Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.