Codex: Space Marines | Multi-Part Intercessor & Vanguard Vet Teaser | Legends Culling

[Evil Eye]

2 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

To those who want the entire back catalogue from before the invention of legends as a concept to be given rebalanced and updated profiles every 3 years or less?

Personally I find the whole "everything gets rebalanced every 3 years (but usually far sooner)" thing exhausting and a large part of the problem with 40K. I'd happily abandon the living system and constant balance patches if it meant units didn't get straight-up deleted.

[redmapa]

GW just overcomplicates this Legends things way too much,  part of the problem is that they cant decide what system they want for their game so they just keep resetting the whole thing for no real reason beyond pure novelty, then they have tried to play whack a mole balance with dubious success and then theres the idea that they have to cater to the tournament scene  and that means erasing things that can throw a wrench in that area.

 

Legends should follow the same system that they used in Imperial Armor but for that to happen they need to set in stone how stats are written in unit entries and maybe not update the game every 3 years or at least not nuke the entire ruleset so the same type of unit entries can be valid in future editions. The units in Imperial Armor were barely touched, hell there was a whole army list that was valid from like 4th to 7th because they followed the same ruleset that simply evolved instead becoming something entirely new and the same way IA units werent valid for most Tournaments Legends could be invalidated for Tournament play BY THE SAME TOURNAMENTS. Leave that decision to the players instead of having these units be invalidated for play in the same document that is supposed to support the use of such units.

 

Right now Legends is a graveyard because no one knows how long they are going to be supported, there is no incentive to bring those units or for GW to support these entries in the future if the list just keeps growing and they have to rewrite the whole thing every 3 years. The system sucks, its unclear and it will just keep growing ad nauseam which makes it more complicated each year.

 

It could be much simpler if GW just had a reliable core set of rules  the same way they had from 3rd to 7th.

[FarFromSam]

"We're creating legends and removing unit options to streamline the game."- gw

 

"We're adding 2 new armor types and multiple datasheets."  -gw the same year.

 

They like to remind us theyre a model company first and rules second. And then make rules that remove models.  

[Orange Knight]

I am disappointed with how Legends has been handled.

 

I imagined it would be a repository for all units that have come and gone, including characters, forgeworld releases, limited edition models, etc etc.

 

Even prior to 11th edition I was disappointed that we lost rules for Red Scorpions, Minotaurs and other chapters that appeared during the Badab War. We gradually lost rules for units that had been relegated to the Horus Heresy system, such as the Scorpius, Leviathan, etc etc

 

The units that have remained in 11th edition almost seem random now. The Spartan was removed but the Kratos remained? Perhaps GW intend to re-box and re-release the Kratos as a 40k unit at some point in the future, like they've done with the Custodes range.

 

I also recognise that permanent support for ancient units might not be realistic either...

[HeadlessCross]

7 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

 

I also recognise that permanent support for ancient units might not be realistic either...

I don't buy this crap for a second because the Vindicator literally just had rules this year. 

[MoriyaSchism]

The signs were always there like the Vulture Gunship and the original Krieg Engineers and Grenadiers being absent from Legends in previous editions. There were also units available in the 8th edition index books that were later culled even from the legends line up like all the Forgeworld characters, even characters that had models. Why does GW have to copy all the bad parts from Magic the Gathering like the artificial scarcity model, by committee art and design instead of the good things like having a Legacy format for their games. Repeating all this just feels like wasted breath at this point, they just hate their old systems and the "archive" that you get when you pay for Warhammer Plus is just proof of that. I'd be actually upset about this if I didn't have access to old books. 

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

I don't buy this crap for a second because the Vindicator literally just had rules this year. 

It still does if you play 10th, or horus heresy, or chaos marines and likely will get full legends during 11th.

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

I don't buy this crap for a second because the Vindicator literally just had rules this year. 

 

I'm not talking about the Vindicator.

 

I'm referring to old models with obscure rules, things like the Helios Landraider, or the Crassus armored transport, etc etc.

