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.

But that's ok
They were clear that Legends wouldn't be getting continual updates.
It's a stable ruleset.
It's for 8th/9th edition

 Blndmage wrote:
But that's ok
They were clear that Legends wouldn't be getting continual updates.
It's a stable ruleset.
It's for 8th/9th edition

There's a difference between "continual updates" and "making sure the rules even function". If legends rules were real rules they'd at least be getting functional changes to keep up with the codices they're related to, even if they weren't included in the regular point updates and balance dataslates. Keywords would be updated, special rules that changed would be changed to match the codex version, etc. But instead GW has completely abandoned them and left rules which literally do not function anymore. And now GW has provided explicit statements that they do not consider legends to be rules, confirming what we already knew.

I get that there's some emotional work in accepting that you've been baited into investing in soft-banned units which GW is removing from the game but that's how it is. Legends rules were never real rules, GW has openly declared that they don't consider them valid, and they will almost certainly be gone in 10th.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
Can you provide a link?

Unfortunately they seem to have been removed once the MTO period ended. But the quotes are taken directly from the product pages on the GW store.

So there is no way for anyone to independently verify this or to confirm it is the current position?

Even if the specific examples are accurate and in a rules context, is there anything explicitly stating Legends datasheets as a whole are no longer legal for any mode of play?

No, but there doesn't need to be anything explicit. If the quotes are accurate then it is an indisputable consequence that legends rules are not valid. There is nothing in any of the available material that even comes close to suggesting that the three specific upgrades to one legends unit were meant to be singled out for invalidation without changing any of the other rules so either the item descriptions were false or legends rules as a whole are not valid rules anymore.

Even assuming the product description (as you have quoted it) is accurate, there's also nothing in the quoted material that suggests that those models having no rules should act as present implying the rest of Legends doesn't. It doesn't make a clear, explicit statement either way.

And, again, this should not be a controversial claim. GW's actions have made it very clear that they don't consider legends rules to be real rules, the product descriptions only confirm what we already knew and (should) prove it to the last hold outs who stubbornly insist that legends rules are valid.

Can you provide any current citation, from the rules team, that indicates they don't think the Legends datasheets are usable?

Because GW's site certainly seems to think they're legal:

Except that the page is older than the more recent statements that they aren't legal.

If the text stating position A has been removed from the official rules source, and the text stating B is still present, the logical conclusion is that B is correct and current and that A is not. Regardless of when the statements were published.

It's clear that GW called them legal rules at some point in the past (mostly to get people to stop complaining as they soft-banned OOP units and options in preparation for removing them entirely) but the site hasn't been updated in ages and the rule documents are 3-4 years old. It's all just old material that hasn't been cleaned up yet, probably because GW doesn't care enough about the obsolete stuff to pay attention to it until they mass delete the entire download section with the arrival of 10th.

That is a reasonable and understandable opinion that, if correct (which is still to be proven), in no way prevents Legends datasheets from being currently legal or usable.

To confirm, your position is that:

- A product description for some made-to-order minis
- Which was in the store section of GW's site (which has precedent for making rules mistakes) rather than the rules resource section
- And which is no longer present on the GW site at all, making it impossible to identify if you didn't happen to catch the description while it was live
- And which did not explicitly say anything about the legality of Legends in general, only about a few specific models

is sufficient to overrule the statement which is currently live on the section of the GW site which explicitly deals with rules and rulings?

Can you understand why we don't feel this is exactly a convincing argument?

Aelyn wrote:
So there is no way for anyone to independently verify this or to confirm it is the current position?

If you want to resort to "you faked the quotes" then I think that's your concession of defeat, especially since I originally posted them while the MTO product pages were still up and anyone who wanted to could easily check their accuracy. People disputed the implications of the quotes but nobody claimed that they were not correct quotes.

Even assuming the product description (as you have quoted it) is accurate, there's also nothing in the quoted material that suggests that those models having no rules should act as present implying the rest of Legends doesn't. It doesn't make a clear, explicit statement either way.

Ok, so you have two possible options here:

1) GW singled out those specific models, models which just happened to be the ones up for MTO and are otherwise unexceptional, to be invalidated while leaving the rest of the rules untouched. GW did not, however, remove them from the rule document, as all three options are still present on the DKoK grenadiers datasheet.

or

2) GW's statement that the models have no rules reflects their general policy towards legends rules: that they are not valid rules anymore.

