Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I saw on Warcom when they were talking about the new HH edition that their version of Legends (Legacy units) will be tournament legal, and that got me to thinking if they are slowly backpedaling Legends units now that there has been so much backlash over so many places not allowing them, even though that was never the intent?

So, that being said, if they were kept current with the rules like everything else, would you want all the units that were moved to Legends back in the codices? There are certainly some units that I would like to see back, but it is a lot more units to balance things around as well.

If I played a tournament I'd want to go in with my OG Marines, so yes.

 Tawnis wrote:

So, that being said, if they were kept current with the rules like everything else, would you want all the units that were moved to Legends back in the codices? There are certainly some units that I would like to see back, but it is a lot more units to balance things around as well.

No, but mostly for accessibility reasons. If someone wants to compete, they really shouldn't be expected to own units they'll never be able to buy.

Of course. From a customers standpoint, I want to be able to use all the models ive been able to use in previous editions of the game. Its up to GW to make it work.

Meta will always exist and keep changing no matter what. There will always be OP and underpowered units, let me choose what I want to field

GW should invest into custom machine learning based rules/balance agents, which their rules boffins could use for dialing in their balances better. There is very little excuse

Now, I'm not saying replacing Legends with battleforged units would get me back to playing modern 40K, but it would be a step in the right direction. I feel like a second class citizen even when almost all the models in my upcoming army are from 2022 or newer, and that feels dumb af

The whole no models no rules policy and stripping models from codizes is one of the main reasons we moved to OPR. So yes, put these things back into the Codex. A Death Guard Codex without Cultists and Possessed is not worth its paper.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

So, that being said, if they were kept current with the rules like everything else, would you want all the units that were moved to Legends back in the codices? There are certainly some units that I would like to see back, but it is a lot more units to balance things around as well.

No, but mostly for accessibility reasons. If someone wants to compete, they really shouldn't be expected to own units they'll never be able to buy.

That's a good point, but is that an accessibility issue or a balance issue?

If the only good list to run is x3 of some ancient model they haven't made in 20 years, that would be an issue even if the model was current. With how often they are doing balance passes and points updates, I think if there were a problem like that, it would get fixed reasonably quickly.

Another option (though one I don't see GW ever doing) is relaxing their rules on conversations and third party sculpts for unit they no longer manufacture.

 Tawnis wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

So, that being said, if they were kept current with the rules like everything else, would you want all the units that were moved to Legends back in the codices? There are certainly some units that I would like to see back, but it is a lot more units to balance things around as well.

No, but mostly for accessibility reasons. If someone wants to compete, they really shouldn't be expected to own units they'll never be able to buy.

That's a good point, but is that an accessibility issue or a balance issue?

If the only good list to run is x3 of some ancient model they haven't made in 20 years, that would be an issue even if the model was current. With how often they are doing balance passes and points updates, I think if there were a problem like that, it would get fixed reasonably quickly.

Another option (though one I don't see GW ever doing) is relaxing their rules on conversations and third party sculpts for unit they no longer manufacture.

Models have dramatically better chances of having relevant rules if GW says they can't be used in tournaments than they do if GW says you have to buy them from recasters.

Ultimately it doesn't matter if it's a balance issue if the solution is to make the models undesirable to play in all formats to avoid the issue of making them desirable to play for people without access to them.

Personally, I think GW has a lot of options as is. Legends is cool and should be something people encourage locally. Most things have clearly viable proxies too for tournament play. This feels like a thing "The Internet" sweats over way more than players do.

No.

But, GW should also do more to encourage non-tournament play.

Yes.

 JNAProductions wrote:
No.

But, GW should also do more to encourage non-tournament play.

Honestly, they really do more than most companies. It's just up to local community leaders to make sure its not ignored in catering to their most fervent players.

 Tawnis wrote:
...So, that being said, if they were kept current with the rules like everything else, would you want all the units that were moved to Legends back in the codices?...

Fully matched play legal with accessible and updateable rules, yes. In the codices, no.

It would be very easy to just keep the codex books as they are with only datasheet entries for things that are currently on sale in a faction branded boxset, even with "what's in the box" rules or any other silliness that GW insists on (think of the codex as a catalogue for the current range).

