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.

 Nazrak wrote:

100% this. Always blows my mind how many people seem to be determined to play this game with people whom they basically hate. So much stuff people complain about would be a total non-issue with just a modicum of sensible discussion.

It doesn't have to be complex.

"Dude you insist on bringing broken stuff and it's not fun, kick rocks and go play with someone else."

As far as I'm concerned the first rule of the game is "I get to decide who I play with".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

100% this. Always blows my mind how many people seem to be determined to play this game with people whom they basically hate. So much stuff people complain about would be a total non-issue with just a modicum of sensible discussion.

It doesn't have to be complex.

"Dude you insist on bringing broken stuff and it's not fun, kick rocks and go play with someone else."

As far as I'm concerned the first rule of the game is "I get to decide who I play with".

Ha, yeah absolutely. I'm astonished I keep seeing people flipping their lids over this over and over and over again.

Apart from that Marines discussion: I chatted with my local GW store guy today and expressed my sadness about the rough rider loss. He ensured me that in HIS store, I don't have to worry about legends. His impression was that they will only be banned somewhere in the future in high class tournaments. But of course, take that as a personal opinion of a local shop manager. At least I'm happy that the show will go on for my brave lancers.

 Nazrak wrote:

Ha, yeah absolutely. I'm astonished I keep seeing people flipping their lids over this over and over and over again.

Everyone will end up meeting "that guy" gaming. That's normal.

But if you consistently play against "that guy" without drawing the line- you may as well be encouraging him.

 Polonius wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I noticed a line added on: https://www.warhammer-community.com/legends/#age-of-sigmar note this address says age of signal but is also shown. When 40k is selected.

This means that Legends units are not designed for matched play

So they aren’t even just saying don’t use them in tournaments now.

the individual sheets say they are appropriate for matched play. AOS is different because they had some wonky issues with points early on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
On Signals today, Frontline announced no legends for LVO and stricter paint and base standards.

Oh this is going to be delicious.

Keep in mind that major tournaments are selling out. Stricter modelling rules were inevitable regardless.

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.

If we are, indeed, being frank... we should probably admit that a significant number of Tournament armies were never “really intended”.

Ain't that the truth. 99% of the "problems" would leave the game if folks worried less about optimization and more about just having fun with your pals.

More like 75%, but I agree.

I mean, I'm all for a balanced game. But in lieu of GW fixes, you know what's easy?

"Dude, these guys are WAY overcosted for what they do. Could we let me go over a few points?"

Never had an issue with that.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I mean, I'm all for a balanced game. But in lieu of GW fixes, you know what's easy?

"Dude, these guys are WAY overcosted for what they do. Could we let me go over a few points?"

Never had an issue with that.

The issue is we're paying for these rules, and pretty high prices at that. I'm not giving a cent to GW for any of their printed materials ever again because of this crap happening over and over, all on top of the bloat too. GW are supposed to be professionals and they're really not acting like it.

If I wanted to pay for stupid guidelines I'd play D&D. Which I have. It works a lot better.

 flandarz wrote:
Ain't that the truth. 99% of the "problems" would leave the game if folks worried less about optimization and more about just having fun with your pals.

That depends on what a player finds fun. Leaving favorite models out of games because they are too powerful, or not powerful enough, or needing to "fix" the game in various other ways via house rules is certainly not my idea of a good time.

Blastaar wrote:
That depends on what a player finds fun. Leaving favorite models out of games because they are too powerful, or not powerful enough, or needing to "fix" the game in various other ways via house rules is certainly not my idea of a good time.

The other option is to not play and wait until GW rebalances everything.

I couldn't even type that sentence with a straight face.

I know how you feel. Shouldn't be paying for something you have to fix.

flandarz wrote:Ain't that the truth. 99% of the "problems" would leave the game if folks worried less about optimization and more about just having fun with your pals.

but...but...RAW...but...I cant fathom using my brain....

If the person you're playing against isnt the type of person able to have a reasonable conversation about the game.....feth them.

I wouldnt say 99% of the issues with the game, but still a significant proportion more like 60% tho. Now I will concede that GW could do a better job with the rules for "competitive" play[hence my many, many suggestions for an official tourney ruleset(with limited detachments, CP, strats,etc...)] so they can leave the rest of the game alone(which works fine for normies).