It's very obvious which one of these is the more likely interpretation, especially since it aligns very well with GW's prior actions (or, more accurately, lack thereof) with legends rules.

Can you understand why we don't feel this is exactly a convincing argument?

I do understand 100%. You have an emotional attachment to those rules and you aren't willing to let them go, despite GW demonstrating by their actions over the past four years that they aren't real rules and now confirming explicitly what we already knew.

Rambling of Warcom marketing people are not a rules source. Furthermore, these posts do not seem to even exist any more. Let it go.

 Crimson wrote:
Rambling of Warcom marketing people are not a rules source. Furthermore, these posts do not seem to even exist any more. Let it go.

That would be a far more compelling argument if "legends rules are not valid" was not already the very clear policy, and if the statement about the Krieg grenadiers was anything more than the final explicit conformation that should get even the most stubborn hold outs to admit that GW does not consider them real rules.

And I'll let it go when people stop talking about legends rules as if they are real rules. They aren't, and the stubborn crusade by a couple of people to get validation for their personal house rules is misleading to new players who aren't aware of the history with those rules.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
So there is no way for anyone to independently verify this or to confirm it is the current position?

If you want to resort to "you faked the quotes" then I think that's your concession of defeat, especially since I originally posted them while the MTO product pages were still up and anyone who wanted to could easily check their accuracy. People disputed the implications of the quotes but nobody claimed that they were not correct quotes.

I'm not trying to say that you faked them, the point is that there is no way for someone to find that independently. If someone was given a model in Legends and wanted to know how to use it, how could they possibly determine whether it's illegal based on text which isn't available via any official source any longer? How can we know that the position as stated was made by the rules team, as opposed to a person who looks after the webstore and doesn't really know about Legends? If it was made by the rules team, how do we know that the quote is representative of the current GW position and hasn't been rolled back like Armour of Contempt was?

Even assuming the product description (as you have quoted it) is accurate, there's also nothing in the quoted material that suggests that those models having no rules should act as present implying the rest of Legends doesn't. It doesn't make a clear, explicit statement either way.

Ok, so you have two possible options here:

1) GW singled out those specific models, models which just happened to be the ones up for MTO and are otherwise unexceptional, to be invalidated while leaving the rest of the rules untouched. GW did not, however, remove them from the rule document, as all three options are still present on the DKoK grenadiers datasheet.

or

2) GW's statement that the models have no rules reflects their general policy towards legends rules: that they are not valid rules anymore.

It's very obvious which one of these is the more likely interpretation, especially since it aligns very well with GW's prior actions (or, more accurately, lack thereof) with legends rules.

I'm saying that there is a third option: That the statement in the product description was made by someone in the webstore team who, for whatever reason, didn't realise that the models actually were legal via Legends.

Given that there is an explicit statement currently on the GW site that the Legends rules are legal, I think it's perfectly valid to reach the conclusion that the Legends rules are legal and that the statement on the product description was either an error or was not intended to set a precedent.

As for the "lack of actions regarding Legends", it's already been cited that there were updates made, in the form of CSM datasheets being added, within the last 12 months. That hardly implies that GW have forgotten about them.

Can you understand why we don't feel this is exactly a convincing argument?

I do understand 100%. You have an emotional attachment to those rules and you aren't willing to let them go, despite GW demonstrating by their actions over the past four years that they aren't real rules and now confirming explicitly what we already knew.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have literally never once used a Legends datasheet. I don't have any models which aren't represented via the current rules and couldn't tell you what is in Legends other than a few CSM mounted characters. I have no real feelings about Legends one way or the other, I just don't like it when people present shoddy arguments as inviolable fact.

True or false: The only rules statements currently available from GW about the Legends datasheet state that they are legal? FYI I'll assume that if you refuse to answer or continue to point to text no longer published by GW, you accept that the current rules as published are that Legends datasheets are legal.

Aelyn wrote:
I'm not trying to say that you faked them, the point is that there is no way for someone to find that independently. If someone was given a model in Legends and wanted to know how to use it, how could they possibly determine whether it's illegal based on text which isn't available via any official source any longer? How can we know that the position as stated was made by the rules team, as opposed to a person who looks after the webstore and doesn't really know about Legends? If it was made by the rules team, how do we know that the quote is representative of the current GW position and hasn't been rolled back like Armour of Contempt was?

