Valrak 2026 release rumours video

[Tastyfish]

Could drive a tank through the space on that sprue!

[Karhedron]

10 hours ago, Son of Rawl said:

Also, has anyone actually failed to cross over the Rubicon? 

 

Every metal special character who hasn't got a new plastic model. 

 

And Tycho

[Evil Eye]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

Leaving models in rules limbo is just as bad as removing them. At least removing the rules leaves no open interpretation to the master plan, whereas most of us understand the writing on the wall since Legends existed. 

That is definitely a take. Personally I have a better analysis; GW's "master plan" sucks.

[Interrogator Stobz]

2 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Leaving models in rules limbo is just as bad as removing them. At least removing the rules leaves no open interpretation to the master plan, whereas most of us understand the writing on the wall since Legends existed. 

Limbo is fine. In fact I am extremely appreciative to GW for it.

When Tacticals and Razorbacks go Legends ~75% of the units in my 16,000 point Marine army will be Legends. When the other rhino chassis vehicles do it will be >90%.

 

Whilst I understand your opinion, I like having rules for casual games for my guys. 

It's an online resource which costs GW next to nothing to continue, and it doesn't negatively impact on anyone. 

Wanting it to go away seems like gatekeeping.

[Larkhainan]

Legends is literally the lowest bar to cross for supporting casual games of warhammer 40k and should get more support, not less

[01RTB01]

8 hours ago, Tastyfish said:

Feels like it's usually about two months? End of July to start of September kind of thing (which is either side of the UK school summer holidays).

But sounds like this might be releasing a little earlier, in June, so end of July might be possible.

 

It would give just about enough time between the pre-orders for Armageddon to then have the starter sets released and hyped online, them do a preview show for vets, then hype the new books online again before release ahead of kids breaking up for summer.

 

But two week preorder, lull/other systems, starter sets, other systems again, then Orks and Marines release wave 1. Summer hols, release wave 2.

Would be my guess.

 

Then Tau in October, Dark Eldar November.

 

June - launch release 

July - other core sets

August - nowt as per tradition 

September - orks/ marines

October - marines/ orks 

[Antarius]

Apart from actively wanting to stoke conflict between competitive and casual players, I fail to see any reason to want Legends removed.

 

But of course the usual line is "what is good for competitive play is good for casual play", so I'm eagerly awaiting the explanation that *actually* it will be a great boon for casual players to have their armies removed (personally, I don't think it's a huge problem precisely because of Legends).

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Far from going away Legends should be better supported and integrated. 

 

Sadly I think GW is focused on the competitive scene these days. I miss when GW had the attitude that 40k was a 'beer and pretzels' game to be played with friends rather than tournaments being everything. 

[Evil Eye]

7 hours ago, Antarius said:

Apart from actively wanting to stoke conflict between competitive and casual players, I fail to see any reason to want Legends removed.

 

To play a very slight devil's advocate, "I want Legends to go away and the units within to get actual proper support" is a fair stance. Wanting the units flat-out deleted forever is ridiculous.

[phandaal]

27 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

To play a very slight devil's advocate, "I want Legends to go away and the units within to get actual proper support" is a fair stance. Wanting the units flat-out deleted forever is ridiculous.

 

Yeah, it is a question of what Legends should even be.

 

Is it a place to put units that are going away? If so, how much support does it need? If it is only temporary, why support it beyond initially putting rules there?

 

Or: is it a place to put units that are staying in the rules but are not to be used in official tournaments? If so, what does support look like there? Is it less support than "mainline" units (i.e., maybe they only get a balance pass once per year, or it only gets updated for each new edition)? Or is it the same level of support, and in that case why move them to Legends at all?

 

My impression is that people just do not want to lose the ability to play games with their units, ever. So, assuming Legends is a place for units that no longer get as much attention, maybe the right answer IS to put them there and then only give them attention once per year/once per edition.