 

No, they absolutely should not be erasing recently retired units from the Legends rules. Ideally I want them to maintain rules for everything, but in some cases we are talking about 25yr old obscure models that haven't been available for a long time. I'm just saying that it becomes more difficult to argue that they should also be maintained.

[Evil Eye]

4 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

I'm just saying that it becomes more difficult to argue that they should also be maintained.

And again, the amount of effort that needs to be expended to "maintain" them is so low that there is absolutely no excuse to delete them. We pay a premium for this stuff, it should NOT have an expiration date.

[HeadlessCross]

6 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

 

I'm not talking about the Vindicator.

 

I'm referring to old models with obscure rules, things like the Helios Landraider, or the Crassus armored transport, etc etc.

 

No, they absolutely should not be erasing recently retired units from the Legends rules. Ideally I want them to maintain rules for everything, but in some cases we are talking about 25yr old obscure models that haven't been available for a long time. I'm just saying that it becomes more difficult to argue that they should also be maintained.

The CRASSUS ARMORED TRANSPORT is not some obscure unit. 

6 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

 

I'm not talking about the Vindicator.

 

I'm referring to old models with obscure rules, things like the Helios Landraider, or the Crassus armored transport, etc etc.

 

No, they absolutely should not be erasing recently retired units from the Legends rules. Ideally I want them to maintain rules for everything, but in some cases we are talking about 25yr old obscure models that haven't been available for a long time. I'm just saying that it becomes more difficult to argue that they should also be maintained.

The CRASSUS ARMORED TRANSPORT is not some obscure unit. 

[NovemberIX]

I'm looking at my Helios Landraider right now and I'm surprised to find out it's an obscure unit, I mean it's been easily kitbashable using the whirlwind launcher, with nothing to say that it was one of the cheapest upgrade sets you could buy from FW. It's not like it was a Land Raider Ares which was featured on GW's site as part of their Apocalypse datasheets back in 4th and then never updated except by the creator themselves during 8th edition. 

 

When I hear the argument that some units are old or "obscure" and thus shouldn't be useable the I wonder what the motivation to reduce someone else's gaming collection stems from. Because it sounds like, oh, I didn't get those toys when they came out, so now I don't want anyone to play with them. Whatever time and money GW would put into keeping legends viable is more than offset with the continued goodwill and patronage of their customer base.

[Mogger351]

5 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

And again, the amount of effort that needs to be expended to "maintain" them is so low that there is absolutely no excuse to delete them. We pay a premium for this stuff, it should NOT have an expiration date.

Honestly this is tiring.

 

We can all agree that the 3 year cycle is somewhat of a binding for us as consumers and for GW as a producer. You're hard pressed to find someone who likes the 3 year cycle.

 

From there, I'll admit I've no idea off top of my head how many space marine datasheets there are. The abominable intelligence tells me it's ~85. That same intelligence tells me that even just the 10th legends carried over + new ones is ~110 profiles.

 

So yes, it would be a lot of effort to review, redesign and point more datasheets in the space marine codex, then add them to the app where they don't all have any historical entries. Then test the app and army building on each release/dataslate.

 

To add to that, you pay a premium for your models, this is true. Your models do not have a shelf date, they will outlive you. What you're conflating is the contemporary rules development for a unit in a game that is paired to the mini. You don't pay for the legends rules directly, so it's hard to say you pay a premium for them.

 

Except you did once (likely anyway, or the argument falls through again) pay a premium for their rules, when they were contemporary. In which case those books and rules still likely exist, they could still also outlive you.

 

So in summary, it is not feasible on a game that rewrites itself every 3 years to write functional and fair rules for hundreds of extra units and profiles with no monetary incentive for them to do so. Remember legends is, to them, a good will gesture and not a requirement.

 

This will not change unless they break the 3 year cycle and no volume of anyone demanding because they bought a thing 20 years ago it should be contemporary and relevant until they die is going to change that, or make it correct, frankly.

[hd3]

All my legends models are Horus heresy models. They're deleting rules for models they're still selling now! I bought the contemptor dreadnought less than 2 months ago.

