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.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:

Legends are kinda like those stupid Create a Character rules and Design a Landraider.

Well no, as those are actually excluded from the matched play be default.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I believe the line was something like "Legends units can be used in matched play, but their points will not be updated and they will not be considered when balancing the game going forward." which inherently makes then something players are less inclined to accept on the table.

Yes, it certainly would be completely unthinkable to play a game of 40K using point costs that are not perfectly balanced!

Yeah, heaven forbid someone wants their units to be of appropriate value instead of spewing some garbage about the competitive scene ruining your unbalanced fun.

I' dont see why "Organized Play" rules are so oppressive...

I would love to drop a Feculent Gnarlmaw into my Death Guard, Daemons, and Iron Warriors list, but I am using 3 detachments already.

I could either adjust my list to follow the suggested guidelines, or I can try to finagle it with my opponent to allow me to gain an unfair advantage.

Buddy games, do whatever you want, but at that point it's just Open War but with more steps.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I' dont see why "Organized Play" rules are so oppressive...

I don't know, I didn't write them.

I would love to drop a Feculent Gnarlmaw into my Death Guard, Daemons, and Iron Warriors list, but I am using 3 detachments already.

I could either adjust my list to follow the suggested guidelines, or I can try to finagle it with my opponent to allow me to gain an unfair advantage.

No, you just use more detachments if you want as the rules allow it, and gain completely fair advantage as your opponent is allowed to do the same.

Buddy games, do whatever you want, but at that point it's just Open War but with more steps.

We are talking about using the normal matched play rules here.

Custom heroes and vehicles were really fun actually, i ran a campaign with them. Everyone had a blast with those rules. I also made every run some of the Cities of Death rules too tho (Lucky hit, Obscured Targets, Soft/Hard terrain, Roads) not the missions/stratagem for them, just pulled out some of the good rules.

Everyone was given an option to level up 1 character each week and by the end we all had 2-3 legendary characters, you picked 1 option and roll a dice for the other to make it a bit more fun.


Evenw ith idex options, flow charts, blah blah, a good campaign can be way more fun with a few rule changes. Should try it sometime.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, heaven forbid someone wants their units to be of appropriate value instead of spewing some garbage about the competitive scene ruining your unbalanced fun.

Wrong game for that man. It has never happened.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, heaven forbid someone wants their units to be of appropriate value instead of spewing some garbage about the competitive scene ruining your unbalanced fun.

Wrong game for that man. It has never happened.

Way to miss the point as I about expected from someone like you.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Custom heroes and vehicles were really fun actually, i ran a campaign with them. Everyone had a blast with those rules. I also made every run some of the Cities of Death rules too tho (Lucky hit, Obscured Targets, Soft/Hard terrain, Roads) not the missions/stratagem for them, just pulled out some of the good rules.

Everyone was given an option to level up 1 character each week and by the end we all had 2-3 legendary characters, you picked 1 option and roll a dice for the other to make it a bit more fun.


Evenw ith idex options, flow charts, blah blah, a good campaign can be way more fun with a few rule changes. Should try it sometime.

Yeah, optional rules like those and the matched play suggestions can be assets, as long as both players agree to use them beforehand.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Way to miss the point as I about expected from someone like you.

The game is not balanced to begin with, so Legends really do not change anything.

And when these rules were still in the Index, people were fine with using them, but now that these exact same rules are in the Legends, they're suddenly a balance problem. How on Earth does moving the same rules from a book to a PDF affect the balance? Do you also think it affects the balance whether my Space Marine codex is a physical one or the digital edition?

The balance issue arises from the old PDF being updated and accounted for in releases, and the new one being neither of those things.

It's (ignoring Rule of 3) not a fair advantage for every Faction. Orkz, for example, are better able to spam Battalions than most Factions, meaning they could have 45+ CP without breaking 1k points. And this isn't even getting into the unit issues that drove Ro3 to become a thing in the first place (Flyrants, etc.) and that's not even getting into how such a thing would work in the current meta (with IH Dread castles).

 flandarz wrote:
The balance issue arises from the old PDF being updated and accounted for in releases, and the new one being neither of those things.

It's (ignoring Rule of 3) not a fair advantage for every Faction. Orkz, for example, are better able to spam Battalions than most Factions, meaning they could have 45+ CP without breaking 1k points. And this isn't even getting into the unit issues that drove Ro3 to become a thing in the first place (Flyrants, etc.) and that's not even getting into how such a thing would work in the current meta (with IH Dread castles).