[mecanojavi99]

IMO Legends should simply be the place people finds rules for stuff that no longer has a model due to it being discontinued for whatever reason, heck I would even expand it to cover all shorts of models that are no longer a thing from previous editions no matter how old they are, it should be a rules archive so people that happens to have one of this old models has an official way of using them, not the death row it is now.

[Lord Marshal]

The problem with the Legends debate ultimately comes down to a lot of people conflating Tournament Play as the default way to play the game. The vast majority of people aren't actually playing at tournaments, the places where Legends is explicitly said to not be allowed, but because a lot of communities treat 'tournament legal' as the default - even when their only opponents are their mates down the LFGS or club for a casual game and will never set up a ranking system - they've decided that Legends is as good as being removed from the game.

 

Notably, Horus Heresy doesn't have this issue, because the community broadly accepts Legends - okay it's called Legacies there but whatever - without any issue (there's a few rare edge cases here obviously). It's a tricky one because on one hand, saying "uhhhhh GW says Legends is fine you silly goose" feels a bit like victim blaming to the person who acts like their newly Legends'ed character has practically been squatted (if it ever 'lived' like with the that Ultramarine BL character they released the other month). On the other hand, the only thing that feels like it'd do any good is if GW rips the band aid off and says Legends units are tournament legal (even if the quiet part is that the rules would have to permanently be naff because they committed to not updating them).

 

And yeah I know somebody's going to say "well then GW should still make fully legal, balanced and updated rules for Glup Fetho from 3rd edition even though they never made a model for him" but while we're dreaming up completely fantasy scenarios I want a pony.

 

Edited April 29 by Lord Marshal

[DemonGSides]

17 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

Notably, Horus Heresy doesn't have this issue, because the community broadly accepts Legends - okay it's called Legacies there but whatever - without any issue (there's a few rare edge cases here obviously). It's a tricky one because on one hand, saying "uhhhhh GW says Legends is fine you silly goose" feels a bit like victim blaming to the person who acts like their newly Legends'ed character has practically been squatted (if it ever 'lived' like with the that Ultramarine BL character they released the other month). On the other hand, the only thing that feels like it'd do any good is if GW rips the band aid off and says Legends units are tournament legal (even if the quiet part is that the rules would have to permanently be naff because they committed to not updating them).

 

This is all a community issue, not a GW problem really. I'm involved in communities across multiple cities and none of them have issue with Legends stuff. There's one weekend a month that they don't get played cuz that's the Tournament Weekend (RQ? Does that acronym sound right?), and there usually a few games the weekend before that are explicitly asked to be "tournament style", but otherwise it's mostly either matched play style with less care about what units are or just straight up "whatever we feel like" where terrain and set ups are real casual. 

 

The take away is that there's communities for all types. We even have a 5th edition league starting. People are sick but you can always find other sickos (just kidding just kidding).

Edited April 29 by DemonGSides

[irlLordy]

It would be much easier (and preferable) for people to accept legends units in casual games if GW went and put them in the official app the same way they do for AoS. Without them there, they don't get considered for list building, nor can people look up the rules easily. Sure, they're on newrecruit or whatever, but if they're not on the official app, people are always going to be wary about how "official" the units are.

Edited April 29 by irlLordy

[NovemberIX]

24 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

The problem with the Legends debate ultimately comes down to a lot of people conflating Tournament Play as the default way to play the game. The vast majority of people aren't actually playing at tournaments, the places where Legends is explicitly said to not be allowed, but because a lot of communities treat 'tournament legal' as the default - even when their only opponents are their mates down the LFGS or club for a casual game and will never set up a ranking system - they've decided that Legends is as good as being removed from the game.

...

And yeah I know somebody's going to say "well then GW should still make fully legal, balanced and updated rules for Glup Fetho from 3rd edition even though they never made a model for him" but while we're dreaming up completely fantasy scenarios I want a pony.