5 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Honestly this is tiring.

 

We can all agree that the 3 year cycle is somewhat of a binding for us as consumers and for GW as a producer. You're hard pressed to find someone who likes the 3 year cycle.

 

From there, I'll admit I've no idea off top of my head how many space marine datasheets there are. The abominable intelligence tells me it's ~85. That same intelligence tells me that even just the 10th legends carried over + new ones is ~110 profiles.

 

So yes, it would be a lot of effort to review, redesign and point more datasheets in the space marine codex, then add them to the app where they don't all have any historical entries. Then test the app and army building on each release/dataslate.

 

To add to that, you pay a premium for your models, this is true. Your models do not have a shelf date, they will outlive you. What you're conflating is the contemporary rules development for a unit in a game that is paired to the mini. You don't pay for the legends rules directly, so it's hard to say you pay a premium for them.

 

Except you did once (likely anyway, or the argument falls through again) pay a premium for their rules, when they were contemporary. In which case those books and rules still likely exist, they could still also outlive you.

 

So in summary, it is not feasible on a game that rewrites itself every 3 years to write functional and fair rules for hundreds of extra units and profiles with no monetary incentive for them to do so. Remember legends is, to them, a good will gesture and not a requirement.

 

This will not change unless they break the 3 year cycle and no volume of anyone demanding because they bought a thing 20 years ago it should be contemporary and relevant until they die is going to change that, or make it correct, frankly.

 

I mean the obvious counter argument to that is does the game necessarily need to be reset every 3 years?? I'm fairly confident GW could operate on a five or seven year edition cycle and still make slightly more money than god

[NovemberIX]

7 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

So in summary, it is not feasible on a game that rewrites itself every 3 years to write functional and fair rules for hundreds of extra units and profiles with no monetary incentive for them to do so. Remember legends is, to them, a good will gesture and not a requirement.

 

Your argument in essence is that we don't pay them enough to take care of us, their client base. Then why are we paying these massive margins on plastic if not for them to support them in the game they make? Why would I buy anything new if I know that in a set number of years it won't be useable except for gathering dust. 

 

I basically just want to be able to play 40K with the full breadth of their releases regardless of rarity or age against someone who could be bringing the newest GW has to offer, or old classics. If GW can't do that, then why should I keep giving them my money.

[Maritn]

2 hours ago, NovemberIX said:

[...] Why would I buy anything new if I know that in a set number of years it won't be useable except for gathering dust. 

[...]

 

That is the big point for me. I have several boxes I'd like to buy, I just don't know if it's a good investment when you never know if your model will have official rules in 3+ years. So I don't buy.

[Mogger351]

3 hours ago, NovemberIX said:

Your argument in essence is that we don't pay them enough to take care of us, their client base. Then why are we paying these massive margins on plastic if not for them to support them in the game they make? Why would I buy anything new if I know that in a set number of years it won't be useable except for gathering dust. 

 

I basically just want to be able to play 40K with the full breadth of their releases regardless of rarity or age against someone who could be bringing the newest GW has to offer, or old classics. If GW can't do that, then why should I keep giving them my money.

 

You're paying massive margins on the kit because you like the kits. At the time you buy them, they are supported and you can continue to play them with those rules forever if you want.

 

I won't keep reiterating it, but on one hand this isn't feasible for GW to completely maintain every edition due to the fact things change too much, too often. GW see no reason to change their operating cycle presently.

 

No amount of how much people on here say how horrible it is, or how annoying it is, or how upset they are will do anything. You can't demand things into existing. If you want them to change you have to tell them and stop paying so it becomes a financial driver. Even then I doubt it'll matter.

 

The vasty majority of products in life are disposable and have an end of support. GW is speed running it in places, but they dont have any obligation to do anything.

[Interrogator Stobz]

I have a full Battle Company of 106 Marines, all with Razorbacks, 3 of each Rhino chassis tanks, 3 Deathstorm Pods, an LR Achilles, an LR Helios, 9 Dreadnaughts, 4 squads of Bikers, 12 Landspeeders, a Falchion, 3 Sicaran variants, all are Legends now. About 65 units, most of which were playable and purchase-able in the very recent past. These are not weirdly obscure units.