I admit that GW could and should be clearer about it but, once again, the explicit statement was merely confirmation of what we already knew. For anyone but the stubborn minority legends rules were already no longer part of the game as it was obvious that they were obsolete content and no longer supported. The scenario is really no different from the fact that GW doesn't explicitly state that a new version of a codex replaces and invalidates the old one, and a newbie could find a copy of the old codex at a used book store and buy it thinking it is valid rules. The only difference is that legends rules have this weird emotional attachment from certain people, while old codices don't.

As for the "lack of actions regarding Legends", it's already been cited that there were updates made, in the form of CSM datasheets being added, within the last 12 months. That hardly implies that GW have forgotten about them.

A minor update which did not fix any of the existing rules, it only added some new datasheets in response to complaints about a couple of units being removed from the codex. Dumping a couple more things into the trash can isn't a real update and doesn't change the fact that none of the other stuff has been updated in years, despite most of it being incompatible with the current game and full of non-functional rules.

True or false: The only rules statements currently available from GW about the Legends datasheet state that they are legal?

True, but that statement is from obsolete material and directly contradicts GW's actions involving the material in question, along with directly contradicting more recent statements about it. Failure to clean up and remove old pages from the website does not mean those obsolete pages should be considered the final authority on the subject. Nor does the fact that the more recent statements were made in a temporary medium change the fact that they were made, or that they were explicit confirmation of what we already knew.

Sigh....

This is the fourth time they've had the opportunity to tweak the Authority of the Inquisition.

The need to add: Imperial transports can be added to <Ordo> detachments.

So simple.

Better would be: Imperial transports from any <Ordo>'s chamber militant can be added to that <Ordo>'s detachments.

But that is more complex, so I would be fine with the first, and far simpler option.

PenitentJake wrote:
So simple.

Shrug. That's what you get when you aren't considered a real army and only get rules to get people to stop complaining. Did you really expect otherwise?

Aecus Decimus wrote:
The scenario is really no different from the fact that GW doesn't explicitly state that a new version of a codex replaces and invalidates the old one, and a newbie could find a copy of the old codex at a used book store and buy it thinking it is valid rules. The only difference is that legends rules have this weird emotional attachment from certain people, while old codices don't.

No, the difference is that there is an explicit statement on GW's site right now stating that they are legal, and the old codexes can no longer be obtained first hand while the Legends datasheets can.

True or false: The only rules statements currently available from GW about the Legends datasheet state that they are legal?

True

Thank you. That's all we needed.

but that statement is from obsolete material and directly contradicts GW's actions involving the material in question, along with directly contradicting more recent statements about it. Failure to clean up and remove old pages from the website does not mean those obsolete pages should be considered the final authority on the subject. Nor does the fact that the more recent statements were made in a temporary medium change the fact that they were made, or that they were explicit confirmation of what we already knew.

An old page which was updated in July last year and didn't have any of the text about them being legal removed. Tell me - when exactly was the quote from the Krieg Grenadier MTO published? For all I know, it was superseded by the CSM update.

Look, I agree that Legends is where datasheets are put when GW doesn't support them. I agree that if we ever have another rules upheaval on the level of 7th>8th, there's a good chance the Legends sheets won't be ported. I agree that they're not considered when it comes to balance.

But the key point is that as of right now, they are legal for use in 40K. There is no evidence available that the material is obsolete. If you want to house rule that they are not allowed, that's absolutely fine, but that doesn't change the fact that they are explicitly legal.

Now can we get back to the actual topic?

Aelyn wrote:
Tell me - when exactly was the quote from the Krieg Grenadier MTO published?

About two weeks ago. Which makes it the most recent statement by GW on the subject.

There is no evidence available that the material is obsolete.

Other than the fact that the rules are no longer compatible (just like an old codex) with the current game, have not been updated in years, and have been explicitly excluded from being valid rules. Sorry, but citing the fact that GW hasn't technically deleted an obsolete page yet is RAW nitpicking.

...and taking one obscure source as gospel, that both wasn't a rules document and isn't currently available for anyone to access , isn't a worse example of n-RAW nitpicking?

 Dysartes wrote:
...and taking one obscure source as gospel, that both wasn't a rules document and isn't currently available for anyone to access , isn't a worse example of n-RAW nitpicking?

