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.

So I really like the martial legacy rule. I.E. you have to pay a Command Point to take one of the forge world marine units.

You might be thinking "girl you be crazy!" But hear me out!

Yes the CP cost is burdensome. I fully acknowledge that, especially with how CP is generated these days. However! I think Martial Legacy rules are important from both a fluff perspective and a tabletop balance perspective.

Fluff: Even the biggest chapters have maybe 1 or 2 of any of these relic weapons. They are all over 10,000 years old and should reflect that. Why would there suddenly be an army with 3 Leviathans, 3 Sicarans, and 3 Whirlwind Skorpus? Thats several chapters worth of gear and its all being fielded at the same time! You would expect most chapters to only field them in times of great peril and even then begrudgingly. Hell, even the Ultramarines have a heresy aged rhino that they will turn the engine over once a year just to appease its machine spirit.

Balance: For the most part a lot of the units that gained the martial legacy did so because of their much higher level of power. People took a basketful of these forgeworld items because they either were too point efficient (leviathan), had a special effect that was easily and unintentionally abused (Skorpius), or simply skirted the rules entirely (Chaplain Dreadnaught). Adding the CP cost makes people less likely to abuse them and disincentives power gaming.

Overall my thoughts on the whole rule is that it makes forgeworld options less likely to be abused in general, because we all remember how stupid Iron Hands Leviathans were, but doesn't completely gut the model. Really when it comes down to it if someone is running a martial legacy model its because they LIKE the model. It comes with a cost and for the most part it will perform well but not too well for its cost. This is what I want to see more of in general. People playing their favorite models instead of the model that is >001% more efficient that another model and that one is now garbage.

Thats my thoughts, can you change my mind? Really I'd love to see this moved into other armies, even my beloved guard, although it does exist to some degree with things like Lord of War (although I feel like its a bit too penalized at 3 CP) as these represent ancient and rare battlefield assets and not your run of the mill soldier.

This all works fine for loyalists.

Now for Traitors it makes little sense.
First because Traitors are stuck with a single codex dreadnought, the helbrute.
Second because Loyalists have a codex contemptor without martial legacy for the same pts cost (at the expense of weapons options).
Third because Traitor legions have much more heresy-era tech than loyalists (since the darkmechanicum still produces it and for some legion the HH happened yesterday due to warp shenanigans).
Fourth because Traitor legions have their identity locked behind stratagems, which means that as soon as you run out of CP, the armies identity and powerlevel drop drastically.

Also, i disagree that the CP cost was needed for balance reason, the models that were the strongest before (dreads) were already nerfed in their stats to a level that is much closer to codex options.

As for the FW "Abuse" you mentionned, most of it came from the codex. If iron hands leviathan characters was too strong, nerf the iron hands, not the levi

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
This all works fine for loyalists.

Now for Traitors it makes little sense.
First because Traitors are stuck with a single codex dreadnought, the helbrute.
Second because Loyalists have a codex contemptor without martial legacy for the same pts cost (at the expense of weapons options).
Third because Traitor legions have much more heresy-era tech than loyalists (since the darkmechanicum still produces it and for some legion the HH happened yesterday due to warp shenanigans).
Fourth because Traitor legions have their identity locked behind stratagems, which means that as soon as you run out of CP, the armies identity and powerlevel drop drastically.

Also, i disagree that the CP cost was needed for balance reason, the models that were the strongest before (dreads) were already nerfed in their stats to a level that is much closer to codex options.

As for the FW "Abuse" you mentionned, most of it came from the codex. If iron hands leviathan characters was too strong, nerf the iron hands, not the levi

Yeah. I won't say you're WRONG to like it, General Chaos, but I will say I disagree, and agree much more with Vladimir.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
So I really like the martial legacy rule. I.E. you have to pay a Command Point to take one of the forge world marine units.

You might be thinking "girl you be crazy!" But hear me out!

Yes the CP cost is burdensome. I fully acknowledge that, especially with how CP is generated these days. However! I think Martial Legacy rules are important from both a fluff perspective and a tabletop balance perspective.