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
That depends on what a player finds fun. Leaving favorite models out of games because they are too powerful, or not powerful enough, or needing to "fix" the game in various other ways via house rules is certainly not my idea of a good time.

The other option is to not play and wait until GW rebalances everything.

I couldn't even type that sentence with a straight face.

I know how you feel. Shouldn't be paying for something you have to fix.

Considering how many doccuments gw has thrown out and the general lack off quality controll......

Also even gw can do better themselves....

LVO will be banning legends and forcing people to rebase their minis to fit with the most modern bases. I'll need to inquire whether base extenders are legal, I certainly hope I don't have to pry my models off and buy entirely new GW bases. I think this will hurt Orks and maybe also any BA players that hadn't rebased their DC, they probably won't be able to fit in as many models in melee, my shooting units will be a bit harder to keep in aura range but they'll also be able to deny board control more easily. One tiny concern for me is being able to fit 10 32mm bases within 6" of Zahndrekh, I don't even know if he also goes on a 32 mm base.

Not a bad move by GW making ''old'' models and units accessible again.
Trueborn, BA Dreads with dual twin autocannons and Autarch Skyrunner with reaper launcher are definitely in my book.

 vict0988 wrote:
LVO will be banning legends and forcing people to rebase their minis to fit with the most modern bases. I'll need to inquire whether base extenders are legal, I certainly hope I don't have to pry my models off and buy entirely new GW bases. I think this will hurt Orks and maybe also any BA players that hadn't rebased their DC, they probably won't be able to fit in as many models in melee, my shooting units will be a bit harder to keep in aura range but they'll also be able to deny board control more easily. One tiny concern for me is being able to fit 10 32mm bases within 6" of Zahndrekh, I don't even know if he also goes on a 32 mm base.

Base extenders are legal, Reece sad that in the last show, but getting official confirmation is still better.

The rules clearly state that legends are designed for all types of play, open, narrative and matched. ALL types of play. They couldn’t make it any clearer. Organised competitive events make their own rules but as far as GW can control it’s all still legal. If people won’t let you use your toys it’s not GWs fault. They say you can.

Yeah, GW just said they don't recommend using legends for events, and that's mostly because units and wargear from codexes are going to get points changes while legends don't, so in the long run something from the legends pdf could be significantly undercosted.

Legends are going to be 100% legal unless someone uses house rules. Exactly like FW or index stuff.

 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, GW just said they don't recommend using legends for events, and that's mostly because units and wargear from codexes are going to get points changes while legends don't, so in the long run something from the legends pdf could be significantly undercosted.

Legends are going to be 100% legal unless someone uses house rules. Exactly like FW or index stuff.

You'd hope GW might trumpet this a bit more loudly. I mean, what company on the planet would actively seek to limit the scope of their product? The whole 'it must be GW parts' effectively neutered 3rd party stuff in the tournament scene. I can't see what benefit the 'Legends' category has for either company or target audience. Unless it's eventually to force every marine player to go Primaris if they're playing official tourneys.

Flandarz: This is where context helps; and this information should maybe be stickied somewhere.

It's not enough to know about the Chapterhouse decision, but one also needs to know about how GW's business model has evolved and what the interaction was.

I joined the game in 1999- and I'm working from memory here; so I might get some details wrong but the general picture is as follows.

GW in 1st edition, you bought figures in blisters. 2 figures a blister as I recall; specials came with a second "normal" trooper and you bought the specific special you wanted (if you could find it); and heavies were individual (so were sarges).

They were experimenting with plastics at the time. I still have a couple of squads of the 2 pose multipart chaos marines around.

If you bought a box of Chaos terminators, you were guaranteed either a heavy flamer or autocannon, but the armament of the rest of the squad was random. To get the armset you wanted for a squad loadout, you had to hunt blisters with the arms you wanted.

In 2nd edition, they made an upgrade sprue- it had a powerfist, power sword, hand flamer, plasma pistol, bolt pistol. Chaos had a similar sprue. You had to buy this separately from your marines- this sprue was discontinued in 2002?

They released the first version of the 3rd ed multipart Tac squad just before I started. You had a flamer, missile launcher, bolters, and a sarge chestplate, backpack, chainsword, and bolt pistol. You needed that 2nd ed sprue to give your sarge any options, and to buy individual heavy weapons and/or assault weapons to give your squad what you wanted. The 2nd Ed dev box was discontinued; it was reissued later in the edition with hybrid pewter-plastic figures. When the Chaos multipart plastics were released later in edition, it was a heavy bolter and flamer that were options, but there were only 8 marines in the box (although it did include a powersword and possible a powerfist?); you were "expected" to buy a blister for your heavy and assault weapon to have a squad of 10.

