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.

First off, I do want to be clear that balance is very important, and most people also accept that while it's good to strive for, it's something that will never be perfect. That all being said, the more and more people I discuss with online, the more I get the sense that the community as a whole is obsessed with balance (sometimes to our own detriment), or at the very least, that is the perception that we are giving off.

The main point that I see this work against us is that (at least from what I can see) we're just as much a cause (or at least the perception we give off) of the issues with Legends units as GW is.

No matter where you go online to talk about 40k, there are always people complaining about game balance, sometimes legitimately, sometimes not so much, but either way, it a pervasive topic of discussion. We've certainly had some problematic time periods of armies being busted and others being underpowered and it makes sense to speak up about those things, we should do that, but my concern is that it's making many smaller events at FLGS's also super focused on trying to match the balance of the high end competitive scene.

I'm just as often hearing people complain about all the units moving to Legends, despite the fact that GW is making it as clear as they possibly can that they are only banned in high end competitive play, and should be allowed to be used everywhere else. I'm fortunate that the leagues at my FLGS allow Legends in all their events so I'm always able to bring my Knarlocs out to play, but as I've been explaining my gaming sphere to other stores and events, I've seen more and more of them not allowing Legends models even in casual store play, or narrative tournaments (what Legends are supposed to be for.)

I've asked many of these organizers about this decision and the reason it was made and every single one of them has told me the same thing. They are worried that some meta chasing Spike is going to find some obscure Legends rule that was missed by the GW team and ruin the event by dumpstering everyone with some super busted list. They're worried about being the ones blamed for this happening if it did since they were the ones that would have allowed these units to be used. In many cases, this is in spite of the fact that the majority of attending players either did want Legends units to be allowed, or didn't care one way or the other. Also on that subject, I've been to dozens of events using Legends models, and I've never seen or even heard of a single player that did something any more abusable with a Legends unit that you wouldn't be able to do with other units that are perfectly legal.

So, where does that leave us what can be done? How can we change that narrative and actually get to play with all our old models that GW has removed from tournament legality, and is there anything GW could do as well?

On the GW side of things, I think a rebranding of Legends would actually be pretty helpful. If they included Legends units in the army codices and had them separated into a competitive section and casual section, that might actually help a lot. It would actually give physical codices a bit more mileage since the casual section at the very least wouldn't be immediately outdated by the next balance dataslate. Also, if they made a commitment to not EVER remove units from Legends, it would give more incentive for people to want to keep those models being usable at their FLGS's.

On our side, I think the best thing we can do is to be more vocal with our FLGS's about how narrative and casual events are supposed to be just for fun, and that part of that fun is seeing some person's 15 year old converted masterpiece that's been sitting on the shelf for ages because it got squatted a decade ago. In the end, FLGS's want their customers to have a good time, and if you can get your local community behind using Legends models, it will give new life to some of our favourite classic units. And on the off chance that you do find some obscure busted combo with a Legends unit, just... don't be that guy.

That's just my take on it all though. Have you had different experiences on your end? What are your thoughts on if we should even try to "balance" casual play? Have you been able to field your Legends units in your playgroups?

I think if the base game included everything, and what we currently have in dexes was part of a play mode called "40k Arena" or "40k Tournament Battles," the game would be in a better state.

And it is clear that GW's INTENTION with Legends was exactly that- there have been a half a dozen reminders from the company this edition that the ONLY place Legends should be excluded is formal tournaments... But people are never going to listen to that, because GW did it backwards- they published only the tournament legal units as the base game and expected that people not playing in tournaments would be content if all the other stuff was added as an extra via PDF.

40k needs a game mode that literally includes the word "Tournament" and it needs to become the default for Tournament play. It needs to include the most balanced rules possible and any unit limitations required to make that happen.

The actual game itself needs to include everything.

Then people would understand that tournament play is a limited form of the game, and not its default mode of play. I think this would encourage people to experience the full scope of the game, because as soon as they saw that tournament play imposes limitations, more people would be interested in the freedom allowed by the base game.

It's no different to the old 'no forgeworld' situation.

