What, if anything, should GW do about Legends

[Tawnis]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

If you can't handle Knights, you can't handle a Guard Tank Company. Why aren't you speaking up against that?

 

To hopefully help close off this tangential discussing and get the post back to Legends units...

 

As someone who mains an army that has trouble with tank heavy lists, there is a big difference between guard all tanks and knights. When facing against guard, the tanks are designed as a supporting role to the army, they can be taken as a whole army sure, but you're given appropriate disadvantages, terrain becomes a big obstacle, you can't fight well in close combat, and you can't move through other units. Sure you're hard to kill, but you're not hard to outplay. 

Knights are very different. Because they can ONLY be played as a giant heavy list, they need to have ways around this or they wouldn't be viable. So they can crash through buildings like they practically not there, they can move through infantry to not get bogged down, and many of them have great melee profiles. Every tool aside from big giant guns that you can use to combat vehicle heavy lists in every other faction, just doesn't work on Knights. This is what leads to the imbalance, they by their nature as an army have to ignore all the things that could keep them in check in order for them to be viable. Finding the middle ground in this of enough to be viable, but not enough to be meta warping, is I imagine technically possible, but incredibly difficult. 

 

IMHO they should have stayed as the one off free-blade style unit, but then GW wouldn't have made anywhere near as much money on the kits, so here we are... 

Edited October 11 by Tawnis

[phandaal]

33 minutes ago, alfred_the_great said:

And this thread demonstrates why GW can never please anyone.

 

Surely you mean "never please everyone"?

 

Afer all, they are the most successful wargaming company in history.

 

One assumes they do this by selling things that please some people, at least some of the time.

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Kallas said:

I have spoken up against things like the removal of the Force Organisation Chart which has allowed Guard Tank Companies to be fielded without any attenuating circumstances.

Why aren't you digging through all of my posts to find that out 

 

Yes, a Tank army is also a skew - Knights are simply one example of such things, not the only thing people have issue with.

Guard had an army list before that allowed the running of Tank Companies, so that's just flat out wrong. 

[Marshal Mittens]

I would rather legends be for OOP characters and units, and for everything else to stay in the codex and for tournament circuits to release "ban lists" of stuff you can't bring. 

[Kallas]

7 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Guard had an army list before that allowed the running of Tank Companies, so that's just flat out wrong. 

Um, no? I am well aware of their previous army list, that doesn't make my point wrong: that list had significant drawbacks in a time period where tanks operated in a substantially different manner (eg, one AT weapon could kill a tank in one shot if it rolled medium-well, and otherwise do significant disabling with a poor roll - Crew Stunned meant the whole tank could not shoot for a turn, back when tanks could not fight in melee).

 

That Knights and similar forces have more skew potential than that singular example from prior editions is not disproven by the existence of the Armoured Company list in 3rd Edition. It's also worth noting that the Armoured Company specifically included the "Lucky Glancing Hits" rule to enable a wider variety of things that could damage the tanks, and the "Infantry Support" rule meaning tanks literally couldn't move close to enemy infantry units without their own infantry units nearby - that's the designers building in mitigating factors for this one specific army list that otherwise skews the game. 10th Ed Knights and similar forces don't have as many mitigating factors.

 

Anyway, definitely diverging from Legends - I guess tangentially, there can be an argument made for some units being restricted, but I'd say that definitely doesn't include older units of equivalent power level to basic infantry or medium-level tanks.

[Indy Techwisp]

Oh hey, Legends thread.

 

Probably controversially, I think GW should "do more" with Legends.

But not like "GW should update Legends every year" or "GW should rotate some units in and out to spice up the game" or anything.

 

Instead, I think GW should have a "Legends Tourney", maybe only once a year or so, where they open the Floodgates and let Legends units loose on the competitive scene.

I wanna see what kind of weird strats people come up with when they have access to all the profiles usually lock out of reach of the Tourney Min-Maxxers or Optimisers.

[Bouargh]

13 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

 

Instead, I think GW should have a "Legends Tourney", maybe only once a year or so, where they open the Floodgates and let Legends units loose on the competitive scene.

I wanna see what kind of weird strats people come up with when they have access to all the profiles usually lock out of reach of the Tourney Min-Maxxers or Optimisers.

 

 

This is probably the most interesting suggestion that raised from this thread. Instead of probably I should have used "certainly".

[Tawnis]

46 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

Oh hey, Legends thread.

 

Probably controversially, I think GW should "do more" with Legends.

But not like "GW should update Legends every year" or "GW should rotate some units in and out to spice up the game" or anything.

 

Instead, I think GW should have a "Legends Tourney", maybe only once a year or so, where they open the Floodgates and let Legends units loose on the competitive scene.

