What, if anything, should GW do about Legends

[Orion]

Not allowing legends in a non tournament game either makes you a jerk or a coward.

I get that there needs to be some kind of line drawn as stuff gets competitive, but for a pickup with zero stakes? Let people use their models.

 

 

Also add them to the app, keep doing generational updates, and fix anything blatantly broken

(GW already sometimes do this, like stopping grenadiers from having two wounds).

[Bouargh]

I see Legends as a toll to buy social peace. It gives time to dillute rant from players affected by games/ranges evolutions. Legends are in essence the antechamber to cancelation.

Sadly.

 

Could Legends be maintained? Sure. But why or for who? If player base rotates, sooner or latter Legendary stuff will become like dark age of technology items for the community. As such the question may become: how long should an entry remains into Legends? 1, 2 editions, 10, 20 years?

In the end maintaining an effort to feed the pipe with legend rules, to eventually update a growing number of these, and that for a player base using these models that should go reducing as time passes by,... looks nonesense once presented like this, nope? Not to say that the rule/pts updating process currently in place looks like a semiempirical protocol based on data gathering from tournies. So no data, no base for an update... Whatever the frequency.

 

 I like my old models, I invested time and money into them. Yet, I have no illusion about their playability in the future. At least playability that close of what they where doing as per the rules that were before (I still do not swallow the LR Helios being changed from an artillery tank to an AA tank...). The only reasonnable fate for legendary unit that remain IMHO is the way of the proxy...

 

That  ... or wishing for a non GW supported ruleset such as 9th age when Fantasy Battle was deleted from.

 

 

 

 

[Robbienw]

This reminds me of when people used to argue over allowing Forgeworld units in the 2000's.

[gideon stargreave]

10 minutes ago, Robbienw said:

This reminds me of when people used to argue over allowing Forgeworld units in the 2000's.

I remember when GW sold me a forgeworld tank without any rules In existence. It was implicit that you’d just make your own. 

[phandaal]

13 hours ago, Orion said:

Not allowing legends in a non tournament game either makes you a jerk or a coward.

 

Agreed, but that is where the community stands right now. There has been a big move in recent years towards tournament-style play at all times ("recent" is relative to how much of a geezer you are of course). If something is explicitly marketed as not allowed in tournaments, it immediately has a stigma attached to it.

 

I actually think that mindset is shifting though, for whatever reason. The ride-or-die tournament people are as enthusiastic as ever, but there are more and more people speaking up and playing casual games either with GW rules or with rules from other companies. It will be interesting to see where that split lands in the next few years.

[Timberley]

In my opinion, @ThePenitentOne hit the nail on the head - the mindset shift over the years from pseudo-historical battles played out in a narrative setting to competitive wargame amongst the players has gotten us to the point where 'Legends' rules are needed. 

 

If a random player decides to look online at ways to get better at playing the game with their chosen faction, they'll discover that the discourse is predominantly around tournament play.  They'll probably not find much about how best to use the units they own (assuming they've not got a tournament-ready army) but that said unit is 'trash' or 'mid', or has been confined to Legends so they can't find them in the app any more and is therefore 'illegal'.  I'd personally argue that this is a detriment to the overall game.  GW haven't helped matters with their various decisions, and their cultivation of FOMO.  Remember Commissar Yarrick, the Hero of Armageddon and quite a big named character?  He doesn't even have Legends rules, so anyone with an old miniature can't use him, unless it's as a generic Commissar, or you're playing with a group that allows House Rules. 

 

It's possibly a false comparison, but compare big 40K to Necromunda (arguably Necromunda is more like D&D than 40K, but I'm looking at it from an overall discourse perspective).  Necromunda is narratively-driven, no tournament-like balance, and is a lower investment hobby (aside from terrain).  The online discourse is predominantly about showing off your new paintjobs and conversions, and helping people with starter lists and rules clarifications.  Heavy emphasis is put on the narrative aspect, and the individual's ability to break the game if they think of it like a WAAC tournament.  Necromunda itself has had a few expansions, but it thankfully doesn't suffer from the edition churn that plagues the competitive games.  As such, the player sensation is that their gang is a long term investment, akin to the older 40K editions.

