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.
soo, GW did the legends thing, and it turned out expertly incompetent.
In order to futureproof it atleast somewhat the internal issues need to be called out to GW once more, because seemingly hiring an editor is too much to ask for.
Therefore i allready started to compile the information for the one faction i know and i ask of anyone to write the issues they find in mail: in a friendly manner, by all means though, express your doubts and concerns over the Legends ruleset in general or the distinct careless attitude torwards the FW rules and legends rules found within both the compendium aswell as the legends rulesets.
BUT FRIENDLY.
So that is what i wrote them today in regards to R&H:
Spoiler:
Good day i found some faults and have some question in regards to the Legends rulesset, respectively the Renegades and heretics section: I believe the minions of chaos rule is faulty:Minions of Chaos: If your army is Battle-forged and every model in this unit’s Detachment has either the Chaos and Renegades or Unaligned keywords, this unit gains the Objective Secured ability (this ability is described in the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book It explicitly calls out a non-existent Keyword, instead of "Chaos and Renegades" it should connect the keywords with "Chaos" , "Renegades and Heretics". This mistake leads to loss of Objective secured as it stands and is therefore completely broken.
Further, the stipulation at the beginning of the R&H list, leads to RAW interpretation of R&H counting as a type of custom regiment, which therefore would get access to doctrines. (this has mostly to do with custom regiments and the Astra militarum Keyword of vehicles) Is this intended? Further: Is it intended that the Renegades and heretics heavy weapons squad can equip "quad launchers"? It seems someone mistook them for solar auxilia or 30k space marines?
Is Disciple morale at 6, like militia, intended?
Command squad disciples are 6 pts /model, regular disciples are 7 pts / model. This seems like an oversight? Renegade Commander lost access to Autogun/ Lasgun, something he always had access to, this seems like an oversight.
Considering malefic lords at 40ppm at the start of 8th edition developed into a problem, is it not a bad idea to have 35 pts / Rogue psyker coven? Further: the writer obviously forgot the renegades psy table.
Also the writer forgot the warlords traits. Stratagem support is non-existent, except if one would go by the maybee intended RAW reading of R&H as a custom regiment.
As an aside: for a supposed farewell this ruleset is insulting to everyone that ever bought R&H rulesets. In fact one could also consider this as a way of planned obsolescence. Indeed the whole legends ruleset can be considered this way. It also shows a distinct lack of care in handling the ruleset and reflects badly on the whole rulesteam. Because the same care got brought over to the FW compendium, which features stars such as Fellblades with 25 man transport capacity... Infact, it seems like the writers couldn't even be bothered to look at an older iteration of the list of the now legended (actually the better term would be deleted because that is how legends rules will be treated by large swaths of the community) and invest 1-2 Hours to understand what the list should include / exclude and how it was in regards to character and faction identity.
Instead this ruleset got written in a way that it will create a lot of mistrust from the community towards legends simply for balance reasons alone, because of Rogue psyker covens and the already mentioned Quadlauncher Heavy weapon teams. It actively hurts former players with established collections by, for reasons unknown, seemingly having 0 internal balance aspect considered (mutant at 7 pts vs Disciple at 7 pts is frankly absurd.) and invites abuse that will create ill will towards all future Legends rules.
Regards
And the issues in total for FAQ mail collection:
Spoiler:
Pyroalchi wrote: Hmm...one little things (and surely not the only ones) that caught my eye in the AM section:
The Tauros Venator Twin Multilaser has heavy 3 => this is most likely meant to be heavy 6
chaos0xomega wrote: Gorgon doesn't have a transport capacity. Arkurian Stormhammer doesn't have stats for the twin battlecannon (not that big of a deal I guess/kinda self-explanatory/reference the Macharius stats?)
Valkyrie wrote: You could also mention how Samus has the option to replace his Iron Claw for a Warpsword...while not having an Iron Claw in the first place.
Fellblade 25 man transport capacity and HE shell differences between loyalists and chaos versions.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/11/11 21:02:58
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Dysartes wrote: You have an... interesting definition of friendly.
I take it the doctrine element you mention ties into content from The Greater Good, somehow?
friendly language was used to put into words what would bring my stuborn and rather unruly innerswiss mountain peasant nature normally on a saubannerzug.
The issue is, that because of how the vehicles still maintain the Astra militarum keyword, and just replace <Regiment> with Renegades and heretics, that by extension <Renegeades and Heretics> turns into a Custom regiment, which would make them in turn into a custom regiment which would therefore be allowed to pick a doctrine of their choosing out of the IG dex.
