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.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
No one wants to write a list, get all the models together, drive down to the game store, and then have to ASK if they can run a certain unit that may or may not be very important to how the list works on the table.

Legends is a death sentence for a unit.

I don't know why you would have to ask, unless it is a tournament. They're explicitly legal.

Unless you ask about every unit in your codex, but that seems to suffer the same flaws.

Use them all the time. GW is pretty clear about the use of them for pick up games. People only seem to have an issue with legends when they become “broken”. Most the time there are so called better options available, but we play them because we like the models.

Honestly if you say no to using them, you’re just rewarding GW for trying to invalidate collections.

As it is though I’m still going to use legends rules. I let my opponents use them all throughout 8th and 9th. Now that the shoe is on the other foot so I have no problem using it myself now too.

All the pearl clutching about balance though is comical considering how things like the Eldar codex exist.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't know why you would have to ask, unless it is a tournament. They're explicitly legal.

Unless you ask about every unit in your codex, but that seems to suffer the same flaws.

That's not a fair comparison and you know it. Codex units don't have the same lack of updates and broken rules that legends units suffer from. The different treatment the two categories get is not just an arbitrary rule.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't know why you would have to ask, unless it is a tournament. They're explicitly legal.

Unless you ask about every unit in your codex, but that seems to suffer the same flaws.

That's not a fair comparison and you know it. Codex units don't have the same lack of updates and broken rules that legends units suffer from. The different treatment the two categories get is not just an arbitrary rule.

At the moment, Legends-units are as up to date as Index-units.

This will most likely change, but as of right now, "the rules are outdated" isn't a valid argument for not wanting to play with/against Legends.

 MinscS2 wrote:
At the moment, Legends-units are as up to date as Index-units.

This will most likely change, but as of right now, "the rules are outdated" isn't a valid argument for not wanting to play with/against Legends.

Not true. Just like with 9th edition legends even the release day version of the rules is full of errors. And unlike errors in the real rules the legends errors will never be fixed.

And even if it was true it's still easier to keep legends rules banned than to try to figure out at what point they have too many errors and deal with the hassle of cutting them off.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
At the moment, Legends-units are as up to date as Index-units.

This will most likely change, but as of right now, "the rules are outdated" isn't a valid argument for not wanting to play with/against Legends.

Not true. Just like with 9th edition legends even the release day version of the rules is full of errors. And unlike errors in the real rules the legends errors will never be fixed.

And even if it was true it's still easier to keep legends rules banned than to try to figure out at what point they have too many errors and deal with the hassle of cutting them off.

Banning peoples collections from being played should be a last resort, not something you do casually. Legends is a month old, surely you can do a little reading between the lines if there are some obvious editing errors (like missing firing points and close conbat attacks). A little respect for others collections goes a far way.

I just ask if the game my opponent wants is casual or competitive. I bring 2 different armies depending on their answer. If it's casual I wouldn't care about legends, if it's competitive id just expect not to see them as they aren't allowed in most competition.

 Gitdakka wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
At the moment, Legends-units are as up to date as Index-units.

This will most likely change, but as of right now, "the rules are outdated" isn't a valid argument for not wanting to play with/against Legends.

Not true. Just like with 9th edition legends even the release day version of the rules is full of errors. And unlike errors in the real rules the legends errors will never be fixed.

And even if it was true it's still easier to keep legends rules banned than to try to figure out at what point they have too many errors and deal with the hassle of cutting them off.

Banning peoples collections from being played should be a last resort, not something you do casually. Legends is a month old, surely you can do a little reading between the lines if there are some obvious editing errors (like missing firing points and close conbat attacks). A little respect for others collections goes a far way.

To them it's not casually. It's on purpose due to it not fitting "their" version of the the game...even tho GW HAS STRAIGHT UP SAID ITS COOL.

Racerguy180 wrote:
To them it's not casually. It's on purpose due to it not fitting "their" version of the the game...even tho GW HAS STRAIGHT UP SAID ITS COOL.

It's not about versions of the game, it's about rules that do not function as-written. If GW treated legends rules as real rules and gave them proper balance updates, error correction, etc, this wouldn't be a problem. But if GW is going to treat them as fake rules and nothing more than a temporary dumping ground to phase out old stuff before it gets removed entirely you can't be shocked when players don't want to deal with them.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Gitdakka wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
At the moment, Legends-units are as up to date as Index-units.

