Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So 11th is less than two and a half years away, so it's never too early to speculate.

Personally I want a soft reboot. If the psychic phase and at least partial costed-equipment are restored to the game, theoretically I could live with it. I miss subfaction identities having a meaningful impact on the table, rather than the detachment system that allows Iron Hands Bikers to be the equal of Whitescars provided they choose the correct detachment- I know some people say it minimizes Flanderization, and I get that... But I could live with that system if I had better psychic rules and some load-out changes.

It also opens up possibilities on the Crusade front, because it would leave us with sets of Crusade rules from multiple, compatible editions. Now if they take the approach we've seen so far with only updating the content when there was a deficit of content in the previous edition, 11th's Crusade content could end up being mostly duplication. But if they have a couple of designers who love Crusade and see the potential, they could use the 11th edition dexes to expand the long-term goals to provide more options to make "your dudes."

I haven't seen a post from Unit in a while, but he always found bespoke Crusade content limiting. He talked about how the Drukhari could only claim territory in Commorragh, how Sisters players would feel compelled to follow a path to Sainthood because that was the big option; about how there were paths for the Warrior, the Seer and the Outcast, but not the Pilot. He and I disagreed on a lot, but we kinda saw eye to eye on this.

Like maybe there's a path toward Canoness Superior in addition to a path to Sainthood. Maybe Fleet or Space-station based Drukhari Kabals get rules support. Maybe the Space Marine supplements that come out in 11th aren't the same as the ones that come out in 10th, but since the ed. doesn't invalidate dexes, SM players end up with a more complete set of compatible supplements than they've ever had.

Campaign books too would be compatible across editions- I felt comfortable using the 8th ed. Malleus Inquisitor in Terminator Armour even after the 9th ed. Inquisition list removed it (and I'm not even sure it went to Legends in 9th, though I know it is there now).

Now I don't think GW will usher in a golden age of Crusade, and will instead reinvent the wheel, but I do believe 11th will be a soft reset.

Anyway, time to turn it over to y'all.

What I expect:
Is that what I want & what I'll get are probably not the same thing.

As for specifics?
I'd like it if whomever writes the Legends entries for 11th would remember to include rules for
1) my original Razorback (the las/plas turret)
2) my Goff Rocker

I'd also appreciate it if for my Drukhari my Talos & Cronos would be restored to units of 1-3.

I want them to go back to point values for unit upgrades and the ability to pay for individual models in units...like it was since I started playing in 5th.

I'd like the old force organization chart back, or percentages for certain types of units. Like you need to spend 30% of your points on battleline units or something like that.

Hope: Get rid of the team that brought us 8th, 9th, and 10th. They haven't made a single improvement to the game and they need to be gone before GW can even consider 11th. It would be easier to list the rules worth keeping than those they need to replace.

Reality: We'll see even more limitations as they try to fix all the problems that they've introduced in 8th-10th and deny that there were any problems to begin with. They'll think they can repeat the same mistakes that Confrontation, AT-43, and Warmahordes have made but still get a different result.

I want to play with thematic terrain that doesn't have to be the same L-type ruin wankfest because the game is balanced so crappily it falls apart if you remove the 'you can see me' effect everywhere. Instead we'll go harder into the designers current tourney player fetish and 40K will be an IP only at that point.

It's really difficult to tell what they'll do. 9th was the most successful version of the game they'd ever made and yet they did one survey where a bunch of people said it was too complicated and decided to blow everything up and start again.

There's like negative hype for codexes currently, so we'll see what kind of legs 10th has. I know a lot of people who are already bored of it.

 Bosskelot wrote:
It's really difficult to tell what they'll do. 9th was the most successful version of the game they'd ever made and yet they did one survey where a bunch of people said it was too complicated and decided to blow everything up and start again.

There's like negative hype for codexes currently, so we'll see what kind of legs 10th has. I know a lot of people who are already bored of it.

The problematic thing about that is that 9th wasn't a complex game system. It was just bloated with rules layering from multiple sources. GW continues to learn the wrong lessons and instead of fixing the conditions that caused rapid bloating, they gut everything (again) and still leave a fairly bare bones game system that can just end up bloating again as people find the core gameplay boring.