 

To return to Commissar Yarrick, et al.  Would I expect GW to have rules for every unit they've ever produced?  Yes, is the short answer.  This is a very expensive luxury hobby, and if I'm budgeting such that I can only buy 1 unit per month (as a young'un getting into the hobby would be) then I'd expect them to support these costly pieces of plastic until the heat death of the sun.  If needed, they can produce a database for tournament players that has a list of 'allowed' units, such that players can have fun with the stuff they have, and tournament players can restrict themselves to the units that aren't OP or rubbish.

[ThePenitentOne]

@Timberley Thanks for the shout out.

 

Your point about the online landscape hits home for me. I have sought Narrative and Crusade batreps that detail the story that games form, and I have been sadly disappointed. The Scaredcast (I think that's what it's called) is about as close as I got- he had 2-3 consecutive Crusade games with his Drukhari, and they were pretty cool... Although I thought he could have gone farther with narrative- but even so, it was only 2-3 videos, with dozens and dozens of unconnected 2k matched play one-off games.

 

This week, I've been working on two terrain pieces for my Drukhari Wych Cult arena- pieces with opening doors and removable ceilings that will allow me to play a Hidden objective game. This is a 3-round match between two bare-bones Cults to determine who each of them will grow. I vow to have this bat-rep up by the end of the year, and you'll see what I mean about how every little detail of the game contributes to the character of the army as it grows. Only one Cult will be chosen by the Archon for realspace raiding- likely the team that wins the right to crown their MVP a Succubus... But it's a tough call, because there are also 3 Wych Cult weapons and some Khymerae pups up for grabs in the other rounds of the fight.

 

After that batrep, we'll switch to Realspace for another narrative, this one exploring the foundations of one of the protagonist forces (the Sisters of Battle). This will be an Imperial ritual where a Novitiate is selected as a living embodiment of an ancient saint. She has to make it to the altar to be consecrated- she'll have a group of Death CUlt Assassins as a bodyguard; the Preacher and the Superior of the Novitiates will be overseeing the consecration with banner bearers on either side and the remaining Novitiates as an audience- so very non-standard deployment.

 

Agents of a fledging Chaos Cult will try to interrupt the ritual and kill the Saint's effigy in order to discredit both the Sororitas and the noble house from which the effigy was selected. The game will skew toward a Sisters victory for Narrative purposes, but the Chaos forces have an opportunity to distinguish themselves in the eyes of the gods- the MVP from the chaos force will be gifted with psychic powers as a result of the battle.

 

The problem is I'm a painfully slow painter, and sometimes whole editions come and go before I'm ready to play a game worthy of batrepping. This why I wish OTHER people would lead the way, posting monthly batreps in an ongoing Narrative that really examines how Crusade Battle Honours and Requisitions can shape the narrative and be assigned based in in-game, on-table events. But NO ONE is doing that, and it sucks, because I'm not prolific enough to lead by example. 

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Timberley said:

If needed, they can produce a database for tournament players that has a list of 'allowed' units, such that players can have fun with the stuff they have, and tournament players can restrict themselves to the units that aren't OP or rubbish.

No. Everything needs to be allowed and balanced as such. Just because your group would be fine with GW making the Librarian Dread 300 points doesn't mean anyone else should accept that. 

[Evil Eye]

6 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Everything needs to be allowed and balanced as such.

The problem with this line of thinking is it leads to a massive "flattening" of the game. If everything has to be allowed and balanced against everything else in a tournament setting, then units can't actually be that different from each other, often to a ridiculous degree; this gives us such wonders as Guardsmen shooting a Chaos Knight to death with lasguns, something that doesn't make any sense on any level. And that's an extreme example- really, armoured tanks should be impervious to small arms fire given that the entire reason tanks exist was to provide a weapon that cannot be overcome by machine guns.

 

For such a game as you want to exist, you have a few options:

1: Abstract the game to make everything capable of fighting everything else such that any sense of immersion is completely gone and a sufficiently large mob of Gretchin can swarm a Monolith (which sucks and makes the game feel like a tabletop video game, and not even a good one!).

2: Remove balance "outliers" from the game altogether, so no super-heavies or mega-characters like Abaddon or Guilliman (which will never happen in a million years because GW makes too much money selling massive centrepiece models that should never have left Apocalypse).

3: Treat tournaments as a completely separate system, with their own format and ban lists so the main game can be as crazy as you want but tournament players can enjoy a more balanced, streamlined experience (honestly the best solution IMO- high-level competitive play should be kept segregated from mainline casual play, as it allows both approaches to be tailored and improved to their respective audiences.)