There were also a double handful of legacy, pre-sculpted figures that had wargear options. These weren't in stores anymore, but could be ordered from mail order- until 2004(?) you could order any bit they had ever made from mail order in pewter.

So, model at the time: You had to piecemeal purchase your squads if you wanted more than "basic" wargear. 6 squads with powerfists? Vet player. It was something of a prestige thing- I remember the first leafblower-style list I was up against, 2002 timeframe. Lots of autocannons and grenade launchers; old-style cadians. People were impressed at the dedication it had taken to put that army together. You just didn't see things like that at stores unless you had an old vet. Too hard to get the pieces.

Generally speaking, every codex had around a half-dozen options that weren't included. They might be wargear; they might be even basic transports. The Wave Serpent is worth mentioning here; it was introduced in Epic in what, 1992; Forgeworld released a conversion kit for the Falcon along about 2002; along about what, 2006 they finally made the basic transport of the Eldar faction *but it had been in every codex since 3rd Ed dropped*.

I believe, but cannot prove, that they used this as a form of market research. Monitor what models are commonly converted for tournaments; view these as guaranteed sellers. It also encouraged what you could call "knock off" sales. Kid buys 40k starter, plays with friends "out of the box," shot off the board by a veteran with *plasma* not *flamers*, buys a bunch of "upgrades" for his squads.

In the mid-00s, after GW closed down their bitz service as being *not profitable enough*, a massive market exploded online. GW had begun consolidating their product lines by including more options in the box- it's basic manufacturing to reduce inventory; I'm a manufacturing engineer by trade. So, put all the assault weapons in the recut tactical squad box; get rid of the individual blisters. Now, you can buy what the old vets earned! Knock off effect: People had extra bitz they didn't want; so other people expedited sales. ie, I have a bunch of plasmaguns I don't need, I'll sell them to you for store credit and you resell at a high markup because GW doesn't make the individual bit available anymore.

This bitz seller market cut into GW's original model: The Dev box, even the 2nd Ed Dev box, for instance, had 1 of each heavy weapon. Every edition of the game until the current edition rewarded mono-kitting squads. So you were buying 4 dev boxes, or buying 4 dev blisters (at an insane markup, blisters were something like $10/each for a single heavy in 2001). Now, you didn't have to. You wanted your Chaos terminators to have a standard loadout (4 combi meltas, heavy flamer, power weapons?) You shelled out $50 in blisters; because the $30 boxed set was a blind buy with a random mix of arms and bodies. (Worst bit? You ordered a Chaos Terminator; you didn't pick which body you had unless you went bit service, where you paid $14/each). Now, you bought on the market.

Well, GW didn't want that. Those idiots don't realize that businesses provide a service and are rewarded with money, instead they saw these people as taking money that was rightfully GW's. So first, the great image ban- they couldn't stop resale (because you have the right to sell your stuff) but they managed to get a ban in place on using images of their product as copyrighted. That's why bitz sellers today take their own shoddy images of trimmed sprue bitz.

Meanwhile, there was something of a standard release model for codices. At least X new units, nor more than Y new kits and Z new blisters- typically 2-3 blisters, 4-5 kits, at least one of which would be a legacy option that didn't already have an option and the others would be new. But there were always options that didn't have models or models that outright did not exist.

Drop pods were introduced via the "Drop Pod Assault" mission in the 3rd Ed marine book. The model gained rules in the 3.5 codex for marines, which I recall as being 2002ish. 2006 or 2007, the actual model was released.

GW attempted to force players to not go to 3rd party sellers by requiring that your official GT armies be made solely of GW bitz.

Along around 2010, GW began bumping sales by issuing fairly complete boxes with most options for the squad/character being in the box. A few years later, for their next wave of "soak the playerbase", they introduced the grav suite of weapons and centurions. Next wave, flyers. Next wave, superheavies.