As for 11th. I wish GW would abandon all the tournament focus and make a game that has a core ruleset that is a complete game and the codex is just the unit roster with a hand full of faction specific rules that give the army their flavor (example being markerlights for Tau or the WAAAAGH for Orks). IGUG needs to go away as much as I like how it worked back in 7th because it causes A LOT of the balance problems in the game.

There needs to be more gameplay mechanics and options for what a unit can do besides just move, shoot, chop, die. There needs to be reactions that a unit can do when under fire/charged to allow for some degree of counter play. Unit types need to be different from each other so that they play different instead of vehicles just being meat boxes. Battlefield conditions need to play a bigger factor in how the combat goes and that includes returning of proper cover saves. Blast/template weapons need to return to give area of effect more impact in the game instead of "it's a large squad so AoE does more hits" or whatever, in particular the interaction of units being nearby each other and templates being able to hit multiple units is something that adds to the game experience as a whole (and removing IGYG will make managing squad spacing feel less tedious as your only dealing with one unit movement at a time).

GW seems to have the whole game presentation backwards because they think that having dynamic poses on their sculpts will make the game feel epic but the bare bones rules just ends up with things feeling being bland and the poses feel out of place (and has an uncanny sort of xerox effect). Relatively neutral posed models that you can assemble in a range of motions to avoid exact duplicates. The neutral poses are imo easier for the mind to imagine the battle taking place instead of having a predetermined bold pose that says "this model is leaping over a rock". Having that on a tabletop where terrain matters a lot more, gameplay mechanics allow for more decision making, and not having everything boil down to move, shoot, chop, die makes for a more exciting experience when playing the game. I mention the modeling thing as what 40k does well is giving the players the image of a battlefield with the IP specific units and models. That interest into the lore and visual of 40k is what makes them succeed and why other game systems with superior gameplay mechanics struggle because they lack that golden IP (which also causes there to usually be enough players to ensure you have someone to play the game with). People don't play 40k because it's some great tournament gameplay experience, they play it because it has Space Marines, Orks, Eldar, Sisters, the Imperial Guard, Chaos, Nids, and (many people hate to admit it) the Tau.

What will happen is probably the opposite as GW lacks lead designers that have an understanding of good game design and will continue to peck away at their slightly more complex than Risk gameplay system until they ruin the game enough that dramatic changes need to be made or people continue to throw money at GW's insanely expensive plastic figures and they continue to fail upward off the strength of their IP.

Return legends into the indizes/ codizes. Include FW as well.
Keep the App and indizes free.
Points for options.
Psychic powers and phase returned (I personally found the 8th/9th style of Psychic phase the best 40K had, it just needed a broader range of powers and not just 50 shades of mortal wounds).
Restrict stratagems to out of phase stuff like current overwatch, no kill better strats.
Introduce more interesting missions like we had them in 8th.
Give morale more impact but I don't think 40K ever had that (or in 4th only).
That's what I'd consider a soft reboot. And I'd like that.

Hard reboot I'd just add a way of alternating mechanics.

 Bosskelot wrote:
It's really difficult to tell what they'll do. 9th was the most successful version of the game they'd ever made and yet they did one survey where a bunch of people said it was too complicated and decided to blow everything up and start again.

There's like negative hype for codexes currently, so we'll see what kind of legs 10th has. I know a lot of people who are already bored of it.

I tend to agree with your takes on 9th and 10th - but I think the issue is whether the wider public do.
I mean the 8th and the 9th haters are somewhat funny. Sure, GW will get rid of the designers of their flagship game, when they saw revenue quadruple over the period...
Clearly some people didn't like it - but they seem to have been decisively outvoted by the wallets of people who did.

The problem is - as a sometimes 10th hater, I feel I could become the same dinosaur. GW's 6th month accounts showed revenue and profit were up about 10% in the second half of 2023. If they saw the same through 2024, they are going to see 10th as a success. And seemingly there are people out there who enjoy it enough to spend their money, so who am I to disagree?

