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.

Not Online!!! wrote:
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.

They should have written these rules with significantly more care but none of that makes them any more or less future-proof which was my argument.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
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.

They should have written these rules with significantly more care but none of that makes them any more or less future-proof which was my argument.

and yet i showed you that if they wrote it more coherently that indeed the could partially futurproof them. Hence the title

Your very first point is you misreading the rules and the last three paragraphs are just whining. No-one is going to read this e-mail or take it seriously.

 Corrode wrote:
Your very first point is you misreading the rules and the last three paragraphs are just whining. No-one is going to read this e-mail or take it seriously.

If you can't be bothered to actually read the rules correctly and implement them then you are perfectly capable of joining GW's rules team

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).

the keywords on any R&H unit:

FACTION KEYWORDS: Chaos, Renegades and Heretics

There simply does not exist a Chaos and Renegades Keyword, hence the whole rule is internally broken.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Corrode wrote:
Your very first point is you misreading the rules and the last three paragraphs are just whining. No-one is going to read this e-mail or take it seriously.

If you can't be bothered to actually read the rules correctly and implement them then you are perfectly capable of joining GW's rules team

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).

the keywords on any R&H unit:

FACTION KEYWORDS: Chaos, Renegades and Heretics

There simply does not exist a Chaos and Renegades Keyword, hence the whole rule is internally broken.

Oh no, you had to ask your opponent to let a rule work as intended in adittion to asking if you could use legends material at all. Woe is you.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Corrode wrote:
Your very first point is you misreading the rules and the last three paragraphs are just whining. No-one is going to read this e-mail or take it seriously.

If you can't be bothered to actually read the rules correctly and implement them then you are perfectly capable of joining GW's rules team

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).

the keywords on any R&H unit:

FACTION KEYWORDS: Chaos, Renegades and Heretics

There simply does not exist a Chaos and Renegades Keyword, hence the whole rule is internally broken.

Oh no, you had to ask your opponent to let a rule work as intended in adittion to asking if you could use legends material at all. Woe is you.

On the following pages you will find a mixture of datasheets and additional wargear options for a range of factions. Used alongside those factions’ respective publications, these allow you to field certain legendary models in your games. The rules here can be used in any type of play – open, narrative or matched – and full points are provided to help you balance your forces. Warhammer Legends will not form part of our ongoing balance review for the wider Warhammer 40,000 game – and we don’t recommend Legends units for competitive tournaments. This means that event organisers and attendees alike can guarantee that everything they’re gaming with is easily available to everyone and has been subject to the same rigorous balance and playtesting process.Of course, organisers are also free to specify that they will be including Legends rules if they like, allowing the use of the full classic range at their event

There's no stipulation to ask.
So go troll somewhere else.

There's no stipulation to ask.
So go troll somewhere else.

There literally is given that your opponent can opt out of playing you and your never to be balanced again rules at any time. As time goes on this issue will only grow more pronounced and you WILL need house rules to play this. Ergo you have to ask to use this.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

There's no stipulation to ask.
So go troll somewhere else.

There literally is given that your opponent can opt out of playing you and your never to be balanced again rules at any time. As time goes on this issue will only grow more pronounced and you WILL need house rules to play this. Ergo you have to ask to use this.

GW seems to disagree with you.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

There's no stipulation to ask.
So go troll somewhere else.

There literally is given that your opponent can opt out of playing you and your never to be balanced again rules at any time. As time goes on this issue will only grow more pronounced and you WILL need house rules to play this. Ergo you have to ask to use this.

GW seems to disagree with you.

I think Canadian's point is GW's stance is irrelevant. If you show up to a game with a Legends army from an obsolete Forgeworld book most people's first reaction, after incorrectly assuming they're some sort of converted Traitor Guard using the regular Guard Codex, is going to be "what the hell are those?" There's already likely to be a requirement to explain to your opponent what your army is and there is much more likely to be an unwillingness to play against it than against a regular Codex army. Whether that's "correct" or not from your opponent isn't really the point, it's just the likely reality in a lot of places.

Given that situation, many of the sloppily written rules aren't much of an issue since it's pretty clear what they meant. Should GW have put more effort into the Legends rules in general? Absolutely. Do they see it as a problem that they didn't? I suspect not.

Slipspace wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

There's no stipulation to ask.
So go troll somewhere else.

