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.

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?