Unless the numbers show a material decrease in 2024 I'd expect 11th to be an evolution of 10th rather than a reset. Frankly as I've said elsewhere, I think 10th was largely an evolution of 9th anyway from a rules perspective. They just had to reset power because the situation of faction rules, subfaction rules, purity bonus rules, on top of buffed up unit and weapon stats was silly. But they'll inevitably go down that road again. The message is probably already filtering through that there's no marketing buzz about balanced codexes (a fact we arguably saw in 8th, and probably led to the regular excesses of 9th).

I want them to throw out the trash that is 10th edition and rebuild the game properly, taking elements from 7th and fixing what sucked about that edition, using Heresy as the base since the Heresy rules are actually good.

What I bet they'll do is a soft reboot, and 12th will be the hard reboot again. Basicaly we're going to see the 8th->9th->10th churn as the new GW norm. Every other edition (so ~6 years) will be a reset.

I think we'll get the most playtested edition of all time.

Pretty happy with 10th as a baseline. I'd be glad to see them refine it and build out the areas its lacking:

- Psychic rules need to interact with something in the game. Right now its a largely meaningless keyword that just needs rules that it bypasses or is impacted by to give it meaning.

- I want an end to TLOS. Give models a height stat that can also be applied to terrain and be done with it.

- Revamp the non-choices. Where there's a clear winner look to what stands out and further differentiate its competition with more attacks or something to give them clearer roles.

Kind of a premature post considering we haven't even seen much of the sweep of GW's plans with the edition not even a year old.

I'm fine with nuPoints. Most units work fine with them and I am liberated in not having to guy units of options just to fit something else in the list. Some people miss that, but I have not as there have been plenty more compelling choices to work on.

Missions are great.

Terrain could use some "counts as ruins" diversity support.

Consolidation of the rules changes and moving towards proper digital rules.

Aside from those things 10th is far too new to have any deeper opinions. Balance has been far less chaotic and many armies are viable during an index period.

I hate that there is no equipement point costs, but I actually like fixed unit sizes, although GW as usuall is not taking advantage of the idea as some units are simply more or less efficient at different sizes.

e.g a single ripper swarm is efficient, 3? not at all. So IMO its point cost should be 20/35/45 for 1/2/3 models.

WHAT I EXPECT
A soft reset that's basically a variation on what we have now the same way 9th was to 8th. However, I'm not sure what that will look like specifically. 10th doesn't have a ton of *glaring* issues for them to easily address. The points system is probably the most controversial thing about 10th, so I sort of expect them to add some nuance to that.

Plus they'll throw in some weird "experimental" choices that will then become the major changes for 12th. .

WHAT I WANT TO KEEP
* Detachments. Sort of. I do prefer detachments-as-list-archetypes over tying them to subfactions, and I do like how the more interesting detachments can change your army's playstyle (rather than just being a power boost.) However, I'd want 11th to expand detachments. Have them change up army construction in a fashion similar to Rites of War. Give designers permission to write more extensive rules for detachments. Ex: let the sneaky detachment have a blip mechanic. Let the mounted detachment have combat speeds/turbo boosting, etc.

* Unit niches/special rules. While we probably don't need a special rule on every single unit in the game, I am very glad that GW has started using special rules to give some units roles that might not otherwise have them. Guardians generating fate points makes them useful without needing them to be super lethal or tanky. Kabalites having sticky objectives is neat. I hope they preserve that sort of thing in the future.

* USRs. I'm fine with them dropping/adding/changing USRs, but I'm glad they've embraced them as a concept again.

THINGS I WANT ADDED/CHANGED
* Drop stratagems. They were a neat concept, but after 3 editions, I don't feel like they ever quite worked out. Replace them with character abilities with the "Command" keyword. Said keyword can then be used to interact with abilities that influence a commander's ability to lead. Ex: Disrupting command extending the range of command abilities via lieutenants, voxes, etc.

* See above about expanding detachments.

