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.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You keep mentioning these "errors" in the Legends documents without actually mentioning what those "errors" are . As someone who generally doesn't care ( as I've completely switched over to HH at this point), can you please expand on what, exactly, those "errors"" are? Specifically, please, if possible.

Here's an example: the Minotaur artillery tank (which shouldn't even be in legends, it's a currently available model). It has the TRANSPORT keyword for no apparent reason but no rules giving it transport capacity. Its gun, which is supposed to be a twin-linked copy of the Basilisk's gun, is missing the Heavy rule the Basilisk has. Obviously the transport thing is (probably) just a stupid copy/paste error but what about the gun? Is removing the Heavy rule a deliberate choice to nerf the unit, or is it merely an error? I want my Minotaur to have +1 to hit, my opponent doesn't.

With normal rules this is a temporary frustration and GW will fix it soon in an FAQ. But with legends rules GW has announced that, as in 9th, legends rules will not be updated. There will never be any solution to the error, and every time I want to use the unit I'll have to talk to my opponent and agree on how we want to play it. And the farther we get into the edition the more this kind of thing will appear. By the end of 9th the legends rules were full of old versions of faction rules, references to codex pages and wargear tables that no longer exist, stat lines that don't match codex equivalents, missing keywords, etc.

Ignore the transport keyword, play the rest as written. What's the problem? That you don't get the +1 to hit? Live with it. Or, if you can't, don't play the model. Let those who can live with it play it. The end. Stop assuming that your hang ups apply to everyone else. The end.

Dudeface wrote:
The marker light is your first example of something that's a problem but it still seems to be a fairly obvious omission that it should have the keyword to use its equipment.

It's obvious that there is a problem. It's not obvious what the solution is. Was it an error to give it a markerlight? Was it an error to omit the keyword? Or was it something in the middle, where it is meant to be able to act as a spotter unit but not receive the guided bonus?

And there's also the Minotaur example where technically it works RAW but it's a pretty clear error RAI. Or maybe not a clear error, maybe it's a deliberate nerf. Either interpretation is valid and it requires pre-game negotiation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ignore the transport keyword, play the rest as written. What's the problem? That you don't get the +1 to hit? Live with it. Or, if you can't, don't play the model. Let those who can live with it play it. The end. Stop assuming that your hang ups apply to everyone else. The end.

So your answer is "put up with an obvious error"? Why would I want to use rules where we have to play by unintended RAW over likely RAI?

And why do you feel so threatened by opposition to legends rules that you have to say things like "let those who can live with it play it"? I'm not forcing you to play your games in any particular way, why do you think otherwise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If "broken rules = don't play it" then we shouldn't even be playing 40k.

After all, I think everyone being confused about whether or not Ursula Creed lets you overwatch twice or the argument I heard recently at the FLGS that you can't Remain Stationary after you remain stationary is just as broken as any of the Legends stuff. Heck, Russ sponsons are just as broken as Markerlight drones - paying for something I can't actually use.

The difference is this:

Normal rules have errors but those errors are actively being cleaned up via FAQs and errata. We still have some early edition problems but this is the worst it's going to be, the rules will be getting better as time goes on.

Legends rules have errors that GW refuses to clean up. The current state of them is the best we'll ever have, none of the current issues will be fixed and new issues will almost certainly come up as they did in 9th.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ignore the transport keyword, play the rest as written. What's the problem? That you don't get the +1 to hit? Live with it. Or, if you can't, don't play the model. Let those who can live with it play it. The end. Stop assuming that your hang ups apply to everyone else. The end.

So your answer is "put up with an obvious error"? Why would I want to use rules where we have to play by unintended RAW over likely RAI?

And why do you feel so threatened by opposition to legends rules that you have to say things like "let those who can live with it play it"? I'm not forcing you to play your games in any particular way, why do you think otherwise?

Oh, I'm not "threatened" at all. As I've said, I've fully dropped 40k for 30k. I'm fine. I'm just pulling for those that are stuck with 40k, for whatever reason. If you can't deal with the rules because you absolutely must have that +1 to hit, that's fine. I'm just saying that if that's ok for someone else, then you should let them play with the model. That's all. You get the advantage. They get to play their model. Try to have fun. The both of you.

As others have said, if I wanted to play the new edition I would field legends units If I wanted to. I play in a closed group so no one would care and if I played a rando and they complained I'd not play them again. If it's legal for a pickup game I wouldn't feel obligated to ask permission because NEWS FLASH, I was given permission as soon as they agreed to play a game .
This thread is a strong reminder that I don't want to play the new edition or game with randos.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ignore the transport keyword, play the rest as written. What's the problem? That you don't get the +1 to hit? Live with it. Or, if you can't, don't play the model. Let those who can live with it play it. The end. Stop assuming that your hang ups apply to everyone else. The end.

