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.

Do you guys run Bonesingers in games where you wouldn't be allowed to run Legends units? Just for context: Bonesingers were a "Made To Order" Eldar Elites unit costing 70 points that had rules printed with it to go with the models, also posted on the war-com site. When Legends came out, Bonesingers were added to Legends at 70 points, *as an HQ*. However, in CA19, Bonesingers were listed, again in the Elites slot, but at 55 points. Naturally, GW hasn't commented on whether Bonesingers are stuck in Legends or not, or whether they are HQs or Elites. Because CA19 came out after Legends, that book contains the latest rules, so RAW Bonesingers don't have the Legends restrictions... but I was curious how the rest of you handle them in your playgroups. I'm also curious how tournaments like LVO would've handled that discrepancy.

I use bonesinger as per the latest publication in terms of composition amd points. However I do accept its a legends choice so eouldint bring to s tournament that stated no legends.

Everyone in my playgroup treats legends as part of the edition. Its not a problemfor normal games. After all i spent time and effort converting and painting my autarch.. Maybe when 9th comes and there will be serious overhaul of eldar then yeah, my bonesinger and fancy autarch will be retired for good.

 Argive wrote:
I use bonesinger as per the latest publication in terms of composition amd points. However I do accept its a legends choice so eouldint bring to s tournament that stated no legends.

Everyone in my playgroup treats legends as part of the edition. Its not a problemfor normal games. After all i spent time and effort converting and painting my autarch.. Maybe when 9th comes and there will be serious overhaul of eldar then yeah, my bonesinger and fancy autarch will be retired for good.

Yeah, I think that's the best treatment of Legends (or gray area stuff like the Bonesinger) right now. The Bonesinger definitely seems like it would vary from tourney to tourney as to whether it would be accepted, but as I outlined above, I would still make the argument to the TO that it could be run, even if the tournament doesn't allow Legends. And yeah, I'm definitely loathe to drop my painted/converted dudes that GW supported just fine for years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, note: from Munitorum Field Manual: "It does not include points for Legends units – the rules for these venerable models can be found on the Warhammer Community website." Considering the Bonesinger has a cost in MFM, I'd say it's not Legends and therefore usable.

Latest published rules are in Legends, regardless of the points in Chapter Approved.

 Ghaz wrote:
Latest published rules are in Legends, regardless of the points in Chapter Approved.

Well, is that relevant? MFM publishes the points costs of non-Legends models. So showing up there indicates to me that GW did not intend the Bonesinger to be Legends'ed. Plus, the points cost and detachment slot are (arguably) wrong in Legends.

I see it as legends as an hq slot but normal as an elite slot based on info provided

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Latest published rules are in Legends, regardless of the points in Chapter Approved.

Well, is that relevant? MFM publishes the points costs of non-Legends models. So showing up there indicates to me that GW did not intend the Bonesinger to be Legends'ed. Plus, the points cost and detachment slot are (arguably) wrong in Legends.

Yes because otherwise players could pick and choose what they wanted. New datasheets have always replaced older ones. Legends would be absolutely pointless because everyone would choose to use the older rules. It's a stretch saying GW 'accidentally' put a whole datasheet in the Legends PDF instead of missing the removal of a single points entry in Chapter Approved.

I'm with Ghaz on this one. Most likely explanation is that GW moved the datasheet to Legends, changing the slot in the process, and forgot to remove the entry from CA.

 flandarz wrote:
I'm with Ghaz on this one. Most likely explanation is that GW moved the datasheet to Legends, changing the slot in the process, and forgot to remove the entry from CA.

Okay, but why did the points cost change then too? And it's not like the Bonesinger was at one time 55 points; that's an entirely new points cost. Again, one accident, fine, I agree. Two accidents/errors becomes a little much to just handwave away.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I'm with Ghaz on this one. Most likely explanation is that GW moved the datasheet to Legends, changing the slot in the process, and forgot to remove the entry from CA.

Okay, but why did the points cost change then too? And it's not like the Bonesinger was at one time 55 points; that's an entirely new points cost. Again, one accident, fine, I agree. Two accidents/errors becomes a little much to just handwave away.

Because GW makes mistakes like this all the time? You asked your question and got your answer. If you don't like it then play it as you want but it looks like the general consensus here is Bonesingers = Legends. That's also how my Eldar buddy plays it, FWIW.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I'm with Ghaz on this one. Most likely explanation is that GW moved the datasheet to Legends, changing the slot in the process, and forgot to remove the entry from CA.

Okay, but why did the points cost change then too? And it's not like the Bonesinger was at one time 55 points; that's an entirely new points cost. Again, one accident, fine, I agree. Two accidents/errors becomes a little much to just handwave away.

Because GW makes mistakes like this all the time? You asked your question and got your answer. If you don't like it then play it as you want but it looks like the general consensus here is Bonesingers = Legends. That's also how my Eldar buddy plays it, FWIW.

Well, if we're going with anecdata, I don't play them as Legends, so looks like we're tied

My point is that we have 2 mistakes with the Legends profile. If it's truly Legends, okay, I could see that, but GW needs to state it, either with a FAQ on Legends or a FAQ on CA19. Since we don't have a FAQ on Legends and the issue wasn't raised in the FAQ on CA19, I don't see how you can deviate from the RAW, which is non-Legends.

And btw, I don't particularly care about the Dakka consensus -- I just was curious to new/different perspectives on this. The only new/different one is Argive's, which is a sort of "split the difference" approach. Which I guess is yet another possibility for how GW could rule this, but again, without an answer, you've got to go with (the non-gamebreaking, I'm not BCB) RAW, IMO.

If we take the "latest publications is king" approach then I suppose technicaly, the Bonesinger is legends, is a HQ choice (as that's the latest data sheet) but is 55pt as per CA 2019. I don't actualy recall it being listed as a choice on the points, pretty sure it was just a list table.

I personally wouldn't try to argue with a TO about it not being legends as it seems that's the intention. But in my local scene we treat legends like normal models.

Its the same with all the units that were in indexes but didn't get ported to legends... Technicaly the index FAQ's sections have been redacted so does this means those options just plain don't exist and tough luck? I think that would be absurd and incredibly unfair on people who joined the edition and built models on the bases of those index charts.. .

Gee duuwbs being gee duwwbs.. I fully do not expect any kind of fix. They have plainly stated the legends is a one off thing that will not be FAQ'd or erratarad so go feth yourselves. Which at least would be the most consistent thing they have done since my return to the hobby if they stick to their guns...

To be fair, GW has updated point costs in CA for datasheets that don't even exist (such as Big Mek with KFF), so this is far from the weirdest thing they've done.

I assume these heave been disallowed in tourney along side of legends options?

I have no idea. My personal opinion is that nothing is a problem until it becomes a problem, and then we can still discuss ways to make it work.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
So showing up there indicates to me that GW did not intend the Bonesinger to be Legends'ed.

All it indicates is that the person who wrote the points section of CA19 either did not read or was unaware of the changes made in CA18/the Legends documents.