 

On that note, one massive problem GW seems to have with 40K is trying to force the game to appeal to every niche of hobbyists when the community is made up of many vastly different types of player, from hardcore competitive gamers who are most focused on balance to the "simulationist/fictional historical" crowd who want to play out scenarios within the 40K setting as faithfully as possible. Attempting to go with a "lowest common denominator" approach with such a myopic fanbase as 40K is a stupid idea; the saying that a product for everyone pleases no-one is especially true here. GW either needs to pick a camp and focus solely on them (either way, they're going to have to shake things up as the current approach to rules is untenable) or accept that if they want to appeal to everyone they need to employ different tactics to appeal to the different camps within the community.

[HeadlessCross]

28 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

The problem with this line of thinking is it leads to a massive "flattening" of the game. If everything has to be allowed and balanced against everything else in a tournament setting, then units can't actually be that different from each other, often to a ridiculous degree; this gives us such wonders as Guardsmen shooting a Chaos Knight to death with lasguns, something that doesn't make any sense on any level. And that's an extreme example- really, armoured tanks should be impervious to small arms fire given that the entire reason tanks exist was to provide a weapon that cannot be overcome by machine guns.

 

For such a game as you want to exist, you have a few options:

1: Abstract the game to make everything capable of fighting everything else such that any sense of immersion is completely gone and a sufficiently large mob of Gretchin can swarm a Monolith (which sucks and makes the game feel like a tabletop video game, and not even a good one!).

2: Remove balance "outliers" from the game altogether, so no super-heavies or mega-characters like Abaddon or Guilliman (which will never happen in a million years because GW makes too much money selling massive centrepiece models that should never have left Apocalypse).

3: Treat tournaments as a completely separate system, with their own format and ban lists so the main game can be as crazy as you want but tournament players can enjoy a more balanced, streamlined experience (honestly the best solution IMO- high-level competitive play should be kept segregated from mainline casual play, as it allows both approaches to be tailored and improved to their respective audiences.)

 

On that note, one massive problem GW seems to have with 40K is trying to force the game to appeal to every niche of hobbyists when the community is made up of many vastly different types of player, from hardcore competitive gamers who are most focused on balance to the "simulationist/fictional historical" crowd who want to play out scenarios within the 40K setting as faithfully as possible. Attempting to go with a "lowest common denominator" approach with such a myopic fanbase as 40K is a stupid idea; the saying that a product for everyone pleases no-one is especially true here. GW either needs to pick a camp and focus solely on them (either way, they're going to have to shake things up as the current approach to rules is untenable) or accept that if they want to appeal to everyone they need to employ different tactics to appeal to the different camps within the community.

Bad argument is bad. A balanced game is better for the casual crowd. If 2000 points of Space Marines was strictly better than 6000 points of Tyranids to begin with, then how are you supposed to simulate a last stand of 2000 points of Marines vs that ridiculously large number of models?

 

Your argument also relies on assuming balancing can't really be done to begin with, which is strictly untrue. GW simply needs to make that effort instead of y'all giving them excuses. 

 

Also Lasguns aren't just taking down Knights of any kind. They weren't killing Baneblades either. Every time this garbage pops up it's always someone that's "new  bad, old better" when forgetting the game was even more unwildly balanced for codices, internally and externally. 

[tychobi]

I figure Legend status serves it's purpose. Reminds us old farts to buy new models once in a while? 

[Evil Eye]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

A balanced game is better for the casual crowd.

Casual/narrative players on the whole aren't concerned with razor-tight balance, and are far better at exercising self-restraint when list-building. What is good balance for a tournament environment makes for a dry and boring experience for the narrative gamer. If they're playing a game in a narrative campaign about the Death Guard they aren't going to be bringing in Thousand Sons even if they could through some obscure loophole. The kind of balance needed for tournaments is also incompatible with a lot of the more fun and flavourful parts of the game; Chaos factions should in theory be far more luck-based and dependent on risk/gambles than Imperial ones for example, which doesn't really work with tournaments and their need for tightly controlled variables.

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

If 2000 points of Space Marines was strictly better than 6000 points of Tyranids to begin with, then how are you supposed to simulate a last stand of 2000 points of Marines vs that ridiculously large number of models?

I can't think of Tyranids ever being that much worse than Marines even in the dark days of 5th edition. And such a last stand would ideally be done with a custom scenario, rather than one of the basic out-the-book matches. Asymmetrical scenarios such as that are never going to work in a tournament setting; should that mean they shouldn't be considered when writing the rules?