Legends units are not automatically better or worse or more broken than core units but it's a blanket way of eliminating a large swathe of units that might jump out as a nasty surprise for 'all comers' games.

For regular one on one games all you can do is ask your opponent. Rebranding them won't change that.

Something like a marine, chaos, or guard book with _all_ of the legends units would be quite the tome...

There is a small difference with the FW situation: in order to compete with someone who is using FW, you have to be skilled enough to do all the extra crap you have to do to make resin work, and you have to be prepared to pay an extra 20% or so for those models.

GW produced plastics don't present additional barriers to players the way FW does.

 PenitentJake wrote:
ormal tournaments... But people are never going to listen to that.

40k needs a game mode that literally includes the word "Tournament" and it needs to become the default for Tournament play. It needs to include the most balanced rules possible and any unit limitations required to make that happen.

The actual game itself needs to include everything.

Then people would understand that tournament play is a limited form of the game, and not its default mode of play.

I think this is a terrific idea. In addition, it would enable them to balance the competitive meta on the fly without harming the state of the rest of the game. They could even run seasons where only certain units from armies (from larger armies that have a wide breadth of models) were applicable, but with the knowledge that they would come back, like how they have rotating formats in MTG which creates all kinds of list diversity. Pretty much anyone playing super competitive would have large enough armies / models that it won't really cost them that much, and it won't effect the casual players that just built their first army.

Regardless of that, I completely agree that the mindset has to change. Casual play should be the default with special rules implimented for high end tournaments, not the other way around.

I don't think that including legends in the books themselves is a great idea. having it be a digital download keeps the rules free, but moreover, legends is not itself static. models are occasionally added to it as things come out (for example, the one ork character at the start of the year). if there's going to be any physical version, it could be a standalone book (like the 8th/9th forge world books), but even that feels suboptimal

really, what it comes down to is that if you present two layers of rules, people are going to take one and discard the other. codexes/indexes are tier 1 rules, legends is tier two. to compare to magic, there are normal sets and un-sets. the un-sets are joke sets that are still playable in the game. they're not tournament legal, but still legal everywhere else... and so no one plays them anywhere. even in commander, a format which is specifically not a tournament format, where you can use any cards, a format specifically labeled as a casual format... and people will still not allow them. this goes beyond warhammer, and seems to just be a universal issue with labeling rules as "not for tournaments"

I think the issue with balance depends on what your concerns are.

I like a balanced game, because I think if you went to the "bad old days", the game was explicitly not balanced. In my case I mean 5th to 7th. The difference between a top tier army, running the top tier stuff, and a bottom tier army, running the bottom tier stuff, was... laughable. Beyond night and day.

(This was almost certainly true for 2nd/3rd/4th, but I was a child playing other children, so your perspective is invariably skewed.)

2k points could defeat 3k, 4k, 5k etc. Often in a very uninteractive way. Whole armies would shoot Necrons and kill 1 warrior. You'd face character blobs protected by invisibility. The list goes on.

While there have certainly been OP armies (especially in 9th), I think GW has gone a long way to balancing both armies, and - more importantly - units in those armies.

A game where you can play at least 2/3rds of your Codex into most other factions and have a reasonable game is a better one than "I must spam 3 units into most armies (also typically spamming their 3 good units) or I near auto-lose."

I'm not sure where that leaves Legends. I suspect GW just don't want to have the obligation to think meaningfully about rules for models they no longer sell. They don't want them to be OP, so you end up with say "Malefic Lord spam" of 8th edition.

Imo the right thing to do is have them playable - but obviously a bit worse than other stuff. If you are a competitive player they are therefore not worth taking, but if you aren't that bothered (whether you play in tournaments or not) its fine. But I'm not sure GW "knows" what's good and what isn't, hence why they mess it up so often.

I have often think a big part of this is GW sorta flailing around on what the game is over the years (And even how 40K norms often filter into other Mini games)

I also think a big issue is them talking about narrative over years but not really offering great jumping points for it.
And 40K really is very tournament focus design.
So really not unexpected where we end up.

I play with and against legends units at my local store pretty frequently. It's not a big deal. Just ask your opponent, "Hey, are you okay with me fielding this legends unit? If not, I brought some extra models to replace it."