* I don't like vehicles shooting out of melee targets while in melee. If ork boyz are crawling on your hull and shoving stikk bombz through the vision slits, you should be too distracted to carefully line up shots across the battlefield. Could see an argument for bringing back "defensive weapons" and only allowing those to fire while the vehicle is in melee. Which I guess is the equivalent of just sticking the Pistol keyword on vehicles' lower strength weapons. I'd also like to see most vehicles get a Lance style rule (or just Lance) on their melee attacks so that you can run enemies over/ram enemies on the charge. Also, let vehicles fall back through enemy models provided they end their fallback move outside of engagement range.

* I want more mechanics that interact with positioning and maneuvering. A crossfire mechanic. Spotters that can offset the penalties for indirect fire. More move-shoot-move. Ignoring BLOS if you're standing on tall enough terrain. Defensive benefits if you turbo boost. Maybe making units untargetable while in/on the other side of terrain provided they Hide rather than advancing, shooting, or charging. That sort of thing.

* Make meltas, blasters, and other traditionally anti-tank weapons anti-tank again. I'd be okay with them simply going up to S10 so that they can still threaten *most* tanks even if they're still swingy against land raiders.

* The points system has to change in some fashion. Going back to the old system would work, although I'll admit that had its own flaws. If they want to keep something closer to what they have now, there's this option: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/812887.page . Simpler math than the old system, more nuance and flexibility than what we have now. Even has the potential to address the different efficiencies of different unti sizes per Tyran's comment.

* Big ask, but ideally I'd like to see some sort of skew detection/prevention. That is, if your opponent is fielding 90% vehicles or 90% hordes, there's something in place to detect and address that so that you're not just stat checking your opponent's anti-tank or anti-horde capabilities. And more broadly, something to detect how cutthroat a list is in general might be nice. But all of these requests are hard to pull off without post-release data, and I don't have a solutino myself.

* Crusade rules that allow for different kinds of crusades. Rather than *just* escalation crusades, have a survival crusade where your roster gets smaller but more experienced over time. Have a crusade where you unlock unit types based on which chunks of Commorragh you control or which mission you recently played. That sort of thing. Crusade is coo. I'm just amazed they haven't released a dedicated expansion book for it yet.

Every box of models is a "unit" of models, and you don't need multiple boxes to make a single unit. Unless it's a blob unit like conscripts or Gaunts, and those come ten to a box I think? Gaunts I mean.

I would also like to see GW bring back Bonuses for not moving, like Siege mode in SC1/2, or a complete overhaul of the overwatch mechanic. I think it's silly that charges inspire bad aim. if anything you should take MORE wounds in a suicidal charge.

Ermm, what I expect is to keep relative status quo on the core of the game, speed, mobility, lethality etc will largely remain as is now I imagine.

I base this on the fact all of those things needing a change if we're honest.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Every box of models is a "unit" of models, and you don't need multiple boxes to make a single unit.

Are there still a lot of kits like that? I thought the (now unavailable for purchase) finecast drukhari units were the last of those. Things like the grotesques and beast packs.

Not too much change to the core rules, maybe tweaking the sillier bits like anti x and dev wounds.

The wishlist for the rest:
- bring back combi weapons and psychic decks
- points per model not per 3/5/9/10
- legends rules are 100% matched play legal all the time (just stick a daemons/knights/imperial agents style limit on how much legends you can take and call it a day)
- take a good look at what should be in legends. HH vehicles, Necromunda stuff (squats for Votann etc), old units that dropped out of production before legends was a thing - give them all datasheets

What I think we'll get:
- NMNR 3.0 - 1 datasheet per boxset no exceptions.
- a nostalgia unit or two get released

legends rules are 100% matched play legal all the time (just stick a daemons/knights/imperial agents style limit on how much legends you can take and call it a day)

Assuming you mean tournament play specifically here (as they're already legal for matched play as long as your opponent is ok with it). Isn't that kind of the worst of both worlds? As in you'd functionally end up with datasheets that are just officially not being looked at for balance updates, but also they're officially legal in all games including competitive ones?

