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

[Evil Eye]

12 hours ago, jaxom said:

I disagree; though I view it more like old code. I see it as eventually replaceable, but kept alive by the more specific  community that still uses it.

See the real difference is code is ephemeral and purely functional; it will eventually become objectively obsolete, and necessarily replaced, though even then replacements should be easy to drop in and not break existing systems or programmes. Models on the other hand are physical objects that we pay money for, lavish hours of attention on assembling and painting, and have sentimental attachment to. Furthermore, they never actually go obsolete as their entire function is aesthetic. Yes, they're game pieces, but being as they are essentially counters, realistically a model from the 90s and a model from the 2020s are interchangeable if they represent the same unit. The plastic Warp Spiders haven't made the RT-era metal ones spontaneously stop working.

 

It's one thing if GW make a new model of an existing unit and give it additional options that it didn't have originally; if we got, say, a new Land Raider and it came with a build option for a new variant with plasma cannon sponsons and a twin-linked multi-melta turret, that's not making people's existing models obsolete, it's just adding a new option that wasn't there before. If the new Land Raider build option replaced the old one entirely and the new one was relegated to Legends before eventually being deleted altogether, that's not OK. These things are not supposed to have expiration dates, especially with the prices we pay for them.

[Mogger351]

43 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

See the real difference is code is ephemeral and purely functional; it will eventually become objectively obsolete, and necessarily replaced, though even then replacements should be easy to drop in and not break existing systems or programmes. Models on the other hand are physical objects that we pay money for, lavish hours of attention on assembling and painting, and have sentimental attachment to. Furthermore, they never actually go obsolete as their entire function is aesthetic. Yes, they're game pieces, but being as they are essentially counters, realistically a model from the 90s and a model from the 2020s are interchangeable if they represent the same unit. The plastic Warp Spiders haven't made the RT-era metal ones spontaneously stop working.

 

It's one thing if GW make a new model of an existing unit and give it additional options that it didn't have originally; if we got, say, a new Land Raider and it came with a build option for a new variant with plasma cannon sponsons and a twin-linked multi-melta turret, that's not making people's existing models obsolete, it's just adding a new option that wasn't there before. If the new Land Raider build option replaced the old one entirely and the new one was relegated to Legends before eventually being deleted altogether, that's not OK. These things are not supposed to have expiration dates, especially with the prices we pay for them.

 

Devil's advocate here, the spartan has contemporary rules and is a current game piece for the game setting it's produced and marketed for. The issue is expecting it to be maintained indefinitely for something that isnt it's intended system.

 

To go back to the code issue, you wouldn't expect continued support of a Windows based game on Linux indefinitely, regardless if you have the physical disk.

[Evil Eye]

36 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

The issue is expecting it to be maintained indefinitely for something that isnt it's intended system.

The thing is though, the cost of "maintenance" is so low that there really is no excuse to not.

[Karhedron]

37 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Devil's advocate here, the spartan has contemporary rules and is a current game piece for the game setting it's produced and marketed for. The issue is expecting it to be maintained indefinitely for something that isnt it's intended system.

 

The problem is that 40K has been designated as a foreign system retrospectively. When the Spartan (and other HH vehicles) were first introduced to 40K, we had a reasonable expectation that it would remain playable in that system going forwards. I can see moving them to Legends but to actually scrap the datasheet and say to simply proxy it as a Land Raider feels like a betrayal.

 

To continue with the code metaphor, this is not like some code being obsoleted. It is like an online library deleting a show that subscribers had previously had access to. There is no reason to do it and it feels just as bad in 40K as it does to lose access to something that you have already paid for.

[Mogger351]

12 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

The problem is that 40K has been designated as a foreign system retrospectively. When the Spartan (and other HH vehicles) were first introduced to 40K, we had a reasonable expectation that it would remain playable in that system going forwards. I can see moving them to Legends but to actually scrap the datasheet and say to simply proxy it as a Land Raider feels like a betrayal.

 

To continue with the code metaphor, this is not like some code being obsoleted. It is like an online library deleting a show that subscribers had previously had access to. There is no reason to do it and it feels just as bad in 40K as it does to lose access to something that you have already paid for.

