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.

People using Index/Legends arent usually the competitive type anyway. The few complaints I've heard from my gaming community about Legends are from the infrequent players anyhow, and for them, I'd just allow them to play their way.

Personally I think it's just better to adapt to GWs suggestions on things like Legends, Rule of 3, and Detachment limits, react, adapt, overcome. But I also realize a big part of the hobby is bitching about not getting that oompa loompa and a golden goose.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:

Personally I think it's just better to adapt to GWs suggestions on things like Legends, Rule of 3, and Detachment limits, react, adapt, overcome.

Personally I think it is better to ignore those as they're not actual rules but mere suggestions.

Optional rules are still rules.

 Galas wrote:
Optional rules are still rules.

It's the "optional" part that people don't seem to understand.

Additionally, the "Rule of 3" isn't. It's a suggested thing for tournaments that happens to have "rule" in the name.

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's the "optional" part that people don't seem to understand.

Yep.

Additionally, the "Rule of 3" isn't. It's a suggested thing for tournaments that happens to have "rule" in the name.

It actually even doesn't. 'Rule of Three' isn't the real name of the suggestion. It is just a column in the Organised Event Guidelines saying: "number of times each datasheet can be included."

They published something, IIRC, in a FAQ/Designer Notes that talked about the 'Rule of Three' using that nomenclature.

 Crimson wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:

Personally I think it's just better to adapt to GWs suggestions on things like Legends, Rule of 3, and Detachment limits, react, adapt, overcome.

Personally I think it is better to ignore those as they're not actual rules but mere suggestions.

You know, theres a game mode (that everyone hates) where you can do whatever the hell you want to. It's called Open Play.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:

You know, theres a game mode (that everyone hates) where you can do whatever the hell you want to. It's called Open Play.

Yes. There is also a game mode which doesn't include the organised event limitations. It is called normal Matched Play.

Personally i don't want to face wolf guard bikers ever again though.

Martel732 wrote:
Personally i don't want to face wolf guard bikers ever again though.

Well we don't want to hear you complain about everything either.

Unfortunately we don't always get what we want....

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
You know, theres a game mode (that everyone hates) where you can do whatever the hell you want to. It's called Open Play.

This old (incorrect) presumption again? Reset the clock folks.

It's all very well grandstanding online and saying "well akchuaalalllllllllly they're optional rules" but they are (for some reason) treated as if they are real rules by the wider community so they're not at all optional for many of us who play (or played in my own case) pick-up games vs. strangers in a LGS.

Akchualllllly.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It's all very well grandstanding online and saying "well akchuaalalllllllllly they're optional rules" but they are (for some reason) treated as if they are real rules by the wider community so they're not at all optional for many of us who play (or played in my own case) pick-up games vs. strangers in a LGS.

Akchualllllly.

Get better gaming buddies.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It's all very well grandstanding online and saying "well akchuaalalllllllllly they're optional rules" but they are (for some reason) treated as if they are real rules by the wider community so they're not at all optional for many of us who play (or played in my own case) pick-up games vs. strangers in a LGS.

Akchualllllly.

The trick I've found is to flip the script on the people who insist on these "optional" rules as being mandatory. Their reasoning usually includes such gems as "I'm practicing for a tournament!"(there was no tournament ) or that they somehow feel that "the game wouldn't be balanced" otherwise.

As soon as you start telling them that you want to play Urban Conquest or use the cityfight rules, suddenly people become more tractable.

amusingly the last pick up game I played was open play. my local GW was having a christmas party and a bucha us decided to just throw down and play,we didn't even balance around PL we just played what we had. (which lead the the blood angel player who'd brought a tank having an edge but it was all light hearted fun)open play thus does work, but you need to go in with the right mindset it's certainly not the game set I'd advise people to play normally, but it can be fun for a afterbnoon if you're not looking to be very serious.

Wayniac wrote:
I thought it was stupid in the first place and just opened the floodgates to abuse. They should have taken the heat and said sorry, we understand you want to use models that you bought 20 years ago, but the game has to evolve. If you really want it, use it to proxy an existing model in your codex with your opponent's permission.

The issue is that this would have made more sense if the options removed were taken out for sensible reasons. They weren't, and that left many people high and dry.

I just bought/converted several models that are being put out to pasture by these legends changes. I just started back up when 8th came out so all of these purchases were done with a CURRENT RULE BOOK IN HAND, FROM GW (OR KITBASHED WITH GW KITS). None of this is 20 years old and if GW knew they were phasing them out they shouldn't have sold any of it once 8th hit (and GW knew they were phasing them out).

Several biker characters (DA libby, BA captain, SW cap)
regular sized tigarius
regular sized shrike
Dual AC forge world arms for my venerable dreads
and the aforementioned wolf guard bikers (haven't finished painting these yet...)

Hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours of painting gone for I'm not sure what reason. Is it really that hard to add the bike characters to one of the new codexes I'm paying 40 bucks for? Are twin-auto cannon dreads ruining 40k? They couldn't have spent the .000004$ on adding a line to the marine equipment list?

It wasn't that they were unbalanced (maybe the wolf guard bikers were a bit much but thunder wolf cavalry are sooooo bad) and if being unbalanced is a reason to remove something, boy do I have a list for you!

Some of the old as dirt stuff or weird one offs should go, unintended equipment combos should have been dealt with (stupid eldar and their stupid bikes) but my dark angel librarian on a bike never hurt no one, is fluffy as hell and now I can't use him in any of my games (only play ITC tournaments because I have way too much on my plate to develop and maintain a whole new social network so I can enjoy my hobby).

I'm not asking to use my 20 year old tiny metal demon price with wings but for stuff I bought this edition to be removed from legal play (no matter how they try to sugar coat it that is what they are doing for me) is BS, especially after they came out with the flow chart to reassure us that we can still use our models...