GW wasn't doing super well during a large chunk of this period; FW was and FW was largely just filling holes in the GW line. Legion dreadnoughts, rhino doors, models GW wasn't making. The biggest example of the foolishness of this era, to me, was the 2010ish Eldar dex. It added an extra weapon option for each Exarch alongside recut Exarchs+squads- that only included the "legacy" options. Example: SS- the Scorpion's Claw and giant chainsword, in the box. The codex it released alongside? Included twin chainsabres.

So 3rd party sculptors began making pieces to fill demand. Chapterhouse was popular for its shoulderpads, chainsaber "scorpion" exarch- and its Eldar jetbike Farseer/Warlock conversion kits, compatible with GW jetbikes. Those had been an option since 3rd Ed, but had *never had a kit* and were a very popular conversion because of the performance of the unit (faster and tougher HQs are better HQs, all else being equal). Many special characters as well- each major Craftworld had a SC with no model back then (Nuadha Fireheart, anyone?).

I believe GW considered such competition as cannibalizing future sales; as they deliberately held back releasing "sure sellers" to prop seasonal numbers, justifying it as "You can always convert."

Tin foil hat: One of the pluses of the GW marine/chaos marine line was that they used the same dimensions and were cross-compatible bits; you can kitbash the old Berzerkers from 20+years ago with the recut Sternguard from 2015. This is where the variant marine HQs came from- you want a captain on bike? You take the Space Marine captain box and a bike box and make yourself a Captain on bike. No model needed! (So, the tin: The quasi-monopose but highly not cross-compatible current kits are to "force" you to buy "the right kit.")

Well, the court ruled otherwise. No product, no trademark; fair game for a 3rd party vendor to manufacture in the void.

This meandered a bit, but anyone who thinks that GW is making decisions like Legends out of balance considerations is ignorant of the history of GW business practices. Kirby finally was forced out, thank God, but we still haven't seen a purge of the old way of doing things yet. The idea that they are a model company first and foremost is fine; but they used to create future demand by creating units in the codex that didn't have models *this edition* but might *next edition*. Now, they reflexively view that space as opening the door for competitors and therefore cannibalizing their own sales in future years; without considering the core elements that made their IP successful:

1) Ubiquity of gaming; you could always get a 40k game
2) Ability to personalize: The heavy traditional emphasis on conversions made armies highly individualistic; and encouraged very strong brand loyalty as a result.
3) Excellent setting; just enough of everything popular that everyone likes to hook most people while skirting themselves clear of lawsuits.

They're eliminating both #1 and #2; which only makes sense if their game is amazingly good. It's not; but this is how suits are trained to think:

1) Protect market share!
2) Grow market share!

Sometimes, what you do for #1 sabotages #2 and that ultimately hurts #1 longterm.

Time will tell how that ends up, but really great write up. I can't really find fault with your logic and reasoning with it. I'd say a third nail will be if they keep pumping up cost. I do think if they keep this press and push too hard they will end up getting a backlash pretty heavy. Right now its small stuff, but when its whole chunks of armies ? I doubt that'll be so well taken in.

Legends=Models no longer under beta rules.

Just think, no longer having to check you have the latest FAQ/codex/Obscure sheet from limited ed box set/WD. You can memorise the stats, and they will stay the same forever. Also as other models come out of beta (known to some as 8th Ed.), they will be added to the list. I do think it a shame they didn't do this sooner, my runtherd with megaphone has to be a counts as a different runtherd with [insert current weapon/tool]

If TO won't allow Legends, ask for a Legends only comp. If enough ask, they won't want to turn away too many fees.

I will be playing Legends from now on, and allowing non-legends for now, provided they don't become OP with pointless changes (NO Primaris )

@Brain: that's all well and good, but in this case GW has stated that they are not gonna be "supporting" these Legend options anymore. So, my main argument is: if GW says they won't be updating these things, but they're still releasing new content, eventually a time will come when Legends are either under-powered or over-powered.

I understand that GW has released rules without models in the past, but they've also never said "we're gonna release new content and won't check these options for proper balance anymore." So, saying they should be good to use forever is pretty short-sighted. While, obviously, "supported" material can (and will) become unbalanced as well, at the very least GW might fix them. This isn't the case for Legends.

@Coconut: I assume that also means you won't be using any material that will be released in the future. The only way to ensure units and wargear that aren't going to be updated will remain balanced is to only use them in the state in which they were released in. In which case: have fun playing the 2019 meta.

 flandarz wrote:
The only way to ensure units and wargear that aren't going to be updated will remain balanced is to only use them in the state in which they were released in. In which case: have fun playing the 2019 meta.