 

16 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

The thing is though, the cost of "maintenance" is so low that there really is no excuse to not.

 

I can see why some people are annoyed but at the same time I also understand them not wanting to constantly peddle more legends datasheets than codex ones every cycle.

 

When there's a codex worth of entries the cost of maintenance is higher than you're suggesting.

 

Realistically allowing it in the first place was the issue and this is them trying to soften the blow as gently and slowly as they can.

 

I don't buy into the idea that I'm entitled to rules for every mini until the end of time and I acknowledge there is a volume/cost limitation to it now digital army builders and apps are involved. It sucks not getting that offcial stamp, but sitting with the 10th profile, amending it to match weapon profiles and rules to a comparative entry and then finger in air points costs with your gaming group seems a fine way to continue however.

[LostTemplar]

You can always play with older editions and older models. 

 

Using older models in newer editions should be ok, but its expected that models need to be refreshed.

 

GW is a games company afterall, and needs to sell in order to survive, otherwise, it goes under. Like it was close to doing a few years back, if I'm not mistaken. So its expected that miniatures get remade and collections/forces become invalid, otherwise the company would go bankrupt. 

 

8th edition and onwards has been a massive refresh in terms of models and rules, and even the scale itself of the game changed. 

 

I liked the previous scale the better, as it felt more tactical, where the current game feels like magic the gathering, where units attack other units and the targets disappear.

 

 

[phandaal]

3 hours ago, LostTemplar said:

So its expected that miniatures get remade and collections/forces become invalid, otherwise the company would go bankrupt. 

 

Counterpoint - BattleTech, the #2-selling miniatures line in North America after 40k (more than AoS, ToW, Star Wars Legion, and everything else).

 

BattleTech has been around since 1984, which makes it older than 40k and almost as old as Warhammer in general.

 

BattleTech just keeps adding to what already exists. Old units stay playable even if they are no longer sold, or if they have become rare or extinct in the current setting (looking at you, Leviathan dreads). Their restrictions are usually because of era or faction availability, not because the unit has been deleted from official rules, and that explicitly does not affect a unit's "legality." The official Master Unit List from Catalyst actually still tracks something like 8,700 unit variants.

 

Even the notorious Unseen designs, which FASA literally could not keep depicting because of legal/IP issues, were not invalidated. Their rules stayed usable, and their designs were eventually reworked so the company could start depicting them again.

 

TLDR: BattleTech has spent 40+ years selling new stuff without having to make the old stuff stop working.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I feel the difference is in balancing.  BattleTech has used three different point systems for balancing across its lifetime -- Combat Value, Battle Value 1, and Baftle Value 2 -- and BV2 has been the point system of record for decades at this point.  It's also a published system so the players know exactly why certain things are pointed how they are.  GW doesn't do that, and they change the point values for everything with every new edition cycle.  CGL doesn't need to go rebalance all 8700 units every three years, but GW *does* need to rebalance several hundred units every three years.  I can understand dropping Legends units to cut down on development time, even if I don't agree with it.

Edited October 8 by Iron Father Ferrum

[Mogger351]

2 hours ago, phandaal said:

 

Counterpoint - BattleTech, the #2-selling miniatures line in North America after 40k (more than AoS, ToW, Star Wars Legion, and everything else).

 

BattleTech has been around since 1984, which makes it older than 40k and almost as old as Warhammer in general.

 

BattleTech just keeps adding to what already exists. Old units stay playable even if they are no longer sold, or if they have become rare or extinct in the current setting (looking at you, Leviathan dreads). Their restrictions are usually because of era or faction availability, not because the unit has been deleted from official rules, and that explicitly does not affect a unit's "legality." The official Master Unit List from Catalyst actually still tracks something like 8,700 unit variants.

 

Even the notorious Unseen designs, which FASA literally could not keep depicting because of legal/IP issues, were not invalidated. Their rules stayed usable, and their designs were eventually reworked so the company could start depicting them again.

 

TLDR: BattleTech has spent 40+ years selling new stuff without having to make the old stuff stop working.

Battletech also functionally died off at various points iirc, wasn't it effectively a dead game with little to no investment and sales for like 20 years around the turn of the century (I love how that makes it sound ages ago).