So in the context of casual games, something being legends hasn't really been a big deal.

In the context of competitive events where part of the social contract is that you're bringing more cutthroat lists, playing in a cutthroat fashion, and want the most balanced experience possible to facilitate that... Not allowing legends in that scenario makes sense to me. Being legends essentially means you're no longer receiving balance updates. Allowing units that are defined by their lack of recent balance updates in a format where balance is one of the objectives is counterproductive to the goal.

In a fluffy, casual event where you're not too worried about balance, Legends are probably fine.

My nightspinner has gone from like 130 points to 210 points since the start of the edition. If it were a legends unit, it would still be 80 points cheaper than it is now. So you can see how the lack of balance updates could potentially have a pretty big impact on gameplay. Just because legends units aren't breaking the game right now doesn't mean that will remain the case in the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:
I have often think a big part of this is GW sorta flailing around on what the game is over the years (And even how 40K norms often filter into other Mini games)

I also think a big issue is them talking about narrative over years but not really offering great jumping points for it.
And 40K really is very tournament focus design.
So really not unexpected where we end up.

I do feel like they've kind of made narrative play less approachable by accident. Like, 8th edition "narrative play" was basically just "matched play, but you can ignore these rules meant to balance the game." So it was hard to think of that style of play as anything other than an inferior game experience. Like, why is your opponent asking to do narrative play specifically? Is he trying to pull off something sketchy?

Crusade in both 8th and 9th is awesome and has been well-received, but it's also a fair bit of extra *work*, and it's not quite compatible with a non-Crusade pickup game.

I'd love an accessible set of missions that lean a smidge away from balance and a lot more into telling cool stories/creating cool moments that also don't require you
* download a separate rules document
* create a roster
* create a list specifically from that roster
* learn agendas that you might not be familiar with
* bookkeep your xp and blackstone fragments during/after the game.

I think people are far too concerned about balance, but that's just me. I'm firmly old school way of thinking that if you don't like it then change it. It isn't hard to do especially if you're making all your own scenarios.
I'm lucky to belong to a group of like minded individuals. Most of us old ones have served in various branches of the military and one thing everyone agrees with is that in any military action there is no balance, you deal with the hand you're dealt.
The only thing that's vitally important to us is having fun. Hobbies are supposed to be fun, unless you're hobby is bickering over unimportant details. Play with toys, have fun and enjoy your life. It's too short as it is, trust me I know.

So, the crux of the Legends/Forgeworld problem is effectively a mix of accessibility and a self selecting bias. In both cases, the stuff there is fine; probably even detrimental to the player taking it. The problem is, for the most part, people aren't going to take things that are detrimental, so the models you DO see are the stuff that's too good. Now, that's actually no different from a normal competitive environment, which is where the accessibility issue comes up. It's one thing to have optimal units, its another to have significant barriers to playing optimal units in a competitive setting.

That said, that reality just doesn't need to apply to most settings. It's okay for their to be someone at the shop running some weird OP unit or nonsense list full of weird, half functioning rules. I mean, even the most try hard communities have someone rocking that weird Imperial Agents list or something and with that in mind, Legends and Forgeworld and whatever has always been part of a healthy club.

Right now, Legends are restricted for a pretty healthy reason. Someone getting into the game is very unlikely to be able to play things from it, Players new to the game shouldn't be expected to play things from it. For players that HAVE this stuff though, absolutely put it on the table if you want with the understanding of why its not a good idea to bring to a tournament. This is a pretty easy one to meet in the middle on, IMO.

yeah, that's a great point. the frustration around legends comes from people who already have the models— personally speaking, as someone relatively newer to the game, legends has never been an issue in my playing

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
to compare to magic, there are normal sets and un-sets. the un-sets are joke sets that are still playable in the game.

I don't think that's a very fair comparison as un-sets were always designed to be ridiculous jokes that were for laughs.