Now the issue is this may be RAI, but considering the former stand in of Covenants now beeing a general Rule for R&H and technically beeing a quasi trait like doctrines this could lead to issues and would be iffy. Because nobody really wants to see S5 t3 infantry that is "just mortals" ...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/11/11 13:47:08
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
The email started well, but really didn't need the last 3 paragraphs. I think that might do more to weaken your case than help it.
I know if I got an email with a similar tone it would be ignored.
I do commend putting together a list faction by faction of the errors. Hopefully by doing the rules teams work for them we might be lucky to get a FAQ in a short order to fix the broken units
Sentineil wrote: The email started well, but really didn't need the last 3 paragraphs. I think that might do more to weaken your case than help it.
I know if I got an email with a similar tone it would be ignored.
I do commend putting together a list faction by faction of the errors. Hopefully by doing the rules teams work for them we might be lucky to get a FAQ in a short order to fix the broken units
Considering i as a paying custommer all throughout late 8th edition, on multiple occaisions gave them friendly and funded feedback, aswell as pointed out constantly 3 issues in regards to rules interaction that iteration had for R&H alone and got ignored, permanently....
Yeah no i am throguh frankly with beeing polite. Further , whilest i agree, that the poor sod getting to read this, might bet a bit miffed, he is not ultimately responsible, as stated in my mail, but rather the rules team.
Frankly, if i'd behave the way GW does torwards my custommers, i'd ve been bankrupt before i'd even started .
I am also frankly tired of paying for a product which shows clearly a lack of care, and then having basically the duty of an editor on my and the communities shoulders to function like a bloody editor.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/11/11 18:02:48
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Pyroalchi wrote: Hmm...one little things (and surely not the only ones) that caught my eye in the AM section:
The Tauros Venator Twin Multilaser has heavy 3 => this is most likely meant to be heavy 6
yep. on the list it goes for the next Email..,..
Fellblade 25 man transport capacity and HE shell differences between loyalists and chaos versions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/11 18:04:37
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
I hope you are then okay with your mail going straight to the bin folder
You know , after 5 before with no reactions i couldn't care less
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Gorgon doesn't have a transport capacity.
Arkurian Stormhammer doesn't have stats for the twin battlecannon (not that big of a deal I guess/kinda self-explanatory/reference the Macharius stats?)
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
chaos0xomega wrote: Gorgon doesn't have a transport capacity.
Arkurian Stormhammer doesn't have stats for the twin battlecannon (not that big of a deal I guess/kinda self-explanatory/reference the Macharius stats?)
That kind of thing is common in the Imperial Armour Compendium. Lots of units have weapons listed as standard equipment, but without stats. Likewise, many have special abilities that are only named, like "Daemonic", Infernal Regeneration", or "Steel Behemoth", with no rules text. Instead you are told to look at "codex: y, page: x, datasheet: z" for the explanation of the rule. Lazy, very lazy.
Just wanted to drop in as a R&H player/collector, that these kind of comments are pretty antagonistic towards the OP, and toxic for the community at large. I don't know what's fun about a subset of the community losing not only the minis needed for this army, but now having rules that are poorly-written, confusing and totally lacking any of the flavor or effort that in editions past, made R&H a really great fun little army.
I know Not Online can seem a little abraisive here, but he's certainly not alone in having some very sour grapes about how GW have done us dirty with a really lazy "legacy" ruleset.
I planned my R&H army off the back of the Vraks FW book. Even back in those unlimited-free-breadsticks-soup-or-salad days, when there were so many possibilities for army composition and customization - the kind of highly-interactive, fun-to-tinker-with rules that honestly I think were a shining example of GW doing things right (and something I vastly prefer to the current "just too many stratagems" codex system GW have opted for with 9th) and making a really fun army, competatively speaking, they were very far from good. I had a fun little artillery-with-wave-assault infantry theme, and there were a bunch of really fun units - like the Ordiance Tyrant (a mini I had made grandiose plans to convert myself). I bought a really good chunk of the minis needed to do it in 8th when they pulled the FW line, because it was a project I was really passionate about, despite having had our rules really paired back and neglected in 8th, when I got them. To have them go out like this, with rules that are, sadly a fitting shambles for the state of this edition, is... at this point, the kind of disappointment that R&H fans have become used to, but that doesn't make it suck any less.
The whole community is at a loss because of these rules. The game is less rich, less varied, and the model range is stunted because of this decision on the part of GW. I think it's very easy for all of you to sling rocks at OP because he's - totally rightly, btw - pissed, and it's like poking a hurt dog with a pointy stick, and all of you look about as glamourous and brave for doing it. Not Online has been a real key player in the DakkaDakka R&H community. I think he has been a member who dedicated a TREMENDOUS amount of time to understanding and interpreting the rules, but also supporting other users, answering questions and chewing over lists and meta. Without this army - and without his input, all of you have lost something. Your shitposting it entirely tasteless. Surely the person who raised you at least once said the whole 'if you can't say anything nice...' mantra to you when you were kids?
