplayable", if you value consitency.

what. you'd not like that? but what's the difference torwards those that lost a full army, you'd also lose one, equal pikes for everyone, no`?

Why from what I understand they were good when they had their codex made by Ward. So it seems like being bad is the in consitency here. Plus the legend system didn't exist in the past, so you can't use something that didn't exist when GW was desiging 8th ed rules for GK to claim they should be bad, specialy as initialy they seem to have been a good army to play with.

Now GW has a design policy and a gold list to remove units from matched play. If GW ever decides to put GK on the list, I won't play of course. But I hope that in advance GW gives GK players something like the IG and eldar players got with their armies, 12-18 months of good rules to play with before they get removed.

Lol, GK were good in 5th and then 6,7,8 they sucked, mostly, so , ergo consitency demands they suck.
Again i reiterate, Since that would be your only requirement i still insist you answer the initial question: Is consistncy allways good?
Answer that first, and i reccomend you REALLY think hard about that one. Because live by the sword die by the sword is very much applicable.

also it isn't matched play that excludes Legends BUT tournament play. Atleast read the bloody recomendation.

The Warhammer 40,000 Legends page contains datasheets and additional wargear options, definitive profiles that will live on their own dedicated page, enabling you to unleash your treasured classics in open, narrative and matched play games, with full points provided to help you balance your games.

If someone wants to cripple their army by using Legends units and not just running everything as Counts-As Space Marines, more power to them.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I'm fine playing against someone who has a couple of Legends units in their army provided it's not in a tournament setting, otherwise, do what you want as long as you aren't trying to break the game.

Why not in a tournament game? Legends units don't break the game. All the current OP units/combos are part of regular codexes.

I'd rather play against an army that is 100% from legends than a 100% codex SM one with 18 eradicators for instance.

 Blackie wrote:
I'd rather play against an army that is 100% from legends than a 100% codex SM one with 18 eradicators for instance.

I get your point, but... I've gotta say, I wouldn't. If only because, without army-wide traits and strats, it'd be a complete walkover. The kind of game you feel bad about winning so one-sidedly.

 Super Ready wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'd rather play against an army that is 100% from legends than a 100% codex SM one with 18 eradicators for instance.

I get your point, but... I've gotta say, I wouldn't. If only because, without army-wide traits and strats, it'd be a complete walkover. The kind of game you feel bad about winning so one-sidedly.

you allready had that through 8th for all the armies that now got legended... so what?

 Blackie wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I'm fine playing against someone who has a couple of Legends units in their army provided it's not in a tournament setting, otherwise, do what you want as long as you aren't trying to break the game.

Why not in a tournament game? Legends units don't break the game. All the current OP units/combos are part of regular codexes.

I'd rather play against an army that is 100% from legends than a 100% codex SM one with 18 eradicators for instance.

They don't break the game, but if you think of the game like MtG where you have modern vs standard, you'll see that while not all models or units break the game, there is the potential in the future for breaking the game. That's why we saw Chaplain dreadnoughts being so powerful a while ago when the model was out of production so long too. This drove the price of these units (cash-wise) up in the secondary market and while this is a single case, there are other examples where you'll find that was bad for the game.

This basically future proofs the game and allows the rules writers some freedom in their "standard" system without worrying about some OOP model having a janky interaction with new rules.

As the game moves on, Legends units aren't perpetually updated with the game to include new rules and the like, so get left behind in terms of power level but eventually you'll have wording issues with rules that aren't FAQ'd or a certain combination of model will have more power than their Codex counterparts. If we look at Eldar for instance, they had their Autarchs whittled down to 3 entries with no customisation. Previously, the best Autarch in 8th was the banshee mask jet autarch with a reaper launcher and laser lance. That unit's power level was pretty high in 8th in combination with a host of other rules. Would I run it in 9th edition? The Bashee mask is nowhere near as powerful but as an all round beatstick, I'd take that unit over the majority of the choices I make when picking an HQ now.

If legends were allowed in tournaments, you'd find some way of marginal gain using slightly cheaper units or finding weird rulings that aren't FAQ'd.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Legends stuff is explicitly and intentionally designed to be fully legal in all types of play (including matched-play).

The entire point and reason for Legends to exist is to not have rules for older models disappear into nothingness like, for example, Doom of Malan'tai, various Dark Eldar characters, etc.. .

Except it's explicitly not recommended for organized play. Remember that tournament play is not standard matched play.

Don't care if tournaments use legends or not, just point out that this matched=tournament idea is not correct.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:


If legends were allowed in tournaments, you'd find some way of marginal gain using slightly cheaper units or finding weird rulings that aren't FAQ'd.