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

Your argument also relies on assuming balancing can't really be done to begin with, which is strictly untrue. GW simply needs to make that effort instead of y'all giving them excuses. 

When Chess is quite heavily unbalanced such that White has a notable advantage by virtue of going first, in what is without a doubt the most balanced and symmetrical a game can possibly be then what chance does 40K have when half the appeal is the incredibly asymmetric nature of the game, with no two forces looking alike and being played on a variety of battlefields? Balance by its very nature involves removing variables and asymmetry, which again, goes kinda counter to the spirit and appeal of the game.

As for GW "making that effort" they HAVE been making that effort, and every time they've failed miserably. Either GW needs to focus on making the game fun or outsource the rules to someone else.

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

Also Lasguns aren't just taking down Knights of any kind. They weren't killing Baneblades either. Every time this garbage pops up it's always someone that's "new  bad, old better" when forgetting the game was even more unwildly balanced for codices, internally and externally. 

Maybe not frequently, but the fact they theoretically can at all is poor. As for "new bad old better", there's plenty that newer 40K gets right (I like movement as a value, and there's plenty of great models) but even putting aside the fact that balance is not the only metric to judge a game system by, claiming balance has been anything other than sidegraded at absolute best is a hell of a claim.

[Special Officer Doofy]

On 10/9/2024 at 1:59 PM, HeadlessCross said:

If 3D printing and bitz sellers online didn't exist, yeah it would be "predatory". As it is, it's just GW trying to cut other people out of the market with their bad kit designs to begin with. 

 

No it's still predatory. If you have to buy 3rd party 3d printed parts or buy a second box just to get bits to make a possible load out for one kit, that's predatory. The parts should be in the box. GW was hoping you bought two kits to make one.

 

3 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

this gives us such wonders as Guardsmen shooting a Chaos Knight to death with lasguns, something that doesn't make any sense on any level

 

Yeah but that's because of how representation works in mini wargaming. In the lore a knight would just plow through thousands of guardsmen, but you can't represent that on the table. Things have to have points value assigned to them and be able to interact with other things on the table. If things of lesser points value shouldn't be able to interact with something of much greater points value like a knight, then knights don't belong in the game. Non interaction is bad for the game. A 4+ BS S3 0ap 1D lasgun will take over 790 shots on average to bring down a T12 22W 3+ save knight. I don't think it happens as often as people glamoring for AV back thinks it does.

Edited October 10 by Special Officer Doofy

[Orion]

20 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

No it's still predatory. If you have to buy 3rd party 3d printed parts or buy a second box just to get bits to make a possible load out for one kit, that's predatory. The parts should be in the box. GW was hoping you bought two kits to make one.

 

 

Yeah but that's because of how representation works in mini wargaming. In the lore a knight would just plow through thousands of guardsmen, but you can't represent that on the table. Things have to have points value assigned to them and be able to interact with other things on the table. If things of lesser points value shouldn't be able to interact with something of much greater points value like a knight, then knights don't belong in the game. Non interaction is bad for the game. A 4+ BS S3 0ap 1D lasgun will take over 790 shots on average to bring down a T12 22W 3+ save knight. I don't think it happens as often as people glamoring for AV back thinks it does.

 

So putting a heavy bolter in a tactical squad datasheet is "predatory" in 2024.

Where did this line of thinking come from?

[Robbienw]

I see the word predatory is being misused again.

 

Its used in corporate ethics guidance terms a lot in recent years, it seems to have filtered its way down into the mainstream and people are incorrectly using it to describe things they don't personally like.

 

A marine tactical squad having extra options, without those parts being in the box but because it is part of a modular range of kits, is not predatory behaviour 

[Special Officer Doofy]

10 minutes ago, Orion said:

So putting a heavy bolter in a tactical squad datasheet is "predatory" in 2024.

Where did this line of thinking come from?

 

GW not putting the correct parts in the box is bad and is a turn off to new hobbiest. If 10 tactical marines can take 1 of any special weapon and 1 of any heavy weapon, there should be one of each in the box. You should not have to buy other GW kits (or 3rd party) to make a load out possible in the first kit, which is something GW finally came to terms with and is correcting datasheets (or moving stuff to legends). 

[Special Officer Doofy]

1 minute ago, Robbienw said:

I see the word predatory is being misused again.