Remember, taking 58 Leman Russes is perfectly fair and balanced, but Man Emperor forbid you try to take 20 Flash Gitz.

Not being part of balance updates going forward means a couple of things.

One is they won’t amend the points. Hardly anything being sent to Legends will have competitive points vs abilities anyway. If anything, you’ll gimp your list by taking overcosted underpowered Legends stuff. If you’re a super competitive type you should welcome facing most Legends inclusions. This covers most of the stuff in the PDFs. There isn’t much that’s busted and will stay busted forever. Mostly it’s also-rans and flavourful but underpowered stuff, so not really an issue in practice.

The other possibility is unintended rules interactions. Writing rules with Codex models only in mind means a Legends model may become super smashing great all of a sudden, similar to the Iron Hands Leviathan Character combo because GW forgot FW was a thing. For Legends models there won’t be an FAQ to undo this if it happens, because GW’s assumption is that you’re not using Legends as the default. This is the only area of ‘worry’ (not that it’s actually worrying) that some folks might get upset about. It’s best to let something become an issue before deciding to freak out, and then you have to remember the solution will be to figure out a solution with your opponent as no FAQ will be forthcoming. Again, this isn’t actually an issue in practice.

 Crimson wrote:

The game is not balanced to begin with, so Legends really do not change anything.

And when these rules were still in the Index, people were fine with using them, but now that these exact same rules are in the Legends, they're suddenly a balance problem. How on Earth does moving the same rules from a book to a PDF affect the balance? Do you also think it affects the balance whether my Space Marine codex is a physical one or the digital edition?

Once upon a time when Forge World rules were obscure, Forge World models got a bad reputation because they fell into two categories:
* Expensive (monetarily) models with poorly maintained rules that cost too many points that only a rich fool would field
* Expensive (monetarily) models with poorly maintained rules that had ridiculous abilities that any power gamer would love
And if you were dealing with a stranger, you're going to assume the worst first.

It's only going to take a year until Chapter Approved comes out Legends is going to be this weird mix of "It's too bad they didn't reduce the points on that model" and "If you still have the antique, its points didn't change."

Which of those do you think someone's more likely to want to take down from the shelf?

This all seems like a storm in a teacup. On average models seem to cost less points over time. Following that trend, legends units are only likely to get weaker woth time.

Maybe one day a legendary unit may receive an unintended buff through some unplanned synergy, but lets deal with that problem when we get to it instead of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Most dataslates are simple ctrl C ctrl V. Are we really arguing that changing from paper to pdf is going to throw things off balance? Or is the root of the problem that the ork skorcha vehicle now has dakka dakka dakka?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, heaven forbid someone wants their units to be of appropriate value instead of spewing some garbage about the competitive scene ruining your unbalanced fun.

Wrong game for that man. It has never happened.

Way to miss the point as I about expected from someone like you.

and yet their point was valid and yours was the typical "but muh balance" statement that prevents all of the game from being enjoyed and essentially keeps 2/3rds of the game buried.

Wayniac wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah, heaven forbid someone wants their units to be of appropriate value instead of spewing some garbage about the competitive scene ruining your unbalanced fun.

Wrong game for that man. It has never happened.

Way to miss the point as I about expected from someone like you.

and yet their point was valid and yours was the typical "but muh balance" statement that prevents all of the game from being enjoyed and essentially keeps 2/3rds of the game buried.

The writers did that, not me.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
The balance issue arises from the old PDF being updated and accounted for in releases, and the new one being neither of those things.

It's (ignoring Rule of 3) not a fair advantage for every Faction. Orkz, for example, are better able to spam Battalions than most Factions, meaning they could have 45+ CP without breaking 1k points. And this isn't even getting into the unit issues that drove Ro3 to become a thing in the first place (Flyrants, etc.) and that's not even getting into how such a thing would work in the current meta (with IH Dread castles).

Remember, taking 58 Leman Russes is perfectly fair and balanced, but Man Emperor forbid you try to take 20 Flash Gitz.

Even stranger, I can take 3 squads of 20 Fulgurite Electro-Priests without an issue, but 4 squads of 5 would be a problem?

No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.

Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.

Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?