And using codex stuff you can have units that are utterly undercosted (eradicators?) and sometimes also weird rulings that aren't FAQed as well (KFF that worked in close combat), not for months at least. Sometimes even years. Or poorly written FAQs like the SW one that allowed all units in the codex to be Obj Sec, and as long as that FAQ wasn't corrected SW weird lists managed to dominate the tournament scene, based on a mistake about regular codex units.

 Blackie wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:


If legends were allowed in tournaments, you'd find some way of marginal gain using slightly cheaper units or finding weird rulings that aren't FAQ'd.

And using codex stuff you can have units that are utterly undercosted (eradicators?) and sometimes also weird rulings that aren't FAQed as well (KFF that worked in close combat), not for months at least. Sometimes even years. Or poorly written FAQs like the SW one that allowed all units in the codex to be Obj Sec, and as long as that FAQ wasn't corrected SW weird lists managed to dominate the tournament scene, based on a mistake about regular codex units.

What I stated was probably the reasoning used from a game development perspective, and nothing to do with the external and internal balance going on within codices. If you want to use Eradicators as an example, I am sure that down the line (or even now, if you'd like to use my Jetbike Autarch as an example) that you'd have undercosted or broken units with respect to the rest of the game that come from Legends. Not once did I say that the codex options weren't undercosted and didn't have weird FAQ rulings that could be abused. The exclusion of legends from tournament play limits this abuse and some of things you are mentioning are fairly fringe scenarios that have more to deal with your problem with space marines and not the game in general.

I agree with Tyranid Horde, and I think the chaplain dread is a great example.

If eradicators are too powerful, GW can nerf them either as emergency update or during their regular adjustments, but if a legends unit suddenly pops up in tournaments, it would require them to go back and have a look at legends units and fix them - which would essentially require them to keep supporting legends and void the whole point of this construct in the first place.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I'm fine playing against someone who has a couple of Legends units in their army provided it's not in a tournament setting, otherwise, do what you want as long as you aren't trying to break the game.

Why not in a tournament game? Legends units don't break the game. All the current OP units/combos are part of regular codexes.

I'd rather play against an army that is 100% from legends than a 100% codex SM one with 18 eradicators for instance.

They don't break the game, but if you think of the game like MtG where you have modern vs standard, you'll see that while not all models or units break the game, there is the potential in the future for breaking the game. That's why we saw Chaplain dreadnoughts being so powerful a while ago when the model was out of production so long too. This drove the price of these units (cash-wise) up in the secondary market and while this is a single case, there are other examples where you'll find that was bad for the game.

This basically future proofs the game and allows the rules writers some freedom in their "standard" system without worrying about some OOP model having a janky interaction with new rules.

Pretty much this. Doesn't help that if a unit becomes janky and popular it pushes a lot of people to buy illegal recasts which GW does not want to support.

Now if people really want to play Legend units in a tourney format there might sooner or later pop up a new format called "Legends". It would basically be like Magic The Gathering where one format only allows Non-Legend units and then another that includes Legend units.

Now, I can already hear somebody scream "I DONT WANT A SEPARATE FORMAT!", but that's what happens when somebody has toys that no one else can buy in the store unless they pay handsomely for second-hand models or go into the dark corners for bootleg versions.

Except GW can also keep stuff OP for long (even foreverr) it developers think that it helps selling more models. Let's see how long eradicators stay this level of OP.

Guys, updating a single datasheet from legends that suddenly becomes game-breaking takes 30 seconds.

 Blackie wrote:
Guys, updating a single datasheet from legends that suddenly becomes game-breaking takes 30 seconds.

Updating a single datasheet means creating a precedent and the expectations that all legend datasheets will be updated regularly.

Just try fixing the chaplain dread in 30 seconds without giving it the titan treatment.

Going to legends means this datasheet is updated one last time and never again. You cannot do that for datasheets that can be used in tournaments.

 Blackie wrote:
Except GW can also keep stuff OP for long (even foreverr) it developers think that it helps selling more models. Let's see how long eradicators stay this level of OP.

Guys, updating a single datasheet from legends that suddenly becomes game-breaking takes 30 seconds.

30 seconds rarely stops GW from making that change take 30 months to 30 years.

The best solution GW could have done is to give Legend units a the 3x cost of comparable units. This meant you'd only take the unit because you just wanted to have fun and show off and nobody can ever min-max it.

Jidmah also makes a valid point. If the sheet needs to be updated then they could just as well update them all which they don't want.

Karol wrote:
I value consistancy over everything. In the past people weren allowed to use their legends stuff, I don't think just because a whole army became legends this gives grounds to somehow revert it now.

So, you value consistency over everything? The consistency of not being able to use Legends rules in competitive play that establishes a continuity with one previous edition?