This will most likely change, but as of right now, "the rules are outdated" isn't a valid argument for not wanting to play with/against Legends.

Not true. Just like with 9th edition legends even the release day version of the rules is full of errors. And unlike errors in the real rules the legends errors will never be fixed.

And even if it was true it's still easier to keep legends rules banned than to try to figure out at what point they have too many errors and deal with the hassle of cutting them off.

Banning peoples collections from being played should be a last resort, not something you do casually. Legends is a month old, surely you can do a little reading between the lines if there are some obvious editing errors (like missing firing points and close conbat attacks). A little respect for others collections goes a far way.

To them it's not casually. It's on purpose due to it not fitting "their" version of the the game...even tho GW HAS STRAIGHT UP SAID ITS COOL.

You’ll find this guy painting owl, will add his own arbitrary rules onto these things and then expect everyone to agree with them. He doesn’t like them so no one else should.

Andykp wrote:
You’ll find this guy painting owl, will add his own arbitrary rules onto these things and then expect everyone to agree with them. He doesn’t like them so no one else should.

Nice to see you're so salty about the PL thing that you're now resorting to petty sniping at me in unrelated threads.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Not true. Just like with 9th edition legends even the release day version of the rules is full of errors.

I mean, right now it is true, even if you say it's not. Legends-rules and Index-rules are quite literally just as updated and new.
Index-rules have plenty of errors in them as well. Granted, they are much more likely to get updated and fixed, but if you're saying "Nah we can't play with Legend-units, they are full of errors" as of july 2023 you might as well say "nah we can't play with regular Index-units, they're full of errors".

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

And unlike errors in the real rules the legends errors will never be fixed.

And even if it was true it's still easier to keep legends rules banned than to try to figure out at what point they have too many errors and deal with the hassle of cutting them off.

Here I'm willing to partially agree with you. Whatever errors Legends may have or get, they are far less likely to be updated and fixed.

With that said however, banning Legends right now, because they might become a problem in the future? Sounds like an extremely boring view of the game.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
It's not about versions of the game, it's about rules that do not function as-written. If GW treated legends rules as real rules and gave them proper balance updates, error correction, etc, this wouldn't be a problem. But if GW is going to treat them as fake rules and nothing more than a temporary dumping ground to phase out old stuff before it gets removed entirely you can't be shocked when players don't want to deal with them.

This is essentially the same argument people used for years to say that Forge World units should be banned.

They're not more or less broken or overpowered or underpowered than anything else GW writes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This is essentially the same argument people used for years to say that Forge World units should be banned.

They're not more or less broken or overpowered or underpowered than anything else GW writes.

Nope. In the era of FW bans FW units were broken and poorly balanced but so was everything else and GW barely pretended to write FAQs. Now we have a situation where GW is making a pretty decent effort to at least get the FAQs right and make some efforts at balance but is explicitly saying that they will not update the legends rules. There's now a two-tier system that did not exist before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MinscS2 wrote:
With that said however, banning Legends right now, because they might become a problem in the future? Sounds like an extremely boring view of the game.

It's the least-controversial way to handle it. If you keep legends de facto banned as they were for all of 9th it sucks to lose units but at least it's a shared expectation that everyone understands. Legends rules are not real rules and will not ever be included. But if you "temporarily" include them you're going to end up with disagreement about whether or not they've diverged enough from the core game, with a lot of people basing their opinion on what they personally benefit from at the moment. I think the difference in errors is already significant enough, you might think it's significant enough in three months when GW has done another FAQ or two for the index rules, someone else might not be convinced for a year or more. Why deal with the ongoing dispute over when exactly they should be banned when you can skip straight to the inevitable conclusion and never allow them?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This is essentially the same argument people used for years to say that Forge World units should be banned.

They're not more or less broken or overpowered or underpowered than anything else GW writes.