Fluff: Even the biggest chapters have maybe 1 or 2 of any of these relic weapons. They are all over 10,000 years old and should reflect that. Why would there suddenly be an army with 3 Leviathans, 3 Sicarans, and 3 Whirlwind Skorpus? Thats several chapters worth of gear and its all being fielded at the same time! You would expect most chapters to only field them in times of great peril and even then begrudgingly. Hell, even the Ultramarines have a heresy aged rhino that they will turn the engine over once a year just to appease its machine spirit.

Balance: For the most part a lot of the units that gained the martial legacy did so because of their much higher level of power. People took a basketful of these forgeworld items because they either were too point efficient (leviathan), had a special effect that was easily and unintentionally abused (Skorpius), or simply skirted the rules entirely (Chaplain Dreadnaught). Adding the CP cost makes people less likely to abuse them and disincentives power gaming.

Overall my thoughts on the whole rule is that it makes forgeworld options less likely to be abused in general, because we all remember how stupid Iron Hands Leviathans were, but doesn't completely gut the model. Really when it comes down to it if someone is running a martial legacy model its because they LIKE the model. It comes with a cost and for the most part it will perform well but not too well for its cost. This is what I want to see more of in general. People playing their favorite models instead of the model that is >001% more efficient that another model and that one is now garbage.

Thats my thoughts, can you change my mind? Really I'd love to see this moved into other armies, even my beloved guard, although it does exist to some degree with things like Lord of War (although I feel like its a bit too penalized at 3 CP) as these represent ancient and rare battlefield assets and not your run of the mill soldier.

I am with you on this. It keeps the FW Dreads around for those who love them while making people think twice about including them for power reasons. The FW Dreads and some Marine vehicles were a little over the top - like Codex ones with the volume turned to 13. I don't think anyone took "normal" Contemptors, for instance, when the FW one had much better weapon options. So now if you want your superweapons you pay CP.

I actually like the CP change. It puts both Imp and Chaos on the same footing (Chaos didn't have the Relic rule). It also means that you can actually use the Super heavies more freely.

While Chaos does still have some old kit, there is a lot in the fluff that the more specialist bits of kit would breakdown and couldn't be replaced. That's why the Dark Mec are building Daemon engines.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
This all works fine for loyalists.

Now for Traitors it makes little sense.
First because Traitors are stuck with a single codex dreadnought, the helbrute.
Second because Loyalists have a codex contemptor without martial legacy for the same pts cost (at the expense of weapons options).
Third because Traitor legions have much more heresy-era tech than loyalists (since the darkmechanicum still produces it and for some legion the HH happened yesterday due to warp shenanigans).
Fourth because Traitor legions have their identity locked behind stratagems, which means that as soon as you run out of CP, the armies identity and powerlevel drop drastically.

Also, i disagree that the CP cost was needed for balance reason, the models that were the strongest before (dreads) were already nerfed in their stats to a level that is much closer to codex options.

As for the FW "Abuse" you mentionned, most of it came from the codex. If iron hands leviathan characters was too strong, nerf the iron hands, not the levi

I can definitely see that for sure with Chaos (which I did not even consider, sorry heretics!) and I think a specialized version for chaos would have been more appropriate being that they are the Horus Heresy army and really from a design standpoint they should double down on that idea. Marines are moving forward with their new designs and it would make more sense to have chaosy versions of the old Heresy stuff made in plastic to give the two armies more flavor. Maybe something like 1 CP buys you 1-3 models or taking a lord discordant generates a -1/-2 discount on martial legacy. Its a real shame that they streamlined some of the more fun items like butcher cannons but I can also see why they did it to simplify an already over bloated unit selection list.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
This all works fine for loyalists.

Now for Traitors it makes little sense.
First because Traitors are stuck with a single codex dreadnought, the helbrute.
Second because Loyalists have a codex contemptor without martial legacy for the same pts cost (at the expense of weapons options).
Third because Traitor legions have much more heresy-era tech than loyalists (since the darkmechanicum still produces it and for some legion the HH happened yesterday due to warp shenanigans).
Fourth because Traitor legions have their identity locked behind stratagems, which means that as soon as you run out of CP, the armies identity and powerlevel drop drastically.