What about the consistency of people being able to use their models without them getting removed from the gaming scene? What about the consistency of having rules to represent their models that existed in a previous edition? What about the consistency of being able to continue playing models that the company encouraged you to kitbash because, hell, kitbashing made them money? What about the consistency of entire armies remaining part of the game?

Because unless we're talking about the consistency of GW giving customers the cold shoulder, starting with Squats, your consistent model removal argument runs up against a lot of contradictions with other forms of consistency.

I mean the best solution to legends is actually if Gw simply releases (or rereleases) all of these models. If that doesn't happen, well then let people play with their toys. Personally I won't be affected either way as we play with self made profiles even in our "tournaments". So if legends ever vanishes I'll write a profile for a palanquin on my own.

Karol wrote:
In the past people weren allowed to use their legends stuff, I don't think just because a whole army became legends this gives grounds to somehow revert it now.

Karol wrote:
Plus the legend system didn't exist in the past

?


Legends break literally nothing in the game and many people would have to stop playing the models they converted in the past.
Also legends is super inconsistent, why do LSM get to have a Captain on bike with thunderhammer? There is no model currently being sold with that loadout.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Guys, updating a single datasheet from legends that suddenly becomes game-breaking takes 30 seconds.

Updating a single datasheet means creating a precedent and the expectations that all legend datasheets will be updated regularly.

Just try fixing the chaplain dread in 30 seconds without giving it the titan treatment.

Going to legends means this datasheet is updated one last time and never again. You cannot do that for datasheets that can be used in tournaments.

Give it 10 wounds.
Make it BS3/WS3.
Make it more expensive.

I have no issue with them....

HOWEVER, I've never played them and I won't in the future.

I will instead use the model to proxy something else that is in the current Codex.

The idea of Legends itself (the model rule stays as they are, while the core book progress) is utterly ludicrous and honestly a bit insulting.

If GW provided a "Legend Rulebook" with the appropriate core rule, I would play that version instead. But with the current state of things, I prefer to use my model as I like, not as GW think I should like them.

I have no problem with people using their stuff or even writing their own rules that better represent what models they have as long as it's done honestly for the enjoyment of all participants.

It's almost like the game has been meant as a chassis for that since 1980's...

 Cybtroll wrote:
I have no issue with them....

HOWEVER, I've never played them and I won't in the future.

I will instead use the model to proxy something else that is in the current Codex.

The idea of Legends itself (the model rule stays as they are, while the core book progress) is utterly ludicrous and honestly a bit insulting.

If GW provided a "Legend Rulebook" with the appropriate core rule, I would play that version instead. But with the current state of things, I prefer to use my model as I like, not as GW think I should like them.

Can you explain why the idea of Legends is utterly ludicrous and insulting?

I genuinely believe it's healthy for the game both for the player (the secondary market is a cruel mistress) and the company so they're not expending resources to keep everything they've ever made for the game in a perpetual state of playability. No one is saying you can't use them, GW are just providing something for models they don't support any more, you can choose to use their rules as you please.

Warhammer Legends seems to be yet another thing you need to know about to play 9th ed 40K. We had indices, now codices, then the Psychic Awakening books, and forge world, now there is a new collection of rules and models to know about.

It reflects their current policy of "let's split something into as many different channels as possible". This started with AoS: I got the Forces of Chaos book, buzzing with excitement that I could apparently now use Skaven and Nurgle units together. Oh wait... what's this... the existing Skaven model range is split between something like five factions? The chaos monsters that I wanted to buy from the Storm of Magic era now belong to their own separate faction? I can be penalised in rules terms for combining them into an army? They're in the same bloody book! They're the same faction! What??

And that has now come to 40K...

 NoPoet wrote:
Warhammer Legends seems to be yet another thing you need to know about to play 9th ed 40K. We had indices, now codices, then the Psychic Awakening books, and forge world, now there is a new collection of rules and models to know about.

It reflects their current policy of "let's split something into as many different channels as possible". This started with AoS: I got the Forces of Chaos book, buzzing with excitement that I could apparently now use Skaven and Nurgle units together. Oh wait... what's this... the existing Skaven model range is split between something like five factions? The chaos monsters that I wanted to buy from the Storm of Magic era now belong to their own separate faction? I can be penalised in rules terms for combining them into an army? They're in the same bloody book! They're the same faction! What??

And that has now come to 40K...

Legends has been around in 40k for a while.

However, Legends is basically the opposite of this phenomenon. The idea is to soft-remove the units no longer manufactured from the game, while still keeping rules for them extant for those with historical models that are no longer in print.

tneva82 wrote:

ccs wrote:
The only people going to object to Legends stuff are those who aren't worth playing.