Getting in contact with GW's email schmubs about this is, as OP has pointed out, frustrating and usually fruitless. Nottingham really only seems to pay attention to glaring cock-ups like this if people are flooding their FB comments with chimping out, like with the IH rules. Otherwise, they tend to just "Very interesting, we'll pass this on to our rules team" and then this. OP, you're a ace bloke, and I wish you the best of luck with the email.
I hope you get a response that you deserve.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/12 03:38:35
You can't 'Future Proof' something like legends. Imagine if legends had come out in 7th without the current system of <Tags>, with initiative, vehicles with armor facings, no differentiated movement speeds, and without weapon damage. Would it even be used when you literally have to house rule half of it anyway? How about now with core how will that be applied?
They don't even make the stuff anymore. Nor have they made the stuff in a lot of cases.. The fact you got rules at all is nothing short of a mircale.. At least they didin't go full on WHFB...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/12 04:04:41
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Just wanted to drop in as a R&H player/collector, that these kind of comments are pretty antagonistic towards the OP, and toxic for the community at large. I don't know what's fun about a subset of the community losing not only the minis needed for this army, but now having rules that are poorly-written, confusing and totally lacking any of the flavor or effort that in editions past, made R&H a really great fun little army.
I know Not Online can seem a little abraisive here, but he's certainly not alone in having some very sour grapes about how GW have done us dirty with a really lazy "legacy" ruleset.
I planned my R&H army off the back of the Vraks FW book.
Even back in those unlimited-free-breadsticks-soup-or-salad days, when there were so many possibilities for army composition and customization - the kind of highly-interactive, fun-to-tinker-with rules that honestly I think were a shining example of GW doing things right (and something I vastly prefer to the current "just too many stratagems" codex system GW have opted for with 9th) and making a really fun army, competatively speaking, they were very far from good.
I had a fun little artillery-with-wave-assault infantry theme, and there were a bunch of really fun units - like the Ordiance Tyrant (a mini I had made grandiose plans to convert myself). I bought a really good chunk of the minis needed to do it in 8th when they pulled the FW line, because it was a project I was really passionate about, despite having had our rules really paired back and neglected in 8th, when I got them. To have them go out like this, with rules that are, sadly a fitting shambles for the state of this edition, is... at this point, the kind of disappointment that R&H fans have become used to, but that doesn't make it suck any less.
The whole community is at a loss because of these rules. The game is less rich, less varied, and the model range is stunted because of this decision on the part of GW. I think it's very easy for all of you to sling rocks at OP because he's - totally rightly, btw - pissed, and it's like poking a hurt dog with a pointy stick, and all of you look about as glamourous and brave for doing it.
Not Online has been a real key player in the DakkaDakka R&H community. I think he has been a member who dedicated a TREMENDOUS amount of time to understanding and interpreting the rules, but also supporting other users, answering questions and chewing over lists and meta. Without this army - and without his input, all of you have lost something. Your shitposting it entirely tasteless. Surely the person who raised you at least once said the whole 'if you can't say anything nice...' mantra to you when you were kids?
Getting in contact with GW's email schmubs about this is, as OP has pointed out, frustrating and usually fruitless. Nottingham really only seems to pay attention to glaring cock-ups like this if people are flooding their FB comments with chimping out, like with the IH rules. Otherwise, they tend to just "Very interesting, we'll pass this on to our rules team" and then this. OP, you're a ace bloke, and I wish you the best of luck with the email.
I hope you get a response that you deserve.
Hi. Didn't mean to cause any offence to either yourself or NotOnline. I saw some humour in his call to be polite and then slowly getting more and more worked up over the cause of the e-mail but I am not mocking either the fact that he is losing an army or making any sort of personal judgment on him. That with a random Karol tangent just made this thread rather amusing for me and I hope the OP can see that without taking it as a personal attack but if I did cross a line I genuinely apologise.
If I were a developer, I'd have stopped reading your message when there was 2 acronyms by the fifth sentence.
That's where I stopped reading as a no body, so I imagine it'd be the same.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/12 05:12:55
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
DarknessEternal wrote: If I were a developer, I'd have stopped reading your message when there was 2 acronyms by the fifth sentence.
That's where I stopped reading as a no body, so I imagine it'd be the same.
especially as "RAW" proably doesn't mean anything to them.
Are you serious? When writing games RAW vs RAI is a very, very important thing to consider.
It's how you avoid writing gak that lets you resurrect ATV's with an apothecary lmao
Lots of good RPG's manage to take this into consideration when designing modern games. Not sure why the pepebrains at gamesworkshop can't.