I wanna see what kind of weird strats people come up with when they have access to all the profiles usually lock out of reach of the Tourney Min-Maxxers or Optimisers.

I think they do. I'm pretty sure that the GW Grand Narrative event at Warhammer World encourages Legends units. 

Though I'm pretty sure that's the only large organized tournament that does. 

Edited October 11 by Tawnis

[Timberley]

6 hours ago, Robbienw said:

 

Quite the opposite, I've shown why it had no validity.  There were historical options there they couldn't fulfill in plastic (although they did manage it with special weapons, combi-weapons and close combat weapons), which were provided for by a massive amount of spares in another box.

 

There is no way someone collecting Space Marines pre-2017 wouldn't have got at least 1 Devastator box.

 

If they'd taken away all the heavy weapons, save the missile launcher, in 2013 then you would be complaining about weapon options being removed from tacticals.  If they had added an extra sprue with all the heavy weapons and increased the price by 25%, you'd be saying that you'd been deliberately fleeced by GW making you pay more for extra weapons you could have gotten from the Devastator box  

I got the Imperial Space Marines box back in the early 90s (for the pr:cuss:y sum of £11.99 nostalgia fans), which came with flamers and missile launchers, and painted them up to be Space Wolves (Ragnar had just been released iirc).  One of my mates gave me some spares to add to my guys when he bought a Devastator squad.  I've not bought a Devastator squad yet... As for your last paragraph, I'd have been fine with it, but then I've been pragmatic about GW since the late 90s.

 

However, we're getting off-topic, as reminded by @INKS.  How do you suggest GW handle the units that're either in Legends or currently have no rules?  As you point out they could've removed all of the weapon options in 2013 (why then - I'm curious), which would've made their job of balancing the rules much easier, and made it easier to transition them to Legends or whatever we want to call it when they introduced Primaris, and made Legends units an option for campaign/narrative play (albeit without the amount of balance passes that GW makes for 'main' units).  That way, whilst the tournament types could've had a strict list of allowed units (those in current Codices), the narrative players could've had the full range of options to make 'their dudes' and dealt with the consequences against someone running an equally fluffy list (as we do in Necromunda).  

 

On a broader level, were it not for the lack of Xenos, I get the feeling that those who like the granularity of squad loadouts costing different points should look at HH as an alternative rules system.

Edited October 11 by Timberley
Interesting word filter! Where it has the swearie, substitute the word for comically small amount of money (in modern terms) beginning with 'p' ...

[phandaal]

2 hours ago, Timberley said:

(for the pr:cuss:y sum of £11.99 nostalgia fans)

 

The censored part is not a word I have ever seen someone attempt to use seriously on this website, but maybe that was just the filter doing its job. 

 

On the topic of Legends, as long as those units are considered unofficial or unbalanced, people will push away from them. Showcasing the units more in GW-sponsored events sounds like a great way to get people interested in using them, but I am still not sure what the incentive would be for Games Workshop themselves, beyond grognard satisfaction.

[Indy Techwisp]

2 hours ago, phandaal said:

The censored part is not a word I have ever seen someone attempt to use seriously on this website, but maybe that was just the filter doing its job. 

Ah yes, the classic Shorpe problem.

 

2 hours ago, phandaal said:

On the topic of Legends, as long as those units are considered unofficial or unbalanced, people will push away from them. Showcasing the units more in GW-sponsored events sounds like a great way to get people interested in using them, but I am still not sure what the incentive would be for Games Workshop themselves, beyond grognard satisfaction.

It's simple:

1. Host Tourneys where Legends are allowed.
2. Get people excited for old Models with good Legends rules.
3. Run limited time Print-On-Demand campaigns for those units at around 200% markup.
4. Profit.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I haven't played 40k since Legends gutted 26 of my units.

Although a few mates don't mind playing them, pick up games and tournaments are out. So I lost interest.

Until they allow them back officialy, I'm happy to be a bystander. 

[DemonGSides]

Pickup games are specifically cool with legends. It's misconstrual like that that continues the "Legends = bad" thought process. 

[Tawnis]

3 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

It's simple:

1. Host Tourneys where Legends are allowed.
2. Get people excited for old Models with good Legends rules.
3. Run limited time Print-On-Demand campaigns for those units at around 200% markup.
4. Profit.

Yeah, it's not like that aren't already brining older models out of the vault every so often, makes sense that they would want people to buy them when they come back. 

[ThaneOfTas]

9 hours ago, Timberley said:

On a broader level, were it not for the lack of Xenos, I get the feeling that those who like the granularity of squad loadouts costing different points should look at HH as an alternative rules system.