So are you OK with me playing with 10% discounted models?

Seeing legend models didn't get point adjustements it means they are cheaper than non-legend equilavent.

They were inflated in point values because they were ported into legends prior to game wide points reduction (in CA2019 I believe).

They current cost now is more or less 'right' after the 9th ed's points cost system cancelling out the said points reduction.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:
I have no issue with them....

HOWEVER, I've never played them and I won't in the future.

I will instead use the model to proxy something else that is in the current Codex.

The idea of Legends itself (the model rule stays as they are, while the core book progress) is utterly ludicrous and honestly a bit insulting.

If GW provided a "Legend Rulebook" with the appropriate core rule, I would play that version instead. But with the current state of things, I prefer to use my model as I like, not as GW think I should like them.

Can you explain why the idea of Legends is utterly ludicrous and insulting?

I genuinely believe it's healthy for the game both for the player (the secondary market is a cruel mistress) and the company so they're not expending resources to keep everything they've ever made for the game in a perpetual state of playability. No one is saying you can't use them, GW are just providing something for models they don't support any more, you can choose to use their rules as you please.

The problem is, as usual with GW, execution. A lot of this stuff would have been trivial to support (rules-wise) and had been longstanding staple options through many editions, there just isn't currently (or never was) a specific dedicated model SKU for it, all while GW adds more rules and datasheets for trivially differentiated new SKUs that often have no options (e.g. the new Primaris Space Marine Captain with Master Crafted Heavy Bolt Rifle), and they're really inconsistent about what they move to Legends and what they just delete from existence entirely.

On top of that they get labelled as inappropriate for competitive play, which in many instances is the only play many people get (showing up to the monthly store event to get their 3 games in for the month) or that is then taken by some players as essentially meaning they shouldn't be used at all.

My group usually plays very competitively, so if something goes to legends, it doesn't exist anymore for us. No point practicing with something which we can't bring to tournaments.

I don't have an issue with it on face value, but for pick up games I wouldn't want to play against legends units without my opponent asking first.

 Cybtroll wrote:
I have no issue with them....

HOWEVER, I've never played them and I won't in the future.

I will instead use the model to proxy something else that is in the current Codex.

The idea of Legends itself (the model rule stays as they are, while the core book progress) is utterly ludicrous and honestly a bit insulting.

If GW provided a "Legend Rulebook" with the appropriate core rule, I would play that version instead. But with the current state of things, I prefer to use my model as I like, not as GW think I should like them.

I sure wish i could run my Lord on steed of slaanesh as something else :(

I would be completely Ok with my oponent using them and have quite some in my own collection as well. Mostly kitbashs/counts as and some FW stuff (roughly glancing over it 2 Tauros Venators, 1 Tauros Assault (+ 1 each not build yet), 2 Salamander Scouts, a Stormchimera, 3 Sentinel Powerlifters).

Regarding the whole business that they might be underprized/suddenly very powerful due to unforseen rules interactions: I personally would assume that for my own stuff when I realize that this is the case, I would tell my oponent about it and try to find a solution, like increasing the prize a bit or something else if he feels this is an unfair advantage. The Tauros Venators for example are a bit cheap compared their weight in Sentinels, so it might be fair to put like... 10 points on top. But I highly doupt the rest is unfairly prized currently.

But then again: I don't think I will ever play tournaments or something like that and am more looking for a casual gaming group

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:
I have no issue with them....

HOWEVER, I've never played them and I won't in the future.

I will instead use the model to proxy something else that is in the current Codex.

The idea of Legends itself (the model rule stays as they are, while the core book progress) is utterly ludicrous and honestly a bit insulting.

If GW provided a "Legend Rulebook" with the appropriate core rule, I would play that version instead. But with the current state of things, I prefer to use my model as I like, not as GW think I should like them.

I sure wish i could run my Lord on steed of slaanesh as something else :(

Try modeling it spitting something to make it count as a Combi-Bolter maybe for a Biker Lord?

So, like with everything GW: "Good" Idea, piss poor execution.

There is no reason to take Legends units in reality, you're better off just counts-asing as something else, or just counts-asing your entire army as Space Marines.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:
I have no issue with them....

HOWEVER, I've never played them and I won't in the future.

I will instead use the model to proxy something else that is in the current Codex.

The idea of Legends itself (the model rule stays as they are, while the core book progress) is utterly ludicrous and honestly a bit insulting.

If GW provided a "Legend Rulebook" with the appropriate core rule, I would play that version instead. But with the current state of things, I prefer to use my model as I like, not as GW think I should like them.