So hypothetically, let's say eldar corsairs are suddenly super overpowered for whatever eason. Now they're allowed in competitive games and are sweeping the tables, but also they're officially off-limits for balance updates.

If you want a unit that's legal in all matched play games and also subject to balance updates, I think you just want a unit to be fully supported rather than being in legends.

Allowing X% of your list to be legends just means that you're okay with X% of your opponent's list being knowingly OP while also preventing the perfectly tame legends units from being fielded en masse.

Tyel wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
It's really difficult to tell what they'll do. 9th was the most successful version of the game they'd ever made and yet they did one survey where a bunch of people said it was too complicated and decided to blow everything up and start again.

There's like negative hype for codexes currently, so we'll see what kind of legs 10th has. I know a lot of people who are already bored of it.

I tend to agree with your takes on 9th and 10th - but I think the issue is whether the wider public do.
I mean the 8th and the 9th haters are somewhat funny. Sure, GW will get rid of the designers of their flagship game, when they saw revenue quadruple over the period...
Clearly some people didn't like it - but they seem to have been decisively outvoted by the wallets of people who did.

The problem is - as a sometimes 10th hater, I feel I could become the same dinosaur. GW's 6th month accounts showed revenue and profit were up about 10% in the second half of 2023. If they saw the same through 2024, they are going to see 10th as a success. And seemingly there are people out there who enjoy it enough to spend their money, so who am I to disagree?

Unless the numbers show a material decrease in 2024 I'd expect 11th to be an evolution of 10th rather than a reset. Frankly as I've said elsewhere, I think 10th was largely an evolution of 9th anyway from a rules perspective. They just had to reset power because the situation of faction rules, subfaction rules, purity bonus rules, on top of buffed up unit and weapon stats was silly. But they'll inevitably go down that road again. The message is probably already filtering through that there's no marketing buzz about balanced codexes (a fact we arguably saw in 8th, and probably led to the regular excesses of 9th).

I think the issue is more just that... GW doesn't really even seem to have a coherent vision for what they want 10th to be.

9th felt very deliberate and intentional in a lot of what they were doing. They didn't execute it all well, but there were trends and obvious design goals each codex went through trying to achieve, and this was reflected in the core rules which had a lot of stuff that was a direct reaction to 8th's flaws.

10th is just all over the place. Half of the time it is reintroducing problems that existed in early-mid 8th that had been fixed in late 8th or 9th. Codexes are copping random nerfs on stuff that wasn't problematic before and wouldn't be problematic with new detachments. The game swings from stuff being too tanky, to lethality still being too high. A load of elite-level T3 1W models now feel like chaff and are priced as such. They saw the issues supplements caused in 8th and 9th and decided to just make that the detachment system of 10th etc etc.

It actually feels like 10th was designed by a different team compared to 8th and 9th, specifically because of how it is repeating mistakes. Either that or the severely rushed nature of its development really has had a catastrophic effect on it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Assuming you mean tournament play specifically here (as they're already legal for matched play as long as your opponent is ok with it). Isn't that kind of the worst of both worlds? As in you'd functionally end up with datasheets that are just officially not being looked at for balance updates, but also they're officially legal in all games including competitive ones?.

Not just tournament play, all play. Rules are rules - not rules are sometimes ok if your opponent is cool with it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
So hypothetically, let's say eldar corsairs are suddenly super overpowered for whatever eason. Now they're allowed in competitive games and are sweeping the tables, but also they're officially off-limits for balance updates.

If you want a unit that's legal in all matched play games and also subject to balance updates, I think you just want a unit to be fully supported rather than being in legends.

It doesn't need to be in a codex book to be supported, pdf's on warcom that occasionally get a points tweak/errata are fine.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Allowing X% of your list to be legends just means that you're okay with X% of your opponent's list being knowingly OP while also preventing the perfectly tame legends units from being fielded en masse.

Right now, 100% of your opponents list can be knowingly OP by spamming the current FOTM, the existence of legends does nothing to change that other than increase most factions choices. Also right now, OP legends units are only allowed in casual games - that feels a bit back to front. My wishlist of a 25% limit is just an example of how it can be reigned in without any significant effort or over the top rules, just like how soup army lists in 10th that have these style of limits are nowhere near the level of OP-ness that they were in early 8th.

