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.

-Unit or wargear option doesn't go from Index to Codex.

-GW states that things that didn't make the jump will be "Legends" and not recommended for Matched Play.

-GW does what they said.

-Players act surprised and outraged.

Well then why didn't they put the thunderfire techmarine in to the GK codex. they put the normal version in. There is no model for a GK techmarine, so it is not like it is the lack of a GK specific model.

They have the psycannon razorback in the codex, but there is no model for it, shouldn't that be an legend option too?

I ain't GW, so I don't have the answers you're looking for. Send them an email and find out. I honestly don't know why some models became Legends and others didn't. I also don't know why some made the Codex jump and others didn't. I just know that when Legends was announced, I made the decision to start phasing out any non-Codex option in my army, just in case.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I knew it was coming but having custom/scratch built 3 painboys on bikes I am sad to see them basically go away (most poeple in my area will not do power level sadly) also all of the buggies and wartraxx are now just gone. my 2 cutom mega armor warbosses I can just run as warbosses but they to will be hampered.

my 12 og big gunz for orks won't make good terrain liek the buggies btu i guess the crew models can jsut be ammo runts.

I run my buggies and tracks as warbikes. The names of the two crewmen? 'Slugga' and 'Choppa'.

Karol wrote:
Well then why didn't they put the thunderfire techmarine in to the GK codex. they put the normal version in. There is no model for a GK techmarine, so it is not like it is the lack of a GK specific model.

They have the psycannon razorback in the codex, but there is no model for it, shouldn't that be an legend option too?

Best guess is they intend to sell those models at some point in the future and they're low risk for copy since they're fairly specific.

"The rules here can be used in any type of play – open, narrative or matched, and full points are provided to help you balance your forces."


They are allowed for normal matched, it says so clearly. Several people here are lamenting that they cannon any longer use these models. Yes you can, just don't invent houserules that ban them.

I was going through my old models recently to go with my new Sisters and I am pleased to see that Kyrinov, Uriah Jacobus and the venerable preacher with a plasma gun can still continue to serve the Emperor.

This seems to say otherwise...

Edit: why was the picture so big...

Well, what the actual rules say is the thing that matters, and they say they're fine for matched.

 Polonius wrote:
And frankly... at a major competitive event, the only reason to use a Legends model is to exploit some sort of weird loophole, or build an army that wasn't really intended.

Yeah, why would anyone want to use the previously-legal models they bought and painted as part of an army assembled over the course of years, let alone want to participate in a major event with them?

Just throw them out and buy a new netlist to follow the meta, scrub.

What you and your pals decide to do is up to you. You could play with the original point costs for everything, if you wanted. But T.O.s are free to run their tournaments as they want (and will likely disallow Legends), and there's a fair chance any rando pick-up opponent you come across is also gonna not want to see them.

But, again, 90% of people are reasonable and if you talk to em, they'll probably be fine with it.

 Crimson wrote:
Well, what the actual rules say is the thing that matters, and they say they're fine for matched.

Agreed. Not being "designed" or "intended" for Matched play is irrelevant. The rules PDFs say the units and options can be used in Matched play AND they give points values. Only Matched play uses points.

So imma gonna continue using my Autarch Skyrunners with Banshee masks and Reaper launchers in Matched play. Especially since BOTH the unit and the options ARE in the Codex and will thus continue to be supported but Chapter Approved changes.

-

That's nice. In reality, something like 75% of 40k players take GW "recommendations" as rules (ex: Ro3), so I would still discuss it with your opponents first and be prepared if they say "no". Playing a game and having fun without using certain models is certainly worse than not playing at all, packing up your models, and going home.

At least in the codices that I use (DG, TS, Daemons, CSM), nothing seems too overpowered, so I don't see why use in matched play and competitive tournaments is such an issue. I highly doubt that the palanquin lord will be a game-breaker any time soon. Also, because of its inclusion in Legends, should I buy and convert a Chaos Lord on Juggernaut? It's such a cool model and I'm glad it was included, but the doom and gloom of this thread has me thinking otherwise.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
At least in the codices that I use (DG, TS, Daemons, CSM), nothing seems too overpowered, so I don't see why use in matched play and competitive tournaments is such an issue. I highly doubt that the palanquin lord will be a game-breaker any time soon. Also, because of its inclusion in Legends, should I buy and convert a Chaos Lord on Juggernaut? It's such a cool model and I'm glad it was included, but the doom and gloom of this thread has me thinking otherwise.

As far as competitive tournaments go, what any of us think is irrelevant unless you're running one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

"The rules here can be used in any type of play – open, narrative or matched, and full points are provided to help you balance your forces."