I now have seven Characters, one Vengeance speeder, one Nephilm, one squad of RW Knights, one of DW Knights, three of DW termies, four LRs, and a THawk still current. Not really an army anymore, but I don't do tournaments so no big deal.

 

I had planned on getting 3 Fellblades, multiple more Sicaran variants in 3s, at least 9 more, quite a bit of spending. 

But without the bare minimum support GW need to do to keep them in Legends I'm pivoting my funds to other hobbies.

 

And it is a bare minimum, it would take someone experienced in these units a couple of days work, each edition to keep all the datasheets at least current to Edition changes.

Upgrade stats to 5s, modernize weapon changes like bolters etc.

 

Hell, I will do it for them for free.  Just a methodical check of the 110 data sheets, and adjust as required. 15 minutes per datasheet is ~18 hours of work every Edition, that's 2 painted minis worth of effort. 

Then some IT boffin can lock them into the App until 12th.

 

[Orange Knight]

20 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

The CRASSUS ARMORED TRANSPORT is not some obscure unit. 

The CRASSUS ARMORED TRANSPORT is not some obscure unit. 

 

Guys, if I had it my way, not a single datasheet would have been lost.

 

I like the idea of legends, but the execution has left a lot to be desired.

Named heroes should never have been lost, for one. This one hurts a lot.

[Crimson Longinus]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

Named heroes should never have been lost, for one. 

 

Frankly, losing bespoke rules for those is fine as long as the generic characters have the right gear options to represent the character. 

[HeadlessCross]

10 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

you can continue to play them with those rules forever if you want.

 

Ah yes, in worse balanced editions where there might not even be people in the area that do older editions to begin with. 

[Evil Eye]

10 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

The vasty majority of products in life are disposable and have an end of support.

And that's not OK either. But it's especially not OK for expensive model kits that don't fundamentally have a reason to go obsolete and are anything but disposable. The bloody things last forever- hell, Citadel miniatures from the early 80s are still perfectly useable (the dreaded lead-rot notwithstanding...), hence the high demand and asking prices for them.

 

GW is learning all the wrong lessons from the slowly collapsing videogame industry and trying to turn their product into a service rather than, well, a product.

[Mogger351]

3 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

And that's not OK either. But it's especially not OK for expensive model kits that don't fundamentally have a reason to go obsolete and are anything but disposable. The bloody things last forever- hell, Citadel miniatures from the early 80s are still perfectly useable (the dreaded lead-rot notwithstanding...), hence the high demand and asking prices for them.

 

GW is learning all the wrong lessons from the slowly collapsing videogame industry and trying to turn their product into a service rather than, well, a product.

 

Honestly are humbrol or gunpla kits as an example obsolete? They don't have contemporary rules.

 

Fundamentally I agree with you all, in am ideal world we should have a purpose of some form given to old minis, even if not direct unit entires. I just don't think the level of tantrum on display is appropriate sometimes in response to it.

 

People have probably spent more time on here being angry about a mini they want to use when they could have bodged some rules faster.

22 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Ah yes, in worse balanced editions where there might not even be people in the area that do older editions to begin with. 

And now all credibility is gone. You're arguing for imbalanced half thought out legends units being included, why does the "balanced editions" of which this one is shaping up to most definitely not be, matter?

[Evil Eye]

10 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Honestly are humbrol or gunpla kits as an example obsolete? They don't have contemporary rules.

 

False equivalency, those aren't gaming pieces.

[SvenIronhand]

Honestly, if I had my way, they’d put simple army lists for every faction in the rulebook and expand them or add twists to them in the codexes.

Edited Sunday at 07:06 PM by SvenIronhand

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

False equivalency, those aren't gaming pieces.

If you buy them purely as a gaming piece then it's likely not a smart purchase regardless. But there's the issue I guess, you're allocating the whole kits worth based on current gaming piece rules.

Edited Sunday at 08:29 PM by Mogger351