I sure wish i could run my Lord on steed of slaanesh as something else :(

Try modeling it spitting something to make it count as a Combi-Bolter maybe for a Biker Lord?

The biker lord that... isn't in the codex either?

Crispy78 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:
I have no issue with them....

HOWEVER, I've never played them and I won't in the future.

I will instead use the model to proxy something else that is in the current Codex.

The idea of Legends itself (the model rule stays as they are, while the core book progress) is utterly ludicrous and honestly a bit insulting.

If GW provided a "Legend Rulebook" with the appropriate core rule, I would play that version instead. But with the current state of things, I prefer to use my model as I like, not as GW think I should like them.

I sure wish i could run my Lord on steed of slaanesh as something else :(

Try modeling it spitting something to make it count as a Combi-Bolter maybe for a Biker Lord?

The biker lord that... isn't in the codex either?

Give it wings and do it as a Jump Lord?
Sorry I forgot it wasn't in the codex either.

16 people so far are angry that we're having fun the wrong way.

I mean, does bringing out my two Griffons somehow make me a bad person? Someone looking for advantage with "discounted" models?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
16 people so far are angry that we're having fun the wrong way.

I mean, does bringing out my two Griffons somehow make me a bad person? Someone looking for advantage with "discounted" models?

Clearly you acquired your old models after the switch to legends to cheat through a loophole in casual play, so yes.

 jaredb wrote:

I don't have an issue with it on face value, but for pick up games I wouldn't want to play against legends units without my opponent asking first.

So you don't have a problem.... But I have to play "Mother May I?" with you on Wed concerning a model you'd have happily played against Tue., in a casual pick up game.

Here folks is an example of the type of person I was referring to in my initial reply.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
16 people so far are angry that we're having fun the wrong way.

I mean, does bringing out my two Griffons somehow make me a bad person? Someone looking for advantage with "discounted" models?

Clearly you acquired your old models after the switch to legends to cheat through a loophole in casual play, so yes.

Is this sarcasm?

Yeah

He's actually right.

I built a time machine so once something hits Legends I can go back in time and buy it when it was new, therefore gaining an advantage now.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Seeing as most of the DKoK have been moved to legends, a lot of people are saying you can still use the legends data sheet they will be getting. But I honestly wonder how people feel about them, only in regards to non-tournament play of course.

I have a ton of legends models. Hell I just bought a $270 gorgon a few months ago only for it to be made legends. I'm gonna run the thing at least once dammit

No problem with legends. Most are currently over costed and do not require opponents permission anyway so the point is moot outside of tournament play.

I don't have a problem, in theory, with playing agaisnt legend units.


But in practice, most people that have legend models just use them as something else without a complaint and the only people I have encountered that insists that we should allow legends is people that tried to use character-sniper eldar Autarch with Missile Launchers or stuff like that.

In the campaing I ran we used legends characters to have all the options for people to use, but in tournaments... hmmm...

Is just like FW. In Spain, FW is banned in the country with the exception of some stores or some big tournaments. After months , my FLGS allowed FW after a little lobbying from my part and a friend. I was very happy! I would be able to play with mi saggitarum guard and mi venatari and Achillus (this was in 8th) and my friend would be able to use his Tau's tetras!

First tournament with FW: 4 people we didn't had even see ever in the store appeared with 4 leviathan and/or Chaplain dreadnought lists into the store (And their FW wasn't even FW it was chineforge). The next month the store owner banned FW again.

Thats my sad story.

In theory, I the kind of guy that really allows everything and is happy to play agaisnt even fan codex like the bretonnia fan battletome of Auticus for AoS. But with friends. Everytime we have oppened this kind of legacy options, the people that show with them is the kind of player that will use any loophole.

And I know. The ultimate blame is in GW for doing bad rules and "LOL LEVIATHAN lists WHY YOU DON'T COMPLAINT ABOUT X GW BROKEN COMBO! BA LEVIATHANS WERE FINE". It doesnt make a difference outside internet crapthrowing contests.

@ galas, actually it does matter, because it is frankly pretty hypocritical of your store owner, because if unbalance is supposedly such an issue the first thing on the banlist in that scenario would have been the whole IH supplement and by extension and guilt by association the whole SM 2.0 clusterfeth...

But that would cut into your store owners bottomline, unlike FW which he can't sell.

Not Online!!! wrote:
@ galas, actually it does matter, because it is frankly pretty hypocritical of your store owner, because if unbalance is supposedly such an issue the first thing on the banlist in that scenario would have been the whole IH supplement and by extension and guilt by association the whole SM 2.0 clusterfeth...

But that would cut into your store owners bottomline, unlike FW which he can't sell.