There literally is given that your opponent can opt out of playing you and your never to be balanced again rules at any time. As time goes on this issue will only grow more pronounced and you WILL need house rules to play this. Ergo you have to ask to use this.

GW seems to disagree with you.

I think Canadian's point is GW's stance is irrelevant. If you show up to a game with a Legends army from an obsolete Forgeworld book most people's first reaction, after incorrectly assuming they're some sort of converted Traitor Guard using the regular Guard Codex, is going to be "what the hell are those?" There's already likely to be a requirement to explain to your opponent what your army is and there is much more likely to be an unwillingness to play against it than against a regular Codex army. Whether that's "correct" or not from your opponent isn't really the point, it's just the likely reality in a lot of places.

Given that situation, many of the sloppily written rules aren't much of an issue since it's pretty clear what they meant. Should GW have put more effort into the Legends rules in general? Absolutely. Do they see it as a problem that they didn't? I suspect not.

Oh absolutely, i have called out , what legends is, frankly. And we will see if they take the time if they indeed shake up the system again like from 7th to 8th , by updating the sheets once more.I seriously doubt that but who knows.

However, what i am not fine, is that the same ammount of care seems to have slipped over into the FW compendium or other paid products.

FFS: the GW rulesteam failed at copy pasting and adapting the Droppod rules f.e. to the dreadclaw.
They failed at copy pasting the Fellblade with name changes, hence why the csm version now can carry 25 models whilest the loyalist version has a clear typo in the HE ammo which would make it superior to the AT ammo and all the other issues that have been brought up.

Yeah maybee it is illusiory to call it a futureproofing.. but i think we as a community should be at a point were we simply shouldn't take stuff like that from GW anymore, especilly since they now would have the tools to adapt rules on the fly. With the app and the community site.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

There's no stipulation to ask.
So go troll somewhere else.

There literally is given that your opponent can opt out of playing you and your never to be balanced again rules at any time. As time goes on this issue will only grow more pronounced and you WILL need house rules to play this. Ergo you have to ask to use this.

GW seems to disagree with you.

What are you going to do, show that page to your opponent and force them to game with you? GW can write anything they like in a book and literally all of it will require you to ask if it's okay to use. This one just has far fewer people willing yo say yes.

Canadian, your point in this thread has swerved around so much it's giving me whiplash. Why exactly are you in here? Other than riling people, like, what are you actually trying to advocate for? Because, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you came in here with a pretty condescending #iamsosmart "well you can't future proof because the edition will eventually change and invalidate something...", and now you're screeching all over the damn place coming up with empty counter arguments, where, yes, like, on a technicallity, you kinda have a point, but LORDY LORD is it a pretty far cry from anything this thread is about.

You've claimed that GW games designers aren't familiar with common wargaming acronyms (despite a former one having even posted on this very board), so there's no point trying to communicate. You're claiming now that R&H are such an obscure army that people would turn down a game with them (total bollocks, I think everyone bar real newbies are probably at least aware they exist, esp. after the community hubbub about the BSF guard minis), and you've claimed that, because of impermanence, with 7th turning to 8th, 8th to 9th, 9th to 10th ad infinitum that there's no point to even trying to preserve the army. By that very logic, why are you in the hobby? If you can't future proof anything what's to say your army isn't next? What's to say GW won't go bankrupt in 2 years time? What's the point of fething anything if things can just end?

I'll tell you why I'd have liked these rules - rules GW are charging a premium for, btw - to not be so gob-smackingly lazy. Because even though the army was pulled from production late last edition, it'd be nice to be able to keep having games with them into this new edition, even if it is the last.

9th edition literally just started - GW could have done their job with this product, and at the very least, tried to re-hash some of the existing rules R&H have had written for them in the past. Yeah, they wouldn't be cutting edge competitive, tbh I'm not sure any R&H player is even interested in that particularly.
If we were lucky, those rules might've lasted us as long as last edition. A few more games with mates, a few more good memories, a few more chances to use an army with pretty bespoke minis, and lots of converting, even if the rules are in their twilight years.

Instead, as our viking funeral pyre, we have...

...someone forgot to make sure the keywords worked.

They just stripped our options, slapped some utterly thoughtless values on things and then botched the keywords. IDK about you, but if I half-assed my job that hard, and someone called me out on it, I'd be SWEATING BULLETS about the dressing down I'd be about to receive. It's bad, it's lazy.