Also, i disagree that the CP cost was needed for balance reason, the models that were the strongest before (dreads) were already nerfed in their stats to a level that is much closer to codex options.

As for the FW "Abuse" you mentionned, most of it came from the codex. If iron hands leviathan characters was too strong, nerf the iron hands, not the levi

I can definitely see that for sure with Chaos (which I did not even consider, sorry heretics!) and I think a specialized version for chaos would have been more appropriate being that they are the Horus Heresy army and really from a design standpoint they should double down on that idea. Marines are moving forward with their new designs and it would make more sense to have chaosy versions of the old Heresy stuff made in plastic to give the two armies more flavor. Maybe something like 1 CP buys you 1-3 models or taking a lord discordant generates a -1/-2 discount on martial legacy. Its a real shame that they streamlined some of the more fun items like butcher cannons but I can also see why they did it to simplify an already over bloated unit selection list.

oh i don't mind the profiles being streamlined, this part of the change is better. Its mostly that i feel its too much of a nerf since you're basically getting a codex dread now since theyre all bs/ws 3+ and T7. And if the weapons options were the problem , they shouldve been balanced in points (both for loyalists and traitors).

One nice thing about CP is that is scales for game size. You are more likely to have some to spare in big games, where rare units should be more likely to show up. Smaller games they are going to eat a large portion of your resources, so “costs” more.

With the statline nerfs Martial Legacy now means I have to pay CP for using a cooler model whose rules are almost identical (Contemptor Dread v. Castaferrum Dread). It's the kind of rule that makes me skeptical of their claims to be a model company first and a game company second given that they love to write rules that punish me for using models I like.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
With the statline nerfs Martial Legacy now means I have to pay CP for using a cooler model whose rules are almost identical (Contemptor Dread v. Castaferrum Dread). It's the kind of rule that makes me skeptical of their claims to be a model company first and a game company second given that they love to write rules that punish me for using models I like.

Yeah, if they had kept their BS/WS 2+ i couldve seen the CP cost as fair, right now you just pay an extra resource for wanting to pick a different looking Castaferrum/Redemptor.

Martial legacy should exempt contemptors for chaos since we don't have multiple or really any decent alternatives.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
So I really like the martial legacy rule. I.E. you have to pay a Command Point to take one of the forge world marine units.

I tend to agree.

Command Points can represent a variety of things, but I like the idea of them being spent as a kind of strategic resource, representing the Chapter putting something quite rare into the field. It's a risk for them, and could leave them with fewer options.

Tying CP to strategic choices is something I really like, as opposed to equipment choices like frickin' smoke launchers.

generalchaos34 wrote:

Spoiler:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
This all works fine for loyalists.

Now for Traitors it makes little sense.
First because Traitors are stuck with a single codex dreadnought, the helbrute.
Second because Loyalists have a codex contemptor without martial legacy for the same pts cost (at the expense of weapons options).
Third because Traitor legions have much more heresy-era tech than loyalists (since the darkmechanicum still produces it and for some legion the HH happened yesterday due to warp shenanigans).
Fourth because Traitor legions have their identity locked behind stratagems, which means that as soon as you run out of CP, the armies identity and powerlevel drop drastically.

Also, i disagree that the CP cost was needed for balance reason, the models that were the strongest before (dreads) were already nerfed in their stats to a level that is much closer to codex options.

As for the FW "Abuse" you mentionned, most of it came from the codex. If iron hands leviathan characters was too strong, nerf the iron hands, not the levi

I can definitely see that for sure with Chaos (which I did not even consider, sorry heretics!) and I think a specialized version for chaos would have been more appropriate being that they are the Horus Heresy army and really from a design standpoint they should double down on that idea. Marines are moving forward with their new designs and it would make more sense to have chaosy versions of the old Heresy stuff made in plastic to give the two armies more flavor. Maybe something like 1 CP buys you 1-3 models or taking a lord discordant generates a -1/-2 discount on martial legacy. Its a real shame that they streamlined some of the more fun items like butcher cannons but I can also see why they did it to simplify an already over bloated unit selection list.