It's more like when cards rotate out of standard or get banned in Modern or other eternal formats; you can still use them in the most popular, and very casual format, Commander. You see more and more in MTG design, that they are catering more to the casual commander crowd because that's what moves the most product, it's the most popular. However in 40k, GW is catering to the smaller highly competitive scene when the primary ruleset should be catering to the vast majority of more casual players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
So, the crux of the Legends/Forgeworld problem is effectively a mix of accessibility and a self selecting bias. In both cases, the stuff there is fine; probably even detrimental to the player taking it.

As someone that loves his big giant Dinosaurs, I can confirm that the Great Knarlocs are terrible, but I still love to field them. That being said, they were pretty cracked in early 8th when Legends first came out, so much that they were still okay after the 9th power creep.

However, after the 10th revamp of Legends, I think GW dialed it in a lot better. Some units like my beloved Great Knarloc got overcorrected and nerfed into the ground, but the majority of units that I've ran like Knarloc Riders, Canoptek Tomb Sentinels and Acanthrites, the Falchion Super Heavy, ect... have all been very solidly middle of the road, which is what I think Legends should aim for. Solidly okay stats that won't get too strong if the faction gets a buff, but aren't objectively terrible to put on the board. So far, that's pretty much what I've seen from them all edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
I mean, even the most try hard communities have someone rocking that weird Imperial Agents list or something and with that in mind, Legends and Forgeworld and whatever has always been part of a healthy club.

I feel so called out.

 Tawnis wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
I mean, even the most try hard communities have someone rocking that weird Imperial Agents list or something and with that in mind, Legends and Forgeworld and whatever has always been part of a healthy club.

I feel so called out.

I play Deathwatch. It's less of a call out and more of a confession

IMO, GW should put out tournaments that have set army lists for each faction.

They can cycle through different ones for different tournaments and use some narrative reasoning for it. But they would clearly be restricted to the same composition for anyone taking them and not have everything from the list in them.

It should be made clear that if you want to treat a game that's got too many moving parts as if it's a chess tournament, then you actually need to be given 'chess' lists to make it fair.

Then tournaments are clearly just about the skill (and some luck) and zero about trying to rules lawyer a combo that gives you an advantage.


It's not practical to have a hyper competitive game with number of options they offer and expect it to be balanced.

release the 'tournament patrol' boxes that contain the GW approved tournament composition for 2024 and then anyone who wants to be uber competitive buys that - but obviously there's going to be different ones next year.

Then the full 40k game of all options is explicitly not the tournament game.


It's a mistake to treat the core game as the tournament one and make narrative etc as the add ons.

I don't mind that Legends stuff is not officially sanctioned for tournament play.

I do mind that once a unit hits Legends status, it means the clock is ticking until it is no longer supported at all. I don't care if my Hierodule was not '''perfectly balanced''', I care that it doesn't have rules anymore.

If the problem is just that the community is too focused on competitive play, then why is it that GW only continues to update rules for competitive-suitable units, and 'not tournament suitable' is tantamount to 'won't exist in two years'?

A.T. wrote:It's no different to the old 'no forgeworld' situation.

...

For regular one on one games all you can do is ask your opponent. Rebranding them won't change that.

Wyldhunt wrote:I play with and against legends units at my local store pretty frequently. It's not a big deal. Just ask your opponent, "Hey, are you okay with me fielding this legends unit? If not, I brought some extra models to replace it."

I might've missed something here, but where are you seeing this "ask your opponent" requirement when it comes to Legends units? As far as I can see, if you're not in a tournament, they're fair game.

LunarSol wrote:Someone getting into the game is very unlikely to be able to play things from it, Players new to the game shouldn't be expected to play things from it.

What makes Legends units different here to playing against a faction for the first time?

Hellebore wrote:IMO, GW should put out tournaments that have set army lists for each faction.

...

Then tournaments are clearly just about the skill (and some luck) and zero about trying to rules lawyer a combo that gives you an advantage.

It's not often I say this about something you've posted, but I fully agree.

catbarf wrote:I don't mind that Legends stuff is not officially sanctioned for tournament play.

I do mind that once a unit hits Legends status, it means the clock is ticking until it is no longer supported at all. I don't care if my Hierodule was not '''perfectly balanced''', I care that it doesn't have rules anymore.