 

Its used in corporate ethics guidance terms a lot in recent years, it seems to have filtered its way down into the mainstream and people are incorrectly using it to describe things they don't personally like.

 

A marine tactical squad having extra options, without those parts being in the box but because it is part of a modular range of kits, is not predatory behaviour 

 

Predatory definition B Merriam webster: inclined or intended to injure or exploit others for personal gain or profit. 

 

Exploiting others (the customer) because they don't put all the parts in the box to make a possible load out with the hopes you purchase another of their products to get the bit for profit.

[Orion]

14 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

GW not putting the correct parts in the box is bad and is a turn off to new hobbiest. If 10 tactical marines can take 1 of any special weapon and 1 of any heavy weapon, there should be one of each in the box. You should not have to buy other GW kits (or 3rd party) to make a load out possible in the first kit, which is something GW finally came to terms with and is correcting datasheets (or moving stuff to legends). 

 

That's ridiculous.

A new hobbiest doesn't need every option to enjoy a unit. I know, my first squad was a tactical squad and I built it with a missile launcher.

Later down the line I had fun picking out a plasma cannon and harvesting parts from a command squad for other sergeants etc.

That part of the hobby is fun. It made armies interesting.

 

This seems like a sticking point from your personal experience.

[Special Officer Doofy]

11 minutes ago, Orion said:

 

That's ridiculous.

A new hobbiest doesn't need every option to enjoy a unit. I know, my first squad was a tactical squad and I built it with a missile launcher.

Later down the line I had fun picking out a plasma cannon and harvesting parts from a command squad for other sergeants etc.

That part of the hobby is fun. It made armies interesting.

 

This seems like a sticking point from your personal experience.

 

And my friends, and the people in my play group, and my 2 brothers, and the whole chapterhouse lawsuit where GW didn't make kits for units they made rules for and then sued the company that did (gee if only there is a word for that).

 

It's all good though, GW is changing that part of their business model though and now is only allowing you to use what's in the box barring some older kits that I'm sure won't be around in the long term.

 

Edit: and this is getting away from the topic at hand (legends).

 

Edited October 10 by Special Officer Doofy

[Orion]

3 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

And my friends, and the people in my play group, and my 2 brothers, and the whole chapterhouse lawsuit where GW didn't make kits for units they made rules for and then sued the company that did (gee if only there is a word for that).

 

It's all good though, GW is changing that part of their business model though and now is only allowing you to use what's in the box barring some older kits that I'm sure won't be around in the long term.

 

 

"Everyone agrees with me. Trust me, bro"

 

GW agrees with you, but that doesn't help your "It's predatory and exploits the customer" line of thinking now does it?

[Special Officer Doofy]

2 minutes ago, Orion said:

 

"Everyone agrees with me. Trust me, bro"

 

GW agrees with you, but that doesn't help your "It's predatory and exploits the customer" line of thinking now does it?

 

Care to quote where I said everyone, or even one other person on the forum? I just said it's not just me and I know other people because you felt the need to call me out and say it's just a me issue when it clearly was a wider hobby issue and why GW changed direction.

 

I think the hangup is when people hear the word "predatory" they think it has to be something heinous and terrible. It's just a word, and that old part of GW business tactics fit the description.

[Grotsmasha]

Outside of Tournaments, it's baffling to me that people refuse to play, or let others play Legends models.

I think the suggestion that the Community should reframe to the "Sandbox" is standard, and "Tournaments" are the extra makes the most sense.

Excluding another person's models that they've sink countless hours into building and painting because GW decided "we're not going to update this model/rules any further" is, imo, selfish. 

 

A Question for those who know: Are there any OP Legends units? because I get the impression, that as time moves on, they become more and more sub-optimal, and it won't be like people using Legends are doing so for advantage?

[INKS]

A yearly update to legends would be nice for rules

let it be clear these are for fun

[ThaneOfTas]

3 minutes ago, Grotsmasha said:

Are there any OP Legends units? because I get the impression, that as time moves on, they become more and more sub-optimal, and it won't be like people using Legends are doing so for advantage?

That matches my impression as well tbh. I've certainly never noticed a unit and thought that it would be crazy effective, just either fun or disappointing looking.

[Evil Eye]

2 hours ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

In the lore a knight would just plow through thousands of guardsmen, but you can't represent that on the table.

And frankly Knights have no place outside of Apocalypse.