Exactly. At the end of the day both FW and legends cannot be sold by store owners. Thats more of a problem of spain than the world.

But my dissertion was more about how, at the end of the day, this kind of stuff will be used by the most part to find loopholes.

And yes, we all know. "Why is GW proper unbalanced allowed but legends/FW unbalanced put into a different light"? Because "official" and "standard" unbalanced is expected. But add-on baggage it is not.
Theres a reason why Final Destination, No Items, Fox Only became a meme.

 Galas wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
@ galas, actually it does matter, because it is frankly pretty hypocritical of your store owner, because if unbalance is supposedly such an issue the first thing on the banlist in that scenario would have been the whole IH supplement and by extension and guilt by association the whole SM 2.0 clusterfeth...

But that would cut into your store owners bottomline, unlike FW which he can't sell.

Exactly. At the end of the day both FW and legends cannot be sold by store owners. Thats more of a problem of spain than the world.

But my dissertion was more about how, at the end of the day, this kind of stuff will be used by the most part to find loopholes.

And yes, we all know. "Why is GW proper unbalanced allowed but legends/FW unbalanced put into a different light"? Because "official" and "standard" unbalanced is expected. But add-on baggage it is not.
Theres a reason why Final Destination, No Items, Fox Only became a meme.

Fw and Legends are "official" and "standard". Banning those units is no different than banning a supplement or codex. A leviathan without the broken mess that Iron Hands were on release was no more of a problem than 40 PPM eradicators. WAAC players can find plenty of broken stuff in what many consider "mainline" gw.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
@ galas, actually it does matter, because it is frankly pretty hypocritical of your store owner, because if unbalance is supposedly such an issue the first thing on the banlist in that scenario would have been the whole IH supplement and by extension and guilt by association the whole SM 2.0 clusterfeth...

But that would cut into your store owners bottomline, unlike FW which he can't sell.

Exactly. At the end of the day both FW and legends cannot be sold by store owners. Thats more of a problem of spain than the world.

But my dissertion was more about how, at the end of the day, this kind of stuff will be used by the most part to find loopholes.

And yes, we all know. "Why is GW proper unbalanced allowed but legends/FW unbalanced put into a different light"? Because "official" and "standard" unbalanced is expected. But add-on baggage it is not.
Theres a reason why Final Destination, No Items, Fox Only became a meme.

Fw and Legends are "official" and "standard". Banning those units is no different than banning a supplement or codex. A leviathan without the broken mess that Iron Hands were on release was no more of a problem than 40 PPM eradicators. WAAC players can find plenty of broken stuff in what many consider "mainline" gw.

And lets not forget that the majority of the stuff in FW and legends are actually bad units, with a few exceptions but just because the FW dreads were strong in 9th doesnt make everything OP.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
@ galas, actually it does matter, because it is frankly pretty hypocritical of your store owner, because if unbalance is supposedly such an issue the first thing on the banlist in that scenario would have been the whole IH supplement and by extension and guilt by association the whole SM 2.0 clusterfeth...

But that would cut into your store owners bottomline, unlike FW which he can't sell.

Exactly. At the end of the day both FW and legends cannot be sold by store owners. Thats more of a problem of spain than the world.

But my dissertion was more about how, at the end of the day, this kind of stuff will be used by the most part to find loopholes.

And yes, we all know. "Why is GW proper unbalanced allowed but legends/FW unbalanced put into a different light"? Because "official" and "standard" unbalanced is expected. But add-on baggage it is not.
Theres a reason why Final Destination, No Items, Fox Only became a meme.

Fw and Legends are "official" and "standard". Banning those units is no different than banning a supplement or codex. A leviathan without the broken mess that Iron Hands were on release was no more of a problem than 40 PPM eradicators. WAAC players can find plenty of broken stuff in what many consider "mainline" gw.

that's his point, but one the Game store owner has a vested interest in beeing allowed , the other he has a vested interest in disallowing to force WAAC players tp buy the mainline stuff locally preferably
allbeit when they got chinacast allready you'd think that those earnings margin are not worth the lower visitors list evoked from a FW ban..
however i have no idea about the 40k Scene in spain really so maybee that behaviour works.

A little off topic but why are they banned I Spain? And do you just mean in use or sales?

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
A little off topic but why are they banned I Spain? And do you just mean in use or sales?

Use, not Spanish, never played in Spain but FW being banned is historically not that uncommon because it was viewed as "pay to win". Either because FW genuinely couldn't balance or because people didn't see or use them enough and unknown things are scary.

For me it depends on the game.

Sometimes I am looking for a casual game or a narrative game. Those days 100% play em.

Sometimes I am looking for an ultra-competitive grudge match.... no dice for those games.

and sometimes, somewhere in between... then I would usually say yes, but as long as we both agreed on it in advance (most likely i would agree).