They are allowed for normal matched, it says so clearly. Several people here are lamenting that they cannon any longer use these models. Yes you can, just don't invent houserules that ban them.

I was going through my old models recently to go with my new Sisters and I am pleased to see that Kyrinov, Uriah Jacobus and the venerable preacher with a plasma gun can still continue to serve the Emperor.

It's not a houserule to ban them from competitive events. It's a GW reccomendation. Same as the rule of 3.

My suggestion is still the same, Arcane: talk to your opponents/T.O. first before fielding a list that features something that GW has said "isn't recommended for Matched Play." Saying "well the rules say I can" ain't gonna help ya much if people refuse to play ya. You've held the RAW high ground and gained nothing.

I want the stupid wolf bikers gone, so this is fine with me. I feel bad for Ork HQs, but spiting the SW takes priority to me.

ERJAK wrote:

It's not a houserule to ban them from competitive events. It's a GW reccomendation. Same as the rule of 3.

Sure. But using it outside such events is a houserule. I was talking about notmal casual matched games.

What I was getting at that a lot of people were lamenting loss of these models. But that is a choice. Talk with your local players, I'm sure many of them have Legends models they want to use as well. Or Forgeworld models. And then just agree to not ban those models! Problem fething solved!

Copied from the SM PDF:
[i]Warhammer Legends will not form part of our ongoing balance
review for the wider Warhammer 40,000 game – and we don’t
recommend Legends units for competitive tournaments. This
means that event organisers and attendees alike can guarantee
that everything they’re gaming with is easily available to
everyone and has been subject to the same rigorous balance and
playtesting process.[/i]

Lol.... I wasn't aware that it was April 1st already.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
So while they say they will have points for Matched but aren't really meant for tournaments, that all but means they will not be allowed in regular games since inevitably the tournament suggestions are treated like Matched Play rules in the name of "balance". If tournaments ban Legends, then I guarantee the majority of Matched Play games will too.

if my opponent doesnt want me to use my warboss in mega armor or my sister superior with a SB or my herald of slaanesh on steed they arent someone i would want to play with in the first place

I\m sure you don't mind me running 6 detachments and 5 copies of same datasheet. After all equally valid suggestions.

Nope. Why should I? Anything you can do I can do as well.

Slaul wrote:
Does Legends affect index options for codex units?

Can I still take dual autocannon venerable dreadnoughts?

I'm a bit confused about all of this.

This also has me a bit confused because it says:

"The datasheets from Codex: Space Marines that are listed below are
updated as follows:"

It specifically calls out the data sheets from the codex and that those codex data sheets are updated to add those wargear options, so are those now considered Legends rules or are they actually updating the codex entries through Legends? I would guess the former, but some official clarity would be nice.

The Indices are now obsolete. The added options are Legends content, as they're in the Legends PDF. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 Crimson wrote:
The Indices are now obsolete. The added options are Legends content, as they're in the Legends PDF. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Agreed. Think of it this way Mud Turkey, if you are NOT using Legends, the Codex entry remains unaltered. But if you ARE using Legends, modify the Codex entry as instructed.
So as long as you and your opponent are cool using Legends options, Quadocannon Dreads are a go!

-

 flandarz wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

And frankly... at a major competitive event, the only reason to use a Legends model is to exploit some sort of weird loophole, or build an army that wasn't really intended.

A player builds an army from a list of sources from the people who created the game...and that army wasnt intended to be played?

The bs is strong with this one.

You act like GW has never said "there were some unintended consequences of this unit/rule interaction that some players took advantage of to gain an unfair advantage".

Yeah, those unintended super powerful Chaplains on a bike are gone! Oh and those super broken Trueborn, what with their TWO attacks!

 Polonius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
So while they say they will have points for Matched but aren't really meant for tournaments, that all but means they will not be allowed in regular games since inevitably the tournament suggestions are treated like Matched Play rules in the name of "balance". If tournaments ban Legends, then I guarantee the majority of Matched Play games will too.

if my opponent doesnt want me to use my warboss in mega armor or my sister superior with a SB or my herald of slaanesh on steed they arent someone i would want to play with in the first place

I\m sure you don't mind me running 6 detachments and 5 copies of same datasheet. After all equally valid suggestions.

I think that's a bit of a false equivalence. Detachment limits and rule of 3 are ways to ensure that matched play games are, you know, fairly matched. Maybe not exactly, but corner cases of unit or detachment spam quickly become broken. Nothing in legends is close to being abusive, OP, or broken.

Even so, the rules for Legends provide points, which right of the bat lets you know that GW considers these appropriate for matched play. How organized play handles it will be up to the organizers, I'd imagine.