 

Anecdotal story time: I've got a buddy who is just getting into the hobby, he would be and sorta wants to be a consummate narrative player, but the LGS he plays at holds regular tournaments, so all the folks there are usually playing to that standard, I've noticed it's starting to affect his play and list building style even when he plays me. For him, legends is less of a nostalgia trip or a way the keep playing his collection, it's a new world of options that he doesn't often get to play with. I'd say that's mostly a community issue, but it is exacerbated by the way GW is presenting the rules as separate tiers. 

If we're dreaming here, can I also get rules for the Land Raider Ares, the Razorback Rikarius, and the old Badab characters 

[Antarius]

22 minutes ago, irlLordy said:

It would be much easier (and preferable) for people to accept legends units in casual games if Gaw went and put them in the official app the same way they do for AoS. Within them there, they don't get considered for list building, nor can people look up the rules easily. Sure, they're on newrecruit or whatever, but if they're not on the official app, people are always going to be wary about how "official" the units are.

I think this is spot on.

I mean, I absolutely think people should just use Legends and in that way it is a community issue. But the "official line" from GW will obviously affect attitudes and not making Legends easier to access also doesn't help.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

This last page had largely been taken up by an off topic discussion between two members that were basically an ad hominem criticism and then an active response.

 

What a member may think of another's posting or quoting habits has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Portions of those posts may have engaged the thread topic, but were not readily separable and there is no way to hide only part of the post.   That said, the members are free to repost those sections which engage solely on the thread topic.

 

Please constrain all further posts to the actual topic, that being a given video and the rumours discussed in it.

 

Dr. R., friendly orange using moderator.

Edited April 29 by Dr_Ruminahui

[Kyari]

56 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

The problem with the Legends debate ultimately comes down to a lot of people conflating Tournament Play as the default way to play the game.

 

This is honestly a problem far broader than Legends and it infuriates me. They pay lip service to other ways to play but its not like they're hosting a 1000 point World Championship bracket, or a Combat Patrol World championship, or any kind of front facing events.

 

Its hard to be mad at communities for falling into the cycle of 2000 point tournament legal matched play as the default format when its the defacto public facing way to play the game per GW.  But its particularly annoying if these rumours come to pass just because they got up on stage during the reveal stream to say "Narrative and matched play won't be different" and now we're immediately in a situaton where even the rules previews they've shown us so far are quantifiably disproving that lol.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Personally, I would think that's more a problem with the marketing speech than the actual game - personally, I think its good that the rules don't appear to follow the promotion on this particular issue.  I think there should be multiple ways to play the game, even if not all of them are showcased in public forums.  For example, while Crusade wasn't for me, and was terrible (IMHO) for even narrative style events, I think it was healthy for the game that is was available for those who wanted it.

[Mogger351]

1 minute ago, Dr_Ruminahui said:

Personally, I would think that's more a problem with the marketing speech than the actual game - personally, I think its good that the rules don't appear to follow the promotion on this particular issue.  I think there should be multiple ways to play the game, even if not all of them are showcased in public forums.  For example, while Crusade wasn't for me, and was terrible (IMHO) for even narrative style events, I think it was healthy for the game that is was available for those who wanted it.

Sadly the nature of human conformity and tribalism means that people want a normal to use and a group to identify with. This pushes people away from trying these either rules and definitely are funnelled into "tournament match play style is the right way" viewpoint by GWs choice of language.

 

100% agree it's good if the rules cater for different approaches, but it doesn't make those approaches approachable for the majority as-is. 11th seems to be doubling down on that.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

While I don't disagree with you, this double speak is to, some extent, be expected.

 

The discordance between marketing speech and the rules is definitely annoying ("less rerolls in 10th", I'm looking at you), to a certain extent its unavoidable - the role of marketing is to make it look like they are doing something new and different, with the perceived problems of the previous edition addressed and resolved or improved.  The issue with this, however, is that the strengths of the system for one player may be the flaw for another.  As a result, the promotional material makes non-sense statements like "every game is narrative now" in an effort to try to make everyone happy, but resulting in the opposite as a) that's a horrible idea and b) either the statement is nonsense or they are implementing a horrible idea.  So, as I stated above, to whatever extent the statement is being revealed as nonsense is a good thing.