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Iron Father Ferrum said:

I feel the difference is in balancing.  BattleTech has used three different point systems for balancing across its lifetime -- Combat Value, Battle Value 1, and Baftle Value 2 -- and BV2 has been the point system of record for decades at this point.  It's also a published system so the players know exactly why certain things are pointed how they are.  GW doesn't do that, and they change the point values for everything with every new edition cycle.  CGL doesn't need to go rebalance all 8700 units every three years, but GW *does* need to rebalance several hundred units every three years.  I can understand dropping Legends units to cut down on development time, even if I don't agree with it.

 

Right. GW's removal/replacement of units is mainly a consequence of their business choices. It does not naturally follow as an unavoidable consequence of a company choosing to either make money or go bankrupt.

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

The original creators of battletech went bankrupt and shut down did they not? And now the IP is split between Microsoft (video games), Tornate (Movies/TV) and Topps (tabletop/books) and licensed out to catalyst (models). 

 

Like the IP was effectively dead until battletech, MWO and MW5 brought back interest and that took about a decade 

Edited October 8 by Mechanicus Tech-Support

[LostTemplar]

I like battletech. In fact I just got the latest DLC of mw5, and it was great.

 

Thr counterpoint is valid, but, battletech rules dont change as much as 40k's. In fact when they didn't, GW started to go under. From 3rd Ed. To 7th Ed. the game was kinda stuck in a loop where nothing really changed in feel amd general base rules.

 

When 8th came around it did feel new. I don't like many of the changes, but I see they made forba different game.

 

But the current GW model does allow us to keep playing and getting new models and rules, at the cost of having to sometimes update our collection.

 

But with friends you can and ahould always be able to use units with different rules.

 

 

[HeadlessCross]

12 hours ago, jaxom said:

I bought a computer with Windows XP and I bought Dark Forces: Jedi Academy. Neither are supported anymore by the company that made them. Both have communities still using them. I still fail to see a difference between that and my Vindicator.

Because you're actively using the game and not the Vindicator?

8 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

 

 

I can see why some people are annoyed but at the same time I also understand them not wanting to constantly peddle more legends datasheets than codex ones every cycle.

BECAUSE LEGENDS AS A CONCEPT SHOULD NOT EXIST

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Mechanicus Tech-Support said:

The original creators of battletech went bankrupt and shut down did they not? And now the IP is split between Microsoft (video games), Tornate (Movies/TV) and Topps (tabletop/books) and licensed out to catalyst (models). 

 

Like the IP was effectively dead until battletech, MWO and MW5 brought back interest and that took about a decade 

 

Sort of, but not actual bankruptcy. FASA closed its publishing operations, and BattleTech went through some IP craziness with the various rights parceled out all over the place. So it is telling that BattleTech survived substantial business disruption, changed hands, rebuilt its commercial presence, and continued maintaining the original tabletop game and supporting decades-old designs throughout.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Legends is the ONLY reason I still think about playing and collecting 40k.

Saying it "shouldn't exist" is a tad presumptuous. 

[ThaneOfTas]

18 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Legends is the ONLY reason I still think about playing and collecting 40k.

Saying it "shouldn't exist" is a tad presumptuous

Depends, they could just mean that all models should just be supported the same, rather than arguing that everything currently legends should just be removed.

[HeadlessCross]

27 minutes ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Legends is the ONLY reason I still think about playing and collecting 40k.

"Models that existed should have rules removed from the core army book and be put in a different area where they don't get any point updates or rules erratas" is the only reason you think about still playing 40k, instead of demanding GW be hobby friendly?

[Lathe Biosas]

I've been biting my tongue for a bit about this. But the comparison to BattleTech isn't 100% accurate. BattleTech is built around different historical "Eras."

 

Each Era, from the Age of War to the ilClan has specific models and specific rules you can play with.

 

No one really wants to read about each individual Era this so I made it a spoiler, and easy to skip: 

 

Spoiler

Age of War | 2398 – 2570 | The birth of the BattleMech. Armor is heavy, weapons are primitive, and the Great Houses are first forming their empires. 

 

Star League | 2571 – 2780 | The Golden Age. High-tech, pristine, and advanced weaponry. The entire galaxy is unified under one banner until a massive civil war tears it apart. 