I don't think this is a fair statement. A ton of the Legend options are things that still exist in Codices and do get updates, they are just Legends in the right combination.
Combi-weapons on Librarians, Aspect gear for Autarch, Autocannons for Dreads and so on are all items that do still exist, just not for those units. And Biker Characters? That's just +1T and more movement. Unless the points for their non-Biker Codex counterparts skyrockets, the final cost for the Legends Bikers should be fine even for the 2020 or 2021 metas.

What we really should worry about is 9th edition dropping and making all this irrelevant

-

To be fair, things that exist in the Codex, but aren't included on the certain entries, are still gonna get updates. I was specifically talking about the entries with fixed point-costs. Ie: the things that won't be updated.

 flandarz wrote:
@Coconut: I assume that also means you won't be using any material that will be released in the future.

Depends, if I'm playing a previous edition and can find a counts as, I may. I have enough unmade and part done not to need to buy anything else. I will be getting SoB to supplement what I have, but they have rules going back a few years.

 flandarz wrote:
The only way to ensure units and wargear that aren't going to be updated will remain balanced is to only use them in the state in which they were released in. In which case: have fun playing the 2019 meta.

GW never balance anything, never have, never will. I still use 6th Ed and occasionally dig out 4th. Just because they are not the current version, doesn't mean they cease to exist. The rules are suggestions of how to play, not some biblical stone tablet that will destroy the world if not adhered to.

BrainFireBob wrote:

So, model at the time: You had to piecemeal purchase your squads if you wanted more than "basic" wargear. 6 squads with powerfists? Vet player. It was something of a prestige thing- I remember the first leafblower-style list I was up against, 2002 timeframe. Lots of autocannons and grenade launchers; old-style cadians. People were impressed at the dedication it had taken to put that army together. You just didn't see things like that at stores unless you had an old vet. Too hard to get the pieces.

Dedication, too hard to get pieces, Pfft.
Most of those vet players with all that dedication? We were (and still are) just smarter than the average player.
We understood how to use GWs mail order service. Contact via mail or phone. But in 2002?? In the civilized world? It'd long changed to ordering online through GWs own site. Or EBay etc.

ccs wrote:
Most of those vet players with all that dedication? We were (and still are) just smarter than the average player.

And there in lies the reason for most of the changes.

How do you increase your "player" base? Lower the requirements.

Next up, different coloured plastic models, black plastic primaris for Iron Hands, Raven Guard and Black Templars, blue for Ultramarines and Crimson Fists, yellow for Imperial Fists, red for Blood Angels, all deemed "battle ready" without any painting.

 Dr Coconut wrote:
GW never balance anything, never have, never will. I still use 6th Ed and occasionally dig out 4th. Just because they are not the current version, doesn't mean they cease to exist. The rules are suggestions of how to play, not some biblical stone tablet that will destroy the world if not adhered to.

I think you may be misunderstanding the issue. GW doing a poor job of balancing is still preferable to GW not doing any balancing at all. For example, if GW releases an update in 2 months that says all BIKER units gets a "ranged attacks targeting this unit have -1 to hit" rule and increases the point cost of BIKER units to compensate for this increase in "power", the Legends BIKERs suddenly become a lot better, as they'll benefit from the rule but won't be subject to the cost increase.

The old editions reference doesn't really apply here, I'm afraid. There's a difference between an entire edition no longer getting updates and only a select range of entries not getting price adjustments (or being taken into account while creating new content), while still being able to benefit from new rules being put out. That's why I said "I suppose that means you won't be using any new material".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I mean, I'm all for a balanced game. But in lieu of GW fixes, you know what's easy?

"Dude, these guys are WAY overcosted for what they do. Could we let me go over a few points?"

Never had an issue with that.

"Nah, GW gave them those points for a reason."
"Your faction shouldn't be good at [whatever unit does]"
"They are actually quite powerful if you use them right."
"Sure, I'll add another unit of [something not terrible] to compensate."

Seen all that happening. On top of that, there are a non-trivial amount of people who claim that certain units are quite weak despite that not being the case. During my last game, there was a guy playing on another table claiming to play a "fun fluffy CSM list" ripping his opponent apart with Alpha Legion chaingun havocs, obliterators and noise marines.

Unless you find a person that like playing exactly the same way you to, this is anything but easy.