My gripe with legends is that it is currently a rubbish solution to a problem GW has invented for itself. They are actively creating a disincentive to 40k players buying kits that should be 40k compatible (HH, Necromunda, randomly some of Kill Team), and then compounding that by moving at lightspeed to delete datasheets for units that went out of production 5 minutes before a codex release (another disincentive for buying older models if they are at risk of just getting deleted from the game). Why not keep it simple, if it has a current kit in the 40k range - it goes in a codex book, for everything else that should have a datasheet there's legends. All of it gets some level of support.

What do I want? My crisis and stealth suits to be able to jump shoot jump again. It's only an ability they had from their very inception.

What will GW do? Remove more iconic and core abilities, turning them into stratagems or full on nuking them from existence, probably. Crisis suits will be able to take one weapon, the "Crisis Suit Weapon System", and it will have mediocre stats and be bad at everything.

 Insularum wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
So hypothetically, let's say eldar corsairs are suddenly super overpowered for whatever eason. Now they're allowed in competitive games and are sweeping the tables, but also they're officially off-limits for balance updates.

If you want a unit that's legal in all matched play games and also subject to balance updates, I think you just want a unit to be fully supported rather than being in legends.

It doesn't need to be in a codex book to be supported, pdf's on warcom that occasionally get a points tweak/errata are fine.

I think you and I have fundamentally different understandings of what legends units are. The thing that differentiates legends from other units is that they don't get ongoing support. If they were getting balance/points updates like other units, they wouldn't be legends.

To your mind, what is the difference between a legends unit that gets regular points updates/balance patches and a non-legends unit?

Right now, 100% of your opponents list can be knowingly OP by spamming the current FOTM, the existence of legends does nothing to change that other than increase most factions choices.

The key difference is that legends units, by definition, aren't getting updates to balance them over time. So if non-legends unit X is OP right now, it should theoretically be getting a points increase or a nerf at some point. Again, I think what you're really asking for is just for legends units to come off the legends list and resume regular support/balance updates.

Also right now, OP legends units are only allowed in casual games - that feels a bit back to front.

Not really. The idea behind the extra layer of limitations/requirements on competitive games is that those games are played with the options that are currently being supported. Legends rules are there to throw a bone to players who happen to own models that no longer fall within the scope of things being supported. Like, by definition, the thing that makes a Legends unit a Legends unit is that no one is bothering to check in and make sure it remains appropriate for tournament play.

My wishlist of a 25% limit is just an example of how it can be reigned in without any significant effort or over the top rules, just like how soup army lists in 10th that have these style of limits are nowhere near the level of OP-ness that they were in early 8th.

With no offense meant, you seem to misunderstand why soup stopped being a problem. The percentage limitation is not why soup stopped being a problem. Soup stopped being a problem in 9th when the core rules changed to stop giving people bonus CP for fielding the loyal 32. Additionally, allied in units not being able to take their own relics/warlord traits (now enhancements) or unlock access to their own stratagems further disincentivizes souping. Now, you can soup things in for flavor, but generally you're just as well off taking units purely from your own codex/index due to synergy with your detachment/army-wide rules.

In the context of allowing legends in competitive and putting a 25% limit on it, you'd be risking allowing a unit that isn't subject to the usual balance treatment permission to compete in a context where balance is more highly prioritized than usual. The 25% limit would theoretically prevent people from taking *more* improperly balanced units in their list, but that's sort of like saying you're only okay with a waiter spitting on 25% of your food. It's less bad than a 100% unbalanced (read: not recently analyzed for balance concerns) list, but it's still less good than just not including unbalanced units in the first place.

Pointing out that non-legends stuff can also be OP is just a whataboutism. The OP non-legends stuff should ideally be made balanced.

Why not keep it simple, if it has a current kit in the 40k range - it goes in a codex book, for everything else that should have a datasheet there's legends. All of it gets some level of support.

