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.

tneva82 wrote:
Hmm well that's odd then. So we have models in legends that never had model for some but not for others. That is odd. It would not have been odd if they never had rules in 8th ed but now I'm out of ideas

It's just a standard minimum-effort bit by GW to try and distract from the quiet removal of options.

Legends really could have been a cool thing. It would have been really neat to see some of the wacky, old school out of print models getting narrative only rules for 40k. Just off the top of my head, we could have seen rules for:

-Zoats
-Ork Digganobz
-Squat/Demiurg
-GSC Limos
-Deleted Drukhari named characters
-Harlequin Mimes
-Deleted Corsairs units
-Black Templars old codex options
-Old inquisition options like Plasma Talons, xenotech, Xenos mercenaries with shuriken weaponry, etc
-Madboyz
-Deleted imperial guard characters like al raheim
-Adeptus Arbites
-Any number of deleted very old characters like Brother Bethor, Sapphon, Legion of the Damned Sergeant Centurius and dreadnoughts, Durfast of Mordrak, Ranulf, Cardinal Hellfire, etc etc.

They could have created a fun old nostalgia trip for beardy hobby grognards, instead they didn't even give us back all the options we had just before the dawn of this edition :/

 Crimson wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 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.

Is that official? I didn't see anything in the announcement or on the Legends page saying explicitly that the Indexes aren't valid anymore.

No, they didn't explicitly say it, but pretty much everything from the Indices has now been reprinted elsewhere. There just isn't anything left.

As far as Im concerned the current edition flowchart FAQ still stands as thats a core rules thing... The community article seems very self contratictory so My view is until they FAQ it doesnt really change anything. CA 19 points still take precendence. Not sure what my LGS tourney policy will be as we are discusing it.
I think we may well se a new legends format if they going to go down this route. If someone has spent time effort and money converting a cool model im sure as hell not going to try and stop them using it.
Theres more balance issues steming out of the supplament stupidity now meta wise, then index options ever did IMO lol. It is what it is: ENjoy less options and just stfu and go buy more space marines scrubs..

the_scotsman wrote:


They could have created a fun old nostalgia trip for beardy hobby grognards, instead they didn't even give us back all the options we had just before the dawn of this edition :/

Yeah, certainly. I was really hoping this would have been much more comprehensive.

The big thing to remember is that GW isn't gonna touch Legends again until next edition. So, while I personally believe they are well priced and balanced at the moment, that could change in the future and GW will do nothing to address it. My gaming group has decided that Legends are ok, for now, and that we'll consider whether or not to keep them as new material is published.

Everybody still wanting to play with your Legends options, what do yo do in the scenario in which all (for example) non-legends power mauls get a points increase, and your Legends unit(s) with power maul(s) doesn’t play with that increase. You now have an unfair advantage of cheaper power maul. Are you shelving your unit?

 Apple Peel wrote:
Everybody still wanting to play with your Legends options, what do yo do in the scenario in which all (for example) non-legends power mauls get a points increase, and your Legends unit(s) with power maul(s) doesn’t play with that increase. You now have an unfair advantage of cheaper power maul. Are you shelving your unit?

Well, most of the options I've seen with rules in the codex do NOT have points in Legends. For example, Librarians can take combi-weapons through Legends only, but the points for combi-weapons are in the Codex still. No points values for combi-weapon exist through Legends (for Marines at least)

So in your example, there would only be a points discrepancy if Power Mauls BOTH
A) have a points entry in your Codex (or the Munitorum Filed Manual for you faction) and
B) the Legends entry has a points value for Power Mauls too
But so far, I can't find any example of a situation like this

Another example is Eldar Autarchs. Legends gives them options for Reaper launchers, Banshee masks and other wargear options that are MANDATORY to represent how Autarchs are former Aspect warriors, but many of those options do not have point in the Legends PDF, because they are in the Codex, which will get updates.

A counter example is Twin Autocannons for Dreads, which do not have an entry at all in any Marine Codex, so the 20ppm cost for them in Legends will NEVER have a discrepancy. It's the final cost, period.

-

What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

My experience in the local meta is that pickup-games of 40k are dead. There's just way too much imbalance.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

Yeah, I agree. And what's worse, it has further divided an already divided group. I remember in 7E in my area, there were 2 kinds of games: RAW 40K and ITC, which loosely translated it casual vs competitive. The "raw"/casual players just wanted to play out of the book as-is, while the tourney players gravitated towards ITC-style house rules. And that was fine because you could kinda feel out which player was which and just have 2 lists ready for either.