So your answer is "put up with an obvious error"? Why would I want to use rules where we have to play by unintended RAW over likely RAI?

And why do you feel so threatened by opposition to legends rules that you have to say things like "let those who can live with it play it"? I'm not forcing you to play your games in any particular way, why do you think otherwise?

Oh, I'm not "threatened" at all. As I've said, I've fully dropped 40k for 30k. I'm fine. I'm just pulling for those that are stuck with 40k, for whatever reason. If you can't deal with the rules because you absolutely must have that +1 to hit, that's fine. I'm just saying that if that's ok for someone else, then you should let them play with the model. That's all. You get the advantage. They get to play their model. Try to have fun. The both of you.

This. However, the fact that we got to rely on the social contract of a group is annoying. In pick up games it's basically impossible.

Honestly legends should just be called out for what it is, a system that allows GW to claim that it didn't squat armies / models to force you to buy new things.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Normal rules have errors but those errors are actively being cleaned up via FAQs and errata. We still have some early edition problems but this is the worst it's going to be, the rules will be getting better as time goes on.

Legends rules have errors that GW refuses to clean up. The current state of them is the best we'll ever have, none of the current issues will be fixed and new issues will almost certainly come up as they did in 9th.

I will hold my breath until literally any of the things in my post get fixed, so long as you promise to pay the ensuing ambulance ride and medical bills.

shortymcnostrill wrote:

Andykp wrote:

You’ll find this guy painting owl, will add his own arbitrary rules onto these things and then expect everyone to agree with them. He doesn’t like them so no one else should.

Dude, this is just sad. Try to be better.

Fair, I let myself down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can understand them not being played in tournaments, but there’s no legitimate reason to refuse to allow an opponent to use them in any other game. You just have to look at the index card errata to see rules errors are no reason not to use something.

End of the day the game is supposed to be fun, making a fuss if someone tried to use a legends model in a pick up game is pretty lame and petty. If someone did that, it’s a sign you maybe wouldn’t have a fun game anyway.

 warhead01 wrote:
As others have said, if I wanted to play the new edition I would field legends units If I wanted to. I play in a closed group so no one would care and if I played a rando and they complained I'd not play them again. If it's legal for a pickup game I wouldn't feel obligated to ask permission because NEWS FLASH, I was given permission as soon as they agreed to play a game .
This thread is a strong reminder that I don't want to play the new edition or game with randos.

I'm fortunate enough to play an older edition of the games and still find an occasional pick up game player.

 Gitdakka wrote:

ccs wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Play it as written.
If you don't think it's worth playing as written, run something else.

What about Tau heavy gun drones, where they can take markerlights but don't have the keyword required to use them? Are we supposed to play that as written too?

So don't take markerlights on them & you don't have a problem.

Worst case scenario is that you & your opponent have a simple conversation..... And given that your playing a GW game in the 1st place that shouldn't be an alien concept.

Come on man, just let them have the markerlight keyword. This is an obvilus fix.

Yes, it is the obvious fix. I'm not against that at all. And implementing it though requires you to talk to your opponent. Also not something I'm against.

My suggestion of just not taking the Markeight option was directed to those who're adverse to having such a conversation. For them there's an easy out....

Here's a wild idea. Email GW's 40K team and point out the mistakes you have noted in the Legends entries. They just might actually correct their mistakes. I has been known to happen, even in the Legends documents.

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a wild idea. Email GW's 40K team and point out the mistakes you have noted in the Legends entries. They just might actually correct their mistakes. I has been known to happen, even in the Legends documents.

I did.
While I await thier response/action though? I'll just keep playing things as written/having conversations with my opponent as needed.

ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
To them it's not casually. It's on purpose due to it not fitting "their" version of the the game...even tho GW HAS STRAIGHT UP SAID ITS COOL.

It's not about versions of the game, it's about rules that do not function as-written. If GW treated legends rules as real rules and gave them proper balance updates, error correction, etc, this wouldn't be a problem. But if GW is going to treat them as fake rules and nothing more than a temporary dumping ground to phase out old stuff before it gets removed entirely you can't be shocked when players don't want to deal with them.

Are you ACTUALLY implying GW gets their "codex rules" right??? Cuz that's about the most moronic thing one can say....given the overabundance of data to the contrary.

