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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
TLDR: it's Legendary Legions from LOTR. Which are awesome.

Not from a rules design/mechanics standpoint.

Any rule that requires you to give up something you were never going to take in the first place is a bad rule. This is true now. This was true of Guard Doctrines. It was true of 3.5 Chaos Iron Warriors.

Given I enjoy 3.5 Chaos and 30k. I heavily disagree with this. It was only bad because it was overpowered in certain ways and so long as there's proper precautions it doesn't matter.

Nobody brings up the SM based ones for certain because they generally weren't broken.

Whut? Gladius formation ring a bell?

Guard Doctrines and Chaos Iron Warriors were in 3.5, and thus I was also speaking of the SM doctrines that were in that era as well. I was not speaking of 7E's formations.

I've never seen a flavorful one. It either dials up the power level or its completely ignored and never even talked about.

I was using the Rapture Battalion detachment (for as long as that supplement survived 7th anyways..). The boost to Noise Marines and the Combat Drugs was a nice little touch, if nothing that would break the army compared to all those free razorbacks and Taudar.

Well these look a lot more like formations than the stuff in 3.5 to me. You're taking units X, Y, and Z but not A, B, or C in order to get extra rules. 3.5 was more "take less HS/FA to get more of the other". It didn't get into specific units, and didn't give you extra rules, just slots.

As for the flavor of those Traitor Legions formations, I agree with Voss, you may have liked your Rapture Battalion, but there was nothing flavorful about the stuff gw expected me to take in those auxiliary choices in order to get a Murder Talon, which is why I never used it. It was just "Buy these models, get extra rules".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
never intended to take allies, so I'll "give up" the allies and reap the benefits of not having something I never intended to take in the first place.

If the rule requires you to sacrifice something for a benefit, but the thing you are sacrificing is not something you had any intention of taking, then you're not actually giving anything up. You're just getting a benefit, and the 'balance' for that benefit (the 'giving up' aspect) ceases to be a balance.

Exactly. For example, if you got a boost to melee but it requires you to only be able to charge the closest unit or something stupid like that, AT LEAST there's a downside. In 7th when formations and allies were all over the place, Carcharodons and Minotaurs (at least when taking Asterion) they turned a bunch of armies into Desperate Allies. In that edition it could be considered a downside, BUT when the power of the armies really comes from Formations overall...was it really? Not like they were powerful army rules either.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
never intended to take allies, so I'll "give up" the allies and reap the benefits of not having something I never intended to take in the first place.

If the rule requires you to sacrifice something for a benefit, but the thing you are sacrificing is not something you had any intention of taking, then you're not actually giving anything up. You're just getting a benefit, and the 'balance' for that benefit (the 'giving up' aspect) ceases to be a balance.

Exactly. For example, if you got a boost to melee but it requires you to only be able to charge the closest unit or something stupid like that, AT LEAST there's a downside. In 7th when formations and allies were all over the place, Carcharodons and Minotaurs (at least when taking Asterion) they turned a bunch of armies into Desperate Allies. In that edition it could be considered a downside, BUT when the power of the armies really comes from Formations overall...was it really? Not like they were powerful army rules either.

You guys are way overselling this.

If my army was ONLY PM and Possessed it would be excruciatingly slow ( and would NEED deepstrike to function ) and not shooty in the least. I would have no D2 belchers/spewers, no droning, no D3, no autowound on 6, no -2 to charges, no extra AP, etc.

Instead you're forced to take the Poxwalker PC when Poxwalkers don't get deepstrike.

So, yes, in an incredibly narrow definition "you don't lose anything".

You're obsessing too much over the idea that you think this specific one is bad, and missing the general principle.

It's like latching on to one specific kit (say mortrek guard,which is I think 20 models for $60. - this is an example, if it isn't, find another one). and so claiming that GW doesn't overprice infantry kits.

It also ignores that something you'd never ever take is its own degree of broken, which is also problematic, And a waste of time and resources, and another reasons why they shouldn't do this kind of crap.

Voss wrote:
You're obsessing too much over the idea that you think this specific one is bad, and missing the general principle.

It's like latching on to one specific kit (say mortrek guard,which is I think 20 models for $60. - this is an example, if it isn't, find another one). and so claiming that GW doesn't overprice infantry kits.

It also ignores that something you'd never ever take is its own degree of broken, which is also problematic, And a waste of time and resources, and another reasons why they shouldn't do this kind of crap.

I'm not saying that it is bad - I don't know everything else they get, but there are legitimate trade-offs worthy of consideration. Is GW capable of making things busted? You bet. I don't see that here yet.

If this otherwise provides a subset of gamers with a style of army they really enjoy then it's a net win.

As I said earlier, if this was made like Legendary Legions in LOTR, I would have hopes for it to not end up being unbalanced.


For it to be like Legendary Legions in 40k, this Armies of Renown should basically be:

-Their own army list, with their own list of units (This way you could also mix units for different codex)
-Lose all rules from their parent codex and all sinergies between them.
-Receive their own set of bonuses, subfaction rules, relics, warlords traids and stratagems.
-Not allow it to ally with other armies or allow it with 0 sinergy between them.

Thats how basically legendary legions works.

For example, I could play a Mordor list with a Mouth of Sauron, a leader troll captain and spam of Morannon orcs as a general Mordor army.