If the problem is just that the community is too focused on competitive play, then why is it that GW only continues to update rules for competitive-suitable units, and 'not tournament suitable' is tantamount to 'won't exist in two years'?

They really need to do better about adding things to the Legends documents when they're removed from an Index/Codex. It has been an inconsistent problem since Legends became a thing.

I bigtime agree with Hellebore. I've thought for a long time that the list building part of tournaments is the worst part, and that if you really want to test player skill it'd be better to give everyone fixed lists.

If the game isn't any good with fixed lists it's probably just not a very good game anyway.

A tournament where everyone got the same space marine list to play, and it was about how you play it and achieve the mission objective does testing player skill way better than someone crunching the numbers (or just googling someone else who crunched the numbers) and fielding the most points efficient list possible, or exploiting weird rules loopholes.

It'll never happen because people love the puzzle solving aspect of building the most powerful lists and they don't really want to test player skill as much as they say they do. List building is the "lonely fun" part of wargames for a lot of people.

As for Legends, I think the strongest argument is that it's a bit tough on new players. But it is also kind of awesome for new players to learn about the scope and history of this game they're getting into, I dunno. I would have been very excited to face a Gnarloc as a newbie. But not everyone would feel the same way, and you will get people just trying to field the most efficient combinations, always, because some people are just not able to think any other way.

Edit: And while I feel the comparison with magic sets is obvious, from another perspective I don't think it really lines up that well - models involve way more emotional and time investment than cards, and they're also generally more expensive (I know certain Magic cards can be very expensive, but minis are more so on average). It's just a different kind of game entirely I think.

Isn't part of the problem here with Legends units that there are a lot of people in clubs/FLGS that consider casual games as tournament practice, and only want to apply competitive list building and rules (terrain...) ?

 Da Boss wrote:
I bigtime agree with Hellebore. I've thought for a long time that the list building part of tournaments is the worst part, and that if you really want to test player skill it'd be better to give everyone fixed lists.

If the game isn't any good with fixed lists it's probably just not a very good game anyway.

A tournament where everyone got the same space marine list to play, and it was about how you play it and achieve the mission objective does testing player skill way better than someone crunching the numbers (or just googling someone else who crunched the numbers) and fielding the most points efficient list possible, or exploiting weird rules loopholes.

I said the same thing in another thread literally a few days ago - and that GW have already created this version, it's called Combat Patrol - and was shot down, because people want to play their big 2000 point armies with all their toys... Can't win.

 Dysartes wrote:
I might've missed something here, but where are you seeing this "ask your opponent" requirement when it comes to Legends units?

It's just good manners if you are going to whip out a bunch of units in a pick-up game that your opponent may not have heard of, may not be interesting in finding out the hard way, and as legends may not even have rules outside of the house-rules you have applied to them.

So there is no official rule that you have to ask, but also no rule that you opponent has to play against you in casual games. Best to ask before unpacking.

Crispy78 wrote:

I said the same thing in another thread literally a few days ago - and that GW have already created this version, it's called Combat Patrol - and was shot down, because people want to play their big 2000 point armies with all their toys... Can't win.

Vote of support for this idea here.

Been approaching AOS Spearhead in this fashion and it works so well. We would need a new Combat Patrol system but yes, this would be the test of player skill.

Incidentally, I have a theory (more a vague idea) that this will be coming in the next edition. When Combat Patrols are getting replaced now, they seem to be leaving out the big vehicles (Impulsor for Blood Angels, Redemptor for Dark Angels as examples), perhaps indicating an infantry-based approached that would lead to a smaller-table Spearhead-esque Combat Patrol?

A.T. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I might've missed something here, but where are you seeing this "ask your opponent" requirement when it comes to Legends units?

It's just good manners if you are going to whip out a bunch of units in a pick-up game that your opponent may not have heard of, may not be interesting in finding out the hard way, and as legends may not even have rules outside of the house-rules you have applied to them.

So there is no official rule that you have to ask, but also no rule that you opponent has to play against you in casual games. Best to ask before unpacking.

I don't know about anyone else in the thread, but I'm working to the assumption we're talking about units from the Legends PDFs currently available on the WHC website, so no house rules required. I'm also working to the theory that hard copies of the rules for any unit used are provided, by both players.