When GW get their "normal" rules right (as in not needing to be corrected/errata'd/FAQ'd) then you might have a case....MIGHT.

ccs wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a wild idea. Email GW's 40K team and point out the mistakes you have noted in the Legends entries. They just might actually correct their mistakes. I has been known to happen, even in the Legends documents.

I did.
While I await thier response/action though? I'll just keep playing things as written/having conversations with my opponent as needed.

And you, sir, have behaved the way we all should. Much better than the "there is something in these Legends rules I don't agree with so let's ban them all together" set.

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a wild idea. Email GW's 40K team and point out the mistakes you have noted in the Legends entries. They just might actually correct their mistakes. I has been known to happen, even in the Legends documents.

Why bother? GW has explicitly said they will not be updating those rules (exactly as they did in 9th) and their errors are feature, not a bug. GW wants you buying current in-production stuff, not third-party proxies for OOP kits. GW wants legends rules to technically exist so people won't make a PR problem as OOP stuff is phased out but not be appealing enough that many people want to use them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Are you ACTUALLY implying GW gets their "codex rules" right??? Cuz that's about the most moronic thing one can say....given the overabundance of data to the contrary.

When GW get their "normal" rules right (as in not needing to be corrected/errata'd/FAQ'd) then you might have a case....MIGHT.

Once again: GW is actively working to improve index/codex rules. GW refuses to do the same for legends. The two are not equivalent.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a wild idea. Email GW's 40K team and point out the mistakes you have noted in the Legends entries. They just might actually correct their mistakes. I has been known to happen, even in the Legends documents.

Why bother? GW has explicitly said they will not be updating those rules (exactly as they did in 9th) and their errors are feature, not a bug. GW wants you buying current in-production stuff, not third-party proxies for OOP kits. GW wants legends rules to technically exist so people won't make a PR problem as OOP stuff is phased out but not be appealing enough that many people want to use them.

Eh, they said they wouldn't be updating Legends in 9e & 2e/3e Sigmar as well.
Being one of the people who makes frequent
use Legends in both systems I can tell you that they didn't hold to that. It might have been infrequent & never really announced, but it did happen a few times....
So I've no reason NOT to send the Email.

ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a wild idea. Email GW's 40K team and point out the mistakes you have noted in the Legends entries. They just might actually correct their mistakes. I has been known to happen, even in the Legends documents.

Why bother? GW has explicitly said they will not be updating those rules (exactly as they did in 9th) and their errors are feature, not a bug. GW wants you buying current in-production stuff, not third-party proxies for OOP kits. GW wants legends rules to technically exist so people won't make a PR problem as OOP stuff is phased out but not be appealing enough that many people want to use them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Are you ACTUALLY implying GW gets their "codex rules" right??? Cuz that's about the most moronic thing one can say....given the overabundance of data to the contrary.

When GW get their "normal" rules right (as in not needing to be corrected/errata'd/FAQ'd) then you might have a case....MIGHT.

Once again: GW is actively working to improve index/codex rules. GW refuses to do the same for legends. The two are not equivalent.

If by "actively working to improve" you mean, shoulda been right the first time. There might be a case for those viewing them as horrible & distasteful Legends leprosy rules.

But since GW is too busy making Rules that are worth less than the paper their printed on, I'm gonna stand by my previous statement.

I mean people can house rule whatever they want for their games, but outside of a GW sponsored tournament banning legends is just a house rule. You might as well ban Eldar if you really want balance. Banning legends outside of tournament play is fine for your personal taste but it’s about the same level as refusing to play certain factions.

Except it isn't. It's more of playing with common set of rules so you don't need to pre-arrange condition for every game and if you get opponents by show up and ask no need to carry multiple army with you.

tneva82 wrote:
Except it isn't. It's more of playing with common set of rules so you don't need to pre-arrange condition for every game and if you get opponents by show up and ask no need to carry multiple army with you.

We already have a common set of rules provided by GW. And GW has told you that Legends is part of the game. The exception, stated by GW, is if you're playing in a tourney.

ccs wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Except it isn't. It's more of playing with common set of rules so you don't need to pre-arrange condition for every game and if you get opponents by show up and ask no need to carry multiple army with you.

We already have a common set of rules provided by GW. And GW has told you that Legends is part of the game. The exception, stated by GW, is if you're playing in a tourney.

Completely accurate but there are local 'norms' that may develop (call it house rules, changes to the game, etc...). The area where I live now I have gamed at three separate game stores. In the past two years of gaming here, I have yet to play a single person who used a Legends model. They are aware of the rule but actively select to not use those models.