But now? Well, no one really plays Open/Narrative, but Matched play hardly has any consistency either. Are you using the organized play "suggestions", Ro3, max 3 detachments? Will you allow Legends now that the door is more open to deny it?
I have no issues discussing a game beforehand, in fact, discussing the game as a whole while playing is part of the fun for me. But I do miss the days in which everyone was limited to a single FOC with a single faction and you could just start throwing dice without debating a 5 page thesis on the merits of which style of play you desire.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My experience in the local meta is that pickup-games of 40k are dead. There's just way too much imbalance.

Sometimes I feel the same. I've all but stopped going to my LGS because
A) it's a bit of a drive and I'll be out too late
B) pick-up games are hard to get because everyone there already has an opponent scheduled and
C) even though I could work around A & B and have in the past, it just seems like more and more work as GW piles on the rules

That's why I just play in my own local meta that is just me and my 2 teens. It's far easier to control what we play and bring things down to a casual but competitive level that everyone can have fun with

-

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

If your local scene is this varied, then communicate with the people with which you play. Walking into a room, finding out that you dont match what others want, then throwing up your hands and yelling at other people because you didnt make any effort to prepare beforehand isnt a solution.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

My experience in the local meta is that pickup-games of 40k are dead. There's just way too much imbalance.

So are you talking Open Narrative pick up, or ITC Matched pickup? Because there are usually 5-10 games a week at my local of matched. About 2-3 of open narrative, where the points don't matter and the rules are made up.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

My experience in the local meta is that pickup-games of 40k are dead. There's just way too much imbalance.

So are you talking Open Narrative pick up, or ITC Matched pickup? Because there are usually 5-10 games a week at my local of matched. About 2-3 of open narrative, where the points don't matter and the rules are made up.

Any sort of pickup, in the way that you just show up on the store's "warhammer night" and there's usually a few people looking for games ahead of time.

Back in 5th edition, pickup games were my bread and butter of 40k. I wasn't in an organized club, but people showed up to the store's "warhammer night" or whatever and would be prepared to play damn near anyone that walked through the door - just throw down your list and play. It got to the point where I had lists for 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 points each of which was pre-prepared so I didn't have to make my opponent wait. Back then, there was no "narrative/open/matched". There was just 40k.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

So are you talking Open Narrative pick up, or ITC Matched pickup? Because there are usually 5-10 games a week at my local of matched. About 2-3 of open narrative, where the points don't matter and the rules are made up.

All rules are made up. Just the open-narrative stuff is made-up in Nottingham, while the various ITC house rules are made up in California.

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

Yeah, I agree. And what's worse, it has further divided an already divided group. I remember in 7E in my area, there were 2 kinds of games: RAW 40K and ITC, which loosely translated it casual vs competitive. The "raw"/casual players just wanted to play out of the book as-is, while the tourney players gravitated towards ITC-style house rules. And that was fine because you could kinda feel out which player was which and just have 2 lists ready for either.

But now? Well, no one really plays Open/Narrative, but Matched play hardly has any consistency either. Are you using the organized play "suggestions", Ro3, max 3 detachments? Will you allow Legends now that the door is more open to deny it?
I have no issues discussing a game beforehand, in fact, discussing the game as a whole while playing is part of the fun for me. But I do miss the days in which everyone was limited to a single FOC with a single faction and you could just start throwing dice without debating a 5 page thesis on the merits of which style of play you desire.

-

Exactly, well put. I honestly miss trying to just play the game, without listening to my opponent's laundry list of conditions. The store I play at has a sign up board for styles of play. So the store can call people who want to play specific styles when others are looking for a game. Last weekend I had a call, a guy wanted to test out his competitive list, and I thought, ok, this is competitive, so ITC. I got there and it was a 4 deredo IH list with rule breaks. I explain that he would lose his missions with this list, no matter how well he played, because the list is invalid. He gets upset because rule of 3 is a suggestion, and I agree. For open. For competitive, or what I thought was ITC matched, it's a law.