As ccs and - I think - PenitentJake point out frequently, GW have explicitly stated that these units are fine for play outside of tournaments, and there's nothing about requesting permission. Heck, it isn't even as vague a situation as Forge World was in at one point where they'd stopped putting in the note about asking your opponent's permission, but before they clearly stated you didn't have to ask permission.

If your opponent doesn't want to play you in a pick-up game because you've used a legal unit, you know who to avoid playing in the future (and who you should probably watch like a damn hawk if you have to face them in a tournament).

It would also help if the GW app could have a toggle mode between normal and tournament play. Annoying to make a list and then have to leave points out for that legends unit. Then you have to check the points on the download, etc.

Well there are plenty of ways of ensuring rules aren't broken. But you have a player base that is encouraged to spend time thinking up powerful lists. Opening up rules for community feedback and structuring that to get rid of overpowered stuff (aim for legends to be a second tier of units, so not the best but still usable, as some are hilariously not). Without improving how the rules are written you are going to be stuck with bad product and the wariness remains.

Crispy78 wrote:

I said the same thing in another thread literally a few days ago - and that GW have already created this version, it's called Combat Patrol - and was shot down, because people want to play their big 2000 point armies with all their toys... Can't win.

1. Combat patrol was shot down because of the dogshit balance betwen them. Combat patrol was the beta to Spearhead for AoS, which is a muuuuuch better version of the same kind of game

2. For some people (Johnny's mostly) listbuilding is part of the fun in the game, seeing what is possible to achieve with an army.

3. Listbuilding is part of the skill in the game too, although it is quite diminished compared to other editions/games right now.

Obsession with balance is definitely real and yeah probably is impacting legends with the way it is right now, but legends is unnecessarily bad quality too and it hurts itself way more than it needs to - every time it is updated datasheets disappear so there isn't any incentive to invest in new models that are in legends, its just a way of enjoying what you already have for a little longer.

Would it really be that hard for GW to just chop legends in half, along the vague line of "can we make money off this datasheet?", with the end result being:
A. Really old antiques which are out of production, that don't fit in the modern game stay as they are - legends rules for casual play.
B. The other half of current legends is stuff that is either in production (HH legends, black library minis), or stuff that is buildable from other sets that just don't happen to have the name on the box (basically all of space marine legends for example) - why not just make a fully matched play legal supplemental index for these, and actually update them from time to time? For the cost of updating a pdf doc from time to time you could actually encourage people to buy stuff that is in production. Crazy.

CorwinB wrote:
Isn't part of the problem here with Legends units that there are a lot of people in clubs/FLGS that consider casual games as tournament practice, and only want to apply competitive list building and rules (terrain...) ?

I'm a vocal critic of competitive mindsets seeping into everything, but I recognize that when people want to use the balanced Match Play ruleset at the local club, it isn't always because they're treating it as tournament practice. A lot of people have limited free time and would prefer a ruleset that they expect will give them a close game, versus wasting an hour or two on a broken matchup. Balance is important to casual play too.

The problem as I see it is that GW overtly treats Legends units as a dumping ground, not intended to be balanced and not receiving balance updates, and it doesn't help that Matched Play is presented as the default way to play. I don't think most casual pick-up gamers are obsessed with balance over all else, but if you only give them a binary choice between 'the balanced default that includes everything you can buy off the shelf' and 'the exploitable alternative with old stuff GW isn't even trying to balance', most are going to opt for the former.

If Legends units were just folded into the normal roster, given regular balance updates, and a smaller subset of units called out for a tournament-specific ruleset as others have suggested, I think the common attitude would change.

 Da Boss wrote:
I bigtime agree with Hellebore. I've thought for a long time that the list building part of tournaments is the worst part, and that if you really want to test player skill it'd be better to give everyone fixed lists.

If the game isn't any good with fixed lists it's probably just not a very good game anyway.

A tournament where everyone got the same space marine list to play, and it was about how you play it and achieve the mission objective does testing player skill way better than someone crunching the numbers (or just googling someone else who crunched the numbers) and fielding the most points efficient list possible, or exploiting weird rules loopholes.

