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.

I've got the rule book, and I've got the marine codex. The Legion are now an Elite choice that always deep strikes (with a re-roll too), are relentless (meaning they can move and fire, even heavy weapons, as if they had not moved), Fearless (always pass morale checks), have a 3+ invulnerable save. on the downside, they always move as if in difficult terrain (IE slowly), and have strictly plain vanilla stats for an elite choice (obviously offset by their killer special rules) with one slight exception of 2 HTH attacks per round (not terribly useful as they are really slow moving).

But the fluff in the page says "The bolters carried by the Legionnaires, though in aspect no
different to those borne by other Space Marines, discharge
flaming projectiles that can pierce the strongest armour."

So why not make the Bolters AP3 or 2? I though of the rending ability also.....

I thought I remembered reading something like this as well. I think it would definatly help, and justify the legionarres points cost, but its probably best to keep it as rending tos top people complaining too much.

giving them AP3 would make sense considering their points cost

they then become 1k sons with 3+ invulns that are elites

AP 3 is a bit OP, but I'd agree with rending.

AP 3. With Rending they'd be able to wreck vehicles.

rending makes sense to me. Also why can't they have normal 3+ saves in addition to the invul!

They are fine.
The only issue with them is points cost.

We don't need unit entries between SM and CSM to get closer looking.

Suggestions:
1. Personal Gate of Infinity like ability.
2. Sort of Warp Spider assault move.

that's because in the new rules, models with multiple saves may only use the one, best save they have depending on the circumstance. For example, a chaplin with power armor (3+), a rozarius (4+ invulnerable) and in a bunker (3+ cover save). He is attacked by a weapon with AP4. either his armor or the cover save has the best chance to save him, so he may take EITHER one, but not both. If he was attacked by with AP 3, then his armor is useless (eliminate that save). He still has the 4+ invulnerable, or the 3+ cover save (which is not affected by AP). so, you would use the cover save as the best roll.

What was the point of that Killroy?
I had thought dumplingman's question is not about the 'rule', but more about why GW didn't give them other saves besides the 3++...(prob. because they wanted them to be raped by psycannon/incinerators )

he asked about having a normal 3 plus save in addition to the invulnerable one
"Also why can't they have normal 3+ saves in addition to the invul!"
I simply took it to meant hat they should have two seperate saving throws. In the new rules, have a 3+ regular save and a 3+ invulnerable wouldn't have any advantage. Either way, you get a 3+ save that cannot be overruled by low AP weapons, template weapons or close combat from Monstrous size creatures,

Incinerators and Psycannons are the exception.
Effects like Tyranid Boneswords, Null Zone, stuff like that that disrupts Inv saves.

There would be an advantedge to having a 3+ armor.
I'm guessing the reason they don't have it is due to other reasons besides advantedges. (Like their 'ghostly' nature )

Naw, page 20 of the 5th edition clearly states:
"Even if a wound normally ignores all armor saves, an invulnerable armor save may still be taken."

So I take it you are unfamiliar with Incinerators, Psycannons, Boneswords, and Null zone...

The rules you have quoted are general rules.
The items I have listed are specific rules.

Specific rules override general rules. So Incinerators/psycannons slap Legion ass while Boneswords and Null zone punish them severly.

All because that they have 'only' an inv save.

Maybe there's an FAQ that say they have an armor save in addition to the Inv save, but I haven't seen it yet. The closest thing I remember is to do with Necron Wraiths getting an armor save equal to their inv save...or I'm just making it up

killlroy Sanctjud has it right. MY comment was soley on the fact that LOTD only have a 3++ and not a normal save along with it. Weapons such as incinerators and pyscannons only have a ap of 5 and 4 rsepectively BUT they ignore invulnerable saves so that the LOTD get no saves versus them. In addition pyscannon bolts ignore invul saves too!

Edit: Simple put models in power armor should have a power save ha!

Which I'm guessing it's supposed to be a 'ghostly' feature and they made up the rules for this unit with fluff heavily behind it, which Daemon Hunters do well to destroy incorporal-like stuff.

As to the OT, I don't think changing their offensive ability is needed.
They offer pin point delivery of a heavy weapon and later a relentless platform to continue the theme of 'mobile' heavy weapon.

Changing their guns make them too 'sterngaury/Dust Buckety'. Rending is interesting...but I think mobility is their strong point ruleswise and fluffwise.

It's (IMO) not the quality of shot from them. It's the placing of those shots, hence my suggestions. Fluff-wise they show up out of no where, which is that nice rerollable deepstrike, but I think a longer term 'showing up out of no where would make them more unique and not just a throw away unit. With the extra mobility they can be more dynamic in the list.

But, the huge problem as it is now is cost. There's nothing hugely wrong with them otherwise.

I agree with you Sanct, but my assumption with this poll was that the point cost stays the same. I'd rather see them get a point reduction but failing that rending would be a nice compensation.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:I agree with you Sanct, but my assumption with this poll was that the point cost stays the same. I'd rather see them get a point reduction but failing that rending would be a nice compensation.

Which would make people more likely to take more LOTD. Keep the point costs, give them AP3.