 

Early Succession War | 2781 – 2900 | Total apocalypse. The Great Houses launch unrestricted nuclear and orbital strikes. Massive factory worlds are destroyed, and technology begins a rapid downward spiral. 

 

Late Succession War [LosTech] | 2901 – 3019 | Scavenger warfare ("IntroTech"). Advanced tech is lost. Mechs are treated like family heirlooms. Lasers, autocannons, and missile racks are basic, rugged, and heavily recycled. 

 

Late Succession War  [Renaissance] | 3020 – 3049 | The classic era. This is the baseline setting for many BattleTech video games (like MechWarrior 5). Lost military data cores are found, sparking a technology recovery. 

 

Clan Invasion | 3050 – 3061 | Asymmetric cultural shock. Genetically engineered warriors return from deep space with wildly overpowered "Clan Tech". Inner Sphere forces have to scramble to adapt. 

 

Civil War | 3062 – 3067 | Faction infighting. The massive Federated Commonwealth splits in half, leading to a massive civil war. Technology hits parity as Inner Sphere factions begin copying Clan weapons and inventing specialized electronic warfare gear. 

 

Jihad | 3068 – 3080 | The Word of Blake era. A cybernetically enhanced, religious splinter faction launches a sudden, genocidal holy war across the galaxy using bizarre, unpredictable, and highly experimental technology. 

 

Republic Age | 3081 – 3130 | Demilitarization. After the Jihad, a new central government forces a period of galaxy-wide peace. BattleMechs are strictly restricted, and many factions rely on modified industrial or agricultural mechs instead. 

 

Dark Age | 3131 – 3150 | The blackout. The galactic communications grid collapses entirely, throwing everyone into blind paranoia. War breaks out instantly, using whatever scrap, retrofitted militia gear, or salvage is left over. 

 

ilClan | 3151 – 3153 | The current era. Clan Wolf successfully conquers Terra, claiming the mantle of "ilClan". A brand-new era of mixed technologies, shifting borders, and modern production line mechs opens up. 

 

 

 

Personal Story:

 

I bought heavily into BattleTech during the "Jihad Era" (3067–3081). I bought a lot of Word of Blake's signature Celestial-series OmniMechs (like the Archangel, Grigori, or Devas). In world, they were nuked into oblivion, and all their tech was melted down during Stone's Republic of the Sphere.

 

The in game reason why I can't play with ANY of my models in any era that's not the Jihad era. If a group was playing a classic Succession Wars (3025) or Clan Invasion (3050) match, my Mechs literally haven't been invented yet. Conversif they are playing the modern ilClan era (3151+), the Word of Blake has been completely extinct for over a century.

 

As for the ilClan era (the current in game time), my 'Mechs are NOT SUPPORTED anymore by the rules.

 

Word of Blake variants and designs are fundamentally built around C3i (Improved C3) networks.

 

• Unlike standard Inner Sphere networks that operate in lances of 4, C3i operates exclusively in Level II blocks of 6 units.

 

• This makes them mechanically difficult to balance or integrate into standard lance-vs-lance or Star-vs-Star pickup games unless everyone is explicitly playing with Jihad-era rules.

 

Basically, even though BV may link up, my armies rely on specific rules that no one uses in the current rule set.

 

☆☆☆

 

This is why that when I tried to play BattleTech in a new shop, I learned that no one plays Jihad era, and thus my minis were relegated to a box, where they live to this day.

 

☆☆☆

 

TLDR: The idea that you can play any BattleTech 'mech you want at any time is factually incorrect. Your forces may not be supported by the current rules. Mine are not.

 

 

 

Edited October 9 by Lathe Biosas
...

[Interrogator Stobz]

6 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

"Models that existed should have rules removed from the core army book and be put in a different area where they don't get any point updates or rules erratas" is the only reason you think about still playing 40k, instead of demanding GW be hobby friendly?

That's an interesting take.

Legends has been supported with updates and points each Edition since inception.

That's very hobby friendly of GW. That's why I continue to purchase Legend units where available.

Their diminishing support is very disappointing and they will lose sales as a result.

So using the word "should" about their removal is very presumptuous. 

 

 

 

[Mogger351]

 

7 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Because you're actively using the game and not the Vindicator?