For once I agree with you! Blanket solutions suck. If certain units are a problem, fix those units.

I've never liked SW having better bikers than DA or WS.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.

Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?

For once I agree with you! Blanket solutions suck. If certain units are a problem, fix those units.

Same thing with the Deep Strike rules that basically killed Grey Knights too for example.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.

Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.

Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

This^

 Crimson wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)

If you remember the first 6-9 months of 8th, GW did just that, fixed the problem units, but it was chasing the meta with rules patching many units left and right, thats why it was a blanket rule.

DE RWF, Storm Ravens, Razorbacks, Shadow Specters, Assassins, Tau commanders, Nids Flyrants, Necrons Pylons things, Chaos Mali lords, DE Court spam, Custodes Shield captains, etc.. there was well over 30+ lists that spam 1-3 units 6x it wasn't b.c GW was lazy, its b.c the core of 8th rules were bad.

When you give someone unlimited detachments and slots with soup... yeah its going to be a problem.

 Crimson wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)

And how do you determine exactly which of those units need that limit and which don't? Play whack-a-mole? Isn't it much better for a system under going a lot of change to limit the number of variables you need to deal with globally rather than scatter shot?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

And how do you determine exactly which of those units need that limit and which don't? Play whack-a-mole?

If the writers are unable to assess it otherwise, then yes.

Isn't it much better for a system under going a lot of change to limit the number of variables you need to deal with globally rather than scatter shot?

You can also limit variables by, say, removing Necrons and Space Marines from the game, but that wouldn't be a good idea either. Simple solutions for complicated problems rarely work.

 Crimson wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

And how do you determine exactly which of those units need that limit and which don't? Play whack-a-mole?

If the writers are unable to assess it otherwise, then yes.

Isn't it much better for a system under going a lot of change to limit the number of variables you need to deal with globally rather than scatter shot?

You can also limit variables by, say, removing Necrons and Space Marines from the game, but that wouldn't be a good idea either. Simple solutions for complicated problems rarely work.

Hyperbole!

Read what i wrote, they did play wack-a-mole, everyone hated it and it wasn't fixing the core issue, so thats why Ro3 was made, and it was very well received. You are acting like the Ro3 is a bad thing and everyone hates it. Its honestly the best core rule added later outside of cities of death, to bad that isnt a core rule set tho.

 Crimson wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)

Almost as if GW needs to create some kind of organisation for your forces and a means to chart it. Now, what could they possibly call it?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No point in throwing out every permutation of weirdness. It’s not a new rule, it fixes one problem by curbing worst spam lists and creates other oddities. That’s not new news.

Then why isn't it being handled directly? Or rather, why can't GW just admit they're too lazy to fix the fundamental problems behind Crawlers or Flyrants or Tau Commanders?

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

This^

 Crimson wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)

If you remember the first 6-9 months of 8th, GW did just that, fixed the problem units, but it was chasing the meta with rules patching many units left and right, thats why it was a blanket rule.

DE RWF, Storm Ravens, Razorbacks, Shadow Specters, Assassins, Tau commanders, Nids Flyrants, Necrons Pylons things, Chaos Mali lords, DE Court spam, Custodes Shield captains, etc.. there was well over 30+ lists that spam 1-3 units 6x it wasn't b.c GW was lazy, its b.c the core of 8th rules were bad.

When you give someone unlimited detachments and slots with soup... yeah its going to be a problem.

Hold up.
Necron Pylons? Really? I've never heard of a list with more than 3 Gauss Pylons. I'd love to see proof that it was being spammed in the same manner as everything else.
If you mean Sentry Pylons, they come in units of 1-3, I run 2 full units now, and have been working toward a third for years, since they came out. They're nothing like the huge LoW ones, and generally dismissed by Necron players, I run a fluff list for fun, so winning isn't as important for me as the story.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Because it isn't that simple. Sometimes a unit needs to be cheaper than its actual worth to be viable internally and viable for its role. Allowing this unit to be spammed creates issues that don't pop up when it is limited.

Then limit how many of that specific unit you can take! JFC, it is not that hard, the already did it with the Tau Commander. (Not that it was a good way to fix that specific issue.)

Almost as if GW needs to create some kind of organisation for your forces and a means to chart it. Now, what could they possibly call it?

Perhaps you coulld simply keep it simple and call it the "force orginization chart" or FOC for short?
.... nah thats crazy talk!