Nope. In the era of FW bans FW units were broken and poorly balanced but so was everything else and GW barely pretended to write FAQs. Now we have a situation where GW is making a pretty decent effort to at least get the FAQs right and make some efforts at balance but is explicitly saying that they will not update the legends rules. There's now a two-tier system that did not exist before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MinscS2 wrote:
With that said however, banning Legends right now, because they might become a problem in the future? Sounds like an extremely boring view of the game.

It's the least-controversial way to handle it. If you keep legends de facto banned as they were for all of 9th it sucks to lose units but at least it's a shared expectation that everyone understands. Legends rules are not real rules and will not ever be included. But if you "temporarily" include them you're going to end up with disagreement about whether or not they've diverged enough from the core game, with a lot of people basing their opinion on what they personally benefit from at the moment. I think the difference in errors is already significant enough, you might think it's significant enough in three months when GW has done another FAQ or two for the index rules, someone else might not be convinced for a year or more. Why deal with the ongoing dispute over when exactly they should be banned when you can skip straight to the inevitable conclusion and never allow them?

You keep mentioning these "errors" in the Legends documents without actually mentioning what those "errors" are . As someone who generally doesn't care ( as I've completely switched over to HH at this point), can you please expand on what, exactly, those "errors"" are? Specifically, please, if possible.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You keep mentioning these "errors" in the Legends documents without actually mentioning what those "errors" are . As someone who generally doesn't care ( as I've completely switched over to HH at this point), can you please expand on what, exactly, those "errors"" are? Specifically, please, if possible.

Here's an example: the Minotaur artillery tank (which shouldn't even be in legends, it's a currently available model). It has the TRANSPORT keyword for no apparent reason but no rules giving it transport capacity. Its gun, which is supposed to be a twin-linked copy of the Basilisk's gun, is missing the Heavy rule the Basilisk has. Obviously the transport thing is (probably) just a stupid copy/paste error but what about the gun? Is removing the Heavy rule a deliberate choice to nerf the unit, or is it merely an error? I want my Minotaur to have +1 to hit, my opponent doesn't.

With normal rules this is a temporary frustration and GW will fix it soon in an FAQ. But with legends rules GW has announced that, as in 9th, legends rules will not be updated. There will never be any solution to the error, and every time I want to use the unit I'll have to talk to my opponent and agree on how we want to play it. And the farther we get into the edition the more this kind of thing will appear. By the end of 9th the legends rules were full of old versions of faction rules, references to codex pages and wargear tables that no longer exist, stat lines that don't match codex equivalents, missing keywords, etc.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
You keep mentioning these "errors" in the Legends documents without actually mentioning what those "errors" are . As someone who generally doesn't care ( as I've completely switched over to HH at this point), can you please expand on what, exactly, those "errors"" are? Specifically, please, if possible.

Here's an example: the Minotaur artillery tank (which shouldn't even be in legends, it's a currently available model). It has the TRANSPORT keyword for no apparent reason but no rules giving it transport capacity. Its gun, which is supposed to be a twin-linked copy of the Basilisk's gun, is missing the Heavy rule the Basilisk has. Obviously the transport thing is (probably) just a stupid copy/paste error but what about the gun? Is removing the Heavy rule a deliberate choice to nerf the unit, or is it merely an error? I want my Minotaur to have +1 to hit, my opponent doesn't.

With normal rules this is a temporary frustration and GW will fix it soon in an FAQ. But with legends rules GW has announced that, as in 9th, legends rules will not be updated. There will never be any solution to the error, and every time I want to use the unit I'll have to talk to my opponent and agree on how we want to play it. And the farther we get into the edition the more this kind of thing will appear. By the end of 9th the legends rules were full of old versions of faction rules, references to codex pages and wargear tables that no longer exist, stat lines that don't match codex equivalents, missing keywords, etc.

Play it as written.
If you don't think it's worth playing as written, run something else.

I don’t care for the tournament subset of the game. I'm using real, normal rules, so legends are in of course.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Play it as written.
If you don't think it's worth playing as written, run something else.

What about Tau heavy gun drones, where they can take markerlights but don't have the keyword required to use them? Are we supposed to play that as written too?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Play it as written.
If you don't think it's worth playing as written, run something else.

What about Tau heavy gun drones, where they can take markerlights but don't have the keyword required to use them? Are we supposed to play that as written too?

So don't take markerlights on them & you don't have a problem.