BECAUSE LEGENDS AS A CONCEPT SHOULD NOT EXIST

 

Well captain entitled, if legends as a concept don't exist you have 2 outcomes:

 

1. The are no rules for things that don't exist

2. There are rules for things that don't exist

 

You talk about being hobby friendly, well a new player entering, getting whipped by an army full of units that they can't buy isn't conducive to anyone's experience.

 

You can argue that yes it opens doors for conversions, but all you've done is put barriers in the way to new players. It's also ignoring that "hobby friendly" is subjective as to what "the hobby" actually is in the first place.

[mecanojavi99]

Some arguments really baffle me, the entire premise of Legends as a concept is "rules for units that are no longer supported in 40K" it later was also expanded to include HH units but the idea remains the same, it's meant as a repository of rules for people to use their old units and IMO instead of removing it should go even further.

 

It should be a veritable library of rules for any unit that is no longer part of the game for whatever reason, let people use they ancient as sin models in friendly games, heck, they really only need to make rules for them once every 4 years, it's not like we asking them to redo them every week.

 

And I say this as someone that only really cares about what's current, but I'm all for people using their old stuff.

[Crimson Longinus]

It is understandable that not every unit can be in production into perpetuity, and it is also understandable that GW does not want there to be units they do not currently sell in the codex. And now that the Legends are in the app, it would be fine, if OOP models consistently got Legends rules and we could trust that the rules will be maintained. But that's really not the case. What gets Legends rules and what does not is spotty, and units can randomly lose their Legends rules altogether. 

[Evil Eye]

If Legends was closer to a mix of Imperial Armour and the Citadel Journal of old I wouldn't have a problem with it. Bringing old OOP models back into the game, adding new options to existing units and providing rules for rare units like HH vehicles that can't fit in the Codex is in no way a bad thing. Case in point- in 6e WHFB the Skaven lost the Doomwheel and Vermin Lord, but both returned in the Citadel Journal for free.

 

If Legends did something like adding new options to the Intercessor squad so they could effectively be a true successor to Tactical squads (if desired) that'd be great! The problem is that isn't what Legends is. Rather than an additive document that introduces new content (or returns old content) to the game, it's become a waiting room for eventual deletion. Some models, including some rather expensive Forge World vehicles, haven't even got Legends rules anymore. And the ones that do get extremely half baked rules. Combined with the fact that the things getting sent to Legends aren't even obscure oddities but former mainstays like the Razorback and the whole thing is very unsatisfactory.

[phandaal]

7 hours ago, Lathe Biosas said:

Snip for length 

 

This is true, and I actually mentioned era and faction availability in my original post, but did not want to get too far into it. I would definitely be frustrated too if nobody in your area plays the era your army is from.

 

I do think there is an important distinction as it relates specifically to what people are talking about here, though, which is why I did not dig into that in my original post.

 

BattleTech still maintains the official rules for those units, even if a particular group or tournament does not allow them. That is different from the company removing the rules entirely, and it shows that removing units outright is not something that is done out of base necessity for a wargame.

 

The removal is by choice, for reasons others have mentioned here.

[Mogger351]

2 hours ago, Crimson Longinus said:

It is understandable that not every unit can be in production into perpetuity, and it is also understandable that GW does not want there to be units they do not currently sell in the codex. And now that the Legends are in the app, it would be fine, if OOP models consistently got Legends rules and we could trust that the rules will be maintained. But that's really not the case. What gets Legends rules and what does not is spotty, and units can randomly lose their Legends rules altogether. 

I agree that consistency and communication is incredibly poor and largely the issue here.

 

But as you note they're in the app, with codex units.

 

This makes it difficult as the only division of legitimacy or identity is arbitrary tournament restrictions, so they don't need to actually include the units in balance passes to reduce effort.

 

They're backed into a corner where there is no longer much reason for legends to be legend beyond arbitrary choices as noted.

 

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? There is 0 incentive for GW to do this and it might actually hurt them long term when people just run full legends lists of 3rd party minis and nobody can contest that as "they don't make them any more".

 

Catch 22 for GW and they've let the cat out the bag and they can't seem to decide whether to put it back in or find a way to monetise it.