DarknessEternal wrote: If I were a developer, I'd have stopped reading your message when there was 2 acronyms by the fifth sentence.
That's where I stopped reading as a no body, so I imagine it'd be the same.
especially as "RAW" proably doesn't mean anything to them.
Are you serious? When writing games RAW vs RAI is a very, very important thing to consider.
It's how you avoid writing gak that lets you resurrect ATV's with an apothecary lmao
Lots of good RPG's manage to take this into consideration when designing modern games. Not sure why the pepebrains at gamesworkshop can't.
The acronym is probably meaningless to them if they aren't deeply involved in forum culture.
Canadian 5th wrote: You can't 'Future Proof' something like legends. Imagine if legends had come out in 7th without the current system of <Tags>, with initiative, vehicles with armor facings, no differentiated movement speeds, and without weapon damage. Would it even be used when you literally have to house rule half of it anyway? How about now with core how will that be applied?
Actually yes, you can.
For exemple the "Minions of Chaos " Rule, you know , the obsec rule any faction get's for beeing xyz combination of Keywords within a detachement and Battleforged, right?
yeah, how about taking a look at the datasheets that that rule will have and check the correspondong Keywords on the same page you put the rules in.
That is in a way "Future Proofing". And yes if Gw once again decides to streamline something then yup Legends going to drop off the loop massively more or less, however there are dedicated groups that are perfectly willing to adapt an older ruleset up to date, except that is also a lot easier, IF it would be done correctly.
And that is really the least we can demand of them. Because as stated it is a really bad look when you can't even write a rule into a datasheet and FAIL at connecting the Keywords.
And the same shoddy standard has been applied to the compendium: A book GW dares to sell for 40£ , which any other industry would have started to sweat nervously because of missed minimal standards.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
If Legends was made in 7th, before 8th was finalized, would it be usable without a near-total re-write by fans? Yes or no?
Depends, Yes if it is lost stats, curb the obsolete ones and or disregard them, no if they add back stats.
Also it still doesn't absolve them on writing a correct datasheet / entry to begin with.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/12 08:03:55
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
If Legends was made in 7th, before 8th was finalized, would it be usable without a near-total re-write by fans? Yes or no?
Depends, Yes if it is lost stats, curb the obsolete ones and or disregard them, no if they add back stats.
Yes, because units that lost out on initiative are doing SO well these days. Plus how do you work around the vehicle change for any unit not built on a common chassis? How about cut USRs that weren't replaced or which were replaced by unit specific stratagems that don't cover every unit that lost a particular USR? What about non-standard weapons and their damage value and AP?
If Legends was made in 7th, before 8th was finalized, would it be usable without a near-total re-write by fans? Yes or no?
Depends, Yes if it is lost stats, curb the obsolete ones and or disregard them, no if they add back stats.
Yes, because units that lost out on initiative are doing SO well these days. Plus how do you work around the vehicle change for any unit not built on a common chassis? How about cut USRs that weren't replaced or which were replaced by unit specific stratagems that don't cover every unit that lost a particular USR? What about non-standard weapons and their damage value and AP?
well, this still doesn't absolve them off writing an internally working datasheet so it is in it's entirerty only a consequence if GW really shifts again like 7th to 8th.
And the least they can do is write an internally working datasheet which they didn't.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Not Online!!! wrote: well, this still doesn't absolve them off writing an internally working datasheet so it is in it's entirerty only a consequence if GW really shifts again like 7th to 8th.
And the least they can do is write an internally working datasheet which they didn't.
This is literally GW placating people in as minimal a way possible because they're never going to update any of this again and know that even if this was well written it'll be useless by the halfway point of this edition. This is literally just GW publishing official house rules which will need further house ruling in the very near future. Plus, the only people who will let you play with these rules would probably let you play the models anyway, so...
Not Online!!! wrote: well, this still doesn't absolve them off writing an internally working datasheet so it is in it's entirerty only a consequence if GW really shifts again like 7th to 8th.
And the least they can do is write an internally working datasheet which they didn't.
This is literally GW placating people in as minimal a way possible because they're never going to update any of this again and know that even if this was well written it'll be useless by the halfway point of this edition. This is literally just GW publishing official house rules which will need further house ruling in the very near future. Plus, the only people who will let you play with these rules would probably let you play the models anyway, so...
and yet as soon as someone puts them to the task to atually implement stringent standards this is now considered bad?
See there would be less issues, if .f.e GW wouldn't have the same minimal standards (better non) for exemple, torwards the FW compendium or ANY OTHER of their rules sources.
They litterally forgot whole sections of rules for codices and required PRE- first day FAQ.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200 
Eldar- 4436 pts