Look trust me 30k interests me a lot, I've started building an army for it, but getting people to play with is much more difficult, plus regardless I've still got to buy new kits either way, so GW win either way. 

[Kallas]

8 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

Pickup games are specifically cool with legends. It's misconstrual like that that continues the "Legends = bad" thought process. 

This has been gone over many times before: the simple fact that Legends are sequestered away in a separate document is not insignificant part of why there is an issue with Legends being fielded in the first place. It is the same thing as Forgeworld 'back in the day' - many units absolutely weren't overpowered, but because one or two were, the entire thing gained a reputation and a significant part of that was the obfuscation of the available units; ie, because they were in books separate from the Codex, and models not stocked in GW stores then people were more prone to mistrust. Legends is not nearly as bad as that kind of foggy information, but it still lends itself to issues. 

 

Further, the simple segregation of Legends units means those who play to participate in tournaments (ie, those who are actively attending organised events with Legends being restricted) are much more likely to restrict themselves from fielding Legends units, because they won't be allowed so they can't use them. While you can blame people for allowing it to colour their casual play, the best solution to the issue is to...not restrict Legends in any way. Removing the stigma of restricted units is far better than brow beating people for wanting to play in certain ways that might limit their options.

 

Legends aren't in any way overpowered or overbearing in terms of balance, there's no particularly good reason for them to be segregated out from any form of play.

Edited October 12 by Kallas

[Madao]

One thing I haven't seen in this thread. For me, Legends should be exactly it - legends. And it should gather ALL named characters from ALL 40k timelines. In other words - named characters should not be allowed in tournament play and stay in the narrative domain, where balance is not that important. You want to be able to field Yarric to replay some War for the Armageddon? Go for it. You want to run his model in tournament list? Here is your generic Commissar rules. The same for Necron Imotekh/Overlord, Calgar/Chapter Master, Greyfax/Inquisitor and so on.

Edited October 12 by Madao

[Grotsmasha]

I don't think I actually answered the question in my post, so: I think Legends should be updated once per Edition, at the start, skipping small change Editions like 8th to 9th.

[ThaneOfTas]

14 hours ago, Grotsmasha said:

I think Legends should be updated once per Edition, at the start, skipping small change Editions like 8th to 9th.

Sooo what's happening now then?

[Grotsmasha]

1 hour ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Sooo what's happening now then?

Next Edition will be the tell

[ThaneOfTas]

My point was that what you describe is what has been happening the last 3 editions, ever since legends has been a thing, so you don't think that GW should change anything?

[Emperor Ming]

1 hour ago, ThaneOfTas said:

My point was that what you describe is what has been happening the last 3 editions, ever since legends has been a thing, so you don't think that GW should change anything?

Unless they intended to bring a unit back from the dead in plastic, there not gonna do anything

 

So why even speculate

[phandaal]

5 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

Unless they intended to bring a unit back from the dead in plastic, there not gonna do anything

 

So why even speculate

 

Plastic does not guarantee anything these days, even when GW marketing encourages people to buy... RIP Leviathans!

[Grotsmasha]

15 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

My point was that what you describe is what has been happening the last 3 editions, ever since legends has been a thing, so you don't think that GW should change anything?

 

Then I guess, no? I don't think GW *NEEDS* to do more, but I'll second that havina a "Legends" section in the app would be a nice to have.

 

I think once an edition is more than enough for out of production units, I think it's the community that needs to alter it's perception, just like it's done with FW units.

[jaxom]

On 10/10/2024 at 2:39 PM, 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?

On 10/10/2024 at 4:27 PM, Evil Eye said:

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

*SNIP*

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?

 

Yeah, I miss the days when the core rulebook included missions with things like Player A has half as many points as Player B, but wins if Player B has less than half their points left, or Player A deploys in a 24" diameter circle in the middle of the board and Player B has to put at least 25% of their army on one side of the board and at most 75% on the other side.

 

I think @ThePenitentOne hit the nail on the head. There are people and groups out there who do narrative stuff, but there's no critical mass or singular effort to get it all together. It does exist to a degree; there are narrative events at conventions, just nowhere near as many as tournaments. Anecdotally, it seems like a lot of the old narrative crowd jumped ship for AoS, HH (and look at what the Mournival did for that scene), or non-GW games which makes it even harder to get those numbers and people with passion. As much as I'm not a huge fan of how ATC and ITC took over so much, I have massive respect for the guys who said "GW isn't giving us what we need, so we'll do it ourselves," and put in the work to build a community so large and strong that GW adopted them when GW decided to get back into the events scene.

Edited October 14 by jaxom
Added Mournival bit