The current level of support for legends is that they get a points cost at the start of the edition, and then they aren't touched so that the designers don't have to think about them while working on other projects.

Legends units DO get some occasional updates.
Two that come to mind?
1) the CSM Lord in 9th. When the Codex finally arrived & the jump pack was removed as an option? It appeared as an option a few days later - for the exact same pts cost it had been - on the Legends sheet.
2) the Red Gobbo (the leader of my Grot force) - he had 1 set of rules at the start of 10th. When the new model arrived in Nov/Dec? His rules were changed.
There's been a few in Sigmar in both AoS.2 & 3e as well though those aren't relevant to 40k players....

Outside of tourney play where you sign up to play by whatever rules the TO decides to use?
You dont require your opponent to be ok with Legends (IE, get their permission).
There's nothing in the Legends rules that grants your opponent that veto power.
I mean, you wouldn't accept that Bull if your opponent told you that he wouldn't allow you to use Orks, or models painted yellow, or some rule (say fly for ex).
There is nothing in the rules that gives the guy across the table more say in the game to be played than you have.

ccs wrote:
Legends units DO get some occasional updates.
Two that come to mind?
1) the CSM Lord in 9th. When the Codex finally arrived & the jump pack was removed as an option? It appeared as an option a few days later - for the exact same pts cost it had been - on the Legends sheet.
2) the Red Gobbo (the leader of my Grot force) - he had 1 set of rules at the start of 10th. When the new model arrived in Nov/Dec? His rules were changed.
There's been a few in Sigmar in both AoS.2 & 3e as well though those aren't relevant to 40k players....

Outside of tourney play where you sign up to play by whatever rules the TO decides to use?
You dont require your opponent to be ok with Legends (IE, get their permission).
There's nothing in the Legends rules that grants your opponent that veto power.
I mean, you wouldn't accept that Bull if your opponent told you that he wouldn't allow you to use Orks, or models painted yellow, or some rule (say fly for ex).
There is nothing in the rules that gives the guy across the table more say in the game to be played than you have.

That's not really how it works.
If I have an army that has [FACTOR] and my opponent refuses to play against an army with [FACTOR], I can't force them to play me.

Whatever the factor is-Legends, unpainted forces, overly cheesy-you can't say "Well the rules say I can!" and expect to be taken seriously.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insularum wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
So hypothetically, let's say eldar corsairs are suddenly super overpowered for whatever eason. Now they're allowed in competitive games and are sweeping the tables, but also they're officially off-limits for balance updates.

If you want a unit that's legal in all matched play games and also subject to balance updates, I think you just want a unit to be fully supported rather than being in legends.

It doesn't need to be in a codex book to be supported, pdf's on warcom that occasionally get a points tweak/errata are fine.

I think you and I have fundamentally different understandings of what legends units are. The thing that differentiates legends from other units is that they don't get ongoing support. If they were getting balance/points updates like other units, they wouldn't be legends.

To your mind, what is the difference between a legends unit that gets regular points updates/balance patches and a non-legends unit?

Right now, 100% of your opponents list can be knowingly OP by spamming the current FOTM, the existence of legends does nothing to change that other than increase most factions choices.

The key difference is that legends units, by definition, aren't getting updates to balance them over time. So if non-legends unit X is OP right now, it should theoretically be getting a points increase or a nerf at some point. Again, I think what you're really asking for is just for legends units to come off the legends list and resume regular support/balance updates.

Also right now, OP legends units are only allowed in casual games - that feels a bit back to front.

Not really. The idea behind the extra layer of limitations/requirements on competitive games is that those games are played with the options that are currently being supported. Legends rules are there to throw a bone to players who happen to own models that no longer fall within the scope of things being supported. Like, by definition, the thing that makes a Legends unit a Legends unit is that no one is bothering to check in and make sure it remains appropriate for tournament play.

My wishlist of a 25% limit is just an example of how it can be reigned in without any significant effort or over the top rules, just like how soup army lists in 10th that have these style of limits are nowhere near the level of OP-ness that they were in early 8th.