Glad to hear you say this. Though I wonder, if you consider 3CP to be too great a penalty for Guard to bring a Baneblade or Shadowsword, how do you consider 4CP a fair price for a Fellblade or Typhon? And if you're going to tie csm using Legion units to a character, I'd make it Warpsmiths, not disco lords, disco lords are for daemon engines ( they even ride one), and I wouldn't consider "forcing" someone to bring a disco lord a "tax".

And agreed with VladimirHerzog on all points. You took the words right out of my mouth Vladimir.

ScarVet101 wrote:I actually like the CP change. It puts both Imp and Chaos on the same footing (Chaos didn't have the Relic rule). It also means that you can actually use the Super heavies more freely.

While Chaos does still have some old kit, there is a lot in the fluff that the more specialist bits of kit would breakdown and couldn't be replaced. That's why the Dark Mec are building Daemon engines.

Loyalists have the following dreadnoughts available in their codex:
Standard box dread
Ironclad: T8 instead of T7
Venerable Dreadnought: WS/BS2, 6+++
Contemptor: 5++
Redemptor: primaris dreadnought, 13W
Plus all of the various chapter specific dreadnoughts (librarian dreads, Bjorn, etc)

Csm have:
Hellbrutes: same basic stats as standard box dreads.

How is this the "same footing"? And the Dark Mechanicus still produces some Hersey Era tech in addition to daemon engines.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
So I really like the martial legacy rule. I.E. you have to pay a Command Point to take one of the forge world marine units.

I tend to agree.

Command Points can represent a variety of things, but I like the idea of them being spent as a kind of strategic resource, representing the Chapter putting something quite rare into the field. It's a risk for them, and could leave them with fewer options.

Tying CP to strategic choices is something I really like, as opposed to equipment choices like frickin' smoke launchers.

Yes, totally! I would like to think of command points kind of like the old Requisition Points in the Deathwatch RPG. You expend your leverage with the battlefield command to get strategic assets that are rare--not to shoot twice, or go first. I also really like it when the command points don't represent something that should just be ON THE MODEL. Spending CP to field a rare model=great. Spending CP to (speaking as an Ork player) field my Ard Boys (who used to just be a unit that I could take, which was actually modelled with more armor)=LAME.

I get that the game works with CP being just a game resource for all sorts of things, but it feels dumb to spend CP when I should just be spending points, and it feels too board-gamey when I get to spend CP just to get special rules.

I like the rule. Unless you’re trying to spam something a couple of CP is a non issue. There were other solutions but they chose this one and I don’t hate it.

Bigger problem is the detachment cost I take Superheavies... guess they don’t wanna sell any!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I like the rule. Unless you’re trying to spam something a couple of CP is a non issue. There were other solutions but they chose this one and I don’t hate it.

Bigger problem is the detachment cost I take Superheavies... guess they don’t wanna sell any!

in a 1000pts game, CSM start with 6cp. If i want to take a contemptor, i start at 5.
This screws with the army because without CP, they have zero legion specific flavor since its all been stuffed on the stratagem bus.

LSM start with 6 cp when they want to take a contemptor, and their legion fluff is tied to the trait/warlord traits and relics, which don't cost CP.

And yes. 1000pts games should now be taken into consideration since GW explicitly started supporting this format with 9th.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I like the rule. Unless you’re trying to spam something a couple of CP is a non issue. There were other solutions but they chose this one and I don’t hate it.

Bigger problem is the detachment cost I take Superheavies... guess they don’t wanna sell any!

Again, just like I asked the other guy: if paying 3CP to bring a Baneblade ,knight, klos, etc, is a "bigger problem", then why is it ok to charge 4CP for a Fellblade, Typhon, Cerberus, etc?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I like the rule. Unless you’re trying to spam something a couple of CP is a non issue. There were other solutions but they chose this one and I don’t hate it.