It would be insanely easy to post a supplemental index on warcom for each faction that includes every other datasheet that should exist, covering everything from legend units to alternative datasheets with proper unrestricted wargear loadouts for codex units that shouldn't have restrictions on them.

 LunarSol wrote:

No, but mostly for accessibility reasons. If someone wants to compete, they really shouldn't be expected to own units they'll never be able to buy.

Preventing people from using the models they already own feels like a poor way to fix that.


In an ideal world, GW wouldn't randomly dump models or options between editions, particularly now that they're 10 editions in... Giving people the ability to use those models if they have them is ultimately the best option for accessibility.

 Tawnis wrote:

So, that being said, if they were kept current with the rules like everything else, would you want all the units that were moved to Legends back in the codices? There are certainly some units that I would like to see back, but it is a lot more units to balance things around as well.

Yes, those units should absolutely be in the codex. The only reason for an army that has been through anything up to 10 revisions to still be losing options is to force people to buy new models. And that's a crappy reason to remove options.

 LunarSol wrote:


Personally, I think GW has a lot of options as is. Legends is cool and should be something people encourage locally. Most things have clearly viable proxies too for tournament play. This feels like a thing "The Internet" sweats over way more than players do.

Yeah, I totally agree. The problem is that "The Internet" perception tends to bleed into a lot of things. I've been to local leagues and events where Legends are allowed and no one bats an eyelash, in general most people prefer it. However, I've also been to big narrative events where they were banned because the organizers were worried about balance, that someone would find some forgotten Legends unit that had some busted rule and dumpster people with it. My response was that if someone was going to bring a busted list to a narrative event, they'd do it with or without Legends, but that has y et to convince anyone.

I guess I've always been happier with "model obsolesce" than most people here.

I don't really see why in 2025 GW should support a model I got in Ebay in 2014 that they originally sold in 2002. Essentially no other business works that way.

I don't think they should stop selling something and have it go to legends instantly. But if its a couple of editions later I kind of think it having a token datasheet that you can use for fun but doesn't feature for competitive play so GW don't have to factor it into army rune functionality or balancing is a reasonable state to be in.

The other option is just making them sufficiently bad that they aren't really relevant competitvely. Which I'd be okay with too. Arguably we've seen that with most (emphasis) aircraft in 10th. Which subjectively I'm happy with because I don't think they should be in 40k - but I realise others will disagree.

Tyel wrote:
I guess I've always been happier with "model obsolesce" than most people here.

I don't really see why in 2025 GW should support a model I got in Ebay in 2014 that they originally sold in 2002. Essentially no other business works that way.

I don't think they should stop selling something and have it go to legends instantly. But if its a couple of editions later I kind of think it having a token datasheet that you can use for fun but doesn't feature for competitive play so GW don't have to factor it into army rune functionality or balancing is a reasonable state to be in.

The other option is just making them sufficiently bad that they aren't really relevant competitvely. Which I'd be okay with too. Arguably we've seen that with most (emphasis) aircraft in 10th. Which subjectively I'm happy with because I don't think they should be in 40k - but I realise others will disagree.

Obsolete stuff is just part of the problem though, the overall haphazard quality of legends and lack of matched play support could still be improved upon even if certain ancient things are deemed not appropriate to be part of the game anymore. Some examples:
1. Units like Imperial guard special weapon squads have existed for most editions of the game. It has never been easier to get your hands on plastic guardsmen. They are not in legends at all.
2. HH legends only covers units that were in the old IA books, with wargear options for the old OOP models. No update for the newer models having more wargear options, no update for any of the new units not in IA books either.

It could be vastly improved upon for very little effort.

I don't care one iota about tournaments, but I want Legends to be more widely accepted than they are (as GW intended), and if enough of the player base is so stuck on tournaments and that is what's contributing to the negative attitudes about Legends, making them tournament legal might be the only way to get them to be used as GW intended.

I mean, really, what's necessary is when a dude brings Legends to the FLGS, and folks go "Ooooh, Legends... Sorry, I'm here to practice for a tournament, you can't play that army," the store owner should have the gumption to stand up and say "Yeah... Well this games night/ league whatever doesn't exist entirely to fulfill your need for tournament practice, so feth you and let the kid play because THAT'S what GW intended."

But integrity is in short supply in 2025 and the loudest voices usually get the attention no matter how wrong they are.