Legends are models that help your army if possible and oop. Easy pay to win claim. And all sujgestions have same weight. So if you oppose one othbrs can just as validly oppose others. No cherry picking


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

deviantduck wrote:So... how long until ITC/ETC bans Legends?

who cares

small_gods wrote:Ahhh just finished painting my chaos lord on bike, hoping it would dodge a bullet. Seems like it's a worrting trend to get rid of kitbashing from the game.

not really, narrative play wont be effected

Roknar wrote:while promoting kitbashing on some of their community posts

It wont be removed from the game GW(and my flgs) plays, just the type that feth you players actively trying to break the game play

Agreed. The article even explicitly mentions legends being allowed in matched play (and the files provide points values). So, if someone decides not to use their models it's not GWs problem in this case. Not throwing these options out of the codizes would have been the better option of course, but that's not a question anymore.

And for matched play no detachment limit and no ro3. Yet tournament suggestions are generally accepted standard


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually there is no FW there at all!

That either means that FW got once more NOT informed, OR that FW isn't on the chopping block.

Seeing fw doesn't handle 40k rules for their models what informing them would accomplish?

And isn't twin autocannon arm for dreadnought fw?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Well, what the actual rules say is the thing that matters, and they say they're fine for matched.

Agreed. Not being "designed" or "intended" for Matched play is irrelevant. The rules PDFs say the units and options can be used in Matched play AND they give points values. Only Matched play uses points.

So imma gonna continue using my Autarch Skyrunners with Banshee masks and Reaper launchers in Matched play. Especially since BOTH the unit and the options ARE in the Codex and will thus continue to be supported but Chapter Approved changes.

-

Rules for Matched play i can bring 6 flying hive tyrants. Going to fly with you?

Howabout 5 det's? Matched play legal

Huh, Tyranid Shrikes weren't here :( I am strangely hoping they come back, (although they kind of make raveners pointless...)

If I was a TO I would go whole hog and just dont accept anything non-codex. I.E. No legends, No campaign books, No FW books, No supplamne tbooks or WD.

(If it ain't in the current codex it ain't in. Apart from core mechanics FAQs)

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Huh, Tyranid Shrikes weren't here :( I am strangely hoping they come back, (although they kind of make raveners pointless...)

Have they had 8th ed rules? If not they were never coming back here. This is just moving stuff from index to this. Units that dissapeared pre-8th ed aren't getting new datasheets.

As I said way back, I may not use my legends units much but all my lists will have the clause they may have them in it. I'm not going to not run my Rough Riders, or Bike Characters, etc, etc.

Someone said 70% of players wouldn't allow it, well they can take a flying leap, I'll play with the 30% that actually kept their brain. If they are more afraid of Legends units than the actual op trash GW randomly toss out, they have more issues than Legends in an army list.

If anything use it as a test for how reasonable someone is, though Legends and index options have 100% acceptance around where I play.

 flandarz wrote:
-Unit or wargear option doesn't go from Index to Codex.

-GW states that things that didn't make the jump will be "Legends" and not recommended for Matched Play.

-GW does what they said.

-Players act surprised and outraged.

You're implying that the people acting outraged were, at some point, in agreement with GW. They were not.

Slowly phasing out old/bad/unsupported models is inevitable unless we want 0 new units. Maybe they havent chosen the correct units flr every army though but Legends by itself I see nothing wrong with. We have way too many units in some of the armies to keep track of, especially Imperium, so removing some is good. I hope they add a bunch of FW units to legends as well to tr down the bloat a bit.

Only read the BA and SM one so far and have nothing against those choices except why not just remove the whole datasheet instead of just the JP option for BA. We already have a BA unique apothecary, Ancient and veterans no need to have the vanilla version too.

Only thing I will be sad to se go is the weapon options on the Sanguinary Priest. If they at least had added some nice chain sword relics for BA in the PA book the priest could take I would have been happier with the decision.

Im not gonna play Legends and I hope TOs will not use it as well. Not because its OP but just to make it easier for everyone to limit the sheer quantity of Datasheets and options. Same reason I wouldnt mind a FW ban in tournaments. Nothing about being OP or p2w but just to keep it easier for everyone.

tneva82 wrote:

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Huh, Tyranid Shrikes weren't here :( I am strangely hoping they come back, (although they kind of make raveners pointless...)

Have they had 8th ed rules? If not they were never coming back here. This is just moving stuff from index to this. Units that dissapeared pre-8th ed aren't getting new datasheets.

Shrikes were in the Tyranid index at the beginning of 8th, and was effectively the warrior datasheet with extra movement and the fly keyword. (and slight bump in points in fast attack slot so you had synapse in every slot)