Not when that RAW aligns very well with RAI and the "obscure source" is merely confirmation of what we already knew. The only reason the recent statements are even relevant is that, unlike with obsolete codices, there are some people still deeply in denial about legends rules not being real rules and continuing to post misleading information about their validity.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

There is no evidence available that the material is obsolete.

Other than the fact that the rules are no longer compatible (just like an old codex) with the current game, have not been updated in years, and have been explicitly excluded from being valid rules. Sorry, but citing the fact that GW hasn't technically deleted an obsolete page yet is RAW nitpicking.

The point is there is nothing to say that the page is obsolete! It's not been deleted and it's still in use, as evidenced by the fact that it's been updated within the past 12 months - more recently than some of the current FAQs.

Here, let me give a specific example to show you what I mean. I'll avoid the CSM Legends as apparently you don't count that PDF as relevant (I don't quite see why), so let's use one published in 2019 - let's go with the Space Wolves because that's near the top of the page:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/0c0ed4ed.pdf

Let's take a specific datasheet, even. I scrolled to the middle of the document to pick one relatively at random, and landed on the "Wolf Guard Battle Leader on Bike".

In what way is that datasheet not compatible with the current rules?

How have GW explicitly excluded this datasheet, or for that matter the Legends PDF it comes from, from being valid rules?

You've pointed to a single source as evidence that it's not valid - a statement on a product description saying that a few specific models don't have rules. But as several people have already pointed out, GW is not a singular monolithic entity. It has departments, and sometimes the webstore department or the community article department makes a mistake.

We have no way of knowing if that sentence was actually intended to be a statement from the Rules Team that "As of now, these models - and, by extension, all Legends datasheets - are officially illegal for use in games of Warhammer 40,000". It's extremely likely that it was simply an error by whoever wrote the copy for the MTO product page - we can't say for sure, but Occam's Razor indicates that's the most likely explanation. What matters is the actual rules published, and those include the Legends PDFs. And as of right now, as you have agreed, the only statements currently available from GW on the Legends datasheets is that they are legal.

To claim that this is RAW nitpicking, and to then claim that a few brief sentences in the product description of a few MTO models which say that those models don't have rules - sentences which aren't even on GW's site any more - is evidence that every single Legends datasheet is illegal, is absurd and unsupported.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
Your previous thread where you claimed that was literally closed because you were wrong and GW still off

It was closed, that doesn't mean it was wrong

No, but the fact that it was wrong does mean that it was wrong. It was a statement in a marketing piece to retailers that was factually incorrect, as evidenced by the fact that the rules are still available. Move on.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
...and taking one obscure source as gospel, that both wasn't a rules document and isn't currently available for anyone to access , isn't a worse example of n-RAW nitpicking?

There are some people still [...] continuing to post misleading information about their validity.

FTFY. Seriously. Which upload seems like the wrong one? One that is online since the start of the Edition and has been updated constantly whenever a relevant Codex was released - or - the one that was online for one week and has been taken down afterwards.
The one who wrote the text for the MTO was wrong but GW just didn't care to correct it because they knew it wouldn't matter one week later. And anyone searching for the rules of the three options (not to speak of any other legend rule that wasn't mentioned at all) would find them in the legends document on the current page.

PenitentJake wrote:
Sigh....

This is the fourth time they've had the opportunity to tweak the Authority of the Inquisition.

The need to add: Imperial transports can be added to <Ordo> detachments.

So simple.

Better would be: Imperial transports from any <Ordo>'s chamber militant can be added to that <Ordo>'s detachments.

But that is more complex, so I would be fine with the first, and far simpler option.

Not as bad as this little gem they failed to correct:

IMPERIAL NAVY BREACHERS wrote:Shipborne Personnel: If your army is Battle-forged, this unit cannot be used as a compulsory selection in a Detachment (e.g. as the only Troops unit in a Patrol Detachment), unless that Detachment is a Navis Imperialis Detachment.

CARTOGRAPHICA ROGUE TRADER wrote:Master and Commander: If your army is Battle-forged, you can include a maximum of one Cartographica Rogue Trader model in each Detachment in your army. This model cannot be taken in a compulsory Battlefield Role slot.

That's right, ladies and gentlemen. It is still impossible to build a Navis Imperialis Detachment because the CRT cannot be your compulsory HQ choice

I think it just sucks they struggle with basic stuff like this, there system is so broken even they cannot keep up with it.