 

So personally, I think we are all better off largely ignoring the marketing speech around the hype and looking at how the rules actually work, when we actually get to see them.  I know that doesn't drive the hype machine, but it does help avoid the outrage one.

[Exarch Telepse-Ehto]

11 minutes ago, Kyari said:

This is honestly a problem far broader than Legends and it infuriates me. They pay lip service to other ways to play but its not like they're hosting a 1000 point World Championship bracket, or a Combat Patrol World championship, or any kind of front facing events.

 

Its hard to be mad at communities for falling into the cycle of 2000 point tournament legal matched play as the default format when its the defacto public facing way to play the game per GW.  But its particularly annoying if these rumours come to pass just because they got up on stage during the reveal stream to say "Narrative and matched play won't be different" and now we're immediately in a situaton where even the rules previews they've shown us so far are quantifiably disproving that lol.

 

As someone who has gone to the Grand Narrative event twice, I always found it disappointing how they pretend that the event isn't so much about "winning" or "losing" but telling a compelling story and then the final briefing had awards for "Most Wins," "Most Points (Imperial)," and "Most Points (Non-Imperial)." And how do you get more points? Well mostly by winning, of course. There are awards for other things but meh. I could go on a further rant about it but it would not be on topic. 

 

Legends should be better supported. The fact that its supported at all is something, I suppose. 

[Mogger351]

8 minutes ago, Dr_Ruminahui said:

While I don't disagree with you, this double speak is to, some extent, be expected.

 

The discordance between marketing speech and the rules is definitely annoying ("less rerolls in 10th", I'm looking at you), to a certain extent its unavoidable - the role of marketing is to make it look like they are doing something new and different, with the perceived problems of the previous edition addressed and resolved or improved.  The issue with this, however, is that the strengths of the system for one player may be the flaw for another.  As a result, the promotional material makes non-sense statements like "every game is narrative now" in an effort to try to make everyone happy, but resulting in the opposite as a) that's a horrible idea and b) either the statement is nonsense or they are implementing a horrible idea.  So, as I stated above, to whatever extent the statement is being revealed as nonsense is a good thing.

 

So personally, I think we are all better off largely ignoring the marketing speech around the hype and looking at how the rules actually work, when we actually get to see them.  I know that doesn't drive the hype machine, but it does help avoid the outrage one.

Again, I can't disagree with what you say, but I also feel you've missed the crux of it in that you're voicing this to a minority of the playerbase.

 

The vast majority will again live and die by what is presented as normal by GW, which is I think the issue for a fair few of us here. We're capable of doing as you suggest, a great many won't.

[Marshal Reinhard]

As much as I want the marine section to be pruned, because it's a burgeoning monstrosity the size of several other factions combined, ultimately I have to come to the same end point as I do with the killing off of named characters: "it's easy to consign someone else's characters to death to meet some arbitrary balance quota rather than your own favorites"

 

Rather than legending tacticals they should've joined them with the intercessor sheet, making one master unit for all variant loadouts. With how many recent units are just a direct translation of an older unit, it seems GW are much less trying to reinvent the wheel now anyways.

[HeadlessCross]

9 minutes ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

As much as I want the marine section to be pruned, because it's a burgeoning monstrosity the size of several other factions combined, ultimately I have to come to the same end point as I do with the killing off of named characters: "it's easy to consign someone else's characters to death to meet some arbitrary balance quota rather than your own favorites"

 

Rather than legending tacticals they should've joined them with the intercessor sheet, making one master unit for all variant loadouts. With how many recent units are just a direct translation of an older unit, it seems GW are much less trying to reinvent the wheel now anyways.

The Fortis Kill Team proves it can be done if they want. 

4 hours ago, Exarch Telepse-Ehto said:

Legends should be better supported. The fact that its supported at all is something, I suppose. 

It's not supported. Ask anyone that had a Tyberos model what he does now.