Bigger problem is the detachment cost I take Superheavies... guess they don’t wanna sell any!

Again, just like I asked the other guy: if paying 3CP to bring a Baneblade ,knight, klos, etc, is a "bigger problem", then why is it ok to charge 4CP for a Fellblade, Typhon, Cerberus, etc?

Perhaps GW is simply assessing a tax for players who go outside the baseline Codex? Makes sense to me when we see folks porting in stuff that was designed for 30K. I appreciate that your Fellblade might be collateral damage from a measure aimed at Leviathans/Relic Contemptors, but perhaps that CP is the price for dealing in FW.

I think that Martial Legacy is a somewhat nuanced way to let folks use their 30K toys in a 40K game. We're talking about 1CP.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I like the rule. Unless you’re trying to spam something a couple of CP is a non issue. There were other solutions but they chose this one and I don’t hate it.

Bigger problem is the detachment cost I take Superheavies... guess they don’t wanna sell any!

Again, just like I asked the other guy: if paying 3CP to bring a Baneblade ,knight, klos, etc, is a "bigger problem", then why is it ok to charge 4CP for a Fellblade, Typhon, Cerberus, etc?

Perhaps GW is simply assessing a tax for players who go outside the baseline Codex? Makes sense to me when we see folks porting in stuff that was designed for 30K. I appreciate that your Fellblade might be collateral damage from a measure aimed at Leviathans/Relic Contemptors, but perhaps that CP is the price for dealing in FW.

I think that Martial Legacy is a somewhat nuanced way to let folks use their 30K toys in a 40K game. We're talking about 1CP.

If it's the "price for dealing in FW" then why doesn't it apply to the Macharius tanks, Eldar Scorpions and Cobras, the Astraeus, all the knight variants in the Compendium, etc. And why should the Legions pay an additional fee for using units that originated in the Heresy when they themselves originated in the Heresy? If gw wants to differentiate the Legions from loyalists, then why apply the same rule, in the same way, to both?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I like the rule. Unless you’re trying to spam something a couple of CP is a non issue. There were other solutions but they chose this one and I don’t hate it.

Bigger problem is the detachment cost I take Superheavies... guess they don’t wanna sell any!

Again, just like I asked the other guy: if paying 3CP to bring a Baneblade ,knight, klos, etc, is a "bigger problem", then why is it ok to charge 4CP for a Fellblade, Typhon, Cerberus, etc?

Perhaps GW is simply assessing a tax for players who go outside the baseline Codex? Makes sense to me when we see folks porting in stuff that was designed for 30K. I appreciate that your Fellblade might be collateral damage from a measure aimed at Leviathans/Relic Contemptors, but perhaps that CP is the price for dealing in FW.

I think that Martial Legacy is a somewhat nuanced way to let folks use their 30K toys in a 40K game. We're talking about 1CP.

If it's the "price for dealing in FW" then why doesn't it apply to the Macharius tanks, Eldar Scorpions and Cobras, the Astraeus, all the knight variants in the Compendium, etc. And why should the Legions pay an additional fee for using units that originated in the Heresy when they themselves originated in the Heresy? If gw wants to differentiate the Legions from loyalists, then why apply the same rule, in the same way, to both?

The vast majority of FW that I met at local tourneys through 8th Ed was for Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines (although I never met a Fellblade). I figure that GW saw this phenomenon at the big tourneys as well and took steps. If Eldar Scorpians had been dominating LVO 20 then perhaps they would have an Aeldari version of Martial Legacy?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I like the rule. Unless you’re trying to spam something a couple of CP is a non issue. There were other solutions but they chose this one and I don’t hate it.

Bigger problem is the detachment cost I take Superheavies... guess they don’t wanna sell any!

Again, just like I asked the other guy: if paying 3CP to bring a Baneblade ,knight, klos, etc, is a "bigger problem", then why is it ok to charge 4CP for a Fellblade, Typhon, Cerberus, etc?