I don't want to tell anyone how to play, but we need to have non-fluid terms to define how a match will be conducted.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

It would help if there was not a big and vocal contingent of people who insist that other players need to accept their houserules. The standard pick up matched games should follow the official rules.Those inldude the Legends and FW and do not include tournament suggestions. This would be very simple and clear if people wouldn't intentinally confuse matters.

tneva82 wrote:
Rules for Matched play i can bring 6 flying hive tyrants. Going to fly with you?

Howabout 5 det's? Matched play legal

If someone is asking to use Legends rules to facilitate a high-power wombo combo in a competitive game, you are equally entitled to ask to ignore RO3.

If someone is asking to use Legends rules so they can use their lovingly-painted old collection, and you're asking to suspend RO3 so that you can take a cheesy WAAC list to curbstomp them in a casual game, you are 100% That Guy.

If someone is asking to use Legends rules so they can use their old collection, and you ask to suspend RO3 so that you could take more than three squads of IG Veterans to fit a 'veteran regiment' theme, then that's completely reasonable.

There is nuance here, and more choices beyond 'play according to tournament rules' and 'allow more casual rules, then bring an exploitative tournament mindset anyways to take advantage of it'.

 Crimson wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What really bothers me is that there should be an agreed upon set of terms for what you want to play. It sucks being asked to play 40k, bring my stuff to the shop, getting ready, printing a list, and then being told my opponent wants to play open-narrative.

If you want to play Open narrative, thats great. Say that. If you want to play a Matched game, of an ITC mission, great, lets say that. But "a game of 40k" has become too amorphous, as to be literally worthless as a term.

It would help if there was not a big and vocal contingent of people who insist that other players need to accept their houserules. The standard pick up matched games should follow the official rules.Those inldude the Legends and FW and do not include tournament suggestions. This would be very simple and clear if people wouldn't intentinally confuse matters.

Yeah. I could see an argument that Matched Play is the default, and the "organized event recommendations" (Ro3, 3 Detachments, etc) are not the default. But others disagree, even within my own playgroup. So WTF do I know.

 Galef wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
Everybody still wanting to play with your Legends options, what do yo do in the scenario in which all (for example) non-legends power mauls get a points increase, and your Legends unit(s) with power maul(s) doesn’t play with that increase. You now have an unfair advantage of cheaper power maul. Are you shelving your unit?

Well, most of the options I've seen with rules in the codex do NOT have points in Legends. For example, Librarians can take combi-weapons through Legends only, but the points for combi-weapons are in the Codex still. No points values for combi-weapon exist through Legends (for Marines at least)

So in your example, there would only be a points discrepancy if Power Mauls BOTH
A) have a points entry in your Codex (or the Munitorum Filed Manual for you faction) and
B) the Legends entry has a points value for Power Mauls too
But so far, I can't find any example of a situation like this

Another example is Eldar Autarchs. Legends gives them options for Reaper launchers, Banshee masks and other wargear options that are MANDATORY to represent how Autarchs are former Aspect warriors, but many of those options do not have point in the Legends PDF, because they are in the Codex, which will get updates.

A counter example is Twin Autocannons for Dreads, which do not have an entry at all in any Marine Codex, so the 20ppm cost for them in Legends will NEVER have a discrepancy. It's the final cost, period.

-

I haven’t looked deeply at the other factions beyond what units have been lost, but that is exactly the case for Guard. We’ve lost all power axes and mauls and now there is a points cost in Legends.

 Apple Peel wrote:
I haven’t looked deeply at the other factions beyond what units have been lost, but that is exactly the case for Guard. We’ve lost all power axes and mauls and now there is a points cost in Legends.

Are there points for axes and mauls in your Codex? If you lost them all, then there are NO points in your Codex, so there will never be a different value for axes and mauls.

That's my point. If the only points cost is in Legends, that's the final cost and there will NEVER be a situation in which Codex units have a cheaper or more expensive cost than a Legends unit.

-

 catbarf wrote:

If someone is asking to use Legends rules to facilitate a high-power wombo combo in a competitive game, you are equally entitled to ask to ignore RO3.

If someone is asking to use Legends rules so they can use their lovingly-painted old collection, and you're asking to suspend RO3 so that you can take a cheesy WAAC list to curbstomp them in a casual game, you are 100% That Guy.