Worst case scenario is that you & your opponent have a simple conversation..... And given that your playing a GW game in the 1st place that shouldn't be an alien concept.

ccs wrote:
So don't take markerlights on them & you don't have a problem.

Worst case scenario is that you & your opponent have a simple conversation..... And given that your playing a GW game in the 1st place that shouldn't be an alien concept.

"Just don't use any of the broken things" is an excellent solution and applying it to all of legends rules is the best way to handle them. If GW doesn't want to treat them as real rules and fix stuff like this then the whole thing can go in the trash where it belongs.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

ccs wrote:
So don't take markerlights on them & you don't have a problem.

Worst case scenario is that you & your opponent have a simple conversation..... And given that your playing a GW game in the 1st place that shouldn't be an alien concept.

"Just don't use any of the broken things" is an excellent solution and applying it to all of legends rules is the best way to handle them. If GW doesn't want to treat them as real rules and fix stuff like this then the whole thing can go in the trash where it belongs.

The marker light is your first example of something that's a problem but it still seems to be a fairly obvious omission that it should have the keyword to use its equipment. Is there a unit that literally doesn't function or adds an unintended effect?

The dimachaeron might be an example with its "recover d3 mortal wounds" but the intent is plainly obvious, so stops being a problem. I haven't seen any that provide positive broken interactions or can't be resolved with the barest minimum of common sense.

 Gitdakka wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
At the moment, Legends-units are as up to date as Index-units.

This will most likely change, but as of right now, "the rules are outdated" isn't a valid argument for not wanting to play with/against Legends.

Not true. Just like with 9th edition legends even the release day version of the rules is full of errors. And unlike errors in the real rules the legends errors will never be fixed.

And even if it was true it's still easier to keep legends rules banned than to try to figure out at what point they have too many errors and deal with the hassle of cutting them off.

Banning peoples collections from being played should be a last resort, not something you do casually. Legends is a month old, surely you can do a little reading between the lines if there are some obvious editing errors (like missing firing points and close conbat attacks). A little respect for others collections goes a far way.

He isn't wrong though... inevitably the lack being the current design ethos makes these units problematic or complete waste of times. That however also highlights the issue with GW changing design ethos in the midst of editions depending upon the ammount of cocaine and isolation of the writer in question of the dex.

However he is wrong insofar as legends did get updated in 9th, the R&H sub list had no units to beginn with which could hold objective, gw fixed that.... fwi. the list was still gak and honestly an insult to anyone that bothered collecting probably the most expensive army there ever was from gw, but they did update the capacity to hold an objective.

Andykp wrote:

You’ll find this guy painting owl, will add his own arbitrary rules onto these things and then expect everyone to agree with them. He doesn’t like them so no one else should.

Dude, this is just sad. Try to be better.

If "broken rules = don't play it" then we shouldn't even be playing 40k.

After all, I think everyone being confused about whether or not Ursula Creed lets you overwatch twice or the argument I heard recently at the FLGS that you can't Remain Stationary after you remain stationary is just as broken as any of the Legends stuff. Heck, Russ sponsons are just as broken as Markerlight drones - paying for something I can't actually use.

ccs wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Play it as written.
If you don't think it's worth playing as written, run something else.

What about Tau heavy gun drones, where they can take markerlights but don't have the keyword required to use them? Are we supposed to play that as written too?

So don't take markerlights on them & you don't have a problem.

Worst case scenario is that you & your opponent have a simple conversation..... And given that your playing a GW game in the 1st place that shouldn't be an alien concept.

Come on man, just let them have the markerlight keyword. This is an obvious fix.

If I played modern 40K I absolutely would use Legends. If gaming material was published for whatever edition of whatever system I played, then I would use it or encourage my opponents to do so in their armies.

I've never played in a tournament and don't intend to, so in one sense it doesn't matter.

On the other hand I've always played what has now become formalised as Legends.

Old One Eye disappeared at some point in Tyranid codexes. I kept fielding him, showing my opponents the rules, with being open to tweaking up or down if thought necessary - we never bothered. Did the same with many other models over many editions. Not had an issue yet.....

Simply applying it to all Legends because a few of them are poorly written strikes me as over-reactionary.