Where I moved from, it had a similar culture and we all just simply did not use Legends. Primarily gamed at three different game stores.

I have no qualms if opponents using Legends (as it is perfectly allowable outside of tournaments) but I simply have not observed folks doing so.

These local norms may vary but the Legends tag has impacted model usage in the areas I've gamed. There are a lot of variables but not using Legends does exist outside of tournament games.

Sarigar wrote:

ccs wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Except it isn't. It's more of playing with common set of rules so you don't need to pre-arrange condition for every game and if you get opponents by show up and ask no need to carry multiple army with you.

We already have a common set of rules provided by GW. And GW has told you that Legends is part of the game. The exception, stated by GW, is if you're playing in a tourney.

Completely accurate but there are local 'norms' that may develop (call it house rules, changes to the game, etc...). The area where I live now I have gamed at three separate game stores. In the past two years of gaming here, I have yet to play a single person who used a Legends model. They are aware of the rule but actively select to not use those models.

Where I moved from, it had a similar culture and we all just simply did not use Legends. Primarily gamed at three different game stores.

I have no qualms if opponents using Legends (as it is perfectly allowable outside of tournaments) but I simply have not observed folks doing so.

These local norms may vary but the Legends tag has impacted model usage in the areas I've gamed. There are a lot of variables but not using Legends does exist outside of tournament games.

"Its the context: These models are not good/balanced/ruled/whatever for for Tournament play. But you can still play them in games." is going to naturally select them out of frequent use.

Breton wrote:

Sarigar wrote:

ccs wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Except it isn't. It's more of playing with common set of rules so you don't need to pre-arrange condition for every game and if you get opponents by show up and ask no need to carry multiple army with you.

We already have a common set of rules provided by GW. And GW has told you that Legends is part of the game. The exception, stated by GW, is if you're playing in a tourney.

Completely accurate but there are local 'norms' that may develop (call it house rules, changes to the game, etc...). The area where I live now I have gamed at three separate game stores. In the past two years of gaming here, I have yet to play a single person who used a Legends model. They are aware of the rule but actively select to not use those models.

Where I moved from, it had a similar culture and we all just simply did not use Legends. Primarily gamed at three different game stores.

I have no qualms if opponents using Legends (as it is perfectly allowable outside of tournaments) but I simply have not observed folks doing so.

These local norms may vary but the Legends tag has impacted model usage in the areas I've gamed. There are a lot of variables but not using Legends does exist outside of tournament games.

"Its the context: These models are not good/balanced/ruled/whatever for for Tournament play. But you can still play them in games." is going to naturally select them out of frequent use.

Only if tournament play is something that bothers you really. We're constantly reminded on here about how unbalanced 40k is and the rules are inconsistent turd written by incompetent people, so are legends really any different outside of the lack of updates to correct dodgy wording?

Our group of basement hammer nerds have a very strict "bring it if you wanna" policy. Seriously though, we have no issue with people bringing legends to fun games. Giving your opponent or opponents a heads up and maybe even talking it out is probably the best way to go, however.

 Just Tony wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
As others have said, if I wanted to play the new edition I would field legends units If I wanted to. I play in a closed group so no one would care and if I played a rando and they complained I'd not play them again. If it's legal for a pickup game I wouldn't feel obligated to ask permission because NEWS FLASH, I was given permission as soon as they agreed to play a game .
This thread is a strong reminder that I don't want to play the new edition or game with randos.

I'm fortunate enough to play an older edition of the games and still find an occasional pick up game player.

You're living the dream.

Part of why I don't play very much going on not at all anymore is the two hour drive just to get to where the games are played. If it was only an hour or less it would be worth it. I have good friends I like to game with and there's always a good time but organizing anything has become something that needs at least two weeks of prep time on my end and I just don't have the time or energy for that. And that's before I have to deal with the game being patched once or twice before I get a chance to play again.
Older editions had some problems but they were playable right out of the box, books and all. They weren't perfect but they were fun. Living game systems are horrible. I could deal with one update a year but this is been too much.
Meh, it had to end at some point. I'd like to sell off all my 40K armies and keep my 30K army. a few more units and it's completely cross compatible with 2 - 9th edition 40K and 30K of course.

Dudeface wrote:
Only if tournament play is something that bothers you really. We're constantly reminded on here about how unbalanced 40k is and the rules are inconsistent turd written by incompetent people, so are legends really any different outside of the lack of updates to correct dodgy wording?

"Outside of the reason people don't use legends is there really any difference" isn't a great defense of the rules.