Thanks GW....

And which of those do not have Legends rules? It is your choice to play under a system that uses restrictive houserules.

They dont need it anymore because thats what Legends is for...

bananathug wrote:
...now I can't use him in any of my games (only play ITC tournaments...

Sounds like your issue is with Frontline Gaming rather than Games Workshop.

In regards to "restrictive house rules", it bears noting that GW has stated that Legends are not recommended for Matched Play. It's right there on the splash page for the Legends downloadable PDF. And I'm relatively certain that "rule of 3" was implemented to address balance issues with certain spammed units. If you choose to disregard recommendations because you don't like them, then I ain't gonna fault ya for it. Just don't be a donkey cave because other folks choose to go along with the recommendations put forward by the company that makes the game.

And as for "I just built all these models I can't use": unless you're playing SoB, every Faction has had a Codex for well over a year now. Did you not consider that, maybe, the units that didn't make it into your Codex weren't gonna be supported for much longer in this edition? How, exactly, should GW phase out old models and rules? I'm relatively certain that if they released a new edition that lacked options from this one, people would still complain about having just put together a bunch of stuff and not being able to use them now. Personally, I think 1+ years to use your models and start working on replacing them with options that "made the switch" to a Codex is plenty of time. I also believe that that thinking the options that didn't make it into a Codex were gonna stay in the game forever is being deliberately ignorant.

 flandarz wrote:
In regards to "restrictive house rules", it bears noting that GW has stated that Legends are not recommended for Matched Play. It's right there on the splash page for the Legends downloadable PDF.

I dont see anything saying legends are not recommended for matched play.

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

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.

when they announced it they said tournies may not want to allow them

Organised Play is not Matched Play. Legends rules are approved for Matched Play, as per the webpage and each PDF’s preamble. If your gaming group pretends it’s always a tournament that’s on them.

BrianDavion wrote:
when they announced it they said tournies may not want to allow them

Again wrong. They said that they dont recommend them for organised play.

 p5freak wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
when they announced it they said tournies may not want to allow them

Again wrong. They said that they dont recommend them for organised play.

...Organised Play is GW’s shorthand for tournaments. You’re both saying the same thing. But it doesn’t change the fact these rules are fine for Matched Play.

Heck, in your group there’s nothing to stop you counting the flowchart as still applying and sub in the word Legends for Index. Or just use the Index and the Legends points (not that there are any changes between the two that I’m aware of). You have 8th-compatible rules, both players agree to use them, crack on! There are no fun police who’ll come and tell you off. BCB is an online persona who doesn’t even play 40K. He won’t pop round and smash your models, and what he thinks about your gaming choices is irrelevant anyway. Legends and the flowchart disappearance is completely not a worry for anyone with reasonable opponents to play against. If your group pretends they’re the weekly equivalent of the LVO and bans someone’s old and largely overcosted/uncompetitive models (because nothing game-breaking is in Legends tbh) then they’re a sucky group. Fact.

 Nithaniel wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I dont mind that GW removed the flowchart, but i do mind that its a stealth update.

EXACTLY!
They've started a precedent for being clearer and more transparent with the rules. Stealth moves are just bad old GW up to its standard tricks.

I personally welcome the legneds concept. New players I know had no way to get these models and started resorting to third party or expensive conversions. Having a clear and current ruleset is a must they just can't handle the clear part.

It was not particularly stealth removal though when they announced the replacement(legends) months ago.

Who really thought flowchart was going to stay when legends does same thing?

Only thing that was surprise was them not removing flowchart same time legends came out. GW being GW they forgot that one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Organised Play is not Matched Play. Legends rules are approved for Matched Play, as per the webpage and each PDF’s preamble. If your gaming group pretends it’s always a tournament that’s on them.

It's less of pretending it's always tournament and more of not wanting to go routine of:

"take all your models"
"go to FLGS"
"arrange game"
"sort of all the rules. legends? points? rule of 3? detachment limits? etc etc etc etc etc"
"come up with army list"
"play"

To avoid that you need standard way to game. Most obvious and convenient one being the tournament standard. Otherwise there's tons of things you need to sort out before game. Point size? What rules in use? What publication scenario will be rolled? Etc etc etc etc.

Fine if you have time but not everybody has time to sort all that and then create army list. Or interest to carry enough spare models they can get list for any rules you agree with. If you allow legends then opponent is in 100% equal right to ask for no rule of 3 for example which def has impact on army list.

 p5freak wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
In regards to "restrictive house rules", it bears noting that GW has stated that Legends are not recommended for Matched Play. It's right there on the splash page for the Legends downloadable PDF.

I dont see anything saying legends are not recommended for matched play.

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

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.

Huh. I wonder where it went. Cuz when Legends first dropped, I remember having an argument on this very site about it. Very well then. Carry on.

tneva82 wrote:


To avoid that you need standard way to game. Most obvious and convenient one being the tournament standard. Otherwise there's tons of things you need to sort out before game. Point size? What rules in use? What publication scenario will be rolled? Etc etc etc etc.

How about the normal matched play rules? What is so difficult about that? Using tournament suggestions outside tournaments is far from obvious.

Fine if you have time but not everybody has time to sort all that and then create army list. Or interest to carry enough spare models they can get list for any rules you agree with. If you allow legends then opponent is in 100% equal right to ask for no rule of 3

Sure.

for example which def has impact on army list.

How? You do understand that not using rule of three doesn't mean that you must use use more than three of same datasheets?

And I'm relatively certain that "rule of 3" was implemented to address balance issues with certain spammed units.

One of the most notable units in this regard was the Flyrant spam.