But above all that, as a fan. It's just disappointing.

 posermcbogus wrote:
I'll tell you why I'd have liked these rules - rules GW are charging a premium for, btw - to not be so gob-smackingly lazy. Because even though the army was pulled from production late last edition, it'd be nice to be able to keep having games with them into this new edition, even if it is the last.

I think I'm missing something here - if we're talking the Legends PDF, how are GW charging a premium for the rules?

 posermcbogus wrote:

9th edition literally just started - GW could have done their job with this product, and at the very least, tried to re-hash some of the existing rules R&H have had written for them in the past. Yeah, they wouldn't be cutting edge competitive, tbh I'm not sure any R&H player is even interested in that particularly.
If we were lucky, those rules might've lasted us as long as last edition. A few more games with mates, a few more good memories, a few more chances to use an army with pretty bespoke minis, and lots of converting, even if the rules are in their twilight years.

there was that one gentlemen, that decided to use the technicallity that was the R&H stipulation of 6th edition to count as quasi CSM per allies chart, to use that to get access to the purge formation...

That same gentlemen then connected it with the vraksian sublist and the ordinance tyrant trait to spam dangerous terrain artillery with plague zombies and won the tournament house high...

Somthing that could've been fixed by GW not making formations in 7th or FAQing access propperly but that is also gone by age sooo...

Still this list here, is even MORE abusable for such Gentlemens because on a technicallity you can now create S5 infantry, reroll blast weaponry , have 47ppm Quad launcher HWT's and 35 pts 15 W smite bots that are nigh guaranteed to successfully cast.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 posermcbogus wrote:
I'll tell you why I'd have liked these rules - rules GW are charging a premium for, btw - to not be so gob-smackingly lazy. Because even though the army was pulled from production late last edition, it'd be nice to be able to keep having games with them into this new edition, even if it is the last.

I think I'm missing something here - if we're talking the Legends PDF, how are GW charging a premium for the rules?

The FW compendium where some of the units are , is 40£ and the same quality as the legends ruleset....

 Dysartes wrote:

 posermcbogus wrote:
I'll tell you why I'd have liked these rules - rules GW are charging a premium for, btw - to not be so gob-smackingly lazy. Because even though the army was pulled from production late last edition, it'd be nice to be able to keep having games with them into this new edition, even if it is the last.

I think I'm missing something here - if we're talking the Legends PDF, how are GW charging a premium for the rules?

Hands up, I worded that sloppily - I meant the "rules" after "these rules" as in the 40k ruleset in general. Soz. Sometimes the Salt Train's breaks get a lil rusty.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually yes, you can.

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?

The real reason is to not Legends something just because you don't produce the models anymore, and instead to write rules to make a good game. And when Chapterhouse Studios or Regimentbarracks 1-Bedroom or Hiveship Condominium makes a model for something you have an option for but don't produce, you take a breath and let people have fun.

Instead of, y'know, throwing a legal tantrum, losing, and then wholesale cutting options because fun of customers <<<< potential investor profit.

I'm all for removing spurious and irrelevant additions. But an entire army is not a spurious and irrelevant option.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually yes, you can.

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?

The real reason is to not Legends something just because you don't produce the models anymore, and instead to write rules to make a good game. And when Chapterhouse Studios or Regimentbarracks 1-Bedroom or Hiveship Condominium makes a model for something you have an option for but don't produce, you take a breath and let people have fun.

Instead of, y'know, throwing a legal tantrum, losing, and then wholesale cutting options because fun of customers <<<< potential investor profit.

I'm all for removing spurious and irrelevant additions. But an entire army is not a spurious and irrelevant option.

So much this.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually yes, you can.

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.

That isn't future proofing, that's an edition update, which Legends aren't supposed to get.

Breton wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually yes, you can.

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.

That isn't future proofing, that's an edition update, which Legends aren't supposed to get.

When a datasheet , is written faulty in regards to the datasheets own rules and keywords, then no.
that is the issue. The datasheets are internally written wrong.

Without even disregarding anything external such as an edition change the rules are written wrong.
That has nothing to do with an update or edition change and just shows how bad GW ruleswriting has gotten.
Something that did aswell bleed over into the recent compendium.