And tournament play is the de facto standard in most places, even with people who aren't practicing for tournaments. The assumption is that tournament play is the best version of the game and that if things aren't balanced/edited/etc well enough for tournament play then they aren't good enough for any other games either. If you want to play you show up at the store/club with your 2000 point matched play list following all of the standard tournament rules, including all tournament balance dataslates, etc, or you're going to struggle to get a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
We already have a common set of rules provided by GW. And GW has told you that Legends is part of the game. The exception, stated by GW, is if you're playing in a tourney.

They've said with their words that they are part of the game. They've said with their actions that they are not part of the game. And actions speak louder than words.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
And tournament play is the de facto standard in most places, even with people who aren't practicing for tournaments.

Untrue. In 9th, various polls across many communities have shown that the playerbase was pretty much evenly split between tournament play, crusade, tempest of war and basic matched play, which means the majority was clearly not doing any tournament play whatsoever.

I'll go on a limp and say that GW tried to merge tempest of war and tournament play for exactly that reason - tournament play was costing too much money for too little people.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Only if tournament play is something that bothers you really. We're constantly reminded on here about how unbalanced 40k is and the rules are inconsistent turd written by incompetent people, so are legends really any different outside of the lack of updates to correct dodgy wording?

"Outside of the reason people don't use legends is there really any difference" isn't a great defense of the rules.

And tournament play is the de facto standard in most places, even with people who aren't practicing for tournaments. The assumption is that tournament play is the best version of the game and that if things aren't balanced/edited/etc well enough for tournament play then they aren't good enough for any other games either. If you want to play you show up at the store/club with your 2000 point matched play list following all of the standard tournament rules, including all tournament balance dataslates, etc, or you're going to struggle to get a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
We already have a common set of rules provided by GW. And GW has told you that Legends is part of the game. The exception, stated by GW, is if you're playing in a tourney.

They've said with their words that they are part of the game. They've said with their actions that they are not part of the game. And actions speak louder than words.

So we now have stuff that were tournament legal index units literal days ago, that are now Legends. The rules for them haven't changed. The points for them haven't changed. It should be an obvious indicator that the location of these rules in the Legends section, rather than the Index section, isn't any sort of reliable indicator of whether they are balanced or edited well enough. They are currently exactly as balanced as Legends as they were days ago as Index units.

We're playing in a game where a Battlewagon with three additional melee weapons and six additional ranged weapons has the same points cost as one without ANY of those options, but we are concerned with whether the points values of Legends units will be updated appropriately?

Honestly, I think the datacards should really be sorted into Tournament and Regular Play. Restrict tournament datacards ruthlessly, like restrictions in Magic. Then everything else gets a datacard and you can play it anywhere. Give tournament players curated lists that are more strictly balanced and less likely to have unseen interactions, so that their competitive play is meaningful, and let the rest of us relax.

 Jidmah wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
And tournament play is the de facto standard in most places, even with people who aren't practicing for tournaments.

Untrue. In 9th, various polls across many communities have shown that the playerbase was pretty much evenly split between tournament play, crusade, tempest of war and basic matched play, which means the majority was clearly not doing any tournament play whatsoever.

I'll go on a limp and say that GW tried to merge tempest of war and tournament play for exactly that reason - tournament play was costing too much money for too little people.

Pretty sure he meant Tournament Rules (As you get in the MFM/Updates with those 12 CP turning into 6 Starting CP, and no freebie Warlord Trait etc. )which would have included Tournaments, Crusade and Matched play.

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
And tournament play is the de facto standard in most places, even with people who aren't practicing for tournaments.

Untrue. In 9th, various polls across many communities have shown that the playerbase was pretty much evenly split between tournament play, crusade, tempest of war and basic matched play, which means the majority was clearly not doing any tournament play whatsoever.

I'll go on a limp and say that GW tried to merge tempest of war and tournament play for exactly that reason - tournament play was costing too much money for too little people.

Pretty sure he meant Tournament Rules (As you get in the MFM/Updates with those 12 CP turning into 6 Starting CP, and no freebie Warlord Trait etc. )which would have included Tournaments, Crusade and Matched play.

I'm pretty sure I would have to write half a page to point everything wrong with the single line you just wrote, but since you have repeatedly proven to be a particularly obstinate individual, it would be a waste of everyone's time anyways.

Even GW doesn't think, that the legend rule set is something that is widely and easily accepted. Why else would they tell people who had their bikes, RAS etc legended or removed to use them as counts as of primaris stuff, instead of using legends rules.