It'll never happen because people love the puzzle solving aspect of building the most powerful lists and they don't really want to test player skill as much as they say they do. List building is the "lonely fun" part of wargames for a lot of people.

As for Legends, I think the strongest argument is that it's a bit tough on new players. But it is also kind of awesome for new players to learn about the scope and history of this game they're getting into, I dunno. I would have been very excited to face a Gnarloc as a newbie. But not everyone would feel the same way, and you will get people just trying to field the most efficient combinations, always, because some people are just not able to think any other way.

Edit: And while I feel the comparison with magic sets is obvious, from another perspective I don't think it really lines up that well - models involve way more emotional and time investment than cards, and they're also generally more expensive (I know certain Magic cards can be very expensive, but minis are more so on average). It's just a different kind of game entirely I think.

That might be a little too restrictive, while I do agree conceptually, If everyone only has a specific unit list, there's going to be a lot of outrage that GW is only doing it so everyone will have to buy those specific models. I think a shortened roster is a better way to achieve the same effect, less balance work, but still some player agency.

List building is lots of fun, though while the people you describe certainly are out there, there are also people that love to build theme lists or ones that challenge their playstyle in a new way, rather than just the most cracked meta list. The puzzle solving aspect is there for lots of people, but there are a wide variety of puzzles to solve.

For a new player, I don't know how much it really matters. 90% of the units will be things they've never come up against before, Legends or not.

Yes and no. A Standard magic deck is probably equivalent to about 1k warhammer army. However the older modern decks can easily run you $1000 depending on the deck and Legacy decks get even more expensive than that. We're not even going to talk about vintage, because that's just insane. I do have more connection to my 40k models, but there are still some magic cards I have a great fondness for, though that's more in the casual format of Commander where there's only one copy each. Having 4ea identical copies of something in your deck makes it harder to connect, even if you have multiples of a unit in 40k, every model still looks unique and can stand out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I might've missed something here, but where are you seeing this "ask your opponent" requirement when it comes to Legends units?

It's just good manners if you are going to whip out a bunch of units in a pick-up game that your opponent may not have heard of, may not be interesting in finding out the hard way, and as legends may not even have rules outside of the house-rules you have applied to them.

So there is no official rule that you have to ask, but also no rule that you opponent has to play against you in casual games. Best to ask before unpacking.

Yes and no. Did GW ever try hosting an actual combat patrol tournament so that competitive players would take it seriously? That's not totally on them, other tournaments could have done it too, but if they want to set a precedent it's up to them to start. So l long as the competitive is structured a certain way, most events will follow suit because that's what the competitive players want to practice for (and thus what they think the majority of people want).

When combat patrol first came out, there was a big launch event at my FLGS, and there was something like 40 people there, it was really successful. But then they just never did another one, so local interest in the format died out.

To use magic as a comparison again, if they have tournaments for multiple formats, it would get different people interested in playing different modes. Have the classic 2k tournament style, but do a 1k as well, do a combat patrol, do a boarding action, a narrative event, and do a Legends allowed event. For one, you'll split the pool of players up onto many different events so you're not relying on tiebreakers for your top 30 or so people because you only have time for 4 rounds, and you'll get more engagement out of people who play for all kinds of different reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CorwinB wrote:
Isn't part of the problem here with Legends units that there are a lot of people in clubs/FLGS that consider casual games as tournament practice, and only want to apply competitive list building and rules (terrain...) ?

Or at least, that is the perception that store have, which is in some cases true and others not. Yeah, that was one of my points.

 Dysartes wrote:

LunarSol wrote:Someone getting into the game is very unlikely to be able to play things from it, Players new to the game shouldn't be expected to play things from it.

What makes Legends units different here to playing against a faction for the first time?

I was referring to playing with, not against in this statement. If a Legends unit becomes meta defining, new players likely do not have a way to acquire it for themselves. It's about ensuring players at a tournament are able to access the same tools and why limited edition or prerelease stuff is often not allowed until it becomes widely available. That's just for tournaments though. Outside of that, novelty and encountering new things should be far more of the norm.