Perhaps GW is simply assessing a tax for players who go outside the baseline Codex? Makes sense to me when we see folks porting in stuff that was designed for 30K. I appreciate that your Fellblade might be collateral damage from a measure aimed at Leviathans/Relic Contemptors, but perhaps that CP is the price for dealing in FW.

I think that Martial Legacy is a somewhat nuanced way to let folks use their 30K toys in a 40K game. We're talking about 1CP.

If it's the "price for dealing in FW" then why doesn't it apply to the Macharius tanks, Eldar Scorpions and Cobras, the Astraeus, all the knight variants in the Compendium, etc. And why should the Legions pay an additional fee for using units that originated in the Heresy when they themselves originated in the Heresy? If gw wants to differentiate the Legions from loyalists, then why apply the same rule, in the same way, to both?

The vast majority of FW that I met at local tourneys through 8th Ed was for Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines (although I never met a Fellblade). I figure that GW saw this phenomenon at the big tourneys as well and took steps. If Eldar Scorpians had been dominating LVO 20 then perhaps they would have an Aeldari version of Martial Legacy?

The only fw LOW I can ever remember showing up in a high placing tournament list was the Astraeus in a Iron Hands list, and of course it doesn't suffer from the Martial Legacy rule. Why would gw specifically punish fw units that appear regularly in tournaments but not do the same for codex units that also regularly appear in tournament lists? This is just an arbitrary rule applied to some marine units sold by fw, but not to other fw units. The 30k explanation even falls through as their are several 30K units that don't have Martial Legacy in the Compendium, including the Land Raider Achilles, Dreadclaws, and the Karybdis. The rule is arbitrary, and lazy, that's just it. And it certainly isn't "nuanced".

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I like the rule. Unless you’re trying to spam something a couple of CP is a non issue. There were other solutions but they chose this one and I don’t hate it.

Bigger problem is the detachment cost I take Superheavies... guess they don’t wanna sell any!

Again, just like I asked the other guy: if paying 3CP to bring a Baneblade ,knight, klos, etc, is a "bigger problem", then why is it ok to charge 4CP for a Fellblade, Typhon, Cerberus, etc?

Perhaps GW is simply assessing a tax for players who go outside the baseline Codex? Makes sense to me when we see folks porting in stuff that was designed for 30K. I appreciate that your Fellblade might be collateral damage from a measure aimed at Leviathans/Relic Contemptors, but perhaps that CP is the price for dealing in FW.

I think that Martial Legacy is a somewhat nuanced way to let folks use their 30K toys in a 40K game. We're talking about 1CP.

If it's the "price for dealing in FW" then why doesn't it apply to the Macharius tanks, Eldar Scorpions and Cobras, the Astraeus, all the knight variants in the Compendium, etc. And why should the Legions pay an additional fee for using units that originated in the Heresy when they themselves originated in the Heresy? If gw wants to differentiate the Legions from loyalists, then why apply the same rule, in the same way, to both?

The vast majority of FW that I met at local tourneys through 8th Ed was for Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines (although I never met a Fellblade). I figure that GW saw this phenomenon at the big tourneys as well and took steps. If Eldar Scorpians had been dominating LVO 20 then perhaps they would have an Aeldari version of Martial Legacy?

The only fw LOW I can ever remember showing up in a high placing tournament list was the Astraeus in a Iron Hands list, and of course it doesn't suffer from the Martial Legacy rule. Why would gw specifically punish fw units that appear regularly in tournaments but not do the same for codex units that also regularly appear in tournament lists? This is just an arbitrary rule applied to some marine units sold by fw, but not to other fw units. The 30k explanation even falls through as their are several 30K units that don't have Martial Legacy in the Compendium, including the Land Raider Achilles, Dreadclaws, and the Karybdis. The rule is arbitrary, and lazy, that's just it. And it certainly isn't "nuanced".

Pretty much this. Martial Legacy is an unfair and arbitrary tax that neither represents the fluff well nor benefits the game experience. It could do both, if the idea were to be widely applied over all armies and CP's in general shifted properly to strategic choices made before the game (as they mostly should, IMO), but as it stands it is mostly just a big middle finger to Chaos players who don't fancy running daemon engines all day long. Granted, this could change if the Chaos codicies are written to be less about stratagem spam and more in line with their loyalist counterparts, but we all know that most likely won't happen.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I like the rule. Unless you’re trying to spam something a couple of CP is a non issue. There were other solutions but they chose this one and I don’t hate it.