I don’t think practicing for a tournament indicates a lack of integrity, Jake.

Tyel wrote:
I guess I've always been happier with "model obsolesce" than most people here.

I don't really see why in 2025 GW should support a model I got in Ebay in 2014 that they originally sold in 2002. Essentially no other business works that way.

This is the wrong side of the problem, though. The issue isn't them not supporting someone who bought a model off ebay. The issue is them not supporting someone who bought a model yesterday... which is what happens when options are removed from a new codex.

 insaniak wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess I've always been happier with "model obsolesce" than most people here.

I don't really see why in 2025 GW should support a model I got in Ebay in 2014 that they originally sold in 2002. Essentially no other business works that way.

This is the wrong side of the problem, though. The issue isn't them not supporting someone who bought a model off ebay. The issue is them not supporting someone who bought a model yesterday... which is what happens when options are removed from a new codex.

Or in the case of the Adeptus Custodes, you have to buy resin models that aren't in your Codex to have a playable army.y company even released Detachments that feature noncodex models

The only reason I'm afraid to buy in, is that they can slap a Legends label on them and you are SOL on games.

Since resin is never a safe bet when it comes to GW products.

 PenitentJake wrote:
I don't care one iota about tournaments, but I want Legends to be more widely accepted than they are (as GW intended), and if enough of the player base is so stuck on tournaments and that is what's contributing to the negative attitudes about Legends, making them tournament legal might be the only way to get them to be used as GW intended.

I mean, really, what's necessary is when a dude brings Legends to the FLGS, and folks go "Ooooh, Legends... Sorry, I'm here to practice for a tournament, you can't play that army," the store owner should have the gumption to stand up and say "Yeah... Well this games night/ league whatever doesn't exist entirely to fulfill your need for tournament practice, so feth you and let the kid play because THAT'S what GW intended."

As the local Legends advocate (because I've got many years worth of oop models & I'm not done playing with them) I've had to remind a fair # of players that "Well, this isn't a tourney."

In our previous Crusade (Jan - Easter) one of my opponents, looking over my list on Administratum, pointed out that my Rogue Psyker & Cultists with Firearms were Legends.
My response to him was "And?"
He says something about how Legends aren't tournament legal.
My response: "Well then, I guess it's a good thing this isn't a tournament!"
He didn't really have a response to that.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don’t think practicing for a tournament indicates a lack of integrity, Jake.

People wanting to practice for tournaments is not the problem- their desire to play a tourney practice game is no more or less reasonable than my desire to play Crusade games, or 1k games, or use Legends.

The problem I was writing about is the store owner allowing people practicing for tournaments to dictate that tournament practice is the only thing allowed in the store. We get told on this board all the time that "My STORE doesn't allow Legends because SOME of the players in the league are practicing for tournaments."

THAT'S the problem.

Right now, my store is running a Boarding Action League, a Kill Team League, and a 1K slow grow- there are multiple modes of play not only supported by the store, but ENCOURAGED by the store to cater to a wide variety of players. THAT'S integrity.

"You MUST play 2k uber meta matched because it's the only thing allowed in my store"... That's the bs I'm talkin about.

 insaniak wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess I've always been happier with "model obsolesce" than most people here.

I don't really see why in 2025 GW should support a model I got in Ebay in 2014 that they originally sold in 2002. Essentially no other business works that way.

This is the wrong side of the problem, though. The issue isn't them not supporting someone who bought a model off ebay. The issue is them not supporting someone who bought a model yesterday... which is what happens when options are removed from a new codex.

I think a big issue is the miniature side isn’t in line with ether the business side, or the game side. And often units are not seeing suitable replacements, updates or cohesive design.

It’s a top down issue that GW doesn’t have to worry about since they make money no mater how the game ends up.

Tyel wrote:
I guess I've always been happier with "model obsolesce" than most people here.

I don't really see why in 2025 GW should support a model I got in Ebay in 2014 that they originally sold in 2002. Essentially no other business works that way.

What about Blackstone Fortress models purchased directly from GW in 2019?
Did every Death Guard player get their Possessed as the Morley sculpts off of Ebay?
Were Deathwatch from 2002?

I do note that they've changed the message on the GW Webstore that I remember saying "Lifetime Support" to now saying "Lifetime Returns and Exchanges"...