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.

ccs 812960 11656609 wrote:

Obviously you & yours aren't planning to be 4e tourney players....
If you'd read the article you'd have noticed that they tell you all this stuff that's going away - is going to get 4e Legends entries. Including the BoC!

So why exactly are you getting upset??

Becaue being legends is as good as being illegal? People don't play against it in store events, in regular games etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs 812960 11656720 wrote:

I have a completely different attitude & approach.
If I'm not playing in a tourney (and I never am) I see no need to beg my opponents permission to use the rules as written.
I don't have to (and dont) ask the opponent if I can use some rule like "Flying". So why should I have to ask if I could use a model with current edition rules?
So I dont'.

Good for you. But try that in, lets say most of the eastern europe countries, and you would soon find out that you can only play against yourself. Also there is that small problem that the rules will not get updated. So unbalanced or not, they may work for part of 4th, but in 5th, and especialy in 6th when there is a big turn over of rules again, there will just be gone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard 812960 11656955 wrote:
there are quite a few other games that the GW fantasy line are perfect for, e.g. the magical version of SAGA runs to pretty much any fantasy trope you can imagine (smaller armies though), KoW is the obvious one, there are others

That is great, but what if your options for "fantasy" games is AoS or Old World, because local stores don't support anything else. It is a bit like telling people unhappy about w40k, that they can just play something else, and it turns out that their only option is infinity and w40k models don't mash with that game because of scale/lack of vehicles/etc. I mean no one tells historical players that, they should just switch to AoS or w40k, if things go bad for them localy.

On the "no updates" it's kinda ironic they actually did do some updates for the legacy factions in TOW (minor stuff, but still).

But yes, the problem is one of the players seeing "Legends" and thinking "not allowed in matched play" instead of "You can't use this in tournaments". It's worse in that most areas who don't do tournaments at all still have this line of thinking. They're so worried about "it could be unbalanced" that they don't consider it at all.

Players and perception is always the issue, always has been. There are way better games than GW stuff out there, but if nobody plays it or is willing to play it (I've been cussed out years ago by WHFB locals for saying Kings of War was a thing and they could use their WHFB armies) then them existing is useless.

Karol wrote:

ccs 812960 11656609 wrote:

Obviously you & yours aren't planning to be 4e tourney players....
If you'd read the article you'd have noticed that they tell you all this stuff that's going away - is going to get 4e Legends entries. Including the BoC!

So why exactly are you getting upset??

Becaue being legends is as good as being illegal? People don't play against it in store events, in regular games etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs 812960 11656720 wrote:

I have a completely different attitude & approach.
If I'm not playing in a tourney (and I never am) I see no need to beg my opponents permission to use the rules as written.
I don't have to (and dont) ask the opponent if I can use some rule like "Flying". So why should I have to ask if I could use a model with current edition rules?
So I dont'.

Good for you. But try that in, lets say most of the eastern europe countries, and you would soon find out that you can only play against yourself. Also there is that small problem that the rules will not get updated. So unbalanced or not, they may work for part of 4th, but in 5th, and especialy in 6th when there is a big turn over of rules again, there will just be gone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard 812960 11656955 wrote:
there are quite a few other games that the GW fantasy line are perfect for, e.g. the magical version of SAGA runs to pretty much any fantasy trope you can imagine (smaller armies though), KoW is the obvious one, there are others

That is great, but what if your options for "fantasy" games is AoS or Old World, because local stores don't support anything else. It is a bit like telling people unhappy about w40k, that they can just play something else, and it turns out that their only option is infinity and w40k models don't mash with that game because of scale/lack of vehicles/etc. I mean no one tells historical players that, they should just switch to AoS or w40k, if things go bad for them localy.

understand this last point, it was more a case of other games exist, and the models are good for them, indeed I've found the best games don't have a model line they are pushing.

does suck when you have a player base with a very fixed mentality, e.g. WHFB 7th, trying to get anyone to play anything other than "battle line", or in 8th people trying to nerf the magic stuff then whining they had death star blocks

historical are different generally as many players will already be playing many sets of rules, and a new model range for a game that doesn't use the more or less accepted conventions for basing arrangement is DOA anyway (generally)

have seen this with fantasy and 40k, curiously only really with GW games, people are fanatical about what they will and won't play against, to the point the ones who will argue on the placement of a comma allowing some interesting rules interpretation then outright dismissing the points for battle ready painted as "we don't do that here"