I don't know why I should feel more worried about your lovely converted Khorne Lord on Juggernaut than about those 18 Eradicators on which somebody slapped 3 paints in a hurry. Really I think GWs Codizes are often a higher danger for competitive play than miniatures with 4 years old points costs
Legends models need the same discussion before the game as GWs new hotness. But that's just normal business in any wargame if you ask me.

It's fine. I agree that they probably shouldn't be used in competitive/tournament play, where people pretend their armies are 'balanced', but outside that it's fine.

If they end up a little over or undercosted, fine - so are loads of units.

As to the idea of casual-competitive play, where people want to play casually but ALSO like they're at a tournament, they need to pick what rules they wanna use before they play. You wanna play Matched Play, Open Play or Narrative? There might be the odd Legends unit. You really want to play pickup games using the rules for tournaments? Fine, say that ahead of time. No Legends units.

The issue isn't that there isn't clarity - the issue is the amount of people who want to play tournament 40k all the time.

 ArbitorIan wrote:


The issue isn't that there isn't clarity - the issue is the amount of people who want to play tournament 40k all the time.

Exalted.

As time goes on there will be more and more added to this list. It will become harder to differentiate what is going to be acceptable and what isn't. I've been asked to play against them before in a competitive LGS league. I felt under pressure to say yes because by declining I would have been the bad guy?

The longer they stay in legends the less playable they’ll be - in one direction or the other. Until the next major shakeup and they just won’t be playable at all because the system itself doesn’t support their datasheet format.

Imagine Legends came out before the changes to vehicles. All the Legends vehicles would have facings and AV instead of toughness and wounds. They’d be unplayable. The next shake up like that will be the end of Legends.

 Nithaniel wrote:
As time goes on there will be more and more added to this list. It will become harder to differentiate what is going to be acceptable and what isn't. I've been asked to play against them before in a competitive LGS league. I felt under pressure to say yes because by declining I would have been the bad guy?

I'd say that in something like a league, the organiser should make it clear at the start what the situation is regarding Legends - while it isn't a tournament, it is a form of organised play, so it's a bit of a grey area in terms of intent.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
He's actually right.

I built a time machine so once something hits Legends I can go back in time and buy it when it was new, therefore gaining an advantage now.

Can I borrow that for a FW pilot run?

The whole Legends debate is one of those stupid circular arguments.

We all know it's unreasonable for GW to be expected to permanently, for ever, publish updated and consistently rebalanced rules for every model they've ever made, even ones that have been out of print for years and years. Nobody is seriously complaining right now that GW don't publish rules for their Space Slann or Squat models.

On the other hand, people don't want the rules for models to stop existing the minute they stop being made.

Legends seems like a pretty genuine way to try and solve that - publish rules for all the out of print models, but don't keep them in the constant rebalancing cycle, and say that because of this they're not suitable for 'tournament play'.

Seems fine, until a load of people come along and insist on playing 'tournament play' every time they ever play 40k, even in a non-tournament setting. THAT is the problem.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
...We all know it's unreasonable for GW to be expected to permanently, for ever, publish updated and consistently rebalanced rules for every model they've ever made...

It'd be a perfectly reasonable expectation if GW's release schedule wasn't "new rulebook, push all the army books out at a breakneck pace, half-baked end-of-edition campaign book, rinse, repeat". If they prioritized making the game work over making everyone buy new rulebooks as fast as they can manage then maybe they could make the whole game work instead of deciding to drop bits off.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
...We all know it's unreasonable for GW to be expected to permanently, for ever, publish updated and consistently rebalanced rules for every model they've ever made...

It'd be a perfectly reasonable expectation if GW's release schedule wasn't "new rulebook, push all the army books out at a breakneck pace, half-baked end-of-edition campaign book, rinse, repeat". If they prioritized making the game work over making everyone buy new rulebooks as fast as they can manage then maybe they could make the whole game work instead of deciding to drop bits off.

This...
Exalt..

It's really not. New editions of games don't need to be shackled to everything that has come before it. What 40k needs is a clean slate and a game written from the ground up to be balanced. In some cases that means old units/wargear need to go. In some cases that means expansion of some armies with new units.

The company should NEVER feel beholden to past editions. Make the best product they can today. Not a worse one so bits they made up 15 years ago for a rule set that no longer exists can have bespoke rules.

Tbf, this would be solved if GW just iterated on everything that came before, instead of replacing.

In a stable game system, something could persist with its rules untouched. And that would be fine, if said stable game system also was balanced. I see no need to constantly destabilize the game...

... well except the financial need of course.