Or I could play that exact army as the Legendary Legion of the Black Gates. I would receive a Uber Captain Troll as my leader, and a new bonus for my army. But I would also lose my proper Mordor Bonus. Of course, one would arguee, if you are gonna play exactly those units, better to use the legendary legion, just like playing a 100% Dunland army in Isengard makes no sense instead of playing it as a proper Dunland Legendary Legion.

But thats the way of doing it. Because you are sacrificing a TON of good options. Is a system to make more thematic, limited forces, that work in a different way. And with most Legions you really feel that you aren't upgrading, but making a side-grade army (With a couple exceptions like Riders of Theoden)

The difference is that LOTR has a ton of ideas to make legendary legions: Specific historical forces, forces composed of scenes from the books or movies (Like the Dark Riders Legendary Legion or the Lurtz's Scouts legendary legions).

40k doesnt has that.

"Oh look, the Army of Renown of the Metallica Defense Servitors!" and I'm here like "what the feth is that, wheres the renown".


One proper Army of Renown could be for example, a Tyranid War Ultramarine Force.

With stuff like, having to take marneus calgar (with non primaris rules) as your leader, Tyranid War Veterans becoming troop options (Technically in that war they would not be veterans but they could represent the troops that have been fighting tyranids all of the war and survive to the final phases of it) and gaining a buff if they are near Marneus Calgar, losing access to all primaris units, and losing your Ultramarine doctrines and chapter bonuses in favour of other ones,etc etc...

Nobody would do that though. The Specialist Detachments costing CP was a good way of handling it.

I don´t think a CP tax is conceptually better than giving up some options to get more rules. 2CP never stopped me from taking the Souped up Shokka because it tended to be well worth the cost.
I think the LoTR solution as described by Galas sounds nice. They are basically fluffy alternative army lists with no outside synergies. Reminds me a lot of those old Campaign armies from WHFB,

 Castozor wrote:
I don´t think a CP tax is conceptually better than giving up some options to get more rules. 2CP never stopped me from taking the Souped up Shokka because it tended to be well worth the cost.
I think the LoTR solution as described by Galas sounds nice. They are basically fluffy alternative army lists with no outside synergies. Reminds me a lot of those old Campaign armies from WHFB,

Except it is because you're actually giving up a resource. The World Eaters and Black Templars restriction on Librarians for example is more a non-tax if you don't use Psykers in the first place (like me for example as I don't like how unreliable they can be). What's my actual tax?

Can anyone tell me the GW justification for not having "faster" releases for updates? If they would just post CA's and FAQ's online, not free, but posted clarifications/updates to broken rules online, we wouldn't have to wait for the next three months to address whether exploding 6's proc on dead units (see: goff v tankhammer)

It's hilarious that it takes GW so long to fix simple things.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can anyone tell me the GW justification for not having "faster" releases for updates? If they would just post CA's and FAQ's online, not free, but posted clarifications/updates to broken rules online, we wouldn't have to wait for the next three months to address whether exploding 6's proc on dead units (see: goff v tankhammer)

It's hilarious that it takes GW so long to fix simple things.

Because the books/rules are a tool to sell miniatures, and GW like to turn the coals faction by faction, rather than go "here's the game, have fun, enjoy our 2~ big releases per year".

I don't see how CA's sell minis, I can see how certain minis fall out of favor or into favor, but dropping a Vertus Praetor by 5 points isn't going to cause a rush on the market...

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't see how CA's sell minis, I can see how certain minis fall out of favor or into favor, but dropping a Vertus Praetor by 5 points isn't going to cause a rush on the market...

Nah it does. They drop the points of a fire raptor in 2018 and they sold buku fireraptors - then they raised the points of the fireraptor.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
I don´t think a CP tax is conceptually better than giving up some options to get more rules. 2CP never stopped me from taking the Souped up Shokka because it tended to be well worth the cost.
I think the LoTR solution as described by Galas sounds nice. They are basically fluffy alternative army lists with no outside synergies. Reminds me a lot of those old Campaign armies from WHFB,

Except it is because you're actually giving up a resource. The World Eaters and Black Templars restriction on Librarians for example is more a non-tax if you don't use Psykers in the first place (like me for example as I don't like how unreliable they can be). What's my actual tax?

I see your point but provided they don´t go overboard halfway trough an edition again the current restrictions seem far more of a cost to me than any CP tax. Vigilus the CP tax tended to be well worth it so a balancing measure it was not.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
TLDR: it's Legendary Legions from LOTR. Which are awesome.

Not from a rules design/mechanics standpoint.

Any rule that requires you to give up something you were never going to take in the first place is a bad rule. This is true now. This was true of Guard Doctrines. It was true of 3.5 Chaos Iron Warriors.

Given I enjoy 3.5 Chaos and 30k. I heavily disagree with this. It was only bad because it was overpowered in certain ways and so long as there's proper precautions it doesn't matter.

Nobody brings up the SM based ones for certain because they generally weren't broken.

People bring up the fact that the 4th ed SM codex was awfully unbalanced every time a similar rules setup is mentioned. The Chapter creation system was great for the level of customisation it gave to armies, but the way it was created was far too easy to gain benefits with no penalty, with the 'No Allies' thing being the most obvious example since practically nobody used allies back then.

If you're going for a system where bonuses are tied to penalties, the penalties need to be things that will actually apply to the army being built.