That's right, ladies and gentlemen. It is still impossible to build a Navis Imperialis Detachment because the CRT cannot be your compulsory HQ choice

Strictly speaking 'it is impossible to use pure NAVIS IMPERIALIS for anything other than boarding actions.'

They get a free pass there (which is where I guess it's most appropriate to see them) as the HQ is not compulsory. I completely agree its daft that you can't field a pure navy force in a bigger game, though.

What a lazy job done again, they have copy and pasted as usual but did take the time to remove the warlord traits, relics and stratagems!

Hopefully I've just missed them and they are hidden somewhere that I haven't noticed.

Taking the strats away from the assassins makes them completely pointless and that's what made them marginally usable.
Removing even more of the inquisition options is just further kicking when they are down.

locarno24 wrote:

That's right, ladies and gentlemen. It is still impossible to build a Navis Imperialis Detachment because the CRT cannot be your compulsory HQ choice

Strictly speaking 'it is impossible to use pure NAVIS IMPERIALIS for anything other than boarding actions.'

They get a free pass there (which is where I guess it's most appropriate to see them) as the HQ is not compulsory. I completely agree its daft that you can't field a pure navy force in a bigger game, though.

The HQ slot is only not compulsory for Knights.

Can't you take the Assassin as the first and thus No Slot Agent, then an Inquisitor as the Compulsory, the Rogue Trader as an extra, and then fill with Navis Imperialis?

You're not limited to One Agent, its just the first one is slot free:

If your army is Battle-forged, you can include one Agent of
the Imperium unit in each Imperium (excluding Fallen units)
Patrol, Boarding Patrol, Battalion, Brigade and Arks of Omen
Detachment in your army without those units taking up
Battlefield Role slots in those Detachments.

So you take two to get the Compulsory Slot Filled(I'd even accept that the first one doesn't HAVE to be Slot Free just CAN be slot free), The Rogue Trader now gets in, And you're still a NAVIS detachment able to load up on Breachers and Armsmen. Can't take any DAEMONHOST but the other two Inquisition Elites are still Agents Of The Imperium.

I feel I must be missing something but I was looking at creating a Navis Boarding Patrol (local group happy for RT to be a HQ) and I noticed a couple of inconsistencies.

The first is points values which are not in the Field Manual but are listed on the individual sheets. However the individual sheets have been superseded by the new Agents of the Imperium PDF that has no points. So the only points source is potentially out of date? I don't think it makes much difference but odd none the less.

The other is the Canid in the Voidsmen at Arms. It seems to have a points cost and even doubles the PL if taken by bumping the team over 5 models. However it doesn't actually do anything, there is no attack, special action or buff that it enables. What does it do?

 WisdomLS wrote:
What a lazy job done again, they have copy and pasted as usual but did take the time to remove the warlord traits, relics and stratagems!

Hopefully I've just missed them and they are hidden somewhere that I haven't noticed.

Taking the strats away from the assassins makes them completely pointless and that's what made them marginally usable.
Removing even more of the inquisition options is just further kicking when they are down.

Taking the strats was definitely problematic, and the Navis issue is a big deal... and there is more they could have done besides. I am not applauding this effort, but I do need to say that making Imperial Agent a faction keyword was a huge change- it is now possible for the first time since 8th to legally field an Inquisition patrol.

PenitentJake wrote:
it is now possible for the first time since 8th to legally field an Inquisition patrol.

How? Inquisitors are HQs and all the other inquisition units are elites, you have no troops to fill the mandatory slot. And yeah, you could take breachers or voidsmen but those aren't inquisition units, it's no different from taking an inquisitor in a space marine army and calling it an "inquisition detachment".

Did you even look at the new rules?

 Blndmage wrote:
Did you even look at the new rules?

What about them?

Inquisitors are HQs.
Jokaero Weaponsmiths are elites.
Acolytes are elites.
Daemonhosts are elites.

How do you make a legal patrol detachment from those units?

Voidsmen, breaches, and assassins, along with the inquisition units you listed, all have the AGENTS OF THE IMPERIUM faction keywords.

Try reading the rules being discussed.

 Blndmage wrote:
Voidsmen, breaches, and assassins

Are not inquisition units.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Voidsmen, breaches, and assassins

Are not inquisition units.

True, they're Agents of the Imperium.