Tyranid Horde wrote:Can you explain why the idea of Legends is utterly ludicrous and insulting?

Quite happily, it's pretty straightforward to be honest... and sorry if I missed your post before.
Legends are static rules promoted as a long-lasting solution when they depends from a dynamic ruleset. That's it.

I can make an example, anyway.
Imagine a software house, that has something like "SOFTWARE 3.9", which includes a module called "MODULE 1.2".
The software house decide to go legacy with the specific module, meaning it won't be updated anymore: it will remain 1.2 forever.
BUT, at the same time, the company decide to release "SOFTWARE 3.10". Then, they roll it out to all its customer, including those who use the module 1.2. It will broke.
That's the reason why, when you go legacy (in software, but the reasoning is general), you either have to keep (for those who want) a insular installation of the legacy version, or you entirely retire the unsupported component.

So: GW release Legends during 8th, with the explicit claim to "let this model live forever" (or, for a long time. Maybe they were less dramatic, but that's the general idea).
Then, they change the underlying system (the core rules and point value, still during 8th), instantly breaking the compatibility between Legends and the ruleset DURING THE SAME EDITION. Then, they release 9th, and by pure chance (meaning: the point increases across the board) maybe Legends in 8th may be use again?
But it's a fluke, not a plan or a planned structure.
Now, another example, this time a practical one. Take any Legend SM Bike Character (say, a Librarian). He now has an old point cost (and that's ok: I mean, that was the deal since the beginning... so we can't fuss about it).
But it also have a less Wound. And to further aggravate it the bespoke rules on the datasheet ensure that (for example) now also its equipment is wrong (not in term of point: in terms of rules and stat).

The Legend idea COULD had worked if either one of the following was true:
A) the Core Rules stays the same for a very long period of time (the so-called "live rulebook"). Yes, point cost will be a little fuzzy, but at least there is some uniformity. BTW, that was the original plan: it's pretty easy to know that when you check the announcement: GW explicitly said that "ONLY" the point cost won't be updated (so no tournament) but the model will remain legit. Pristine bollocks if there are any.
B) the Legends will be applied to a legacy version of Warhammer 40K. For example, the model gone to Legends this week would have had rules for 8th edition: since that is a closed editorial lines hence forever compatible with the aforementioned rules.

As usual, GW try to have the cake and eat it, with the predictable result of smearing us all in the process, dropping a lot of cake on the floor and then hide everything under the carpet.

But, I want to be clear on this: it's not a failure of game design, or a failure from business perspective, or from an economic point of view. It's not something somehow technical, that falls under one department or another.
It's a failure at logic of the first order, nothing more and nothing less.

Personally, it felt somehow similar to that final battle scene in the first G.I. Joe movie: an undersea base destroyed by sinking ice that falls all over it. No, I'm not making this up. They really shoot and produced this scene. Worth repeating: ice sinking underwater like rocks.
At that point in the movie I immediately thought about the countless technicians, producers, VFX artists and anyone else that worked on it... and none care (or had self-esteem) enough to go to the executive producer (or to the director, or whoever) to shout out "listen to me you fething moron ice do not sink in water".

My irritation towards the "Legends solution" for old datasheet is of the same cloth, magnified by another consideration.
To have to remove a product while some customer is still using it is a situation that countless companies in any markets (not only software) face worldwide every day. Everyone get it, but not GW.

 Lance845 wrote:
What 40k needs is a clean slate and a game written from the ground up to be balanced.

They did that. It was called 8th Edition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
What 40k needs is a clean slate and a game written from the ground up to be balanced.

They did that. It was called 8th Edition.

No they didn't. 8th was a new rule set but they bought ALL the baggage with them. Or did you forget about the index flow chart? And they continue to do it in 9th. Legends hasn't put nearly enough into legends for them to build anything from the ground up.

The Indices existed because GW redid 40K from the ground up. How else would people play the game if it didn't launch with rules for everything that existed?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Indices existed because GW redid 40K from the ground up. How else would people play the game if it didn't launch with rules for everything that existed?

By launching with NEW rules for all the armies. I don't know if you are aware of this but it's pretty much only GW who does this trickle feed codex release over years after the launch of a new edition. Generally when ANY other game launches a new edition they do so with the rules for everyone for the new edition all on launch day.

And it's really just the big flagship games GW does it with. Again, Apoc released with every datasheet for every army available on day 1. GW could have done that. Write all the codexes. Test them. Balance them. Release them on launch. They just don't.

Oh, and BTW, what I said wasn't the index. I said the index flow chart. Because what I meant was how the codexes didn't remove jack gak and instead they decided to build a LITERAL flow chart for how to keep all the old crap going in the new edition.