With no offense meant, you seem to misunderstand why soup stopped being a problem. The percentage limitation is not why soup stopped being a problem. Soup stopped being a problem in 9th when the core rules changed to stop giving people bonus CP for fielding the loyal 32. Additionally, allied in units not being able to take their own relics/warlord traits (now enhancements) or unlock access to their own stratagems further disincentivizes souping. Now, you can soup things in for flavor, but generally you're just as well off taking units purely from your own codex/index due to synergy with your detachment/army-wide rules.

In the context of allowing legends in competitive and putting a 25% limit on it, you'd be risking allowing a unit that isn't subject to the usual balance treatment permission to compete in a context where balance is more highly prioritized than usual. The 25% limit would theoretically prevent people from taking *more* improperly balanced units in their list, but that's sort of like saying you're only okay with a waiter spitting on 25% of your food. It's less bad than a 100% unbalanced (read: not recently analyzed for balance concerns) list, but it's still less good than just not including unbalanced units in the first place.

Pointing out that non-legends stuff can also be OP is just a whataboutism. The OP non-legends stuff should ideally be made balanced.

Why not keep it simple, if it has a current kit in the 40k range - it goes in a codex book, for everything else that should have a datasheet there's legends. All of it gets some level of support.

The current level of support for legends is that they get a points cost at the start of the edition, and then they aren't touched so that the designers don't have to think about them while working on other projects.

This is a thread about what you want for 11th. I want legends supported, is that clear enough? Saying someone's opinion about what they want in the future is wrong because it isn't that way today kind of misses a few points.

 JNAProductions wrote:

ccs wrote:
Legends units DO get some occasional updates.
Two that come to mind?
1) the CSM Lord in 9th. When the Codex finally arrived & the jump pack was removed as an option? It appeared as an option a few days later - for the exact same pts cost it had been - on the Legends sheet.
2) the Red Gobbo (the leader of my Grot force) - he had 1 set of rules at the start of 10th. When the new model arrived in Nov/Dec? His rules were changed.
There's been a few in Sigmar in both AoS.2 & 3e as well though those aren't relevant to 40k players....

Outside of tourney play where you sign up to play by whatever rules the TO decides to use?
You dont require your opponent to be ok with Legends (IE, get their permission).
There's nothing in the Legends rules that grants your opponent that veto power.
I mean, you wouldn't accept that Bull if your opponent told you that he wouldn't allow you to use Orks, or models painted yellow, or some rule (say fly for ex).
There is nothing in the rules that gives the guy across the table more say in the game to be played than you have.

That's not really how it works.
If I have an army that has [FACTOR] and my opponent refuses to play against an army with [FACTOR], I can't force them to play me.

Whatever the factor is-Legends, unpainted forces, overly cheesy-you can't say "Well the rules say I can!" and expect to be taken seriously.

This post made me reread the core rules to see if they say to use painted models. Interestingly enough they don't .
I wonder though if your argument can't be turned around. Why should you be taken more seriously if you said I don't want to play against Legends, unpainted models and the Space Marines Codex?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I wonder though if your argument can't be turned around. Why should you be taken more seriously if you said I don't want to play against Legends, unpainted models and the Space Marines Codex?

It surely doesn't matter if you take me seriously or not? If I won't play you, you don't get a game.
Now sure, if its just me, you can just play someone else. But if most of the people in your store/group are minded to "no legends" (see: "no forgeworld", "no special characters", "no Eldar" etc etc) then you are kind of out of luck. What the rules say on the subject is kind of irrelevant.

I mean if you did some strange cultural history of 40k covering the last 30 odd years, you'd find huge numbers of local variations that are/were not "the actual rules". You might not have wanted to play that way - but if everyone else did, what were you going to do? This is I think in turn why you see the supposed evils of tournament hammer. Tournaments (usually) have clear rules so everyone is on the same page. They are a good way of finding people who are minded to play the same way.

Didn't a tournament consider (don't think they did it) banning Eldar at the start of 10th b/c they were broken?

But yeah, the fact everyone seems to think tournament rules = core rules and never deviate from that whether for a friendly game or whatever, is a huge issue that I don't see going away.