If someone is asking to use Legends rules so they can use their old collection, and you ask to suspend RO3 so that you could take more than three squads of IG Veterans to fit a 'veteran regiment' theme, then that's completely reasonable.

There is nuance here, and more choices beyond 'play according to tournament rules' and 'allow more casual rules, then bring an exploitative tournament mindset anyways to take advantage of it'.

Yes, exactly this.

The irony is pickup games were the real sell of 40k versus other games and the reason it thrived while other games failed; it was so ubiquitous that you could be certain there would be opponents for 40k. Now my experience is that while you still find some, mostly it's pre-arranged which means just going to the game store doesn't work as you'll have to wait around for a table/opponent, not to mention the laundry list of rules being slapped on top of one another.

So, I think Legends is a good idea, unless it grows out of control, say entire factions go legend. (Glances at Greyknight with a begging cup in the corner and his "Will debase self for a supplement" sign)

The real reason for the lack of genuine pick up games is the rise of social media. Most gaming stores/clubs/areas have some sort of facebook group, dischord, and/or chat where people set up games. I haven't played a true "pick up" game in years, but I was able to readily and easily find games at my local in Baltimore on the Facebook group or my club chat.

Matched play =! Tournament play.

Tournaments make their own variations of the rule, including the decision to exclude legends entries which are matched play legal.

Did GW make legends entries less than favorable to use? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, tournaments banning legends is a problem of the respective TO's and not GW's.

Legends are far more "legal" than index.

Locally I played pick up games almost exclusively at the local shop (until I got crazy busy and couldnt make it anymore). When I check in with people pickup games are still going strong. I just brought two lists to use either against competetive or more casual people.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I think Legends is a good idea, unless it grows out of control, say entire factions go legend. (Glances at Greyknight with a begging cup in the corner and his "Will debase self for a supplement" sign)

I agree, but more importantly, don't think that would ever happen. Models that GW still produces will not go Legends, so unless GKs are the next Squats, I think we can breath easy.

My fear is that ITC/ETC and other well known tourney circuits will knee-jerk ban Legends, which will have a trickle-down effect to even casual games. Kinda like the stigma of FW units "needing" opponent's permission to use for so many years.

 skchsan wrote:
Matched play =! Tournament play.

Tournaments make their own variations of the rule, including the decision to exclude legends entries which are matched play legal.

Did GW make legends entries less than favorable to use? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, tournaments banning legends is a problem of the respective TO's and not GW's.

Legends are far more "legal" than index.

While I agree overall, common TO rulings tend to trickle down to become the expectations for even casual games.

Side note, I didn't realize it, but just about every list we play at home has a Legends unit: Eldar Autarch with Aspect gear, Dreads with Twin Autocannons, Chaos Lord on bikes & Disc Sorcerers.

-

So, out of curiosity, how come there are no Squats in Legends? I would love to use a all Dwarven IG list...

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity, how come there are no Squats in Legends? I would love to use a all Dwarven IG list...

because squats never had index rules in 8th edition.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, out of curiosity, how come there are no Squats in Legends? I would love to use a all Dwarven IG list...

Because Squats didn't exist in 7E. Legends is just models that were brought over from 7E in the Indexes but then outdated by 8E Codices.

-

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I think Legends is a good idea, unless it grows out of control, say entire factions go legend. (Glances at Greyknight with a begging cup in the corner and his "Will debase self for a supplement" sign)

I agree, but more importantly, don't think that would ever happen. Models that GW still produces will not go Legends, so unless GKs are the next Squats, I think we can breath easy.

My fear is that ITC/ETC and other well known tourney circuits will knee-jerk ban Legends, which will have a trickle-down effect to even casual games. Kinda like the stigma of FW units "needing" opponent's permission to use for so many years.

nah, the GK aren't the next squats. the legion of the damned are. but who will be next!

your fear is already being realized i think, because at least one circuit already has stated they will soon enough. banning legends to me makes no sense at all, because how much of the stuff here was even competitive? if it was, it's unlikely to stay that way as rule and point creep continue onwards, so i don't see the point in banning legends, especially when the rules are right there for everyone to see. they will just no longer get used between the effort to make the models, and other models likely being better over time. anything that WAS viable likely won't be by next CA or the one after that, right?

i feel bad for white scars, ork, Space Wolf, and Dark Angel players especially. i lost some weapon options to this and characters, but i didn't lose an entire playstyle.