Bigger problem is the detachment cost I take Superheavies... guess they don’t wanna sell any!

Again, just like I asked the other guy: if paying 3CP to bring a Baneblade ,knight, klos, etc, is a "bigger problem", then why is it ok to charge 4CP for a Fellblade, Typhon, Cerberus, etc?

Perhaps GW is simply assessing a tax for players who go outside the baseline Codex? Makes sense to me when we see folks porting in stuff that was designed for 30K. I appreciate that your Fellblade might be collateral damage from a measure aimed at Leviathans/Relic Contemptors, but perhaps that CP is the price for dealing in FW.

I think that Martial Legacy is a somewhat nuanced way to let folks use their 30K toys in a 40K game. We're talking about 1CP.

If it's the "price for dealing in FW" then why doesn't it apply to the Macharius tanks, Eldar Scorpions and Cobras, the Astraeus, all the knight variants in the Compendium, etc. And why should the Legions pay an additional fee for using units that originated in the Heresy when they themselves originated in the Heresy? If gw wants to differentiate the Legions from loyalists, then why apply the same rule, in the same way, to both?

The vast majority of FW that I met at local tourneys through 8th Ed was for Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines (although I never met a Fellblade). I figure that GW saw this phenomenon at the big tourneys as well and took steps. If Eldar Scorpians had been dominating LVO 20 then perhaps they would have an Aeldari version of Martial Legacy?

The only fw LOW I can ever remember showing up in a high placing tournament list was the Astraeus in a Iron Hands list, and of course it doesn't suffer from the Martial Legacy rule. Why would gw specifically punish fw units that appear regularly in tournaments but not do the same for codex units that also regularly appear in tournament lists? This is just an arbitrary rule applied to some marine units sold by fw, but not to other fw units. The 30k explanation even falls through as their are several 30K units that don't have Martial Legacy in the Compendium, including the Land Raider Achilles, Dreadclaws, and the Karybdis. The rule is arbitrary, and lazy, that's just it. And it certainly isn't "nuanced".

Pretty much this. Martial Legacy is an unfair and arbitrary tax that neither represents the fluff well nor benefits the game experience. It could do both, if the idea were to be widely applied over all armies and CP's in general shifted properly to strategic choices made before the game (as they mostly should, IMO), but as it stands it is mostly just a big middle finger to Chaos players who don't fancy running daemon engines all day long. Granted, this could change if the Chaos codicies are written to be less about stratagem spam and more in line with their loyalist counterparts, but we all know that most likely won't happen.

That's what gets me the most. I try to keep my Night Lords as true to their fluff as possible, which means no daemons, but this rule actually penalizes me for that.

And before anyone starts, I have no problem with anyone else running LOADS of daemons in their Night Lords, I just don't understand why I should be penalized for not doing so in mine.

Because resin working ruleswise means selling resin instead of plastic potentially which has higher margines for production for GW comparatively to resin.


as it stands there's not one decent reason as to why the rule should apply to chaos, neither balance wise nore lore wise.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Because resin working ruleswise means selling resin instead of plastic potentially which has higher margines for production for GW comparatively to resin.


as it stands there's not one decent reason as to why the rule should apply to chaos, neither balance wise nore lore wise.

But not applying it to the Legions would require actual attention to the rules and lore instead of just copy pasteing the rules from loyalists and replacing CHAPTER with LEGION, DUTY ETERNAL with RELENTLESS HATRED, and sticking HELLFORGED in front of every weapon name while giving them the exact same stats (except for the inevitable typos). Can't be spending all that time and effort on csm, now can they?

you know my opinion in regards to the rules as written by GW is that the very least they could do is finally higher an editor with an baselie understanding of the game. Prefereably 2 because we had how many rules sources the last edition alone?